Subsidising Wages: Continuing Labour Party Plan to Sunsidise Big Corporations.

It's been reported that Labour Leadership hopeful Jess Phillips' latest plan in her bid to win is to promote free childcare for all.

Honourable as that is, you have to ask a few questions. The first is why do we need it and the second is who is going to pay for it?

The first reason is the fall in effective wages over the past 40 years or so. It seems that hand-in-glove with feminism, wages have depressed. Women have fought for the right to have equal rights to jobs and pay, but with that influx of labour into the market, wages have depressed. After all, the more people you have able to do a particular job, the less you can pay for it. It's supply and demand.

After all, you don't think big corporations would pay previous wage levels if they could start to reduce wages and see where people stop applying. Nope, a larger workforce means more people able to do the work and lower wages as a result.

Such has been the depression in wages that it's pretty rare one person in a couple can earn enough to run a family and for the other person to stay at home and do all the childcare stuff. I've been a house husband in the past, so I make no remarks on which member of the family works and which does the childcare.

So, wages become depressed so both parents have to work. The Blair government then introduced tax credits for families because wages had become so depressed families with both parents working couldn't raise a family.

Let's be clear about this: tax credits is taking money from people without children and giving it to people with families, to bolster wages supressed by big corporations. In effect subsidising the big corporation's wage bills at the taxpayer's expense.

So, we start importing even more workers from Europe and wages became even more depressed. Guess what? Now Labour are talking about providing free childcare. I assume funded by the taxpayer again. So people without kids have to subsidise those with kids so they can go out and earn wages depressed by big business that have also to be subsidised by the tax payer.

Where does it stop? We're already paying for people not to work (benefits), we're paying to top up the wages of people with families (tax credits) and now Jess Phillips wants us to pay for childcare too?

Why can't we flip the coin and start to put in place a regime where big corporations have to pay decent wages? Why can't we stop importing cheap labour? Why can't we start moving tax credits over to corporation tax funding, instead of from general (i.e. mainly income tax) funding?
Why can't we aim instead to limit the supply of labour and thereby increase wages?

I assume the answer would be the big corporations would go elsewhere. Well, let them. But each big corporation that leaves would find themselves the subject of big tariffs if they tried to import goods instead. And the government would let them know this before they left.

Instead of Labour rushing to the bottom, how's about trying to improve the quality of labour and the level of wages in this country.

With Jess Phillips' childcare policy aiding big corporations, you could almost call her policy Thatcherite....

What Now For UKIP?

If it's true that UKIP doesn't have enough money to run another leadership election, it doesn make you wonder why the party's NEC voted no confidence in their leader, triggering another membership vote rather than thrash the problem out and come up with a less costly compromise.

Not being a UKIP member, I don't know whet's going on in the party, but it seems to me the NEC cannot seem to support any leader the membership vote for.

From my observations it seems the UKIP NEC is quite evenly split between the various factions and if any one side sees a weakness then they pull away their support for the leader in an attempt to get their preferred candidate in place. It seems that the UKIP hierarchy have lost the art of politics: the sort of deal-making and loyalty that keeps a fractured party together.

Instead it seems the top of UKIP are a boiling mess of macchialvelian machinations: plotting, back-stabbing, disloyal and with no sense of direction or leadership. I get the task of restructuring the party is like herding cats or platting fog: virtually impossible.

If I was a member of UKIP I would be deselecting members of the NEC for the amount of treachery and chaos they have wreaked on teh party.

There is a distinct lack of backbone and sense of purpose. No wonder, since winning the Brexit referendum UKIP have lost most of their sense of direction. It's a bit difficult with a one-policy party to steering it in a dirction once that policy has been achieved.

However, if I may, here's some ideas:

1. UKIP needs to start being an honest broker in UK politics, pointing out where party politics is adversly affecting the performance of government.

First off, on the NHS, UKIP needs to point out that both Labour and Conservative are correct. The Conservatives are correct in that record amounts of money are going into the NHS budget, but that Labour are also correct in that less of that money is going into NHS care.

The reason being that most of the NHS budget is going into paying lawsuits rather than front-line care.

UKIP should point out to the other parties that omitting the whole truth to serve a narrative is devisive and morally wrong.

UKIP policy should be that to solve the problem of the NHS you first need to be truthful in order to understand what is causing the problem and fix it rather than throwing money at it. i.e. Reducing lawsuits increases the money available for care.

Including (but not exclusively as Nigel farrage used to try and make it) the increase in the population. No need to look like a racist eh? But seriously, in the last decade the population must have increased by a third. Tax take hasn't risen and spending hasn't risen in step with those figures. So what's going on? Quite obviously a lot of those new immigrants aren't paying tax and the government therefore doesn't have the money to pay properly for the NHS.

Also the payouts of those lawsuits is calculated on the victim being cared for by private care for the rest of their lives. However in most cases that ongoing care is then provided free by the NHS. A double-whammy to the NHS. In these cases, NHS lawyers should add a clause to the payout that if the patient seeks ongoing care from the NHS after a payout for the condition the NHS caused, then it's only fair the NHS should charge private rates and recoup those costs.


2. UKIP needs to start defending UK forces and defence spending. As with the NHS the two main parties are telling part of the truth. Labour want to ditch the Trident nuclear deterrent as it is horrrendously expensive. It sucks money from other defence projects. However it is a necessary evil: we do need a nuclear option in order to defend the UK.

UKIP policy should be to defend Trident.

However, the rest of the defence budget needs to be spent more wisely. If anyone has followed the debacle of the Snatch LandRovers, they would also have followed the plethora of vehicles that have followed as replacements. Umpteen different vehicles have been procured with different capabilities and now relatively new vehicles are being sold off after being bought at huge cost. Such a waste.

UKIP needs to highlight this wastage and suggest a more intelligent and open procurement policy.

Now on the big issue of the moment, Brexit.

There is a whole raft of nonsense running around about Brexit. UKIP need to cut through the bullshit and start providing clarity on where policy should be and the cost effecitveness of any concessions we make to the EU.

For instance the budget that we have so far agreed (without any agreement on trade, which to me seems like extortion) UKIP should be there in the fray telling it like it is.

It should also be highlighting the differences between a hard Brexit and being in complete control of trade, immigration and borders and the cost of shackling ourselves to the EU single market and customs union.

Instead, UKIP are consumed with infighting and plots. Without leadership and stability in the party, there is a very grave danger of Brexit not happening or at least being weakened substantially at great cost to the UK taxpayer.

3. UKIP needs to be shown to be inclusive. It seems that women and minorities in the party are pretty poorly represented. They need to have more prominent candidates for more posts. Showing the party as a team of people rather than the Nigel Farrage party. Having "normal" people in post would help.

But for God's sake vet them first and make sure their girlfriends stay quiet!

Labour Party: the one-message party.

Now we have an election looming, I see that the same old mantras are being pushed by them.

1. The NHS is doomed under the Tories. Vote Labour, get a better NHS.

Not that it ever was better under the previous Labour government, the government that saddled the NHS with expensive Private Partnership deals. Words are not the same as deeds.

2. Labour is the party of the people.

Well, not for a long time. You see in the Labour heartlands, seats are so safe that MPs stay in power for a long time and let's say, get used to the trappings of Parliamentary privilege. The long-term Labour MPs are no better than Tories. Dining at expensive restaurants, being taxied here and there, getting houses funded by the taxpayer... Nice when you can get it, especially when the wages of us poor saps out in the real world are tanking.

The same goes for the bosses at the top of the Unions: free penthouse apartments, funded by the Union members, the same posh restaurants as the Tory and Labour MPs. It makes you sick that they would abuse their privilege this way.

Don't forget that Labour, despite being "The Party of the People" has been in bed with big business for a long time. Just look at how under the previous Labour mob the supply of income for workers transferred from companies to the taxpayer. Yes, I'm talking about in-work benefits, especially tax credits.

It's a great idea when you put it as a way of topping up already poor wages. Not bad, people on low wages with kids get their wages topped up by the government. This would be fine, if corporation tax was raised to pay for it, so that the companies that pay sub-standard wages in effect get fined for doing it. Instead it's paid for by you and me, the ordinary taxpayer. In effect robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those that qualify for tax credits are better off, but the rest of the taxpaying community who don't qualify are effectively worse off because our taxes are higher to pay for it.

The same goes for zero hours contracts and the minimum wage. First off, I can't understand why people on the minimum/living wage should pay tax. And I especially can't understand why someone on the minimum wage should then have their wages topped back up by tax credits. In effect they pay tax, only to have the government give it back to them.

The downside is that the administration of that process needs paying for. So instead of taking them directly out of taxation, a system which is already administered, they pay tax, administered by one team and then apply for a rebate with another team of people and then given that money back. Crazy.

The other downside is the gap between benefits and wages is huge. Getting a tax-free salary equates more closely to benefits, reduces the gap and makes working a better option.

To me it smacks of a Tony Blair job creation scheme, paying people to shuffle paper around. Usually farmed out to somewhere like Wales or the North-East.

The inequality of zero hours contracts needs to be abolished as well. People should not be subject to informal hours arrangements. Again the government i.e. the taxpayer is paying to allow companies to get away with not having regular contracts. If companies want irregular employees on tap but exclusive to them and not able to work anywhere else, then they should pay a retainer to that employee when not employed, effectively paying the benefit the employee would get directly to them instead of the government.

So, what do I want Labour to start doing?

Well, stop banging on about the NHS. It's as boring as the "Safe, Stable Government" mantra chanted by the Tories.

Labour need to stop criticising and start inspiring.

Lift the poor (those on minimum wage) out of taxation, outlaw zero hours contracts, raise corporation tax on large businesses to pay for that and in-work benefits (and actually say that's what it's for, rather than just clobbering business), look to professionalise the social care sector, with a long-term plan to bring it into the NHS.

Legislation could be introduced to link the biggest rise in corporation tax to those companies that use zero hours contracts, or large numbers of minimum wage earners.

Legislation to curb the abuse of union funds needs to be introduced. Again, the marketing of the plan is key: It's helping the members to stop abuse, not bashing union bosses for the sake of it. Union bosses should pay for their accommodation out of their six-figure salaries, just like every other union member.  Highlighting the issue will put a spotlight on the abuse and should get the support of every union member.

Free local councils to start building houses. Forcing them to just build social housing will not generate new houses as it's just a cost to them. Allow them to build a small percentage for private sale so that they can make a profit, but with the caveat that any money raised has to be ringfenced and ploughed back into the housing fund.

Put a cap on public sector wages. Create legislation to cap the top wage to a certain number of times the lowest wage. It's obscene that the taxpayer should be paying large six-figure salaries to council members no matter how high up they are. Public service is a vocation. If you're so good at your job then go and find your way in the private sector. I find that many in the top jobs in public service are not of the standard to justify the huge salaries, they've just appointed themselves the salaries and justified it on the basis of that's what is needed to attract people from the private sector, when no-one from the private sector is actually employed.

I would apply the same cap on salaries for charities, especially those that receive government funding. There should be no members of charities earning over £200,000 salaries. Even £100,000 seems excessive when it can supply a very good standard of living. Charity donations should not be paying for a lavish upper-class lifestyle.

By these measures, Labour can say it is cleaning up the inequalities in employment and making the working environment more equitable for the lower paid. Lowering the wage gap for organisations that take from the public purse will give the feeling to the lower paid that they are not being exploited

Taking the lowest paid out of taxation will provide a boost in living standards and will equalise the gap between benefits and work.

Making companies pay for in-work benefits will shift payment for work away from the taxpayer and back onto business.

The very Ancient and Outmoded Labour Party.

It's a pity UKIP didn't win the Stoke by-election, with a defeat 2-0 the Labour party might have taken the hint and sacked their leader, Leicester FC-style.

Instead, with a score draw, the Tories can claim a historic result and Labour can carry on deluding themselves that things are fine and dandy, although the claim that Corbyn hasn't lost a by-election will have to be quietyly shelved. Not that it was much of a claim, the incumbent party almost never wins seats when in power.

The fact that the Labour party is really only relevant to students who have never lived a life, champagne socialists in London and militant socialists in Liverpool who have never grown up really, really upsets me. More than it should I know, but I still understand what the Labour party stood for way back when.

It stood up for the working man, it persuaded and didn't need thuggery to press it's point, because it was RELEVANT to the working man.

The working man could see the point of paying a small payment into a scheme so that we could have free health cover.

The working man could see that paying a small sub to a Union to protect him from overbearing employers.

But where is the relevance of the Labour party these days? Union leaders are seen hob-nobbing in posh restaurants with fat-cats, their leader really wants to do away with the Monarchy and wants a republic, he wants to do away with nuclear weapons, the very things that have kept the Russians from swallowing up the greater part of Europe. His policies are those of the trendy ultra-left, the sort of people who are miles away from the labourers, miners, steel workers, engineers and other blue-collar workers that made it.

They bicker and whinge about nit-picky irrelevances, like rights for every minority group going, including those that would deny them those very rights if they ever got in power.

Where is the working man or woman in all if this leftist irrelevance??

Nowhere. The left refuses to discuss substantive issues and place themselves in an electable position. For instance on the NHS they brook no discussion on how the NHS works, they would rather just shovel more and more cash into the black hole and naively hope more service comes out the other end.

The same mantra is pushed by the left regarding local services provided by councils.

Forget the fat cat bosses at the top earning six-figure salaries, forget the waste and the corruption, forget the lack of vocational nursing places, stopping working class girls getting a decent earning job.

Labour is now a party run largely by ultra-left socialist nutjobs that have absolutely no connection or empathy with the working man and would probably call working people fascists for daring even to earn money.

It just makes me sad that Labour is where it is, irrelevant to most of the people it originally set out to champion.

It makes me even sadder that the people Labour have cast aside still vote for them.