£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
On pay, people earn plenty more in the private sector for the same job in the smoke. I mean my better half has been approached by some London banks with I think ~ 40% over and above what she's earning at the moment but it's not worth moving with the lack of 100% wfh with the little one, and our life in general. What's the pay difference like atm for the public sector - there must be SOME London weighting ?
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
I think there's some truth in that. The public are very willing to believe that there is a lot of money wasted in the public sector. No politician has ever suffered by promising to spend money or cut taxes by cutting waste in the public sector.
And it's a less scary way for most voters to find the money that her previous idea, of simply borrowing it, was.
If it were original, perhaps.
But 'efficiency cuts' is such a hackneyed trope that I doubt very many will be taken in - and fewer still if the next election is in two years' time.
The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?
Yep. Pick the highest plausibly correct number, without making a straight lie, and get your opponents talking about the number itself, rather than what it represents.
And when you pick a highly implausible number ?
And your opponents immediately start talking about what that might actually mean ? As we have.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
I think adherence to and practical support for meritocracy decreases significantly when people become parents and further as they become grandparents!
Which with our age driven politics does create a gap but not specifically driven by left v right.
Only if you think your offspring are useless, presumably. My kids are all pretty smart and so I would welcome a level playing field.
As a parent and grandparent I can assure you that one wishes to be proud of one's children's and grandchildren's achievements. And I am proud to say that I am, but fortunately in this context my children and grandchildren have so far sought academic excellence, although none of our children did so initially; they had experience of life and decided later to become more academic. Of course academic excellence is not the sole criterion for parental pride; our daughter spent a significant amount of her professional time on pro bono work.
Without external validation I find it very difficult to tell whether my children are clever or not. My 11 year old seems like a reasonably stupid human while all external feedback suggests he's a very bright 11 year old human.
At the family and friends bash for my son's 18th birthday one of my friends lamented that "those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are". I replied of course they would be; in 20 years time they would be holding down well-paid and highly thought of jobs. As indeed they were!
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared that people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
Muddling through is not likely to be political tactics or strategy in a high profile campaign.
A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.
We’ve been through this. What exactly is Sunak going to do that is “more interesting” than being a Cabinet Minister?
I get that he could earn more money outside politics, but he’s already worth £700m. I get that he could have more “fun” outwith the scrutiny, but he’s a teetotal, happily married Hindu
Being a Cabinet Minister is tough but fascinating work, where you wield real power. And there are lots of perks. And Sunak is quite good at it. Going off to work for HSBC or whatever would be thin gruel in comparison
I accept that if he’s demoted to backbench MP then he’d be off
The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?
I suppose I meant regional accent, or placeable accent
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
Problem with that argument is that I know nowhere in the public sector that doesn't have difficulty recruiting at the moment.
The reason why you don't see it is because they take on the best candidate who appears even if they are crap because the other options are worse....
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
We’ve already seen signs that Truss is going to have problems.
She’s announced a policy which doesn’t make any sense and will involve cutting the pay of basically everyone and she thinks two internets can operate in parallel.
Only two internets? Why, is she shutting down most of them?
There's a plethora of internets running in parallel. See: the 'dark web', Chinese version of the 'web' (good luck getting on a website critical of the CCCP there etc
On pay, people earn plenty more in the private sector for the same job in the smoke. I mean my better half has been approached by some London banks with I think ~ 40% over and above what she's earning at the moment but it's not worth moving with the lack of 100% wfh with the little one, and our life in general. What's the pay difference like atm for the public sector - there must be SOME London weighting ?
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared that people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."
Accent reduction tutorials are a real thing, at least in Plymouth
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."
I know it's difficult to hear your own accent, but I don't think Coventry has much of one. Leicester is also very very soft, whereas Brum is just as close and has a very distinct one.
A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.
We’ve been through this. What exactly is Sunak going to do that is “more interesting” than being a Cabinet Minister?
I get that he could earn more money outside politics, but he’s already worth £700m. I get that he could have more “fun” outwith the scrutiny, but he’s a teetotal, happily married Hindu
Being a Cabinet Minister is tough but fascinating work, where you wield real power. And there are lots of perks. And Sunak is quite good at it. Going off to work for HSBC or whatever would be thin gruel in comparison
I accept that if he’s demoted to backbench MP then he’d be off
Flipside is that he would be working under someone who he clearly doesn't respect much and to an agenda he doesn't particularly believe in. That rarely works well in any career.
I don't think it's good that most politicians reach a crest and then suddenly vanish; people like Clarke, Hague and Milliband are useful to have around. But I can understand why it happens.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
Also, Toby Young’s father
And Daniel Dunlop's grandson. (Which is important if you trace the link of wackiness down through Dartington and then read the meritocracy book very carefully).
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
Muddling through is not likely to be political tactics or strategy in a high profile campaign.
I wasn't suggesting 'muddling through'. The options are:
a) Normal campaign strategy that had an unexpected extra very successful bonus
OR
b) Very sneaky, well thought out, if we do this, then this might happen, and if it does then this might happen, which it did.
b) is either far fetched or very very clever (or spotted happening elsewhere).
Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
Problem with that argument is that I know nowhere in the public sector that doesn't have difficulty recruiting at the moment.
The reason why you don't see it is because they take on the best candidate who appears even if they are crap because the other options are worse....
So allow localised supply and demand to operate.
If that means that pay needs to rise by a small amount in one region, but much more in another region, then that is what should happen. Rather than 'meeting in the middle' so you get too high pay in one region, crowding out alternatives and harming the region, and too low pay in another, ending up with nothing but duds.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
Toby's pa.
I had to read this twice, having parsed it as "personal assistant" the first time
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itself
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."
I know it's difficult to hear your own accent, but I don't think Coventry has much of one. Leicester is also very very soft, whereas Brum is just as close and has a very distinct one.
However you speak, you use a certain set of pronunciations and that is your accent. It's just as much an accent as anyone else's accent. There is no "ideal English" that has no accent.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
As I said, national pay makes it incredibly clunky to do presently because it is so inflexible.
Localised pay would be able to be far more flexible and reactive.
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
@HYUFD assertion that good comprehensives are de facto Secondary Modern schools illustrates his woeful ignorance of the education system… one hopes that he has no responsibility for children's services in his council role…
Comprehensives that are not outstanding are little different to Secondary moderns yes
I don’t know where to start… have you compared their respective curricula?
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
As I said, national pay makes it incredibly clunky to do presently because it is so inflexible.
Localised pay would be able to be far more flexible and reactive.
But you've missed the point - even round here the national pay levels are so dire junior roles are hard to fill...
Senior ones are less so but that's because people are trading interesting work for less money...
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.
While there may seem to be money to save here - that money was already grabbed by Cameron and co between 2010 and 2015. public sector wages are way lower than they were in 2010...
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
Toby's pa.
I had to read this twice, having parsed it as "personal assistant" the first time
A man who was quite prepared to use his connections to get his son into a university for which he was not qualified!
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
That's interesting - I wouldn't regard meritocracy as inherently left-wing. Any more than I would think of paternalism / elitism as inherently of the right.
Two children of Michael Young are Toby Young and the Open University. Which highlight the cross-currents. Personally I view Thatcher as in some ways a meritocrat overthrowing several elitist establishments - one of the right, and another of the left. Others will differ.
To me one of the roots of the paternalistic left is Fabian, which had a good deal of input from enthusiasts for eugenics - very elitist and claiming the right to make judgements on others. Which have ironically been used in attempts to demonise Toby Young himself.
I'm far more comfortable with social reform programmes of the left underpinned by Christian Socialist values, and voluntarism as promoted by the likes of Lord Mawson in the Blair period - who cut his teeth at the Bromley by Bow Centre.
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.
All the more reason for localised pay rates then. Increase pay by enough to fill those roles, and only those roles.
And perhaps shortages for masses of new junior economists etc in Darlington may not be the same as every other sector. A whole new campus setting up there is unrepresentative of the economy as a whole, as qualified people haven't been heading to Darlington as a first thought in the past.
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.
That's interesting - I wouldn't regard meritocracy as inherently left-wing. Any more than I would think of paternalism / elitism as inherently of the right.
Two children of Michael Young are Toby Young and the Open University. Which highlight the cross-currents. Personally I view Thatcher as in some ways a meritocrat overthrowing several elitist establishments - one of the right, and another of the left. Others will differ.
To me the roots of the paternalistic left are Fabian, which had a good deal of input from enthusiasts for eugenics. Which have ironically been used in attempts to demonise Toby Young himself.
I'm far more comfortable with social reform programmes of the left underpinned by Christian Socialist values, and voluntarism as promoted by the likes of Lord Mawson in the Blair period - who cut his teeth at the Bromley by Bow Centre.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Not all schools are academies though, are they?
And indeed perhaps academies not being subject to national pay rates may have shown the existing national pay rates up which is why national pay rates are being changed? I don't know, just a thought.
If you're worried about an inability to fill vacancies that's all the more justification in local pay rates being more flexible until the vacancies are filled. Changing national pay rates is using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.
All the more reason for localised pay rates then. Increase pay by enough to fill those roles, and only those roles.
And perhaps shortages for masses of new junior economists etc in Darlington may not be the same as every other sector. A whole new campus setting up there is unrepresentative of the economy as a whole, as qualified people haven't been heading to Darlington as a first thought in the past.
That wasn't the jobs I was looking at or thinking of.
One department recently recruiting was the admin side of the sanctions regime.
When you pay less than Student Loans does you have a problem....
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Not all schools are academies though, are they?
And indeed perhaps academies not being subject to national pay rates may have shown the existing national pay rates up which is why national pay rates are being changed? I don't know, just a thought.
If you're worried about an inability to fill vacancies that's all the more justification in local pay rates being more flexible until the vacancies are filled. Changing national pay rates is using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
The Govt has increased new teacher pay by less than inflation. In other words, a real terms pay cut. They haven't cut new teacher pay as much as they're cutting older teacher pay. They've taken years to get even to this stage.
National pay rates and central bargaining give public sector workers a modicum of security in the face of politicised actions by Governments that have nothing to do with market forces. Public sector pay is politicised because it's public sector money. Local pay rates aren't going to change that. Governments will still want to cut taxes.
We’ve already seen signs that Truss is going to have problems.
She’s announced a policy which doesn’t make any sense and will involve cutting the pay of basically everyone and she thinks two internets can operate in parallel.
Not quite everyone. But levelling down the North and Midlands through regional wage cuts is a gift to Labour. Yes, she's going to have problems.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Yes and no.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
Pelosi’s plane taking a very circuitous route, avoiding flying in international waters as much as possible. She’s going to go all the way up the Philippines, maybe even with another tech stop, before jumping across to Taiwan.
So obviously this. It is Truss' first big error - will be an interesting test to see him long it takes to rectify. One day's bad press eminently survivable but letting it rumble. . . https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1554407911786438657
Has Liz Truss just committed the most epic act of political suicide since Keith Joseph advocated eugenics at the start of his leadership campaign against Ted Heath?
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.
Regional pay = T May care policy
My working assumption is that if Truss is making news, that's not good for her. She's ahead, she should be trying to avoid saying anything that might make people change their minds about her.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Yes and no.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.
Regional pay = T May care policy
My working assumption is that if Truss is making news, that's not good for her. She's ahead, she should be trying to avoid saying anything that might make people change their minds about her.
Aye, sadly I expect a u-turn or this to blow up her campaign, despite it being completely the right thing to do.
In my constituency we pay extra to attract NHS staff, despite having some of the lowest average wages in the UK. Regional pay would mean longer waiting lists for surgery, longer waits at A&E.... https://twitter.com/mattwarman/status/1554411065760432128
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
Lefty journalists try to stoke up tory division latest.
Its obvious who the left want to lead the tories and why.
Rayner: “If Liz Truss is handed the keys to Number 10, workers outside the M25 will see their pay levelled down as she kicks out the ladder. The Conservatives’ commitment to levelling up is dead on arrival with Lightweight Liz as Prime Minister." https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1554417218984747009
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.
While there may seem to be money to save here - that money was already grabbed by Cameron and co between 2010 and 2015. public sector wages are way lower than they were in 2010...
Afraid so. I’m currently looking at a new role because my pay is awful compared to the private sector. I think this is worse than pitched because living costs in some cities (like Bristol, Edinburgh, increasingly Manchester) are nearly as high as London but don’t command London rate as it is. Then comes the obvious question: Are you proposing to cut existing pay rates or skew pay rises towards London? Both have awful optics.
Badenoch had a much better right-wing message. Smaller state done and funded well. Not my political cup of tea but certainly more coherent.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Yes and no.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
Good luck running an English department or even the rest of the school as all the teachers head off to other schools paying the national rates..
I've seen that attempt play out once - the end result was special measures within a year...
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Whatevs
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?
I think adherence to and practical support for meritocracy decreases significantly when people become parents and further as they become grandparents!
Which with our age driven politics does create a gap but not specifically driven by left v right.
Only if you think your offspring are useless, presumably. My kids are all pretty smart and so I would welcome a level playing field.
As a parent and grandparent I can assure you that one wishes to be proud of one's children's and grandchildren's achievements. And I am proud to say that I am, but fortunately in this context my children and grandchildren have so far sought academic excellence, although none of our children did so initially; they had experience of life and decided later to become more academic. Of course academic excellence is not the sole criterion for parental pride; our daughter spent a significant amount of her professional time on pro bono work.
Without external validation I find it very difficult to tell whether my children are clever or not. My 11 year old seems like a reasonably stupid human while all external feedback suggests he's a very bright 11 year old human.
At the family and friends bash for my son's 18th birthday one of my friends lamented that "those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are". I replied of course they would be; in 20 years time they would be holding down well-paid and highly thought of jobs. As indeed they were!
"those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are"
They won't.
They will be better.
"I'll call my article," meditated the war correspondent, "'Mankind versus Ironmongery,' and quote the old boy at the beginning."
And he was much too good a journalist to spoil his contrast by remarking that the half-dozen comparatively slender young men in blue pajamas who were standing about their victorious land ironclad, drinking coffee and eating biscuits, had also in their eyes and carriage something not altogether degraded below the level of a man.
£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)
Yes and no.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
Good luck running an English department or even the rest of the school as all the teachers head off to other schools paying the national rates..
I've seen that attempt play out once - the end result was special measures within a year...
Which brings us back full circle to why there should not be national pay rates.
Of course you can't realistically undercut national pay rates if they exist.
All roads lead back to the same thing. If you want pay rates to react flexibly to fill vacancies, rather than being set by politics, then they need to be localised, even individualised. Collective bargaining prevents flexible pay rates.
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
Lefty journalists try to stoke up tory division latest.
Its obvious who the left want to lead the tories and why.
Comments
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
https://tinyurl.com/bdzb89v8
At ORR we have adopted hybrid working and we are currently expected to work from our designated office location a minimum of 2 days per week.
London: £42,668 - £46,500
Regional: £38,652- £44,000
But 'efficiency cuts' is such a hackneyed trope that I doubt very many will be taken in - and fewer still if the next election is in two years' time.
And your opponents immediately start talking about what that might actually mean ? As we have.
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
I replied of course they would be; in 20 years time they would be holding down well-paid and highly thought of jobs. As indeed they were!
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared that people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."
I get that he could earn more money outside politics, but he’s already worth £700m. I get that he could have more “fun” outwith the scrutiny, but he’s a teetotal, happily married Hindu
Being a Cabinet Minister is tough but fascinating work, where you wield real power. And there are lots of perks. And Sunak is quite good at it. Going off to work for HSBC or whatever would be thin gruel in comparison
I accept that if he’s demoted to backbench MP then he’d be off
I wonder if we'll see him get shorter. As it were.
The reason why you don't see it is because they take on the best candidate who appears even if they are crap because the other options are worse....
There's a plethora of internets running in parallel. See: the 'dark web', Chinese version of the 'web' (good luck getting on a website critical of the CCCP there etc
Those figures are worse than that but not out of the ordinary...
I don't think it's good that most politicians reach a crest and then suddenly vanish; people like Clarke, Hague and Milliband are useful to have around. But I can understand why it happens.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
a) Normal campaign strategy that had an unexpected extra very successful bonus
OR
b) Very sneaky, well thought out, if we do this, then this might happen, and if it does then this might happen, which it did.
b) is either far fetched or very very clever (or spotted happening elsewhere).
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554410176643489792
If that means that pay needs to rise by a small amount in one region, but much more in another region, then that is what should happen. Rather than 'meeting in the middle' so you get too high pay in one region, crowding out alternatives and harming the region, and too low pay in another, ending up with nothing but duds.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
His 14 million votes makes him the greatest political casanova we've ever had.
Localised pay would be able to be far more flexible and reactive.
Senior ones are less so but that's because people are trading interesting work for less money...
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
While there may seem to be money to save here - that money was already grabbed by Cameron and co between 2010 and 2015. public sector wages are way lower than they were in 2010...
Two children of Michael Young are Toby Young and the Open University. Which highlight the cross-currents. Personally I view Thatcher as in some ways a meritocrat overthrowing several elitist establishments - one of the right, and another of the left. Others will differ.
To me one of the roots of the paternalistic left is Fabian, which had a good deal of input from enthusiasts for eugenics - very elitist and claiming the right to make judgements on others. Which have ironically been used in attempts to demonise Toby Young himself.
I'm far more comfortable with social reform programmes of the left underpinned by Christian Socialist values, and voluntarism as promoted by the likes of Lord Mawson in the Blair period - who cut his teeth at the Bromley by Bow Centre.
And perhaps shortages for masses of new junior economists etc in Darlington may not be the same as every other sector. A whole new campus setting up there is unrepresentative of the economy as a whole, as qualified people haven't been heading to Darlington as a first thought in the past.
Regional pay = T May care policy
And indeed perhaps academies not being subject to national pay rates may have shown the existing national pay rates up which is why national pay rates are being changed? I don't know, just a thought.
If you're worried about an inability to fill vacancies that's all the more justification in local pay rates being more flexible until the vacancies are filled. Changing national pay rates is using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.
One department recently recruiting was the admin side of the sanctions regime.
When you pay less than Student Loans does you have a problem....
National pay rates and central bargaining give public sector workers a modicum of security in the face of politicised actions by Governments that have nothing to do with market forces. Public sector pay is politicised because it's public sector money. Local pay rates aren't going to change that. Governments will still want to cut taxes.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
Liz Truss’s plans to cut public sector pay leave Tory mayor ‘speechless’
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/02/rees-mogg-denies-truss-plans-cut-public-sector-pay-outside-london
She's ahead, she should be trying to avoid saying anything that might make people change their minds about her.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1554414846631878657
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
...Rees-Mogg admitted he was wrong to say there would be no delays at the port of Dover caused by the UK leaving the EU.
In a radio interview with LBC, he said:
"Yes, of course I got it wrong, but I got it wrong for the right reason, if I may put it that way..."
It might.
Or they might still have the 'betrayal' dislike of Sunak.
https://twitter.com/mattwarman/status/1554411065760432128
Its obvious who the left want to lead the tories and why.
It might be poor politics though. But its not an error.
https://twitter.com/ChrisClarksonMP/status/1554397828876849154
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1554417218984747009
Badenoch had a much better right-wing message. Smaller state done and funded well. Not my political cup of tea but certainly more coherent.
@PennyMordaunt spoke about yesterday…
Hope for Northerners pay being cut?
@trussliz needs to row back from this policy urgently.
https://twitter.com/JacobYoungMP/status/1554394877101854723
Edited extra bit: Now 4.3.
I've seen that attempt play out once - the end result was special measures within a year...
£12m, btw.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1554417016198635522
They won't.
They will be better.
"I'll call my article," meditated the war correspondent, "'Mankind versus Ironmongery,' and quote the old boy at the beginning."
And he was much too good a journalist to spoil his contrast by remarking that the half-dozen comparatively slender young men in blue pajamas who were standing about their victorious land ironclad, drinking coffee and eating biscuits, had also in their eyes and carriage something not altogether degraded below the level of a man.
https://twitter.com/stevedouble/status/1554392132483518464
Of course you can't realistically undercut national pay rates if they exist.
All roads lead back to the same thing. If you want pay rates to react flexibly to fill vacancies, rather than being set by politics, then they need to be localised, even individualised. Collective bargaining prevents flexible pay rates.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Side of the bus... !
“Channel Migrants: New daily high for 2022 set on Monday”
~700 in a day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62392898