The "record high wages" for civil servants were mainly regaining the
losses from the Thatcher years (i.e., for anyone below the top tiers,
the upper levels didn't suffer but they too had the "Blair boost").
This was necessary as those cuts did more harm than good to the system.
The "record high wages" for the middle class were clawed back (with
interest) by a succession of stealth taxes - unless you could afford
a good accountant to take advantage of the same sort of weasel breaks
that the Tory chancellors also excelled in generating. Fairness?
The old "tax the lowest earners" bracket still exists last I looked.
Good Labour principles? Maybe not.
I don't remember the "growth in wealth among the bottom two quintiles"
being more than that for the top ... it might have been but I thought
that it was simply "in line" with the average across the nation.
Even so, this appears to be simply a continuation of the trend that
has been in place since 1981:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285Maybe not, maybe I'm just not looking at the correct angle.
The rampant cronyism so beloved of the Old School Tories is alive
and well with Tony's Boys - and is set to get even better when they
abolish the House of Lords without actually agreeing upon a democratic
replacement ... damn, just have to nominate people himself then ...
like he's been doing for a few years now ...
As for unemployment, that's an interesting one.
Unemployment in November was only 1.48 million (5% of the workforce,
not bad really) but the government measure it as 926,900 (the lowest
since 1975). Let's just forget that manufacturing jobs fell by 3.3%
or 121,000 (September) and although the overall unemployment trend is
still downwards, the CBI predicted that UK manufacturing will lose
another 36,000 jobs by the end of the year. (Source: BBC)
The "employment rate" for people of working age was actually 74.6%.
Hmmm ... but the "unemployment rate" was 5% ... lies, damn lies and
statistics ... the 5% figure is 1.48 million people but UKplc only
measure that as 926,900 people ... not only do we have a missing 20%
(from the difference between "employment" and "unemployment") but we
have a further shrinkage from 5% to 3% ... (I know some of the missing
ones but am keeping that out for now). (Source: ONS)
Ok, I was being intentionally awkward here: the internationally agreed
"unemployment rate" IS 25.4% but the government only consider the
"claimant rate" - specifically "Jobseeker's allowance" claimants.
Hey, Old Maggie's crew were great with stats, everyone does it, right?
Wrong. The reason Tony was elected was to get rid of the corruption,
to reduce the imbalance between rich and poor, to invest in the country,
to stop hiding behind the bullshit, to act rather than talk.
Unfortunately his actions have been hypocritical, corrupt, totally
spin-doctored and self-serving - hence my original comments.
Here's to Tony boy doing his one act for England ...
Nihil