After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596

After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596'" Makes you wonder why so many of 'em turn out so bad.

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596'" Makes you wonder why so many of 'em turn out so bad.

The minimum wage graph is wrong and also misleading anyway.



At today's exchange rates $10.00 = £6.53.



Minimum wage is £6.31 and that is for 21 years and older.



18-20 is £5.03 and under 18 is £3.72.



So at best we are "light blue" but considering the graphs relate to children's chances it's rather disingenuous to base it on the over 21 adult wage.



Makes you wonder what else slipped through...

Take a look at the map for ethnic discrimination in the workplace.



Ireland is shown as having no laws to counter it. Something I find difficult to believe

This map clearly shows that the UK is antiquated and out of touch in its levels of social protection and is lagging well behind the fast developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America that have deregulated maternity leave, minimum wages etc and as a result their economies are thriving.



The question is if the Conservatives win in 2015 will they be able to make significant inroads in modernising the UK's social protection to bring us in line with the fast growing developing world?

That's what JP Morgan (and others, in all probability) will be hoping, as Cod'ead pointed out the other day.



[url=http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/06/25/jp-morgan-wants-europe-to-be-rid-of-social-rights-democracy-employee-rights-and-the-right-to-protest/Employment and social rights – an unfortunate consequence of the war and fascism. To be corrected soon?[/url



Mind, UKIP would be in favour of that too. It's no wonder they say about policies on employment rights, say – [url=http://www.ier.org.uk/blog/ukip-workplacethe party wants to scrap them all, along with equalities legislation.[/url

Excuse my hollow laughter ... if the Conservatives win in 2015, you can say goodbye to the last vestiges of social protection.

That the chancer of the exchequer has wilfully ignored growth for three years when supposedly trying to get out of recession, tells you all you need to know ... increasing inequality on a Victorian scale is the target, and the economy can go hang providing that the masses are kept in their place.

I don't think that that's the aim, per se.



The ultimate aim is simply the enrichment of his class (including, these days, big business and finance). To that end, a compliant, fearful workforce is helpful. Inequality is more a byproduct – and one that they do not remotely care about. As for the economy as a whole, capitalism has always been short-sighted. This is no different – it's all about short-term power and money (see that JP Morgan stuff).

I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.

His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.



The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?

IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.



Back in the days of supposed "full employment" of the 50's, 60's and 70's, people were more difficult to subdue and pay rises were difficult to control ... inflation became the biggest bugbear for successive governments.

Business was desperate to take control and wanted a government that would allow capital to rule, would allow unemployment to rise and would make unemployment even harder to endure, thereby making the working population just glad to have a job.

In 1979, they got that government and we now see the continuation of that neolib drive.

To this government, people are merely machines to use and discard and never mind the human cost.



Yet still the myth of the classless society persists.



We are pretty much back in the 20's and 30's and heading rapidly for the 1800's.

We're all in it together was the phrase a few years ago from Osborne ( IIRC ) but it's a big, fat lie.

Completely agree. Although on the 'where we're headed', I do sometimes wonder if it isn't something more akin to 1933.

He managed to slip it in to his speech yesterday

Well, we all have a £4m trust fund like his don't we?

If you re-read it you'll see that it's talking about daily unemployment benefits not hourly minimum wage. Its also in PPP dollars not US dollars so the exchange rate is irrelevant.