It was recently reported that the trade union Unison had claimed that many nurses in the United Kingdom are living in poverty, and that some of them are even using food banks.
While I don't doubt their findings, the fact remains that the starting salary for a nurse in this country is nearly forty percent higher than the minimum wage. In other words, many people in Britain earn less money than a nurse, and yet many of those people enjoy a lifestyle which is far from impoverished.
The point is that the cost of living in this country varies considerably, and is affected by such factors as whereabouts you live, what type of housing you occupy, and whether or not you have to travel to work.
For example, a person who lives in private rented accommodation in Greater London and travels a long distance to work will almost certainly have a much higher cost of living than someone who lives in social housing in a provincial city and walks to work.
When people argue the case for student loans, they often assert that the repayment of graduate debt is related to the ability to pay. This however is quite simply not true.
If the ability to pay means anything at all, then it must relate to your disposable income - the amount of money you are left with after deduction of taxes and your necessary cost of living. The repayment of graduate debt is based on how much you earn, and not on your disposable income, and so is not related to the ability to pay.
Related previous posts include:
Glamour model with student debt
Saturday, 19 November 2016
Sunday, 30 October 2016
Uber lose tribunal claim
Uber is a mobile phone app which allows users to book a minicab. The company which designed it is also called Uber. Uber minicab drivers are all self-employed - or at least they were.
Two Uber drivers, supported by the trade union GMB, have recently won an employment tribunal claim whereby they are now deemed to be employees of Uber, and entitled to be paid the minimum wage. Uber let it be known that they plan to appeal.
Uber has also reported that a large number of their drivers are unhappy with the tribunal ruling, as it undermines their self-employed status. At the time of writing it is not clear how seriously their claims can be taken.
The minimum wage was created by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I remember reading this act a few years after it was passed into law, and felt at the time that it could be clearer on at least some points. On the one hand I don't expect governments to get legislation right first time, but on the other hand I think that a little more thought could have gone into the drafting of the act.
I remember many years ago a woman who ran a post office in the north of Scotland took the Post Office to a tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage. She won her case, and the Post Office announced that it would appeal. They then abandoned their appeal, and instead defied the ruling, although the woman in question did have her payments increased. About a year later another subpostmaster from Lancashire took the Post Office to tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage, but was unsuccessful.
So far as I am aware, neither ruling was taken to appeal, and so neither ruling actually creates what is known as a binding precedent - in effect being the law.
Maybe now is the time for a revision of the minimum wage law. As an absolute minimum, I think it should be a criminal offence for an employer who loses a tribunal claim to defy the ruling. Either you abide by the ruling or you appeal.
Two Uber drivers, supported by the trade union GMB, have recently won an employment tribunal claim whereby they are now deemed to be employees of Uber, and entitled to be paid the minimum wage. Uber let it be known that they plan to appeal.
Uber has also reported that a large number of their drivers are unhappy with the tribunal ruling, as it undermines their self-employed status. At the time of writing it is not clear how seriously their claims can be taken.
The minimum wage was created by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I remember reading this act a few years after it was passed into law, and felt at the time that it could be clearer on at least some points. On the one hand I don't expect governments to get legislation right first time, but on the other hand I think that a little more thought could have gone into the drafting of the act.
I remember many years ago a woman who ran a post office in the north of Scotland took the Post Office to a tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage. She won her case, and the Post Office announced that it would appeal. They then abandoned their appeal, and instead defied the ruling, although the woman in question did have her payments increased. About a year later another subpostmaster from Lancashire took the Post Office to tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage, but was unsuccessful.
So far as I am aware, neither ruling was taken to appeal, and so neither ruling actually creates what is known as a binding precedent - in effect being the law.
Maybe now is the time for a revision of the minimum wage law. As an absolute minimum, I think it should be a criminal offence for an employer who loses a tribunal claim to defy the ruling. Either you abide by the ruling or you appeal.
Sunday, 23 October 2016
Why this guff about Green?
As I write, the House of Commons has recently voted unanimously that the businessman Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood. It is reported that this is the first time that MPs have ever held such a debate. It is not however for MPs to determine whether or not someone should be deprived of an honour. That decision rests with a committee known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee.
The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.
My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.
If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted. If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.
For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?
Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison. For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter. Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.
Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?
The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.
My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.
If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted. If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.
For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?
Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison. For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter. Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.
Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?
Saturday, 8 October 2016
The post-referendum political landscape
In the short space of time since the Brexit referendum, not a great deal seems to have changed in the realm of British politics. David Cameron is no longer Prime Minister, but we still have a Conservative government. Labour remains in opposition, with Jeremy Corbyn still at the helm.
Looking ahead, however, a lot could change. Once Britain has left the EU, we will no longer be bound by the dictates of the European Union or its agencies. We will still be bound by the dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, however, as that is an agency of the Council of Europe - an organisation which Britain has not yet voted to leave.
Another important point to note is that Britain will no longer have MEPs once Brexit has been achieved. There will be no more European Parliament elections, as a result of which there will be one fewer set of elections conducted under a system of proportional representation.
It is possible that UKIP will cease to exist following Brexit, but I don't expect many people will be upset. For example UKIP councillors can easily defect to another party, and thereby probably improve their chances of re-election.
Immigration will remain a big issue as there is no reason to think that Theresa May will limit immigration merely because it is easier for her to do so. I therefore expect at least one anti-immigration party to enjoy some prominence in the year ahead, although not nearly enough to make a difference.
It is almost a truism of politics that you do not need to win power in order to exert an influence, and this is certainly true of UKIP. It is no secret that David Cameron promised a referendum in order to stem the flow of support from his party to UKIP.
On immigration however it is a different matter. In 2009, the British National Party had two MEPs, a London assembly member, and around one hundred councillors. So far as I can make out, the only response to this from the establishment was to set up a parliamentary committee which did not achieve anything and was probably never intended to.
Related previous posts include:
Who murdered Jo Cox?
The power of the people
Looking ahead, however, a lot could change. Once Britain has left the EU, we will no longer be bound by the dictates of the European Union or its agencies. We will still be bound by the dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, however, as that is an agency of the Council of Europe - an organisation which Britain has not yet voted to leave.
Another important point to note is that Britain will no longer have MEPs once Brexit has been achieved. There will be no more European Parliament elections, as a result of which there will be one fewer set of elections conducted under a system of proportional representation.
It is possible that UKIP will cease to exist following Brexit, but I don't expect many people will be upset. For example UKIP councillors can easily defect to another party, and thereby probably improve their chances of re-election.
Immigration will remain a big issue as there is no reason to think that Theresa May will limit immigration merely because it is easier for her to do so. I therefore expect at least one anti-immigration party to enjoy some prominence in the year ahead, although not nearly enough to make a difference.
It is almost a truism of politics that you do not need to win power in order to exert an influence, and this is certainly true of UKIP. It is no secret that David Cameron promised a referendum in order to stem the flow of support from his party to UKIP.
On immigration however it is a different matter. In 2009, the British National Party had two MEPs, a London assembly member, and around one hundred councillors. So far as I can make out, the only response to this from the establishment was to set up a parliamentary committee which did not achieve anything and was probably never intended to.
Related previous posts include:
Who murdered Jo Cox?
The power of the people
Sunday, 25 September 2016
The Labour Party is far from dead
In 1897, a newspaper mistakenly reported that the novelist known as Mark Twain was dead. He replied that the report of his death was an exaggeration.
This weekend, at least two comment writers have argued that the Labour Party is either dead or at least in serious trouble. I'm not sure that I find either one of them convincing.
Dominic Sandbrook reflects on how different the Labour Party of today is from the one which was launched in 1900. He adds that:
No party has a divine right to exist. Exactly 100 years ago, the Liberals were the biggest game in town. They had been in power for ten years. ... But then, when the Liberals fell from power, they never stopped falling. Within ten years, they went from being the party of government to the third party.
I could make many comments here. First, we cannot know for certain what was in the minds of the founders of the Labour Party. (As an aside, what was founded in 1900 was not strictly the Labour Party, but rather the Labour Representation Committee. It was a loose association of interest groups, which did not call itself the Labour Party until 1906, and which did not have its own membership until 1918.)
Maybe the early members of the Labour Party would have admired Jeremy Corbyn, or maybe not. I will not pretend to know, although I will observe the fact that the first Labour government expressed support for the government of Stalin, even though Stalin was unelected.
Second, the fall from grace of the Liberal Party resulted from several factors, perhaps the most important of which was a split in the party at the 1918 general election. There has been speculation in the press recently that many Labour MPs who dislike Jeremy Corbyn might break away from the party, and I will comment on that when it happens.
Sandbrook notes that Mr Corbyn represents a political tradition that has never come close to winning power in this country, but my third point has to be that every Labour government has to some extent been guilty of great cruelty and injustice. The warmongering governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are perhaps the worst examples of this. Cruelty may win elections, but it is hardly a good advertisement for what passes as mainstream politics.
By contrast, Peter Hitchens argues that:
Labour cannot win an Election whoever leads it. It is dead in Scotland and the South of England.
At the most recent local elections in Scotland, in 2012, the Labour Party won 394 seats - almost as many as the Scottish National Party, and more than double the number won by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put together. I don't call that dead.
The success of the main opposition party depends in large part on the popularity of the party in government, and also to some extent on the popularity of the third party. If a general election were to be called any time soon, then I would expect the Conservatives to retain power, but that situation may change.
Even if - as currently looks likely - the Conservatives retain power at the next general election, then the Labour Party could still emerge with more than two hundred seats, making it easily the second largest party in the House of Commons. Jeremy Corbyn would by then be in his seventies, and would be unlikely to want to continue leading his party much longer. It is too early to say who might emerge to replace him as leader, and so I will continue to regard all obituaries of the Labour Party as premature.
Related previous posts include:
The murder of Jeremy Corbyn
This weekend, at least two comment writers have argued that the Labour Party is either dead or at least in serious trouble. I'm not sure that I find either one of them convincing.
Dominic Sandbrook reflects on how different the Labour Party of today is from the one which was launched in 1900. He adds that:
No party has a divine right to exist. Exactly 100 years ago, the Liberals were the biggest game in town. They had been in power for ten years. ... But then, when the Liberals fell from power, they never stopped falling. Within ten years, they went from being the party of government to the third party.
I could make many comments here. First, we cannot know for certain what was in the minds of the founders of the Labour Party. (As an aside, what was founded in 1900 was not strictly the Labour Party, but rather the Labour Representation Committee. It was a loose association of interest groups, which did not call itself the Labour Party until 1906, and which did not have its own membership until 1918.)
Maybe the early members of the Labour Party would have admired Jeremy Corbyn, or maybe not. I will not pretend to know, although I will observe the fact that the first Labour government expressed support for the government of Stalin, even though Stalin was unelected.
Second, the fall from grace of the Liberal Party resulted from several factors, perhaps the most important of which was a split in the party at the 1918 general election. There has been speculation in the press recently that many Labour MPs who dislike Jeremy Corbyn might break away from the party, and I will comment on that when it happens.
Sandbrook notes that Mr Corbyn represents a political tradition that has never come close to winning power in this country, but my third point has to be that every Labour government has to some extent been guilty of great cruelty and injustice. The warmongering governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are perhaps the worst examples of this. Cruelty may win elections, but it is hardly a good advertisement for what passes as mainstream politics.
By contrast, Peter Hitchens argues that:
Labour cannot win an Election whoever leads it. It is dead in Scotland and the South of England.
At the most recent local elections in Scotland, in 2012, the Labour Party won 394 seats - almost as many as the Scottish National Party, and more than double the number won by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put together. I don't call that dead.
The success of the main opposition party depends in large part on the popularity of the party in government, and also to some extent on the popularity of the third party. If a general election were to be called any time soon, then I would expect the Conservatives to retain power, but that situation may change.
Even if - as currently looks likely - the Conservatives retain power at the next general election, then the Labour Party could still emerge with more than two hundred seats, making it easily the second largest party in the House of Commons. Jeremy Corbyn would by then be in his seventies, and would be unlikely to want to continue leading his party much longer. It is too early to say who might emerge to replace him as leader, and so I will continue to regard all obituaries of the Labour Party as premature.
Related previous posts include:
The murder of Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
The economics of meat consumption
I am happy to eat meat, although I accept that many people choose not to. Some people consider a meat-free diet to be more healthy, while some people object to the methods used to slaughter animals which are intended for meat.
I will not address the point about the health benefits of either eating or not eating meat, as there is a lot of conflicting evidence out there. I admit that some slaughter houses do not follow the correct procedure when killing animals, and I hope those slaughter houses are identified and suitably punished.
We are often told that meat consumption is uneconomical, and this is the point I wish to address here. We are sometimes told that a certain quantity of grain is required to produce a pound of beef, and likewise a certain amount of water.
These figures are often suspect, and they also appear to overlook the other benefits of rearing livestock. Cows and goats provide milk as well as meat. Dairy farms require a number of female animals to provide the milk, as well as at least one male for the purpose of breeding. However male as well as female animals will be born to the breeding stock, and these male animals can reasonably be reared for their meat.
Other benefits of livestock rearing are that sheep produce wool as well as meat, and that the rearing of sheep and cattle - both of which eat grass - helps to safeguard our green pasture land. If Britain's farmers did not rear cattle and sheep, then I would expect a lot of our green fields to be ploughed up. Then again, sheep in this country often graze on hillsides which would not be easily ploughed.
Several years ago, I read an account of how a charity had helped a woman in Lesotho. She had just one acre of land with poor quality soil with which to feed herself and her children. She also suffered from tuberculosis.
The charity supplied her with three goats. If we follow vegetarian logic, then the charity had made her life harder. After all, she now had to feed not only herself and her children from her land, but also the goats.
The gift of the three goats did however make her life much better. The goats provided milk to drink, and also manure with which to improve the soil. The woman and her children enjoyed a diet with more protein, which resulted in her tuberculosis clearing up. She even had some surplus milk which she could sell.
It appears that there is a lot to be said for livestock farming, and I for one do not intend to give up eating meat any time soon.
I will not address the point about the health benefits of either eating or not eating meat, as there is a lot of conflicting evidence out there. I admit that some slaughter houses do not follow the correct procedure when killing animals, and I hope those slaughter houses are identified and suitably punished.
We are often told that meat consumption is uneconomical, and this is the point I wish to address here. We are sometimes told that a certain quantity of grain is required to produce a pound of beef, and likewise a certain amount of water.
These figures are often suspect, and they also appear to overlook the other benefits of rearing livestock. Cows and goats provide milk as well as meat. Dairy farms require a number of female animals to provide the milk, as well as at least one male for the purpose of breeding. However male as well as female animals will be born to the breeding stock, and these male animals can reasonably be reared for their meat.
Other benefits of livestock rearing are that sheep produce wool as well as meat, and that the rearing of sheep and cattle - both of which eat grass - helps to safeguard our green pasture land. If Britain's farmers did not rear cattle and sheep, then I would expect a lot of our green fields to be ploughed up. Then again, sheep in this country often graze on hillsides which would not be easily ploughed.
Several years ago, I read an account of how a charity had helped a woman in Lesotho. She had just one acre of land with poor quality soil with which to feed herself and her children. She also suffered from tuberculosis.
The charity supplied her with three goats. If we follow vegetarian logic, then the charity had made her life harder. After all, she now had to feed not only herself and her children from her land, but also the goats.
The gift of the three goats did however make her life much better. The goats provided milk to drink, and also manure with which to improve the soil. The woman and her children enjoyed a diet with more protein, which resulted in her tuberculosis clearing up. She even had some surplus milk which she could sell.
It appears that there is a lot to be said for livestock farming, and I for one do not intend to give up eating meat any time soon.
Saturday, 10 September 2016
Interest rates at a historic low
As I write, interest rates in the United Kingdom have been cut to the very low level of just one quarter of one percent. At least one news outlet is arguing that this is intended to help the economy through the post-referendum turmoil.
I am not aware of any statistical evidence to back up the widely held belief that low interest rates benefit the economy, but if anyone knows of such evidence then comments are welcome.
Many years ago I saw a famous businessman being interviewed on television. Asked what retailers wanted, he replied that they wanted an interest rate cut. On the one hand it is true that an interest rate cut allows people with mortgages to spend more money in the High Street, but it also reduces the spending power of people with savings.
I wonder why the famous businessman did not ask for a tax cut instead. Cutting taxes would presumably leave at least some taxpayers with more money to spend in the High Street. Why did he not ask for a cut in the price of bus fares? Lower prices for bus fares would leave bus travellers with more money to spend in the High Street.
Then again, why did the famous businessman not ask for a cut in the prices charged by High Street stores? If one High Street store cuts its prices, then presumably its customers have more money to spend in the shop next door - or am I missing something?
Maybe interest rate cuts are just an easy target. Bus companies can cut the price of bus fares, but they still need revenue to pay for the cost of vehicle maintenance, staff wages, and so on. By contrast, it is not clear to most people what interest rates actually pay for. Some of the money is paid out to savers, but as a saver myself I know that interest received is rarely more than a pittance.
Then again, it does not make sense to get sidetracked. I have yet to see any serious evidence that low interest rates necessarily benefit an economy, or that high interest rates necessarily harm an economy.
Related previous posts include:
Understanding interest rates
Interest rates, inflation, and jobs
I am not aware of any statistical evidence to back up the widely held belief that low interest rates benefit the economy, but if anyone knows of such evidence then comments are welcome.
Many years ago I saw a famous businessman being interviewed on television. Asked what retailers wanted, he replied that they wanted an interest rate cut. On the one hand it is true that an interest rate cut allows people with mortgages to spend more money in the High Street, but it also reduces the spending power of people with savings.
I wonder why the famous businessman did not ask for a tax cut instead. Cutting taxes would presumably leave at least some taxpayers with more money to spend in the High Street. Why did he not ask for a cut in the price of bus fares? Lower prices for bus fares would leave bus travellers with more money to spend in the High Street.
Then again, why did the famous businessman not ask for a cut in the prices charged by High Street stores? If one High Street store cuts its prices, then presumably its customers have more money to spend in the shop next door - or am I missing something?
Maybe interest rate cuts are just an easy target. Bus companies can cut the price of bus fares, but they still need revenue to pay for the cost of vehicle maintenance, staff wages, and so on. By contrast, it is not clear to most people what interest rates actually pay for. Some of the money is paid out to savers, but as a saver myself I know that interest received is rarely more than a pittance.
Then again, it does not make sense to get sidetracked. I have yet to see any serious evidence that low interest rates necessarily benefit an economy, or that high interest rates necessarily harm an economy.
Related previous posts include:
Understanding interest rates
Interest rates, inflation, and jobs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)