Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Just to prove what a liar I am, always “making things up as I go along”, I’ll add three more sources to the discussion, but no doubt that won’t convince the pig-headed amongst us:-
 
“The Beveridge Report proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children (apart from for a family's first child if one parent was working), which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended nine shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged.”
 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/beveridge-report-child-benefit.htm
 
“Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second AND subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births. It continued through the post-war boom but was restructured when the economy turned down again, being reinvented as Child Benefit in the second half of the 1970s. The new payments were tax free and first-time mothers also became eligible.”
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html
 
“In the UK, child benefit is administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The system was first implemented in August 1946 as ‘family allowances’ under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s (= £0.25) per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s (= £0.40), and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s (= £0.50) for the third and subsequent children.

It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed ‘child benefit’ and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.”
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

Ivan wrote:tlttf. PFIs started under the Tories in 1993, but no doubt that's too inconvenient a fact for you to mention. They're continuing now.

Spare us all the shit about our grandchildren etc. For nearly three hundred years, each generation has been paying the debts of the previous one, going back as far as the Napoleonic Wars. The most recent generation was paying for our post-WW2 loan from the USA until very recently. And those grandchildren you like to mention have benefited from the schools and hospitals which were repaired with PFI loans by Labour after many years of Tory neglect.

Ivan tittf will not believe your post because the facts and figures do not come from a right wing rag, if I remember correctly our WW2 loan was paid off by Tony Blairs Labour gov't and that was at the same time dealing with the neglect of 18years of Thatchers Tory gov't having to pour money into Our great NHS and Schools that the Tories had neglected.

bobby wrote:Red it was the much maligned Gordon Brown who signed the cheque for the final payment. The cash used to make the payment was gained from the windfall from the sale of Mobile phone operating licences.

One thing I am certain of is, If Cameron was in power when we had the windfall, the last thing he would have done with it was to pay off any debt, because if there was no debt, he wouldn’t have the excuse for his vicious attacks on the poorest and least able of our people. He would of I’m certain given the richest yet another tax reduction.

Thank you bobby for putting me right on facts something I notice certain people on here think are a load of TRIPE but is only because it does not come from a right wing rag that is not even fit to used as bum wiping paper. As for windfalls if they sell the Royal Mail I suppose that money will go to give the rich backstuds another tax, cut not to pay off some of the deficit the GREEDY BANKERS caused, I had heard that Cameron was going to use it to bribe us the voters to vote him and his shower of Incompetent Tories back into power I would rather cut both hands off without anesthetic than vote Tory. 

I agree bobby after it has been proved time after time again (G4S & Serco) for two the only people the private sector are interested in is PROFIT for themselves and their shareholders, so I agree if the Unions do not do something about Cameron our Royal Mail will go down the same route as gas electric rail and phone when the old hag the Maggot sold them off to give her friends in the City great profit for their support to the Tory party.

".... (G4S & Serco) for two the only people the private sector are interested in is PROFIT for themselves and their shareholders ...."

Outsourcing. Precisely what Jeremy *unt is doing with NHS services. Not only do they persistently get it wrong, the Tories appear quite satisfied with the arrangement.

oftenwrong wrote:".... (G4S & Serco) for two the only people the private sector are interested in is PROFIT for themselves and their shareholders ...."

Outsourcing.  Precisely what Jeremy *unt is doing with NHS services.  Not only do they persistently get it wrong, the Tories appear quite satisfied with the arrangement.

That is something that I do not understand OW, it's not as if they're getting it cheaper, its costing them more for Inferior and shoddy workmanship.

I have heard Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband say they will REPEAL the NHS Bill bobby, and if that means using their power to NATIONALIZE OUR NHS and even if that means we wave BYE BYE to the EU so be it.   I have seen a chart on twitter that points out why the Tories are carving up OUR NHS, quite a lot of the Tory party funds come from private health sector and private health Insurance if I remember correctly its 16% of their funding comes from "GRIM REAPER COMPANIES".

Is it time for the Lab**r Party to modernise and move towards "one member, one vote" when choosing the next leader, or will they stay in the antiquated mode presently used?

Whilst leaving the next Tory Leader to "emerge" in time-honoured fashion, tlttf? Sauce for the goose.

First of all, apologies for being absent for a while. Having my house move come through all of a sudden, on top of running my own company now and various other things going on, just overloaded me and I couldn't get online much.

I'm hoping this is the right thread for this post, even though the headline is about unions rather than the Labour party, as it touches on the question of Labour's positioning as well.

If Unite AREN'T trying to influence MP selection, they SHOULD be (full version with links http://wp.me/p2sftc-8gc)

Bill Shankly, the late, great manager of Liverpool Football Club, on hearing about the introduction of a new offside rule that said a player isn’t offside unless he’s interfering with play, famously said,

If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.

A pithy Scot, Bill Shankly, with a way of cutting through BS and getting to the point. I’ve been thinking about him whenever I’ve listened to the furore on the media – and the braying of David Cameron and his cronies in the Commons – about the supposed transgression of Unite the Union in trying to influence the selection of a by-election candidate in Falkirk, and whenever I hear the Tories sneering that Labour is ‘owned by the unions’.

You see, in my opinion, if Unite (or any union) is not trying to influence which Labour candidates are selected, then they’re not doing their job properly. The whole faux-outrage about it is just another Tory-led media attempt to smear the Labour party, and it’s a massive case of ‘much ado about nothing’.

We live, tragically, in a society and an age in which the odds are stacked against ordinary people having any meaningful influence on the course of events and policy. Corporations pay millions of pounds into Conservative party coffers, employ ministers in meaningless posts as a backdoor way of buying influence, and own most of the media in order to try to tell us what we think and to turn the well-off against the poor, and even the poor against the poorer. If you’re in any doubt about how that works, read this.

In this context, you and I have few avenues for trying to spread a different vision, or even to defend ourselves against the predations of the powerful and conscienceless who pull far more strings than they should in any sane world. Social media is one, and I believe a vital one. Unions are another – even though they’re not the force they were before their evisceration by Margaret Thatcher.

This is where Cameron makes a miscalculation in his sneering, though. He makes the mistake of thinking most people must view unions with the same contempt and disdain that he and his privileged pals do. Most people aren’t stupid (though it has to be said there are still too many who are), and they know that the unions are not some eminence grise pulling strings behind the scenes – no, that’s how the Tory party works. Unions are a greatly weakened but still essential defence for ordinary people against the whims of their ‘betters’. They’re not capable of holding Labour under ‘tyranny’, as one Tory MP ludicrously termed it.

With their guffawing disdain, the Tories are simply preaching to their own choir. The only people who’d buy a crock of bull manure like that are their own backbenchers and those who are going to vote Tory anyway – or possibly UKIP. But if his hope is to win back defectors to UKIP, it’s a forlorn one. Farage is so much better at the ‘sneering everyman’ act, even though as a former financier he’s no more ‘everyman’ than Eton-educated Cameron, and those prepared to be fooled by Farage aren’t going to want to accept the ‘lite’ version. Cameron might have appealed to some Sun readers with his pathetic attempt at character assassination, but they’re hardly going to vote Labour anyway.

Ordinary people, those being shafted on a daily basis by people they see getting ever richer and more remote, are not going to be fooled. Unite represents over 1.4 million working people, and union membership in the UK is still around 7 million. About 23% of adults in the UK belong to a union, and if you add in all their family members and friends, the vast majority of people in this country have links to unions and know that they’re not a force for ill, let alone ‘tyranny’.

This broad-based mandate – which outstrips by light-years any claim to legitimate authority that David Cameron and the Tory party might scrape together – is a Good Thing, and we should be trumpeting it. Ed Miliband did a decent job in the Commons of pointing out that being backed, or even influenced, by the unions is a far better, cleaner, more decent thing than being bought and owned by small cadres of rich and selfish people. But he didn’t go far enough. His attempt to distance himself from the unions and position himself to appeal to White Van Man and the city is as misguided and pointless as Cameron’s preaching to his own choir.

Most British people, in most of the country, are still grateful for the unions – just as we’re still grateful for nurses, doctors, teachers, the NHS and our public sector workers. I want my union to be doing everything it can to influence the selection of Labour MPs – or of any other party, for that matter. It’s what they’re there for.

We need people with a different vision, and with the interests of ordinary people genuinely at hear, as our candidates and MPs. The corporations and the wealthy will be doing everything they can to influence the ‘game’ in their favour, and we need our representatives to be no less diligent, creative and determined.

And we need our leaders – political and union – to embrace that, show pride in doing everything they can to help the disadvantaged, and attack head on, in the clearest terms, the pathetic false construct of government and media that says its undemocratic (and leaves unspoken the facts of how influence is purchased by the right). If they’re not, then they should be.

tlttf wrote:-
Is it time for the Lab**r Party to modernise and move towards "one member, one vote" when choosing the next leader, or will they stay in the antiquated mode presently used?

Not sure what the point of those asterisks is, but no doubt it's something childish. Would you be so kind as to explain what you think "the antiquated mode presently used" is, before I answer that question?

Ivan have you ever found out how the Tories select their leader, is it done by how many palms they have greased or perhaps how many backs they have scratched? So before Tory supporters start telling the LABOUR PARTY how they should select their leader, they need to stop being so sneaky about their leader.

Good to see Steve Walker's pithy explanation, above. Thatcher went to a lot of trouble in an attempt to eliminate any focus of organised opposition to Tory policy.

We should not be surprised that the Cameron tribe continue the job. The interesting thing is that they don't seem to be making many new friends in the process.

oftenwrong wrote:Good to see Steve Walker's pithy explanation, above.  Thatcher went to a lot of trouble in an attempt to eliminate any focus of organised opposition to Tory policy.

We should not be surprised that the Cameron tribe continue the job.  The interesting thing is that they don't seem to be making many new friends in the process.

OW I am on twitter as is Ivan and skywalker its amazing the people you meet on there, MPs from all parties and one in particular L/D and that person has spilled there guts about what the Tories would have done to the UK if L/Ds had not been in coalition with them and even they have said everything they have done is all down to Tory Ideology.

Good post, Steve Walker.

If Labour think distancing themselves from the Unions is going to win them any votes, or increase their chances of winning the next general election, they are very much mistaken.

- sad to say, it could well push more disillusioned working class voters into falling for, and voting for, the likes of UKIP.

Nice to see you back Steve, excellent post.

sickchip wrote:Good post, Steve Walker.

If Labour think distancing themselves from the Unions is going to win them any votes, or increase their chances of winning the next general election, they are very much mistaken.

- sad to say, it could well push more disillusioned working class voters into falling for, and voting for, the likes of UKIP.

 
Surely not sickchip UKIP is only a second hand Tory party most of their policies are very similar, plus all Farage is an EX-CITY BANKER so he will have picked up all their nasty habits, like how to play fast & loose with other people's money.

Redflag,

Unfortunately I know of plenty working class people who are attracted by UKIP as they are disillusioned with Labour.

Sad to say that many simply hear UKIP's soundbites about immigration and the EU and like the sound of it -without giving it much thought. Most people aren't, for whatever reason, too interested in politics, and simply seem to like being given a scapegoat to blame for their strife.....the tories provide them with the unemployed scapegoat, and UKIP supply the immigrant scapegoat. We, of course, know people's real problems stem from our current neo-liberal economic model and a grossly unjust distribution of wages and wealth.

UKIP don't just attract wavering Tory voters - they also appeal to a certain type of working class person who once upon a time traditionally voted Labour.

sickchip wrote:Redflag,

Unfortunately I know of plenty working class people who are attracted by UKIP as they are disillusioned with Labour.

Sad to say that many simply hear UKIP's soundbites about immigration and the EU and like the sound of it -wiyhout giving it much thought. Most people aren't, for whatever reason, too interested in politics, and simply seem to like being given a scapegoat to blame for their strife.....the tories provide them with the unemployed scapegoat, and UKIP supply the immigrant scapegoat. We, of course, know people's real problems stem from our current neo-liberal economic model and a grossly unjust distribution of wages and wealth.

UKIP don't just attract wavering Tory voters - they also appeal to a certain type of working class person who once upon a time traditionally voted Labour.

Thank you sickchip surely these people that do not take an interest in politics know where our laws come from and that is the gov't, and with the the cuts taking effect they must see the effects of this gov'ts CRUEL cuts on hard working people. I am glad I started to try and understand politics so that I am not gullable to believe the Tory LIE & SPIN machine.

I feel sorry for this gov't when all the people of the UK wake up and smell the coffee in regards to working out what this gov't has been up too by scapegoating Immigrants and the unemployed.

scapegoating Immigrants and the unemployed

There's the catch 22 Redflag & Sickchip....Most people who are not interested in politics and do not have an ideology will probably only see what they see around them in their own communities and that is too many immigrants and not enough jobs. You cant say we need more immigration on one hand, but then say there are not enough jobs to go round on the other...it just doesn't compute

blueturando wrote:-
You cant say we need more immigration on one hand, but then say there are not enough jobs to go round on the other...it just doesn't compute

Yes it does. In your one-dimensional brain, immigrants just take jobs and houses. In the real world, once they've got jobs they pay tax, they spend money (thus creating more demand for goods and services) and help the economy to grow.

blueturando wrote:
There's the catch 22 Redflag & Sickchip....Most people who are not interested in politics and do not have an ideology will probably only see what they see around them in their own communities and that is too many immigrants and not enough jobs. You cant say we need more immigration on one hand, but then say there are not enough jobs to go round on the other...it just doesn't compute

 
You blue have the cheek to admit that there are not enough jobs out there, considering there are 2.5 million UNEMPLOYED, but in the same breath are willing to join in with your party calling the unemployed SKIVERS LAZY and they are living off the state.   Maybe if Osborne had got the economy right the unemployment figures would not be so high and he would have more money coming into the treasury, plus if he got off his BUTT and did something about the people that are avoiding their CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAX we would not be in taking it off the lowest paid.
 
A correction on last weeks breaking news, the least well off are coughing up 36.6% of their income in Tax, while the wealthiest are only coughing up 35.5% of their income so the people that can least afford it are paying 1.1% MORE than the wealthiest, I wonder if you can come back and tell me that is fair.

75% of new jobs being created are for £8.00ph or less, often part time, and often temporary.

An original thought, sickchip? Or are you quoting something?

ow,

....not sure if you're referring to the post directly above yours about low paid work, or my previous posts about Labour, UKIP, voters, etc.

So,

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/15/most-new-jobs-are-paying-under-8-an-hour-report-reveals-3882435/

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/135414

https://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=the+majority+of+new+british+jobs+are+low+paid&oq=the+majority+of+new+british+jobs+are+low+paid&gs_l=hp.12...21190.30725.3.32847.28.23.0.0.0.3.405.2768.15j6j0j1j1.23.0...0.0.0..1c.1.17.psy-ab.eNtoDU_Y7eY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k&fp=31ac69662c7c635d&biw=1366&bih=643


- The posts about Labour, unions, and voters inclination are a mix of observation and personal opinion. However, my instinct is generally good, dependable, sage, and insightful.

sickchip wrote:ow,

....not sure if you're referring to the post directly above yours about low paid work, or my previous posts about Labour, UKIP, voters, etc.

So,

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/15/most-new-jobs-are-paying-under-8-an-hour-report-reveals-3882435/

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/135414

https://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=the+majority+of+new+british+jobs+are+low+paid&oq=the+majority+of+new+british+jobs+are+low+paid&gs_l=hp.12...21190.30725.3.32847.28.23.0.0.0.3.405.2768.15j6j0j1j1.23.0...0.0.0..1c.1.17.psy-ab.eNtoDU_Y7eY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k&fp=31ac69662c7c635d&biw=1366&bih=643


- The posts about Labour, unions, and voters inclination are a mix of observation and personal opinion. However, my instinct is generally good, dependable, sage, and insightful.

Too modest, sickchip. You will be aware that the unfailing pessimism of METRO is probably due to its shared ownership with The Daily Mail.

Never mind! My unfailing pessimism has nothing to do with the Daily Mail.  

Yes it does. In your one-dimensional brain, immigrants just take jobs and houses. In the real world, once they've got jobs they pay tax, they spend money (thus creating more demand for goods and services) and help the economy to grow

Unluckily for you Ivan and Labour this is not the reality for many voters....Like Ive said before, keep up the good work youre making it very easy for us

but in the same breath are willing to join in with your party calling the unemployed SKIVERS LAZY and they are living off the state

Another lie Redflag. The unemployed are not skivers or lazy...Skivers who do not want to get a job are lazy. Please do your homework and stop making up your own stories

Maybe if Osborne had got the economy right the unemployment figures would not be so high and he would have more money coming into the treasury, plus if he got off his BUTT and did something about the people that are avoiding their CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAX we would not be in taking it off the lowest paid

Yes Red I agree....by the way have you asked Gordon Brown (the best chancellor ever in your minds) why he did nothing about this in 13 years of government...No I DIDN'T THINK SO!

Budget 2009: Gordon Brown declares class war with tax on high earners.
Gordon Brown has been accused of instigating a "class war" against Middle Britain as he introduced a new 50 per cent top rate of tax to make the wealthy pay for the catastrophic state of public finances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5203642/Budget-2009-Gordon-Brown-declares-class-war-with-tax-on-high-earners.html

blueturando wrote:

Yes it does. In your one-dimensional brain, immigrants just take jobs and houses. In the real world, once they've got jobs they pay tax, they spend money (thus creating more demand for goods and services) and help the economy to grow

Unluckily for you Ivan and Labour this is not the reality for many voters....Like Ive said before, keep up the good work youre making it very easy for us

but in the same breath are willing to join in with your party calling the unemployed SKIVERS LAZY and they are living off the state

Another lie Redflag. The unemployed are not skivers or lazy...Skivers who do not want to get a job are lazy. Please do your homework and stop making up your own stories

Maybe if Osborne had got the economy right the unemployment figures would not be so high and he would have more money coming into the treasury, plus if he got off his BUTT and did something about the people that are avoiding their CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAX we would not be in taking it off the lowest paid

Yes Red I agree....by the way have you asked Gordon Brown (the best chancellor ever in your minds) why he did nothing about this in 13 years of government...No I DIDN'T THINK SO!

You and your kind seem to forget blue that it was not until 2008 when the B(W)ankers got this country into trouble with there greed and total lack of any sense of RIGHT & WRONG, and if it had not been for Gordon Brown and Alister Darling this country would have went down the PLUGHOLE and disappeared into the great abyss and you know sometimes "I WISH GORDON BROWN HAD LET IT GO DOWN THE PLUGHOLE", then the bankers would have suffered the same fate as everybody else.

As for Gordon Brown not doing anything this mess DID NOT HAPPEN UNTIL 2008, until then everything was going well economy growing people in work getting decent wages, even after the bankers greed got the better of them the steps Gordon Brown and Alister Darling (who was the chancellor in 2008 not Gordon Brown he was PM) it would be good if you get yours facts correct. It was only two years later that Cameron LIED & SPUN his way into the job of PM WITHOUT THE COUNTRY GIVING HIM A MAJORITY LOL here is one example of posh boy dave LIES "The NHS is safe in my Hands" for this the general public will never ever forgive him and will make him pay at the ballot box in 2015, and he knows it so him and his cohorts will do as much damage to the UK as they can but here he is treading on dangerous ground as it could come back and bite him on the BUTT. 

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/297eaefe-606d-11db-a716-0000779e2340.html#ixzz2ZIAtHkxl



Financial Times
October 20, 2006 8:12 pm

British property tax ‘highest in world’
By Vanessa Houlder and Chris Giles

Gordon Brown has increased stamp duty rates on expensive properties and failed to increase inheritance tax thresholds in line with the rise in property prices.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/297eaefe-606d-11db-a716-0000779e2340.html#axzz2ZIAg4Kcj

oftenwrong. I'm afraid it's pointless posting links to articles which are behind paywalls, since those of us who don't subscribe (probably the vast majority) can't access them.

You and your kind seem to forget blue that it was not until 2008 when the B(W)ankers got this country into trouble with there greed and total lack of any sense of RIGHT & WRONG, and if it had not been for Gordon Brown and Alister Darling this country would have went down the PLUGHOLE and disappeared into the great abyss and you know sometimes "I WISH GORDON BROWN HAD LET IT GO DOWN THE PLUGHOLE", then the bankers would have suffered the same fate as everybody else.

My response was nothing to do with the Bankers Red (thats a seperate issue), the response was about people and companies paying the right amount of tax....the following was your comment I answered

Maybe if Osborne had got the economy right the unemployment figures would not be so high and he would have more money coming into the treasury, plus if he got off his BUTT and did something about the people that are avoiding their CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAX we would not be in taking it off the lowest paid

So my question to you stands, unless you think its ok for rich people and companies to avoid paying there fair share of tax unless until there is a recession?

We can thank Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the Euro and I think Alistair Darling is a very wise man, a good chancellor and would run rings around both Osbourne and Balls...Unfortunately he is not around now...You see Red, credit where credits due

I sometimes wonder where Labour is positioning itself and I am sure many other people and Labour voters are confused too. The tribal opinion seems to be do and say anything that will get Labour back in power, but this seems to be at the expense of Socialist, left and true Labour values...values in which many Labour voters and left wingers still hold. The tribalists have jumped to right defending Milibands new found stance on Welfare and Immigration.....maybe they were never left wing at all, but just Labour lackies seeking to get drunk on the power and financial rewards that government brings? Maybe will have to rename this forum as 'a right inclined international forum'?

Cameron has realised in time that his move to the centre and in some cases left...I know you wont agree) has alienated many of the core Tory voters who jumped ship to UKIP. The Tories are going all out to get them back in time for the next GE...How will Labour woo back the traditionists and left by adopting the Tory welfare cuts?

I have had to clean the specs did not believe what I was reading, but at least you have the guts to admit it, is this you playing good cop bad cop blue. I think blue that Labour should position itself on the opposite side of the Tories. the majority of the cuts that are aimed at the scroungers and skivers are hitting the honest hard working low paid sick and disabled , and if you took your eyes out of the clouds you would see that but of course you being a Tory voter you can only see no further than your own nose or you choose not to see it at all.

Ivan wrote:oftenwrong. I'm afraid it's pointless posting links to articles which are behind paywalls, since those of us who don't subscribe (probably the vast majority) can't access them.

Point taken, Ivan, and I rarely quote The Times now for that very reason. My intention was to rebut thoughtless remarks like "Gordon Brown did nothing in thirteen years" with an FT article from five years ago (which itself is still visible on the net).

Public debate continues on the vexatious question of individual rights to intellectual property.

The problem isn't skivers (a negligible % of people who have existed and will always exist in any society). The problem is low wages that simply aren't enough to live on without resort to tax credits, housing benefit, etc.

I pointed out elsewhere that the majority (77%) of new jobs created in the private sector since 2010 pay £8ph or less. Is that really something to be pleased about, or report as good news?

I have repeated this so many times over several years that it is becoming tedious: we really need to reduce wage diferentials through bottom, middle, and top. Wage structures and valuation of who gets rewarded what needs completely overhauled. Obviously those higher up the pay scale would suffer salary reductions to increase the wages of those lower down to a 'living wage'. We are presently sharing it out all wrong. It is imbalanced and bad for society and our economy.

The wage of today is only part of the problem, sickchip, it's the part-time hours and zero hours contracts that causes some of the these problems.

I disagree, albeit slightly, Redflag.

My point is the minimum wage ought to be increased to approx £10ph. This should be paid for by decreasing other person's salaries......thus narrowing the differential.

There is a problem with zero hour contracts, and other factors as you rightly point out.....and that is why the unions need to find strength and represent people again.