A lot of things change in 10 years

Who would have thought that New Labour would have been elected in 1997 promising no top up fees for students and then introduced them?

Who would have thought that New Labour would be the champion of nuclear power and nuclear weapons?

(Yes, I did read the manifesto commitments in the 1980s)

This is the good stuff that they should have been using but they didn't, and now it's too late. The voters don't believe in Gordon anymore.

I note John ' Up The Workers' Horam in that little list. A form of Reg Prentice without the publicity and egg throwing at Roy Jenkins, his political career must be second only to Oswald Mosley for its diversity and obvious personal and intellectual failure.

Those names say it all, whether it is voting against maternity/paternity leave, the minimum wage, the smoking ban, abortion, gay rights etc - this shows the Tories true colours - if only we can get this message through to the public.

You are aware of the intellectual argument against a minimum wage? That a vote against it is not necessarily an 'I hate the poor vote'?

Merely because people disagree with you, doesn't make them evil.

This is what Cameron says on the matter:

"Like the minimum wage.We'll keep it and, when we can, we'll increase it."

You can be sure that 'when we can' will not be often or significant. Its one thing to say they will keep it - but where is their commitment to keeping it meaningful.

What is shameful about voting against economic idiocy?

There shouldn't be a minimum wage.

If you think some people don't earn enough then fine, top up their wages through the tax or benefit system ,but there's no point in destroying jobs by having a minimum wage.

Oh no... not the old 'destroying jobs' argument. The Tories haven't used that since... oh, yes, equal pay for women...

Still, Tim, nice to see you think the State should tax people in order to subsidise employers paying poverty wages. I suppose you are almost certainly in favour of gender discrimination in wages too, because the State could always step in and make up women's wages if necessary.

As the Government own research shows, the NMW isn't well targetted at helping the poor as most poor people don't have jobs. And since nonemployment (those not in employment, education or training) of 16-24 year olds, those most likely to have applied for minimum wage jobs, is higher now than it was before the introduction of the NMW, the problem has got bigger.

Of course a minimum wage *can* destroy jobs - it's simply a matter of what level it's set at. And the difficulty with getting it right is the same as the difficulty in planning any other aspect of the economy - those whose job it is to do it don't often get it right.

And Bob - the state already taxes people in order to subsidise employers paying what they consider 'poverty wages' - that's what tax credits *are*.

Bob are you suggesting that a minimum wage doesnot destroy jobs ? How can you possibly think so ? As we move into recession it will be causing misery. It should be abolished together with tax at below about ?10,000.Surely you see that an increased price means less get bought ?

I think this comment is interesting ...

Those names say it all, whether it is voting against maternity/paternity leave, the minimum wage, the smoking ban, abortion, gay rights etc - this shows the Tories true colours - if only we can get this message through to the public.

The smoking ban is hated
Abortion is behind the public`s wish for control on both sides of the house actually
Gay rights ? Yes you do that
Paternity leave ? I `ll give you that but any more would be counter productive and anyway I have make up the work in my holiday

It is just staggering how out of touch the Labour Party have become. You know what non Labour voters think Bob and you must be aware that some of them have to vote for you if you are ever to win an election. What good does it do to keep parroting the old tax spend and meddle lines ?

I think the minimum wage was a huge leap forward, but it's incredibly petty to say someone that voted against it ten years ago "should hang their head in shame".
They didn't vote against it because they wanted to do a bad thing, but because there were credible arguments they believed in.
As it happens a minimum wage was still installed thanks to Labour and it has worked.
So, so what if they did vote against it, that was ten years ago, what matters now is that eveyone understands that it's a good thing.
It means the debate has moved on from whether minimum wage is right or not, to how it should be implemented.
The difference of opinion in this area between the three parties will now give us an improved version of the policy.
It would be very easy to criticise misjudgements from all major parties with ten years of hindsight.
We should be looking forward and judging the major parties on what they are proposing now.
If Labour MPs have to partake in this pettiness it means they are failing to communicate what they stand for now.
As a once Labour voter it pains me to say that, but it is defintely true.

It's funny that the 'credible arguments they believed in' always support whatever best serves the business interests. The argument that the minimum wage would destroy jobs was so weak that the Tories who parroted it were either 'too stupid or too wicked' for government.

The right-wing "libertarians" are talking total bollocks as usual.

Yes, it's imaginable that a high minimum wage could destroy jobs, but at the level of £5.52 this has not happened in reality.

There are also people who don't need the money urgently, such as students earning extra cash, semi-retired people who work a couple of days a week, women doing part-time jobs to supplement their husbands' income.

All of those groups might decide not to bother working if it isn't worth it, and they wouldn't go and toil for the kind of jobs that Tim Worstall is "offering" them. So in fact, abolishing the minimum wage may well reduce the number in employment. But you're not aware of that, because you inhabit a libertopia rather than the real world.

The tax credits fiasco came from a desire to make work pay. Yes, they should have done it by raising the threshold instead of redistributing money. And that's exactly why we shouldn't have to have people in low-paid jobs relying on benefits, as you explicitly want to.

This is why people don't, and never will, vote for "libertarian" parties.

For those who are concerned that employees get a fair day's/hours pay for a fair day's work it is important to be aware of those who voted against this in the past especially those who are still MPs shadow ministers and shadow cabinet members.

Not all of the Tory party are happy with what Cameron is doing -the 'traditionalists' in the party are keeping quiet because Cameron is riding high in the polls. Around this time last year they were calling for Cameron's resignation unhappy at the traditional agenda of tax cuts being sidelined in Cameron's 'modernisation' project.

These voices will still be there after Cameron gets elected.

How do those who reject the minimum wage suggest people who would now be paid £1.38 an hour could live?

Given that the % of people living in poverty since this legislation was passed has gone up Bob I'm not sure how wise it is to trumpet opposition to it as something to be ashamed of....

Even if I accepted that assumption Liam, and the further assumption that it was a figure based on those people in employment, perhaps you can explain for us how paying them less would have helped their position.

Then when you've done that you can 'trumpet' those people who opposed the minimum wage legislation.

perhaps you can explain for us how paying them less would have helped their position.

You have to stop taxing and perhaps assist but actually outlawuinbg employment is surely wrong

A great wheeze for getting away from the real issues though Bob which is as you know dear Gordon but a super post.

No, Bob, I don't agree. Far too many of these things are presented as if they were the responsibility of one person. We all do it though. Thatcher, for instance, wasn't 'to blame' for everything the Tories did. And Tony Blair couldn't have waged the war in Iraq, privatised public services... or introduced the National Minimum wage all on his own. There are hundreds of MPs who go along with these things, thousands of Party members who accept them, and millions of voters.

Collective responsibility can not be boiled down to a single individual and their personality.

Newmania, as so often, I'm sure you were making an important contribution... although what it was is a mystery.

I thought not

The assumption isn't there for you to accept or reject Bob - it's a matter or record and one that's exorcised many Labour supporting journalists, bloggers and union spokesman. The gap between rich and poor has increased under Labour and the number of people living at or below 60% of median earnings has increased.

When the minimum wage was passed most people, including many MPs and union members were outraged at how low the level was and have spent a decade arguing for a higher amount. It was a wonderful Blair / Brown wheeze to keep the core vote on side but then set the amount at a level that wouldn't have a tremendous impact on the job market - that was a tacit admission that the Tory cry of job losses was correct and Campbell admits as much in his diaries. As Newmania points out in the next 18months even that will unravel to some extent.

You're misrepresenting the views and ethics of those who voted against it Bob - they did so because they knew it wouldn't work in the sense that Labour envisaged and the worsening poverty stats prove that case. Labour appear to be clutching for some Dickensian Tory villians who wanted to pay people a pittance and were only interested in the rich when they KNOW that's a caricature.

Liam, the reason I said 'if I accept your assumptions' it is because I don't know where your statistics are from, and you don't supply a source here. You can do wonders with statistics, as we all know.

From what I recalled of the report by (I think) the Rowntree Foundation last year they showed the number of people living on low incomes below the 60% figure had fallen since 1997, and the numbers of children and pensioners living in poverty had also fallen over the decade.

You can ascribe whatever bleeding heart motives you want to those Tories listed above, but you are bloody delusional if you think they gave a twopenny toss about those living on low wages.

I'm glad you were able to interpret newmanias groping in the tea leaves. Very illuminating, (as usual).

It was the Rowntree report I was referring to and it illustrated a brief improvement in poverty post-1997 but an overall worsening since then.

I'm not ascribing any particular motives, good or ill, to those Tories because I think ascribing simplistic motives to any politicians on any issues is a dangerous and silly thing to do - the vast majority from all parties vote according to what they believe to be the best long-term interests of the greatest numbers. The only folks ascribing silly motives here are the Labour party website and you repeating it. Since most left-wing think-tanks have admitted there's some legitimacy to the Tory angle that minimum wage legislation isn't a long-term fix and the stats themselves back that up it might serve us all better to engage with that debate rather than parroting press releases from Labour HQ.

Sorry, Liam, but looking at the Rowntree figures, you are wrong. They show that in every year after the NMW the gap was reduced, with the exception of a couple of years 2005/6... and even then the percentages were better than 1997.

And by saying I am 'misrepresenting' Tory MPs you are clearly implying that the motives you ascribe to them (wrongly in my opinion) is in some way correct. So by the nature of your argument you are, in fact attributing motives to them.

So, the stats don't back up what you say, and frankly, I don't give a damn what 'think tanks' think about anything.

And again, if you think the Tories - the Party of the wealthy - vote in accord with what they think is in the best long term interests of the majority, why am I not surprised? Those who believed in the sole rule by a monarch, designated as such by God in accordance with their birthright, also did so in the belief that this was in the interests of the majority... or so they said. That is the principle that keeps the Pope in a job, and you can believe it if you wish, but I am entitled to believe you are not only over impressed with 'think tanks, but also delusional.

Conservative Government: John Major Prime Minster Year 1993 = Abolition of Wages Councils.

1999 - New Labour = Introduction of Minimum Wage.

Enough said.

Re: the stats-

After 1997 the % of people in 'poverty' (below 60% median household income) has decreased. However, the % in 'severe poverty' (below 40%) has increased. I'm using the Rowntree report. Given that a) the 60% and 40% definitions are arbitrary and b) tax credits tend to bump people just below the 60% line just above, it's clear poverty is in any meaningful sense a greater problem than it was in 1997.

The economics of a minimum wage are insanely simple. At the very bottom of the pay-scale are jobs that, as it were, are only just worth employers getting anyone to do. The moment you artificially force those employers to pay more than they are willing, it is no longer worth paying anyone to do the job. Simple as that. Poof- a job goes out the window. I'm in South Africa at the moment, and poverty and unemployment are infinitely greater problems than they are at home. So, it kills me all the more when people here speak of minimum wages. I know several people who have cut down on employing a gardener or maid, or decided not to employ one they would have otherwise, because the minimum wage would mean they couldn't afford it. It hurts those who lose or don't get jobs more than anyone else. Minimum wages sound great, and they're nice for those with jobs. But get real, they hurt those who are alredy hurting the most.

On another note.. Of course there is the odd tory loon who is just out to protect big business, just as there is the odd labour loon who wants to destroy all private enterprise. But it's no good harping on about either party being simply 'about' what only a fringe would like to indulge in. I'm a tory, and I cannot think of a single tory friend who is one for the sake of big business, or who would oppose the NMW on the basis of mysterious vested interests. I though cuddly lefties didn't do generalisations!

Congrats on the blog award.

James, the South African argument was a good one for maintaining apartheid (and slavery, actually) but that might be seen to imply the white South Africans were racist and as a cuddly left person I wouldn't want to generalise. You would also have to ask why there are more people in employment in Britain than at any time in our history. Of course, the population is bigger, but if the NMW was killing jobs how did we continue to attract overseas investment in the UK and create more jobs?

If you can extrapolate about the Tories from the few you have met... why can't I?

Oh, and thanks!

If the minimum wage is so terrible and the arguments for it flaky or economically unsound why are the Tories now saying they will keep it.

There well may be a fine balance to be got with it so that it doesn't disincentivise employment. That's why the other part of any economic policy must be growth so that new jobs are created. Labour have done well on this as well.

Also another of Labour's policies is raising the skill base of the workforce, hence proposals to ensure all young people 16-18 are either in education or employment with a training or education component. This is to create and attract higher value jobs in the economy.

Taken together these policies attracting higher skill jobs while protecting those at the bottom is a coherent vision.

the other thing about the minimum wage is that for those jobs which really have to be done it prevents employers grinding down wages at a time of high unemployment. Additionally putting more money in people's pocket creates demand and therefore jobs. Paying people a pittance is short-sighted and short-termist.

Steph I think you raise a good point. If the Tories voted against it because they thought it would lead to a loss of jobs, and some in this thread have argued that it has, why is that hard hearted bastard David Cameron not saying he would repeal it and create all those extra employment opportunities?

Bob Piper:David Cameron not saying he would repeal it and create all those extra employment opportunities?
He needs those jobs for the folk claiming benefits.

Mike... so, do I read you correctly? Cameron is going to create those extra jobs by repealing the National Minimum Wage?

Oh please, please, tell me it's true!

Bob, my reference to current-day SA has absolutely nothing to do with justifications for an unjustifiable apartheid. Don't try to play the racist card for goodness sake. The point is simply that the South African job-market/ unemployment situation offers an extreme example of how NMWs can do serious damage to those in greatest need.

I'm not extrapolating out to the whole lot of tories, honest!

You say we've got more jobs, as if there's no good reason to want more. Come on Bob! The whole point is there would be more jobs, right now, if there weren't a NMW. Things could be even better! Are you saying you wouldn't like more jobs? That the current level of unemployment is fine, thanks very much?

Steph and Bob, I don't (obviously) have some deep personal insight into CCHQ, but the fact is that people almost invariably respond emotionally to arguments about minimum wages. If the tories said they'd abolish it, there would be the most fantastic uproar, even if it were (as I would argue) misguided. Presumably they have calculated that as long as the minimum wage stays low, and is not raised much (if at all) it would not be doing enough damage to the job market for it to be worth the huge grief involved in getting rid of it.

and you're welcome!

Just another example of Cameron not having the courage of his convictions, I suppose. Why am I not surprised?

So James, Cameron is keeping the minimum wage for opportunist reasons? But as I said the extra money in people's pockets creates demand and therefore jobs -this feature compensates for jobs that might be lost due to the effect you describe.

If the minimum wage was abolished and wages fell again to such low levels how do you suppose people will be able to live?

Inequality would be staggering and that's not good for the health of a society.

Well that's an issue for Cameron not me, but compromises are inevitable in politics somewhere along the line. Were it a huge issue, I would be seriously unhappy with his line on it. Fact is, I think there are plenty of other larger issues that need tackling, and he hasn't got a hope of tackling them with people spitting with anger over NMW abolition. But I would say that, wouldn't I..

That's a false argument Steph- the money would be released into the economy anyway, but by the employer. We're not actually talking about the injection of more money (out of employers pockets), realistically it is (almost certainly) a reallocation. Furthermore, the reallocation is going to be economically inefficient, as it is based on non-market-originating legislation. So it's good for those who actually get minimum wage jobs, bad for the market, and bad for those who don't get jobs. Overall- smelly.

What if wages become terribly low? Again, you are missing the point that people are missing out on jobs so that others can feel all happy with their 'decent' wage. Ask the unemployed people whether they'd rather have work at a wage lower than current NMW or no work at all. Something tells me they'd quite like some work. Again, NMW favours the lucky employed over the unemployed. Maybe it'd help if we had a government that didn't tax people who are by its own definition in poverty!

Inequality is awful for society, of course I agree. The point is that minimum wages do not actually help minimise it, for all the reasons above. Those at the bottom are left in unemployment, and just shift further behind. I've already mentioned it, but numbers of those in 'severe poverty' are up over the last ten years. The NMW must, in part, be to blame.

Things might be better for the Common man if the Country didn't waste £200 Billion per annum of our Money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1982990/andpound100bn-a-year-spent-on-quangos.html
http://tpa.typepad.com/bettergovernment/files/080515_structure_of_government_1_unseen_government_immediate_release.pdf

If we didn't give the EU £20 Billion Net Per annum (that has not had its accounts sighned off for 13 yrs and where 85% of its Budget is unnacounted for )
http://www.brugesgroup.com

If we weren't involved in two illegal wars where Blair Knew 'the evidence was being fitted to the Policy of Getting us into Iraq'.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/rclark23/1E8F485B900C44498E90AD06E7088446/-war-criminal-ex-mi6-head-dea.aspx

Also, I have to question the way the Govt raises money, rather than simply coin it into existance, it issues Gilts, which carry an Interest Penalty, these are snapped up by the International Banking system.
If the Govt simply printed the Money it required, there would be no interest due, saving this country a further £20 Billion per annum in interest payments on these Gilts.

There, I've just saved the country £150 - £200 Billion Billion Per annum
which by my reckoning is at least £500 Pounds per month per family in the UK.

Get your hands out of our Pockets.

We could debate the theoretical pros and cons (take monopsony for example, where employers are able to pay less than the market rate in wages) of NMW all day but a carefully designed minimum wage structure provides all the benefits with negligable negatives.

The weight of the evidence on the implementation of the NMW in the uk is that it has not had the unemployment effects its detractors suggested it would while helping the low paid workers.

Indeed, we could go around the proverbial mulberry bush, and a few others besides!

As to what says the 'weight of evidence', that would be where we differ. I'd be delighted to come across any such weight, should you point me in its direction. Inevitably, I don't think it exists. With such an issue, furthermore, I very much doubt solid evidence can be offered either way.