Best Of

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

It’s a re-balancing of long term trends. “Overall, between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.” says https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay The 2010-9 period was even worse, with again public sector earnings falling in real terms.

No, it is a timing issue in the stats.

It also fails to take account of the total package.

Pay is a part of it.

As a whole public sector get better pensions, holidays, increments and pay offs than the private sector.

That needs factorinf too.

Explains why people are queuing up to get into the public sector.

Oh...

I don’t know what your snide dig is about, but you keep doing what you do best, but my point is perfectly valid. It is a package that is offered not just wages.

Something the debate misses.

You make a valid point, and we do have to bear it in mind. My daughter gets 5 more days' leave than I get, and additional flexi-days that I don't get, and perhaps a better % of pension (though not as good for recent starters as it used to be and the Telegraph/Mail like to pretend still is). We might all value those differently, but her view is that she'd rather have the extra £10k or so now that a private sector equivalent job might pay. Personally I would probably be happy enough to work in the Civil Service if the headline salary was 10-15% lower. The problem is, in my field, it's more like 30%, perhaps more.

Another thing to note from the discussion is how easily people accept stats that are fairly obviously misleading if they fit their preconceived direction of travel. We can all be guilty of that so should remember to apply the equivalent of caveat emptor when requoting stuff.

I used to know a (Danish) supreme court judge who deliberately read a newspaper that he disagreed with, so as to combat his instinctive biases. I've tried it and it's quite difficult - you stumble over the alien assumptions rather than just get a balanced overall view. I really liked the idea of the Independent, but it hasn't worked out - just a vaguely centrist but government-criticial paper.

Is that the online only Independent or the i Nick? Note that the i is now owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.

I'd missed that! I meant the Independent, then. Like many people I've stopped reading any physical newspaper, to the point that I scratch my head when looking for something to pad a Christmas parcel.

On another subject, I've now fully retired, after AI largely destroyed the lucrative translation business, and wondering what to recommend teenage relatives to study that won't suffer the same fate in 10-20 years. Should they take up a trade involving handwork? Default seems to be to take something vague like psychology on the basis that there will be jobs in that general space. I notice that several universities have stopped offering language degrees...

Reading populist entertainment papers is is fairly normal I think for those who need to be in touch. There are numbers of vicars, for example, who read the Sun or the Mail.

Surely politicians do likewise?

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

What public sector wage settlements between August and October are those? I don't recall any.

NHS medical staff got 4% this year and non-medical staff 3.6%. It was backdated to April but paid in August, so is that where the 7.6% comes from?

I honestly don't know. I don't know anyone getting 7.6%, let alone figures that make that an average. But this is from the BBC so I presume it is official statistics.

Reporters really should pick this up and go back to the source (which took me all of 30sec).

.... However, the public sector annual growth rate is affected by some public sector pay rises being paid earlier in 2025 than in 2024. RTI pay data are also published and provide a provisional, timelier estimate of median pay. The two data sources generally trend well for mean total pay...

So something of a statistical artifact from annualising quarterly pay numbers, which shot up compared with the prior year's quarter, because the early pay awards this year simply weren't in the numbers last year.

There ought to be a corresponding drop in the next quarter, I think ?

Lies, dammed lies and statistics comes to mind but you start to see where the extra tax income generated at the budget is going.

The majority of that additional tax is going to fiscal headroom, which is something to be encouraged imo - would have been tempting to spend it.

About 10% in going on two-child limit, then you've got additional funding for SEND, NHS drugs, asylum system, cuts to energy bills. The public sector wage increases were in the last budget.

OT rant about government meetings. I've been sent this email for a Teams call:-

Please join the meeting 5 minutes before your allocated time of 11:15 by clicking on the link.
...
Join the meeting 10 minutes before your allocated time by clicking on the link. It is important that you are ready and join on time.

So in the course of a paragraph, they want me to join at 11.15, 11.10 and 11.05. This automatically generated nonsense must have been sent out for months if not decades with no civil servant bothering to read it.

How much deadweight unproductive time is accounted for by those 10 minutes wasted? People should join meeting on time, keep to the agenda and leave promptly

Er, this is an *online* meeting. JUst make sure it's all set up at 1105, in case of e-hiccups, and then get on with one's desk work till 1115. Makes sense to me.

Yep I agree. Although I don't work now I attend meetings for campaigns I am involved in. It is pretty normal for key person to have problems logging in or microphone not working, or feedback etc and this has to be sorted before the meeting can start and if you have a tight slot you have lost meeting time. Log in 5 - 10 min early. get it all set up, mute and carry on with whatever you were doing. In my case going to the loo and making tea. Start promptly and then no time is wasted. How many of us have been involved in meetings that don't start on time because of issues?

Good morning

Poor economic news this morning but absolutely no surprise

Handing huge public sector pay rises whilst at the same time clobbering business with additional taxes and awarding massive increases in the minimum wage to young workers results in devastating employment and prospects especially for the young

Why would any business employ young workers when they can, for the same wage engage mature and experience staff

Labour often talk about Truss, but Starmer and Reeves have done far more long term damage to the economy and it will be very difficult to reverse

Add in the workers rights bill and the country can now see why ''Labour is not working'

The workers rights bill has largely been fixed. 6 months before full rights kick in is fine. Day 1 was worse than 2 years, but 6 months is better than both.

As a small employer I'm comfortable with 6 months.

My beef is with the general disconnect between what Labour says and what Labour does. This is not a pro-business pro-growth government.

(But it's better than the currently available alternatives, whether from Labour back benches or reform)

The government is terrible at communications, merely bad at doing stuff. And yes, remarkably, still clearly better than the likely alternatives.

Another thing to note from the discussion is how easily people accept stats that are fairly obviously misleading if they fit their preconceived direction of travel. We can all be guilty of that so should remember to apply the equivalent of caveat emptor when requoting stuff.

I used to know a (Danish) supreme court judge who deliberately read a newspaper that he disagreed with, so as to combat his instinctive biases. I've tried it and it's quite difficult - you stumble over the alien assumptions rather than just get a balanced overall view. I really liked the idea of the Independent, but it hasn't worked out - just a vaguely centrist but government-criticial paper.

Is that the online only Independent or the i Nick? Note that the i is now owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.

I'd missed that! I meant the Independent, then. Like many people I've stopped reading any physical newspaper, to the point that I scratch my head when looking for something to pad a Christmas parcel.

On another subject, I've now fully retired, after AI largely destroyed the lucrative translation business, and wondering what to recommend teenage relatives to study that won't suffer the same fate in 10-20 years. Should they take up a trade involving handwork? Default seems to be to take something vague like psychology on the basis that there will be jobs in that general space. I notice that several universities have stopped offering language degrees...

I reckon undertaking will not be greatly impacted by AI. Aging population, lots of work...

Assassin?

Postman/Assassin?

“Bastard AI drones have taken both my jobs.”