The government has resorted this week to using fear and the threat of recession as tools in its war against wage increases, which they say are fuelling inflation even though they are lagging well behind it. So, a simple poll:
Should the government be using fear and the threat of recession to enforce below inflation pay rises?
- No (92%, 442 Votes)
- Only if they can prove their case (6%, 28 Votes)
- I don’t know, but please show me the answers (1%, 7 Votes)
- Yes (0%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 479
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
They should not be forcing down wages, but restoring their values (just like MP wages). There is no wage spiral, this is a fallacy.
Fear is a neo-liberal tactic, that is out of place in the 21st century.
If every MP is worth an extra £2000, why isn’t every nurse, doctor, fireman, railway worker, etc?
They always do. Tories claim to be the party of businesses afterall. Aye right.
They have never in their history been the party of business – only of asset owners and rentiers.
Business, capitalism, people earning a profit by actually doing something was what the Liberals stood for traditionally.
It’s just that over the last 40 years, rentiers have worked out how to treat big businesses like land – something to suck dry and throw away.
Which is why they hate small businesses most of all.
Agreed
The role of government is surely to ensure a fair distribution of wealth in the country.
I’m not against people being rich or well off at all but when working people’s wealth is declining as the rich’s wealth is rising (and that increased wealth is related to declining wages, pensions and conditions, the environment) then we have a serious problem at the heart of our democracy and economy.
We are at the point now where democracy needs redesigning in my view by a younger, enlightened generation and those my age who give a damn.
Through Neo-liberalism we’ve given the rich the benefit of the doubt. And all they’ve done – like such people always do – is take advantage and lose any semblance of restraint and gorge themselves on the opportunities they have been presented with at the expense of the rest of us. Like all extremists do in actual fact – because that is what they are – capitalist extremists.
Increasingly therefore, when I see the large houses and swimming pools and high end SUVs around the country all I see is a symbol of oppression – wealth obtained through legalised theft and greed using someones else’s money who has too little and goes to bed at night fretting about the future.
Frankly, they make me sick but I think that the rich are making us all sick – including our politics and governance as well as the planet.
I share much of your frustration about growing inequality.
Mark E Thomas’s book and organisation http://www.99-percent.org gives good background about the cause and possible way “we” can start to fight back. It is well worth a read, or look at the website.
It is surprising how little real dissent from the economic orthodoxy and financial myths like ” the national economy is like your household budget” there is. We are being taken for fools.
I think the way most politicians and the media behave is rather like followers of a religion.
There is as much evidence for some of their beliefs, as there is for the existance of God, but the “priests” do very well with the status quo and try to prevent heritical views being aired.
It is time for an financial reformation.
Power to people like Richard Murphy, Mark E Thomas, and others for challenging group think and spreading the word.
https://99-percent.org/the-rational-policy-makers-guide-to-the-nhs/
Mark E Thomas’s latest. He is meeting MPs and Lords in Westminster to launch this report on 4th July.
He wants as many people as possible to write to their MPs to persuade them to go to the meeting. He also said that the room booked only takes 30 people, so it might be a problem if too many turn up!
https://99-percent.org/writing-to-mps-to-protect-the-nhs/
Why should we accept ‘big’ government interference in holding down wages when there is no balancing pressure to hold down prices and profits?
There is a hypocrisy that says the market is supremely wise in setting prices, but does not accept labour as inherently an element of that market.
This government seems to have given-up any pretence of being even handed in its responsibility to govern for the entire population. Maybe ’twas ever thus except for the short post WW2 blip. (?)
“There is a hypocrisy that says the market is supremely wise in setting prices, but does not accept labour as inherently an element of that market.”
Which is why we should reject Neoliberalism which is just a form of leaching or being parasitical on other human beings and the planet. This mentality is endemic for human societies and stems from poor parenting. The opposite to leaching is not taught by parents for a variety of reasons but ultimately it boils down to emotional neglect of the parents themselves in the first instance.
Behind the “sound-bite” mask the Tory Party really is the “Parasitical Party:-
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jun/25/union-fury-as-figures-show-pay-rises-among-top-earners-driving-inflation
The Times reports further restrictions on pay for the public services. Jeremy Hunt is looking for further ‘efficiency savings’.
The main pain of ‘fighting inflation’ will fall on some of those with mortgages and many renting. The top 5% will not be experiencing much of that pain and, indeed, many will benefitting handsomely.
When push comes to shove, bankers will always go for unemployment or the threat of it. That has been there advice for most of the last 100 years. IMHO the lasting result is lower investment and lower productivity than our neighbours.
We have a template for a better system. In the 1950s, I am told, banking was seen as boring because their role was more that of the servant and their ability to take risks circumscribed.
I’ve said before the UK is in the grip of a Neoliberal Death Cult and what I really mean by this is there are far too many people who will not use their brain to think through the implications of human beings using money to transact with each to meet needs. This is killing off the UK economy.
So for example in the case of tackling inflation there is a widespread refusal to investigate at least three relevant issues the role of Brexit, why Japan isn’t raising its bank rate, and why taxes can’t be used along with government spending to ensure the burden of inflation is fairly borne. In the case of the latter for example the increased income the banks will get from the raising of bank rate can be taxed and redistributed to those who will adversely suffer the most from the bank rate rise. Here are two of Bill Mitchell’s posts on Japan:-
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=60934
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=60811
Here’s the UK’s Neoliberal Death Cult in action literally killing people!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/24/steve-barclay-frustrated-health-officials
The Oxbridge civil servants need clearing out of the Treasury and the Bank of England as well as the Death Cult politicians in Westminister!
The goverment exists through the support of bilionaires and the other super rich. This 0.1% of the population don’t give a damn about inflation as it doesn’t effect them and they are raking in even more whether income or increased asset ownership. The Tories then have to do nothing but make the pretence they are worried about inflation for electoral purposes. The Tory Edward Heath promised to “cut prices at a stroke” in the 1970 General Election but then allowed inflation to get up near 25% under hs governrment, tried to impose wage restraint but still had anough money to bali out Rolls Royce, British Leyland, Burmah Oil etc where shareholders were in danger of losing money.
City Financier Guy hands was quoted this week in The New European saying that for the Tories, one of the primary aims of Brexit was the intention to drive down the wages of UK workers.
It certainly explains the motivation of the evil gibberish spouted by the Bank of England and the Tories,
While still illuminating, your poll may have a small flaw: “No” and “Only if they can prove their case” aren’t mutually exclusive. In this specific case, people may vote “No” (I’m wording this so as not to say how they actually voted because that could theoretically influence voters) if they’ve already decided the government can’t prove their case here. However, in general terms, I’d guess many would accept a genuine threat of recession as a reason to accept below-inflation pay rises.
I said only that your poll MAY have a flaw (small because one could just add the “No”s and the “Only”s together), but it may not be a flaw at all if no government could ever justify limiting (poorer people’s) pay to prevent a greater harm. In my ignorance, I know of no situation where a government would be justified, but I’m here to be enlightened.
I believe there has been an intention to reduce living standards in our country from the day Thatcher was elected in 1979. The introduction of a measure of social democracy after 1945 was in response to 6 years of total war. Civilians as well a military were involved in that war . There were more civilians died than military. The forces of the Right had to accept ordinary workers having their living standards raised. They could take part in the democratic process for the first time. So MPs from working class backgrounds sat in Parliament. Working class kids went to university and were allowed to enter professions previously closed to them like classical music and acting. Inequality fell. Workers with average wages could buy a home of their own. During the first 3 decades after 1945 the people enjoyed better living standards unimaginable for previous generations. The working class had been a race apart since the Industrial revolution. There are lots of examples of Right wing thinkers complaining this revolution had gone too far. Tories began to grumble there was too much full employment. A small group began to plan for a reversal of this improvement. Working people had to be put back in their place. They must learn once again to know their place. When the economic crisis of the 1970s struck this group began to act. The cause of that crisis was caused by the quadrupling of oil prices-twice. The main cause was the ending of capital controls. There was no wage price spiral. A plan was drawn up by Nicholas Ridley setting out to break the power of labour. Over the following years the Unions were made impotent. Starting with the miners. Then Thatcher set about closing our manufacturing industries. People working in factories, mills and mines closely together discussed grievances and stuck together. Closing these establishments weakened resolve. The Tories thus deliberately intended to reduce living standards for most workers. They knew it could not be achieved overnight but patiently introduced fear of insecurity, poverty ,unemployment and sickness . These had been replaced by the 1945 Labour Government. The results of this long term strategy is there for all to see.
I dont think that it would be that difficult to come up with some sort ogf Government Policy to
1. Decide how much of our GDP goes to what I will loosley call wages – including pensions, benefits etc, and
2. How it is distributed and
3. What in broad terms it expects most people to be able to afford on it, ie adequate housing, diet etc
I don’t think GDP is a useful basic indicator. I think that the hourly wage is what defines everything. From which we can work out what a basic house should cost (3x annual wage, today it is 12x) and hence whether wages need increasing, or more houses buildings so that they become available at an affordable rate.
A person on the lowest wage should be able to afford all the basic requirements: home, health, education, transport.
The pound in the pocket is what matters
I dont think that it would be that difficult to come up with some sort of Government Policy to
1. Decide how much of our GDP goes to what I will loosely call wages – including pensions, benefits etc, and
2. How it is distributed and
3. What in broad terms it expects most people to be able to afford on it, ie adequate housing, diet etc
It’s odd that the function of the BofE is said to be that of controlling inflation yet the sustained lowering of interest rates to near zero allowed virtually uncontrolled borrowing – free money which sent property inflation sky-high. And now the sudden hike in interest rates has kicked off a period of devastating mortgage inflation – again the very thing we are told the hike was designed to deal with. Lies, damned lies and government and BofE utterances.
Low interest was good
What was wrong was the deliberate pumping in of well in excess of £100bn for housing market lending
Low interest rates are good if they lead to more productive investment. In UK we have ling had low levels of investment in people, tech, R&D etc. Meanwhile so-called investment has mostly gone into pumping the prices of existing assets including property and shares.
Most so-called investment is little more than speculation. That reflects the culture of today’s City and financial institutions.
Meanwhile small and medium businesses struggle to get the funding they need, and the investment we desperately need in infrastructure and public services is seen as an unaffordable ‘cost’.
Agreed