In City Hall
7/12/11 10:53![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWell, it may be a relatively small place, but the UK still has a bigger impact on the world that its coastline has on the world map. And London is still the powerhouse behind one of the world's largest economies. But can it stay in the top 5, or even the top 10 in the next decade? Boris Johnson, the Mayor, would like to think so.
In the last 3 years, Boris has seen some amazing results. They may not be good, but they are amazing...
In the last 3 years, the number of staff on 10 times the Living Wage (a minimum wage enforced by law) has gone up 56% under Boris's administration in London.
In City Hall itself, those on an annual salary of £100k+ has gone up from 16 to 28 people.
Clearly, some Londoners are not doing so badly under Boris, even in these difficult economic times.
There seems to be a matter of debate in the country though about the idea of a Living Wage, or a Minimum Wage - isn't it all about economics and what we can afford?
I would argue that, just as Boris needs high flying lieutenants to run stuff as diverse as housing, education and police departments, he also needs people able and willing to rise early or work late into the night and even through the night delivering everything from the mail to healthcare - and even the unskilled minions who toil to keep the city running are an indispensable part of the team.
Key workers coming into the police , healthcare and teaching are having a job to get onto the property ladder, and London will lose the lead it has unless these services are maintained.
Rather than taking money from the people at the top, it should be a matter of concern that those at the bottom of the pay scale should not get left behind.Let Boris pay his top people who he likes, so long as the workers who deliver the goods and services that create the wealth get at least 10% of the highest earners pay seems a fair way to go.
In the last 3 years, Boris has seen some amazing results. They may not be good, but they are amazing...
In the last 3 years, the number of staff on 10 times the Living Wage (a minimum wage enforced by law) has gone up 56% under Boris's administration in London.
In City Hall itself, those on an annual salary of £100k+ has gone up from 16 to 28 people.
Clearly, some Londoners are not doing so badly under Boris, even in these difficult economic times.
There seems to be a matter of debate in the country though about the idea of a Living Wage, or a Minimum Wage - isn't it all about economics and what we can afford?
I would argue that, just as Boris needs high flying lieutenants to run stuff as diverse as housing, education and police departments, he also needs people able and willing to rise early or work late into the night and even through the night delivering everything from the mail to healthcare - and even the unskilled minions who toil to keep the city running are an indispensable part of the team.
Key workers coming into the police , healthcare and teaching are having a job to get onto the property ladder, and London will lose the lead it has unless these services are maintained.
Rather than taking money from the people at the top, it should be a matter of concern that those at the bottom of the pay scale should not get left behind.Let Boris pay his top people who he likes, so long as the workers who deliver the goods and services that create the wealth get at least 10% of the highest earners pay seems a fair way to go.
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/11 11:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/11 14:46 (UTC)British waistlines...
Date: 7/12/11 17:33 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 7/12/11 23:32 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 16:28 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 16:31 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 17:50 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 17:51 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 17:58 (UTC)Re: British waistlines...
Date: 8/12/11 18:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/11 11:58 (UTC)Here in America...
Date: 7/12/11 17:36 (UTC)