The Left's way forward

By the way. I think I should point out, that we employ highly qualified engineers and with the exception of our apprentice (who is incidentally on a considerably higher wage than most other apprentices) all of our employees are on much higher than either the minimum or living wage(s).

What you many don't figure though durhamjen is that this country is now heavily reliant on small and micro businesses such as ours. There is no "top man" or "people at the top". In our business there is only me and my husband. I receive considerably less than the minimum wage and DH works around 70 hours a week and therefore earns considerably less than our other employees (with the exception of our current apprentice) who work around 38 hours. I appreciate that what you are saying could apply to big businesses but they are becoming fewer and fewer, especially here in the NE.

We are what is known as first or second tier suppliers. We manufacture for industry. We cannot put our prices up as we would lose our customers who would also be forced to put their prices and then force their customers the same way. The results for the NE could be catastrophic.

www.livingwage.org.uk/

These are the companies which pay the living wage of £7.85 now.
If they can do it why can the rest not?
I was surprised to see Nestle in that group, but they announced it last year along with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Have you noticed their products rising in price more than any others you buy?

Which living wage are you talking about, soon? Osborne's pretend one or the real one? Where did you get your 14% from?

14% earn below the living wage. Rest unaffected, although some others will start asking for higher wages on the back of that.

Many people who have more than two children do not expect to be out of work or become disabled, etc. I am sure Cameron did not think that when he had a third child. However, when he does become out of work on 2020, he will still have enough to live on because his dad made his money offshore.

Many MPs are very well educated, Tegan, and still have more than two children.

I have emailed my MP to find out why she did not vote against the bill. The list of those who did not is on the voxpolitical link on the previous page, if any of you want to do the same.

Gilly, it's not what level the minimum wage is at, but the wage differentials in any company. Companies can pay their workers more at the bottom without putting up the top wage. In fact many top wages can be reduced without adding to the wage bill.

I agree Tegan there is a massive knock on effect when a large employer closes down. Especially those who are manual labour intensive.

My DS and DiL have 3 children. They both work full time. DiL works horrible shifts too. If they had waited until they could afford children they wouldn't have had any at all.

As regards wages, they dont generally make up more than half of the cost of something.
So an increase in them should not produce a huge leap in the overall cost of everything.
Plus a lot of things are imported in the first place.

Friends of my sons, who planned to have two children max are now expecting twins second time around . I do agree that people shouldn't have more children than they can afford but the way forward with that is through education, and also making sure there are jobs for people so they don't have to depend on a welfare state. Unfortunately that costs money, the rewards of which won't become apparent for many years; sometimes you have to spend money to save money #ministryofforwardplanningstuff [close a colliery down, people have no work, shops in the area close down, ditto local feeder industries, drug problem in the area starts, crime goes up, police/social workers are reduced due to cuts, problem gets worse; initial saving costs a fortune ].

Good point about the Social Democrats, Gracesgran. I well remember in the early 1980s 4 of the best known Labour MPs, "The Gang of Four" left the Labour Party and founded the SDs. The Labour Party were in turmoil then too.
Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams were the 2 I remember. So the 3 parties are closely linked, though not at all "Old Labour".

trisher Wed 22-Jul-15 09:56

Perhaps it might make people think twice about having another child they can't afford.
Surely you can take control of your own body, think before you have unprotected sex, take the pill or if a mistake happens take the morning after pill, couples who are working have to think twice before they have another baby because of child care costs and paying for their upkeep. Before these cuts people on benefits actually benefited by having another baby/ babies, more babies more money in welfare benefits.

Good news for the Conservatives if Corbyn becomes leader of the Labour Party, Labour wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning an election with him in charge.

They may not win outright magpie123 but may still win a large tranche of seats. A party representing the socialist left may with a decent proportion of the votes may allow the Liberal Democrats, a party which was formed by the coming together of Liberal and Social Democrats, to be more socially democratic in how they present themselves and their policies; Tim Farron is seen to be more on the social democratic side of the party than Nick Clegg was. The SNP describes itself as a social democratic party and, I would imagine, win a large number of seats in the next election. This would give the possibility of either a formal coalition or some other gathering together of centre left to far left parties. There are more ways of killing a cat as they say.

rosesarered Why do you consider yourself to be a Liberal Democrat, given that you say you were glad the Conservatives got in?

Good point, gillybob.

I feel that many people look at the "living wage" as some sort of magical transformation of lives that will end poverty and welfare dependancy. However you could make the living wage £8-£10-£20 per hour but the cost of everything will have to go up in order for employers to pay the wage meaning that within a very short space of time you are back where you started.

People have died when their benefits have been cut. Some of you are obviously in denial, just like the government.
IDS said there were no figures,; Cameron said there were and they would be published. However they haven't been yet, and the government is asking for the figures to be massaged. No surprise there.
This is what happened on the last day of parliament.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/07/22/mock-indignation-from-ids-wont-halt-the-uproar-over-benefit-related-deaths/

Yes, there seems to be some idea that Corbyn would be good as a temporary leader to attack the present government and fight all policies and proposals put forward by them, then somehow dump him and go for someone more electable at a later date...

It would be interesting to see how that turned out!

That is more or less what Tony Blair was saying Magpie..... In fact for a cost of £3 I can see the whole of the Cabinet voting for him!

Good news for the Conservatives if Corbyn becomes leader of the Labour Party, Labour wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning an election with him in charge.

I still think that Andy Burnham will win.

Yes Trisher, I get that, you and a lot of others, but what about Labour backbenchers, and those people in positions of power within the Labour Party.

telling each other that people may die because of their views Really, I said that?

As he is the epitome of what I don't want the Labour party to be- war mongering, self seeking, self promoting with grandiose ideas and right leaning policies- it sends me even further over to Corbyn.

I have reported this whole part of the conversation, including my own post to Gransnet. No doubt it will all be deleted if they feel the need.

Back to the debate.....
Tony Blair has given a speech telling the Labour Party to think again about heading in an ever left direction and voting for Corbyn.Will that help or hinder?