After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596

After the chancellor's plans I nearly gave up then noticed this interesting set of maps and again felt proud of what we have struggled for: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596

The minimum wage graph is wrong and also misleading anyway.

At today's exchange rates $10.00 = £6.53.

Minimum wage is £6.31 and that is for 21 years and older.

18-20 is £5.03 and under 18 is £3.72.

So at best we are "light blue" but considering the graphs relate to children's chances it's rather disingenuous to base it on the over 21 adult wage.

Makes you wonder what else slipped through...

Take a look at the map for ethnic discrimination in the workplace.

Ireland is shown as having no laws to counter it. Something I find difficult to believe

This map clearly shows that the UK is antiquated and out of touch in its levels of social protection and is lagging well behind the fast developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America that have deregulated maternity leave, minimum wages etc and as a result their economies are thriving.

The question is if the Conservatives win in 2015 will they be able to make significant inroads in modernising the UK's social protection to bring us in line with the fast growing developing world?

That's what JP Morgan (and others, in all probability) will be hoping, as Cod'ead pointed out the other day.

rlEmployment and social rights – an unfortunate consequence of the war and fascism. To be corrected soon?rl

Mind, UKIP would be in favour of that too. It's no wonder they say about policies on employment rights, say – rlthe party wants to scrap them all, along with equalities legislation.rl

Excuse my hollow laughter ... if the Conservatives win in 2015, you can say goodbye to the last vestiges of social protection.
That the chancer of the exchequer has wilfully ignored growth for three years when supposedly trying to get out of recession, tells you all you need to know ... increasing inequality on a Victorian scale is the target, and the economy can go hang providing that the masses are kept in their place.

I don't think that that's the aim, per se.

The ultimate aim is simply the enrichment of his class (including, these days, big business and finance). To that end, a compliant, fearful workforce is helpful. Inequality is more a byproduct – and one that they do not remotely care about. As for the economy as a whole, capitalism has always been short-sighted. This is no different – it's all about short-term power and money (see that JP Morgan stuff).

I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.
His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.

The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?
IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.

Back in the days of supposed "full employment" of the 50's, 60's and 70's, people were more difficult to subdue and pay rises were difficult to control ... inflation became the biggest bugbear for successive governments.
Business was desperate to take control and wanted a government that would allow capital to rule, would allow unemployment to rise and would make unemployment even harder to endure, thereby making the working population just glad to have a job.
In 1979, they got that government and we now see the continuation of that neolib drive.
To this government, people are merely machines to use and discard and never mind the human cost.

Yet still the myth of the classless society persists.

We are pretty much back in the 20's and 30's and heading rapidly for the 1800's.

We're all in it together was the phrase a few years ago from Osborne ( IIRC ) but it's a big, fat lie.

Completely agree. Although on the 'where we're headed', I do sometimes wonder if it isn't something more akin to 1933.

He managed to slip it in to his speech yesterday

Well, we all have a £4m trust fund like his don't we?

No. It tells us he does not control our economy. Or at least not in the same way the Disraeli government controlled the economy a century or so ago.

Britain is a client state. Not like Nigeria or Jamaica but our relationship to the United States bears a striking resemblance to the one which existed between the Greek territories and the Roman Empire.

Yes, we have a certain degree of freedom to allocate funding. But we DO NOT have the freedom to deviate in any substantial way from the neo-liberal economic framework, nationalise or subsidize industries, plough huge sums into public spending, raise trade tarriffs etc. without attracting the ire of Washington.

The last European nation which attempted to exercise such freedom was Yugoslavia. This government, like every government within the EU (and beyond), is only too aware of this fact. Which is why, in countries like Greece and Cyprus, they have steadfastly refused to bow to public pressure (to the point where they have rendered themselves unelectable for a century) and kick out the IMF. Crippling debt is one thing. Being crippled by the mob boss and his squadron of B2 stealth bombers is something else entirely.

I should clarify the above by saying whilst the US currently sets the global economic agenda (and punishes transgressors) - it increasingly does so in the service of big business. Which means all but the top 1% of Americans are being squeezed much in the same way we are. Of course, Obama isn't in the same position as Cameron. But he takes his orders nontheless - and the power of his office diminishes as each new incumbent arrives.

The truth is we are now in the penultimate stages of a radical overhaul of the global economy (created in response to the threat of democratic reform at the end of the sixties) which will render the traditional concepts of nation state, sovereign rights etc., redundant in all but name. Whilst the Guardianistas and such congratulated themselves on their perspicacity big business pulled off a strategic blitzkrieg - effectively neutering the entire democratic process - on a global scale. From now on public policy will increasingly be a function of trans-national capital. If, by chance, we do stir ourselves to protest - what actions can our elected representatives take when exceeding their margin for free action attracts greater retribution? And should we "protest" in those very ways which clawed from the cold dead hand of business an end to slavery, child labour, the creation of state benefits etc. - "our" government will be only too quick to make use of the millions we are currently investing in "counter-terror", "urban pacification" - not to mention the very same forms of electronic surveillance we are constantly assured are in our best interests.

The "End of History" indeed.