Makerfield: Reform candidate sexist?

Doodledog - I've been thinking about in-work benefits first. The concept of topping up low wages dates back to 1795 and ever since, policy makers have struggled. There's the basic humane principle that in-work benefits are predicated upon of preventing people from starving, being homeless etc, then there's the question of how low wages should be allowed to be (hence eventually the introduction of the minimum wage but that was preceded by the Trades Board Act of 1909). And then of course, if you accept the basic principle of not wanting people to starve and accept the concept of the minimum wage (and not everyone does) policy makers then have to address the issues that you list such as being trapped with scant incentive to work more hours, or try for promotion.
There are no easy solutions to this apart from adjusting the taper rate at which in-work benefits are reduced. (if we accept that people should be helped). It's so easy to criticise all the various attempts at trying to address the issue of in-work benefits but incredibly difficult to come upon with a solution. Reform did come up recently with the idea of overtime pay being tax free and I could absolutely see the logic behind that but I couldn't find any real details on how it would really work.

Raising the minimum wage would be a start. Or claiming back the allowances from the companies who pay people so badly that even after working a full week they can't afford a decent standard of living.

I can understand a privately owned corner shop being unable to pay more than MW, but when it comes to supermarkets it's a different matter, and that principle applies across various other sectors too.

Making overtime tax free is likely to make rogue employers push people into 16 hour weeks on base rate and call everything else overtime, I think. That would mean that workers would have precarious wages, as it would be easy for employers to treat it like a zero hours contract and cut the overtime hours.

Doodledog

Raising the minimum wage would be a start. Or claiming back the allowances from the companies who pay people so badly that even after working a full week they can't afford a decent standard of living.

I can understand a privately owned corner shop being unable to pay more than MW, but when it comes to supermarkets it's a different matter, and that principle applies across various other sectors too.

Making overtime tax free is likely to make rogue employers push people into 16 hour weeks on base rate and call everything else overtime, I think. That would mean that workers would have precarious wages, as it would be easy for employers to treat it like a zero hours contract and cut the overtime hours.

But look at the absolute backlash the Government gets every time it raises the MW. As for suggesting clawing back for low paying employers ........ I don't think at all that Reform could implement tax free overtime but we do need to address the issue of incentives. That's why looking at tapers seems like worth doing.

Yes, excellent post Doodledog.

Doodledog your post at 10:00:08 is brilliant! I agree 100% with all the elements of your well thought out post. Yes indeed Labour does need to win its core supporters back, I think many have felt neglected or their concerns ignored.

Of course, I think it all boils down to economics, the policies implemented, in the end and an analysis of which group in society which has the most influence on which policies a government pursues. The policy of paying in work benefits stemmed from the reluctance of the then government to upset the business lobby by implementing a living wage policy.

But the in work benefits drew accusations of spending too much on benefits from the believers in 'small state' economics. Who are usually from the business sector..

It feels like madness...

Yes, Tuliptree there is a backlash, and no, Reform would do the square root of nothing about it, but I was looking at the problem, rather than the solution.

It is madness, Maisie - insanity - but unravelling it all would ned a radical overhaul of everything, including attitudes.

Speaking against the benefits culture on here, for instance, results in people preaching about how 'some people' don't earn enough to live on', as though those who would prefer them to be less dependent don't know that. Similarly, objecting to means-testing is often seen as grasping or mean-spirited. I hope I'm neither, but I do think it underpins a lot of inequality and hampers aspiration, and would like to see it scrapped other than in exceptional circumstances, and replaced with universal benefits that could be taxed.

Maybe that's what you were getting at, Galaxy? The orthodoxy is that left-leaning people should have to support more benefits and 'targeted' payments, and woe betide anyone who feels differently, so we are shouted down.

Rosie51

Doodledog your post at 10:00:08 is brilliant! I agree 100% with all the elements of your well thought out post. Yes indeed Labour does need to win its core supporters back, I think many have felt neglected or their concerns ignored.

Yes and your subsequent posts are equally well thought out. 👏👏👏

Is it the 'orthodoxy', though? Or is it just the influence of an overwhelmingly right leaning media which promotes those beliefs about 'the left'?

universal benefits all ion which are taxable would be a very efficient system administratively. but again i wonder if any politician would be brave enough to reverse the rolling tide of means testing. i absolutely buy into the universal benefits position for a variety of reasons but its not going happen is it? and look at the last dog's dinner with WFA.

Galaxy

I tell you what if I had lived through the 1930 s I would be more than irritated that I am having to go to work today.

🤣

MaizieD

Is it the 'orthodoxy', though? Or is it just the influence of an overwhelmingly right leaning media which promotes those beliefs about 'the left'?

I don’t deny that the media are pernicious, but my examples of cognitive dissonance are taken from conversations with friends who would not recognise themselves as being anything other than kindly and socially aware.

Fair enough, Dd

Zero hours contract. Yes Doodledog.
So wrong.

Doodledog - re cognitive disonance. I have a lot of middle classs, soft left friends but they don't seem to bear any resemblance to your group. I guess it proves that it's impossible to generalise. As for your first point, as for me, I don't pay anyone to make sure I don't pay a penny more in tax than I need ( and I never have including during my years of self employment). I always make sure I pay what is due but why on earth would I pay more than I needed to? Why is that cognitive dissonance? Avoiding/evading would be different of course. I've never had a conversation with my friends complaining about what we pay our tradesmen/cleaners - in fact we only ever say how lucky we are to have such a great group of tradesmen that we can draw on.

I have never paid for financial advice either, but there is a whole industry out there, so whether or not your friends do or not, there are many who do.

Nothing wrong with that, but to do it and claim to be socialist, when socialism is about contributing to the collective good strikes me as dissonant.

Similarly, you may not complain about paying others, but look at your local FB page and I’d bet a pound to a penny that you’ll see numerous posts from people wanting cleaners/decorators/builders who ‘won’t take your eyes out’ or whatever your local expression happens to be.

Regardless of our personal experience though, people who have degrees and whose children have them too, yet want to deny them to others must have a motive - what do you think it might be?

MaizieD

Excellent post at 10.00 Doodledog

I second that. DD is one of the most eloquent posters on GN.

... witness...

I do think that some of polities can be well-meaning but lose sight of what the real impact on those most affected by them will be.

I could not (and did not!) have said it more succinctly...

Yes I agreed with many of doodledogs points. I think for me it is often the approach to cultural issues from 'my side' that makes me think well these are no longer my values.
One example would be the current debate on social media around abortion. I am pro choice and always have been, but I am watching my side in this debate with utter horror ( and yes I know social media often magnifies the extremes of belief) . The debate is around disability and abortion and the way the pro choice side ( the progressives/left) are describing people with disabilities makes me view them as empty of empathy, souless, call it what you will. To contradict myself the 'left' frequently follow the be kind mantra without any thought of what that means for people less privileged than themselves. People may have a different view of immigration if they live next to an asylum hostel rather than the middle class interest of being able to eat a range of food from different cultures!
If you are working 50 hours plus in a care home or sweeping the streets it might be quite tricky to have empathy with those claiming benefits ( you will see that every day in your life whereas those multi million pound companies/ individuals who don't pay enough tax will be completely remote).
If you want to fly a flag outside your house you might feel a little upset to be called a bigot when others can raise them outside churches, at national events, etc.
I think the orthodoxy you talk about doodledog covers many subjects not just benefits.

Very insightful, Galaxy.

Abaolutely.
I totally agree.

Would have been better without the insane use if brackets

Of.

Didn't notice them.

"The debate is around disability and abortion and the way the pro choice side ( the progressives/left) are describing people with disabilities makes me view them as empty of empathy, souless, call it what you will"

Sorry I'm genuinely not aware what is being said by pro choice on people with disabilities but it feels very concerning, what is it?

It is a 'twitter storm' Wyllow which isnt the best place for nuance and a lot of it is from an American viewpoint but basically an ' influencer' posted their decision to abort their pregnancy following a down syndrome diagnosis. There then followed online debate between the pro choice and pro life groupings. I can't tell you how dehumanising the statements were from many of the pro choice group about people with down syndrome.
So I suppose what I am trying to say is amongst the orthodoxy of 'a woman s right to choose' it might be possible to think of the implications that has for those with down syndrome for example ( Iceland has pretty much removed down syndrome from its population ).
I realise this is far removed from the Makerfield Reform candidate.