The Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs believes it's the way forward.
It's not naming and shaming, not according to him, anyway?

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2346714/Why-Osborne-publish-names-benefits-claimant--pay-An-incendiary-idea-save-500m-A-DAY-welfare-bill.html[/url

Mark Littlewood, Director General of The Institute of Economic Affairs, or as he will forthwith be referred to for the rest of time "A Fookin Idiot".

And this is where I do something that I never thought I would, I feel pity for George Osborne, for George Osborne has to answer to these sort of people every day - when I was younger I genuinely thought that Chancellors like Anthony Barber were very clever accountants who actually handled the day to day job of running the finances of a whole country, a bit like a Financial Directors job, but on a huge scale - of course we all realise now that the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is just a figurehead, a pretty-boy face to offer to the public, indeed the office of Prime Minister is much the same, someone to wheel out when waving on the doorstep or shaking hands with foreigner figureheads is needed - the real work of running the finances and other political strategy is done by committee, mouthpieces and pressure groups - usually the ones who contribute most to the party in power.

Poor old George Osborne has to sit and read and sit and listen to idiots like Mark Littlewood every day of the week whilst at the same time thinking "You're a fookin idiot pal, but I can't say that to your face so how do I shake your hand and get you out of my office without you knowing that I know you're a fookin idiot?"

If the likes of Mark Littlewood weren't actually so influential then you could have a good laugh about it.

I have an alternative idea: why not publish the names and profits of all the private landlords who are the real reason the housing benefit bill is so high, with over 80% of all those claiming housing benefit being in work.

While we're at it, let's publish the names of every company that profits from paying at least some of its workers so little that they need in-work benefits to survive.

After all Boycott Workfare supporters and UK Uncut are far too reasonable to start taking up pitchforks and burning torches and assaulting imagined benefit cheats. They are generous and fair-minded people

Yep, and adding to that, a government set minimum wage, which has never risen above poverty pay (therefore benefit assisted) has ultimately been the failure of the left, and sadly not a success story as many would claim.

Worth noting that there are suggestions that this government will move to scrap it altogether.

Aye, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep it, as many fought to have it installed.
I think you understand my thinking though Minty.

Well either the DM site has been trolled or even the rabid DMites think its a step too far. The comments are mostly against the suggestion.

Oh, I do entirely.

And yes, it's far too low – given all those other factors.

As only a slight aside, you really would think that the recent hand-wringing over the continued levels of inflation (the reported stuff), together with the continued downward pressure, would have provoked a general admission and acceptance that wages are not the cause, per se, of inflation.

Before that admission is made there should be an admission by "economists" and "financial planners" and "political advisers" from all over the world that, actually, not only do wage levels not affect inflation, but that no-one in the whole world actually understands how any of this works, no one.

Its why, when they give you financial advice, they are very careful to tell you that "THIS can happen" but also and at the same time "THAT can happen", its a bit like asking a tipster for advice on which horse to back in any given race and he tells you to back them all, just in case.

True.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/21/tory-mps-ban-burka-death-penalty-queens-speech_n_3477168.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

In case there is any doubt, the wishlist above is from a gaggle of Tory MP's, not the shadowy figures in the background who actually do all of the guiding and pushing, but random right-wing nutters who for some reason or another convinced enough people in their constituency to vote for them - poor old George and David have to listen to them every day too.

So virtually every company in the UK!!

Are you suggesting increasing the minimum wage but keeping employers NI at the current level or Increasing minimum wage and lowering employers NI?

Put the human into it and anything can happen. The perfect market doesn't exist but the drivers of inflation are well known one of which is good old supply and demand

I'm suggesting we pay them an adequate wage that take's away the need for any benefit top-ups.
Or should we scrap it altogether , let employers pay their staff three quid an hour and cut a single persons Jobseekers Allowance to forty quid a week so that they'll be happy and grateful to go out and take any sort of work.
Wad'ya think?

Let's see if you can manage a straight answer for once.

Hundreds of thousands of working people are in receipt of benefits because the wages that they are paid do not even cover their basic living needs – not least, accommodation.

In other words, their employers do not pay them enough to live.

1) do you consider this acceptable? If so, why?

2) If you think that something is wrong with this situation, what would you actually propose doing about it?

<poof> and he's gone again.

Not to keen on these straight questions is he...

Which isn't what they tell you to your face when they sell you their "investments".

"Hey, give us all of your money and anything could happen", not compelling really is it ?

I wouldn't say "every" but, yes, most of them.

And it's economic madness.
If you give more money to those who already have lots of money, they will either save it (benefitting the domestic economy hardly at all) or invest it overseas (benefitting the domestic economy hardly at all).
They won't spend much more than they were already spending.

If you gave that money to those who have too llittle money, they spend it, benefitting the domestic economy.

Basically, if you have poor people making stuff for rich people and you keep the poor people's income low, you are restricting the market and creating (as we have) a depressed equilibrium of underemployment showing no signs of getting better and plenty of signs of getting worse.

An excellent summary.

And a rather good summary on Youtube too, simply type

PEOPLES ASSEMBLY MARK STEEL


In which he explains why poor people are to blame for everything.

Strange just how little publicity Saturday's Peoples' Assembly attracted. I would've thought BBC would have been showing it on the Parliament Channel

You're more naive than I thought, then.

It'll probably pop up in a drama or sitcom, that seems to be the way the beeb is going.

The only criticism you'll find of changes to the NHS are buried in scripts of Holby City and Casualty episodes