And another. https://twitter.com/SelaineSaxby/status/1554388003996504065 How can this possibly help level up the south west? I am backing @RishiSunak because he has a viable economic plan to ensure regions like #NDevon are not left behind by city centric policies which would see our vital public service workers paid less
£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.
But you can't pay over National Payscale rates because that is what the school's budget is based upon...
So you could increase the amount of money a school in London gets but within 5 minutes every other school will know and either insist on the same to keep quiet or publish the fact (as Levelling Down)..
As noted previously, some bookmakers have bigger prices against Rishi.
Rishi dips below 4/1 to be next prime minister but is nearly 9/2 for next party leader. Remember to check both markets (and the bookmakers) before playing.
Betfair next prime minister 1.24 Liz Truss 81% 4.8 Rishi Sunak 21%
£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.
But you can't pay over National Payscale rates because that is what the school's budget is based upon...
So you could increase the amount of money a school in London gets but within 5 minutes every other school will know and either insist on the same to keep quiet or publish the fact (as Levelling Down)..
Although of course at the moment you can't even pay the official national pay rates as the schools have not been given extra money for it...
£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.
But you can't pay over National Payscale rates because that is what the school's budget is based upon...
So you could increase the amount of money a school in London gets but within 5 minutes every other school will know and either insist on the same to keep quiet or publish the fact (as Levelling Down)..
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
Lol
Silly woman. But I think she survives. You’re allowed one big mistake. But another and she’s toast on the kitchen floor
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
So she's u-turned faster than @Dura_Ace in a spin.
But has she u-turned fast enough to avoid a car crash?
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Splitters !
More seriously, does it not occur to you that Boris' strategy of destroying his opponents within the party is not something than can be carried on indefinitely without reducing the Tories to a rump which can no longer hope to achieve a parliamentary majority ?
Also - do people worry that their Amazon delivery driver or Uber might not be making ends meet when they order goods or get a McDs delivery in a cab ? Revealed preference shows that people absolubtely want THE cheapest options for their life and don't particularly worry about the workers....
One issue there is trust. Scumbag company A might claim to pay more than scumbag company B, but how do you know that's true? The higher prices scumbag company A charge on that basis might all go to the directors rather than the staff.
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Really? Have we so soon forgotten what Brown did to every single one of his possible opponents?
Gordon Brown appointed them ("his possible opponents") to his Cabinet. As for the blue on blue war, both sides are at it but Team Truss is dishing out most of it.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
If she's introducing new differentials with no losers this means higher aggregate wages and therefore more spending to go with the lower taxes and the bearing down on inflation and the retention of some semblance of grip on borrowing and the public finances.
I wonder how she'll square this circ ... this dodecahedron.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Really? Have we so soon forgotten what Brown did to every single one of his possible opponents?
Gordon Brown appointed them ("his possible opponents") to his Cabinet. As for the blue on blue war, both sides are at it but Team Truss is dishing out most of it.
John Reid and Alan Milburn were in his cabinet? I don't remember that.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
The sensible way to do it would be to increase pay based upon supply and demand where vacancies can't be filled, while leaving pay frozen or increased slower elsewhere, as already happens.
Over time that might be a real terms pay cut for some people, but that already happens today when national pay rates increase by less than inflation so swings and roundabouts.
If you want vacancies filled, then national pay bargaining is the worst way to do that.
It's a very Labour attitude to economics to see levelling up/down as a function of the public sector rather than private enterprise.
It is always my concern with the Labour Party. They see the private sector as a cash cow to be be milked until it's udders are falling off to keep providing cream and gold plated pensions for their pals in the public sector
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
Someone should maybe tell the spokesperson for @trussliz that this contest is only happening because the last guy just kept on lying, and his spokesperson had to apologise for deliberately lying for months.
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
Without understanding that crap pay means poorly qualified, poor quality, poorly motivated workers...
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Really? Have we so soon forgotten what Brown did to every single one of his possible opponents?
Gordon Brown appointed them ("his possible opponents") to his Cabinet. As for the blue on blue war, both sides are at it but Team Truss is dishing out most of it.
John Reid and Alan Milburn were in his cabinet? I don't remember that.
Alan Milburn stepped down from the Cabinet while Tony Blair was still Prime Minister. John Reid declined Brown's offer of a Cabinet post.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
"Crowding out" investment is a very real problem.
Just as the 'dementia tax' had some good ideas but saying it during an election was a terrible way to introduce it, the same mistake here. Regional pay is an excellent idea, that could be combined with levelling up and cost savings, but it can't be rolled out in a morning so suggesting it during a [leadership] election campaign is a terrible idea.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Really? Have we so soon forgotten what Brown did to every single one of his possible opponents?
Gordon Brown appointed them ("his possible opponents") to his Cabinet. As for the blue on blue war, both sides are at it but Team Truss is dishing out most of it.
Once he was forming a cabinet, they weren't his possible opponents any more.
Someone should maybe tell the spokesperson for @trussliz that this contest is only happening because the last guy just kept on lying, and his spokesperson had to apologise for deliberately lying for months.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
I don't give a toss right now, I just need her to say what she has to to win the members. Next hustings she can go large on ditching the woke diversity officers whilst praising our teachers, nurses and firemen.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Really? Have we so soon forgotten what Brown did to every single one of his possible opponents?
Gordon Brown appointed them ("his possible opponents") to his Cabinet. As for the blue on blue war, both sides are at it but Team Truss is dishing out most of it.
Once he was forming a cabinet, they weren't his possible opponents any more.
I wonder what is wrong with some people. Speak how you speak. It's what you say that counts. You should want to be understood, of course — otherwise there's no point in speaking — so if you speak in a very broad localised accent which few people you meet have encountered and therefore it's hard for them to understand you, then sure, change your pronunciations a bit. Other than that, the kind of people who judge you by your accent aren't worth the sh** on your shoes. F*** 'em. Why want to fit in with such types? They are bigots. Many posh people are. (As are many non-posh people.) They themselves are exactly what they see most other people as: small-minded, superficial, and of low intelligence. By all means work on your language. I love the English language. Work on how to express nuances with vocabulary, prosody, and grammar; and on other skills of rhetoric. Those are great skills to have and to go on developing throughout one's life. Trying to "lose your accent", though - well watch out for what else you might lose. Anyone who thinks speaking (or being) posh correlates with intelligence isn't very skilled in the critical judgement department.
In short: Russia is likely screwed in the medium to long term but the rising gas prices in Europe (gas crisis?) could cause Europe to blink this winter.
Is this Liz Truss's Ratner moment? No, perhaps not. A shame, but she is still going to win because, like Boris Johnson, she has convinced the most gullible (members of the current incarnation of the Tory Party) that she believes in stuff like they do. Even though she doesn't.
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
The sensible way to do it would be to increase pay based upon supply and demand where vacancies can't be filled, while leaving pay frozen or increased slower elsewhere, as already happens.
Over time that might be a real terms pay cut for some people, but that already happens today when national pay rates increase by less than inflation so swings and roundabouts.
If you want vacancies filled, then national pay bargaining is the worst way to do that.
If you want vacancies filled, chronically underfunding services is the worst way to do that. National pay bargaining is attractive to employees in and of itself, so you take that away, you attract fewer staff, or you have to pay them more. National pay bargaining saves time as you don't have managers everywhere having to negotiate pay. National pay bargaining encourages labour mobility.
If our training and arming of Ukraine was a crucial factor in its survival at the start of Russia's invasion, then Labour 2017 & 2019 voters voted (inadvertently in most cases) for Ukraine to be a region of Russia
It must now be beyond all rational doubt that OOOOH Jeremy Corbyn would have cancelled our military assistance out there
I'm proud I voted for May and Johnson, and for Ukraine to exist. I'd be ashamed of myself now if I'd voted for the tragic, treacherous, fuckwit alternative
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
If pay is to reflect cost of living then presumably civil service pay rises should match inflation?
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
"Crowding out" investment is a very real problem.
Just as the 'dementia tax' had some good ideas but saying it during an election was a terrible way to introduce it, the same mistake here. Regional pay is an excellent idea, that could be combined with levelling up and cost savings, but it can't be rolled out in a morning so suggesting it during a [leadership] election campaign is a terrible idea.
How does cutting wages of local workers result in Levelling Up?
Breathless u-turning before lunch is a very much needed skill in today's political world. How did things go for May who actually believed what she said ?
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
This means that people in certain roles are paid less. So, you can claim you're not cutting anyone's pay, as that's true at a personal level, but I don't think the public interpret it in those terms. They see roles having their pay cut, their communities having less income.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
So, she just wants to increase pay in London? That seems unlikely to cut government spending, and it seems unlikely to be popular in the former Red Wall.
I believe her policy was to have lower pay bands for new civil servants outside of London to reflect cost of living associated expenses.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
"Crowding out" investment is a very real problem.
Just as the 'dementia tax' had some good ideas but saying it during an election was a terrible way to introduce it, the same mistake here. Regional pay is an excellent idea, that could be combined with levelling up and cost savings, but it can't be rolled out in a morning so suggesting it during a [leadership] election campaign is a terrible idea.
How does cutting wages of local workers result in Levelling Up?
Because the public sector would no longer be crowding out private sector investment and thus leading to a brain drain from the private to the public sector in that area.
Because the competitive nature of wages in that area would lead to more investment in that area.
If paying the public sector more than the private sector was how you "level up" in a region then how come London doesn't need levelling up?
I wonder what is wrong with some people. Speak how you speak. It's what you say that counts. You should want to be understood, of course — otherwise there's no point in speaking — so if you speak in a very broad localised accent which few people you meet have encountered and therefore it's hard for them to understand you, then sure, change your pronunciations a bit. Other than that, the kind of people who judge you by your accent aren't worth the sh** on your shoes. F*** 'em. Why want to fit in with such types? They are bigots. Many posh people are. (As are many non-posh people.) They themselves are exactly what they see most other people as: small-minded, superficial, and of low intelligence. By all means work on your language. I love the English language. Work on how to express nuances with vocabulary, prosody, and grammar; and on other skills of rhetoric. Those are great skills to have and to go on developing throughout one's life. Trying to "lose your accent", though - well watch out for what else you might lose.
'Code switching' is extremely common, and it's not really about losing your accent, but more about fitting in with the group you're currently mixing with. Most people do it to some extent.
Jacob Rees Mogg is an exception to that, which might tell you something.
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.
Indeed. One just doesn’t expect this stuff from the same party, as we are seeing daily from the Sunak team.
Splitters !
More seriously, does it not occur to you that Boris' strategy of destroying his opponents within the party is not something than can be carried on indefinitely without reducing the Tories to a rump which can no longer hope to achieve a parliamentary majority ?
Yes, it very much occurs to me.
A leadership contest should be a discussion within the party, as to its future direction. It’s not an exercise that needs to be conducted by co-ordinated Twitter pile-on from the candidates. What good is done to the Conservateives, by having a hundred MPs screaming?
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
There are serious and substantial shortages in all the areas I identified, which have been frequently reported. The Government, like all Conservative Governments since time immemorial, refuses to believe that increasing wages will solve these problems in the public sector. Magically, wages are only an incentive in the private sector.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
Also - do people worry that their Amazon delivery driver or Uber might not be making ends meet when they order goods or get a McDs delivery in a cab ? Revealed preference shows that people absolubtely want THE cheapest options for their life and don't particularly worry about the workers....
There isn't an expensive, "fair trade", delivery option available on most orders.
That said the other month for five quid I got Royal Mail to collect a parcel from my door mid afternoon and get it delivered next day before 9am. That's pretty good going.
If our training and arming of Ukraine was a crucial factor in its survival at the start of Russia's invasion, then Labour 2017 & 2019 voters voted (inadvertently in most cases) for Ukraine to be a region of Russia
It must now be beyond all rational doubt that OOOOH Jeremy Corbyn would have cancelled our military assistance out there
I'm proud I voted for May and Johnson, and for Ukraine to exist. I'd be ashamed of myself now if I'd voted for the tragic, treacherous, fuckwit alternative
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
There are serious and substantial shortages in all the areas I identified, which have been frequently reported. The Government, like all Conservative Governments since time immemorial, refuses to believe that increasing wages will solve these problems in the public sector. Magically, wages are only an incentive in the private sector.
Or they think the so-called shortages are neither serious nor substantial.
£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.
My experience in the private sector has been that individually negotiated pay means you end up paying more to people who are good at negotiating pay. It doesn't lead to the nirvana of optimally allocating wages to where they are needed most.
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
There are serious and substantial shortages in all the areas I identified, which have been frequently reported. The Government, like all Conservative Governments since time immemorial, refuses to believe that increasing wages will solve these problems in the public sector. Magically, wages are only an incentive in the private sector.
Or they think the so-called shortages are neither serious nor substantial.
So you're saying they're stupid in a different way? Fair enough.
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
There are serious and substantial shortages in all the areas I identified, which have been frequently reported. The Government, like all Conservative Governments since time immemorial, refuses to believe that increasing wages will solve these problems in the public sector. Magically, wages are only an incentive in the private sector.
Or they think the so-called shortages are neither serious nor substantial.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
Liz Truss is so shit, if she was a band she’d be Radiohead.
Can moderators ban moderators? This is going to get messy.
Check out this thread header.
With the recent YouGov poll showing the Tory lead over Labour being larger than the lead at 2019 general election then it should bring Batley & Spen in play for the Tories in a by-election. In recent times the government winning a by-election from the opposition is as rare as a decent Radiohead album, in the last sixty years there have only two such gains*.
£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.
My experience in the private sector has been that individually negotiated pay means you end up paying more to people who are good at negotiating pay. It doesn't lead to the nirvana of optimally allocating wages to where they are needed most.
Absolutely. Locally negotiated pay is terrible for ensuring the actual best people are the best paid.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
Well he does have a diverse collection.
I understand that it is very modest.
Modest, and diverse, then. He is an example to us all, if that is not too faint praise for a legend.
Liz Truss is so shit, if she was a band she’d be Radiohead.
Can moderators ban moderators? This is going to get messy.
Check out this thread header.
With the recent YouGov poll showing the Tory lead over Labour being larger than the lead at 2019 general election then it should bring Batley & Spen in play for the Tories in a by-election. In recent times the government winning a by-election from the opposition is as rare as a decent Radiohead album, in the last sixty years there have only two such gains*.
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
NOT YOU DIVERSITY WORKERS.
That won't pay for a tenth of a single dodgy PPE contract.
Might just pay for TSE's shoelaces for his 15th best pair of shoes.
Well he does have a diverse collection.
I understand that it is very modest.
I am to modesty what Boris Johnson is to fidelity.
Anyone could have voted in this leadership election by guessing there might have been one this year and joining a few months ago in order to be eligible to vote.
Liz Truss is so shit, if she was a band she’d be Radiohead.
Can moderators ban moderators? This is going to get messy.
Check out this thread header.
With the recent YouGov poll showing the Tory lead over Labour being larger than the lead at 2019 general election then it should bring Batley & Spen in play for the Tories in a by-election. In recent times the government winning a by-election from the opposition is as rare as a decent Radiohead album, in the last sixty years there have only two such gains*.
£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.
My experience in the private sector has been that individually negotiated pay means you end up paying more to people who are good at negotiating pay. It doesn't lead to the nirvana of optimally allocating wages to where they are needed most.
Absolutely. Locally negotiated pay is terrible for ensuring the actual best people are the best paid.
Most people negotiate pay by moving to a new job..
This is like the third or fourth time where she's said something without thinking it through.
The evidence is, rather, that she has thought this through (as Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and despite being told it won’t work as she expects, has held on to the idea so she can unleash it during an leadership race she is supposed to be ahead in.
One of the criticisms of Liz I posted last night was that she has “bees in her bonnet”.
As some of you will recall my wife and I, with our North Wales family, travelled to the North of Scotland to visit our family for the first time in three years and then our Welsh family, including three grandchildren and two dogs, hired a 10 berth cabin cruiser on the Caledonian canal for a few days
The re-union with our Scottish family was wonderful and maybe surprisingly for this forum was virtually politics free apart from some very harsh words directed towards Sturgeon, who really is not liked. Indeed, most of our Scottish relatives are ex labour and there could well be an opportunity for Anwar Sawar to gain some support for labour from this quarter
The time on the Caledonian canal was pure magic with no tv, social media, and little internet contact while the beauty of the canal was inspiring. We travelled from the Laggan Marina near Spean Bridge to Fort Augustus, then through the 5 locks into Loch Ness making our way in a slight breeze and gentle rocking up to Urquhart Castle, mooring a couple of times overnight before returning through Fort Augustus to the gentler and calmer waters of Loch Oich where we moored a couple of nights and the family enjoyed paddle boarding and swimming in the Loch. I know some have expressed an interest in this holiday and it comes highly recommended and after some initial instruction piloting the boat is not difficult and the lock keepers are most helpful
It was a wonderful time greatly enjoyed by all of us, but the day before we left both my wife and, I and our daughter (51), started feeling quite unwell and the 420-mile drive home to North Wales the day after was very difficult as we felt worse through the day. Our daughter and her family arrived home before us, and she tested positive for covid though she has been vaccinated and had it previously. As soon as we arrived home my wife and I both took a covid test which proved positive
This is our 6th day and we both feel really quite ill, and it certainly is not just a cold and is much more like flu with fatigue, shivering, loss of appetite and taste, achy bones, and lethargy. We both experience very runny noses and eyes and are taking paracetamol, together with lots of fluids including water, and just resting and sleeping on demand. We are so grateful we are up to date with our vaccines and just hope we recover soon
Last night was the fist time I have watched TV, apart from the wonderful Lionesses, and will comment in due course on the politics but the way I feel just now can the conservative party get on and appoint one of Truss and Sunak and start running the country
It is the Uzhhorod Airport whose runway extends to Slovakia, thus outside of no-flight zone above Ukraine. Zakarpattia Obl Council just dedicated $704k to create "maybe most important Ukrainian airport"
£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.
You make a reasonable case for the value of local bargaining to fill vacancies, but you realise that the upshot of this will be a notable increase in the public sector wage bill? I'm all for that: I want adequately funded and staffed public services. I just wanted to check you were OK with the consequences too.
I very much doubt that. Unless there's huge swathes of roles going unfilled at the minute, in which case the bill should go up in order to fill them.
There are shortages in NHS staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in teaching staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in social work staff; these are frequently reported. There are shortages in care staff; these are frequently reported.
There are always 'shortages', that's part of the churn of the labour market. If there weren't, then young people entering the labour market wouldn't be able to be hired, since there'd be no roles available for them to fill.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
There are serious and substantial shortages in all the areas I identified, which have been frequently reported. The Government, like all Conservative Governments since time immemorial, refuses to believe that increasing wages will solve these problems in the public sector. Magically, wages are only an incentive in the private sector.
My random discovery today - 1 North West council is so short of planners they are looking for a £90,000 a year consultant to do the job...
This is like the third or fourth time where she's said something without thinking it through.
The evidence is, rather, that she has thought this through (as Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and despite being told it won’t work as she expects, has held on to the idea so she can unleash it during an leadership race she is supposed to be ahead in.
One of the criticisms of Liz I posted last night was that she has “bees in her bonnet”.
£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.
My experience in the private sector has been that individually negotiated pay means you end up paying more to people who are good at negotiating pay. It doesn't lead to the nirvana of optimally allocating wages to where they are needed most.
Absolutely. Locally negotiated pay is terrible for ensuring the actual best people are the best paid.
Most people negotiate pay by moving to a new job..
Large chunks of the public sector still pay according to the years served, banding etc
Comments
https://twitter.com/SelaineSaxby/status/1554388003996504065
How can this possibly help level up the south west? I am backing
@RishiSunak because he has a viable economic plan to ensure regions like #NDevon are not left behind by city centric policies which would see our vital public service workers paid less
Substantial shift on the markets. But then, these can be utterly wrong.
So you could increase the amount of money a school in London gets but within 5 minutes every other school will know and either insist on the same to keep quiet or publish the fact (as Levelling Down)..
Betfair next prime minister
1.25 Liz Truss 80%
4.3 Rishi Sunak 23%
Next Conservative leader
1.25 Liz Truss 80%
5 Rishi Sunak 20%
They don't have any previous member polling, and the attempt to compare it to Yougov's numbers deserves the Times to be shot into Orbit.
Under these plans Wales is worst hit, with 430,000 workers including police officers & armed forces facing a near £3000 pay cut.
This would be levelling down.
https://twitter.com/Simonhartmp/status/1554412986999218177
Liz Truss spox: “Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.”
And now Truss herself.
Silly woman. But I think she survives. You’re allowed one big mistake. But another and she’s toast on the kitchen floor
But has she u-turned fast enough to avoid a car crash?
More seriously, does it not occur to you that Boris' strategy of destroying his opponents within the party is not something than can be carried on indefinitely without reducing the Tories to a rump which can no longer hope to achieve a parliamentary majority ?
I wonder how she'll square this circ ... this dodecahedron.
2 years of this and utter incompetence.
Over time that might be a real terms pay cut for some people, but that already happens today when national pay rates increase by less than inflation so swings and roundabouts.
If you want vacancies filled, then national pay bargaining is the worst way to do that.
I'm just reposting Tory MPs tweets.
Rees-Mogg was on LBC saying what a wonderful policy this was, as it prevented the state becoming the dominant employer in the area
There has been no “misrepresentation” of anything at all. https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1554422038345011200/photo/1
Just as the 'dementia tax' had some good ideas but saying it during an election was a terrible way to introduce it, the same mistake here. Regional pay is an excellent idea, that could be combined with levelling up and cost savings, but it can't be rolled out in a morning so suggesting it during a [leadership] election campaign is a terrible idea.
https://tippingpoint2020s.com/2022/08/01/a-bad-peace-or-a-good-war-decision-time-for-everyone/
In short: Russia is likely screwed in the medium to long term but the rising gas prices in Europe (gas crisis?) could cause Europe to blink this winter.
'Shortages' and 'shortages' can be completely different things. 'Shortages' are not necessarily a reason to increase pay rates.
It must now be beyond all rational doubt that OOOOH Jeremy Corbyn would have cancelled our military assistance out there
I'm proud I voted for May and Johnson, and for Ukraine to exist. I'd be ashamed of myself now if I'd voted for the tragic, treacherous, fuckwit alternative
Because the competitive nature of wages in that area would lead to more investment in that area.
If paying the public sector more than the private sector was how you "level up" in a region then how come London doesn't need levelling up?
Most people do it to some extent.
Jacob Rees Mogg is an exception to that, which might tell you something.
A leadership contest should be a discussion within the party, as to its future direction. It’s not an exercise that needs to be conducted by co-ordinated Twitter pile-on from the candidates. What good is done to the Conservateives, by having a hundred MPs screaming?
Team Sunak think it has invigorated their supporters - just when he needed a boost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390009 https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1554422005088256000
That said the other month for five quid I got Royal Mail to collect a parcel from my door mid afternoon and get it delivered next day before 9am. That's pretty good going.
https://twitter.com/MayadeenEnglish/status/1554132326610878465
Like they would ever vote for him!
With the recent YouGov poll showing the Tory lead over Labour being larger than the lead at 2019 general election then it should bring Batley & Spen in play for the Tories in a by-election. In recent times the government winning a by-election from the opposition is as rare as a decent Radiohead album, in the last sixty years there have only two such gains*.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/
He is an example to us all, if that is not too faint praise for a legend.
Is there a third technically brilliant, but actually farcical Radiohead album too ?
One of the criticisms of Liz I posted last night was that she has “bees in her bonnet”.
As some of you will recall my wife and I, with our North Wales family, travelled to the North of Scotland to visit our family for the first time in three years and then our Welsh family, including three grandchildren and two dogs, hired a 10 berth cabin cruiser on the Caledonian canal for a few days
The re-union with our Scottish family was wonderful and maybe surprisingly for this forum was virtually politics free apart from some very harsh words directed towards Sturgeon, who really is not liked. Indeed, most of our Scottish relatives are ex labour and there could well be an opportunity for Anwar Sawar to gain some support for labour from this quarter
The time on the Caledonian canal was pure magic with no tv, social media, and little internet contact while the beauty of the canal was inspiring. We travelled from the Laggan Marina near Spean Bridge to Fort Augustus, then through the 5 locks into Loch Ness making our way in a slight breeze and gentle rocking up to Urquhart Castle, mooring a couple of times overnight before returning through Fort Augustus to the gentler and calmer waters of Loch Oich where we moored a couple of nights and the family enjoyed paddle boarding and swimming in the Loch. I know some have expressed an interest in this holiday and it comes highly recommended and after some initial instruction piloting the boat is not difficult and the lock keepers are most helpful
It was a wonderful time greatly enjoyed by all of us, but the day before we left both my wife and, I and our daughter (51), started feeling quite unwell and the 420-mile drive home to North Wales the day after was very difficult as we felt worse through the day. Our daughter and her family arrived home before us, and she tested positive for covid though she has been vaccinated and had it previously. As soon as we arrived home my wife and I both took a covid test which proved positive
This is our 6th day and we both feel really quite ill, and it certainly is not just a cold and is much more like flu with fatigue, shivering, loss of appetite and taste, achy bones, and lethargy. We both experience very runny noses and eyes and are taking paracetamol, together with lots of fluids including water, and just resting and sleeping on demand. We are so grateful we are up to date with our vaccines and just hope we recover soon
Last night was the fist time I have watched TV, apart from the wonderful Lionesses, and will comment in due course on the politics but the way I feel just now can the conservative party get on and appoint one of Truss and Sunak and start running the country
Sorry about the length of post
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1554300960230592513
An airport could start working in Ukraine
It is the Uzhhorod Airport whose runway extends to Slovakia, thus outside of no-flight zone above Ukraine. Zakarpattia Obl Council just dedicated $704k to create "maybe most important Ukrainian airport"
God Help us!