Ed Milliband promotes living wage as labours next big thing

Graham_Devon

Ed Milliband is promoting the living wage, at £7.20 an hour outside of London and £8.30 an hour inside London as the parties next big policy to go into the next election with.

However, it's not mandatory.

It won't replace the national minimum wage, however, they state the government will discriminate against companies, by only offering government contracts to those paying a living wage.

I'm assuming, therefore, that ALL public sector workers will be switched to a living wage under labour...and I'm not sure how this is going to be paid for, and neither are labour it seems.

So....can it be done? It's obviously beneficial to most if it can be...I'm just not sure it's viable. Also put's quite a lrage margin between London and the rest of the UK again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20202005

N1AK

I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that they don't know how to fund it for state employees. They are already making big cuts in many councils and requiring them to increase wages without added funding will just mean fewer people working.

I still find the idea of a two band system very odd for the living wage. Costs in Oxford are far closer to London than in Sunderland for example. Additionally £0.1 less than living wage with decent benefits, pension etc would be considerably better than living wage with nothing extra.

All that said I think there is an argument to be made for increasing the minimum wage over the medium term but only if it is combined with a benefit system that rewards people for getting into jobs/better jobs.

PaulF81

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Is he mad?

Loughton_Monkey

This is just massive and unacceptable hikes in the Minimum Wage by the back door.

One has to question the mathematics of that Newcastle cleaner who thinks Living Wage means she's £70 a week better off. £70 is £87.50 before tax. At (£7.20 less £6.19) that means she works 86.6 hours a week! Even at Eddies 'proposal' of £7.45, that's £1.26 an hour or 69.4 hours!

Perhaps she gets paid 'cash in hand'.

antrobus

Saw Rachel Reeves being made to look a right fool on breakfast tv trying to explain this nonsense.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So....can it be done? It's obviously beneficial to most if it can be...I'm just not sure it's viable. Also put's quite a lrage margin between London and the rest of the UK again.

There may be an offsetting effect in that entitlement to benefits could be reduced but on the whole I can't see the benefit.

Sounds like a good way to reward people for having no qualifications or skills.

Wookster

Labour making the UK yet more competitive ... Again.

Fella

antrobus wrote: »

Saw Rachel Reeves being made to look a right fool on breakfast tv trying to explain this nonsense.

She is stunningly stupid, I'm not sure she's ever opened her mouth without embarrassing herself.

CLAPTON

personally I think everyone should be paid at least the average wage.

PaulF81

i think wallace should plan to stay in opposition.

statement to placate the unions would be my guess. likelihood of this happening! nil. the fact they are planning to name and shame those businesses that dont comply. might as well be shamed as it will he the only way to stay in business unless you are a bank.

MacMickster

CLAPTON wrote: »

personally I think everyone should be paid at least the average wage.

Surely with an aspiration to eventually pay everyone 5% more than the average wage, once 102% of school leavers achieve at least a C grade in maths.