Forget the idea that Rishi Sunak is a Thatcherite. All his political hopes and fears are embodied in John Major. Sunak desperately wants to emulate Major the general election winner of 1992, rather than the loser of 1997. That's why the Conservatives are already starting to borrow from their successful 1992 campaign playbook - and it's also why Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves should study the election that Labour lost in 1992, rather than the party's landslide win in 1997.
I've mentioned a few times on here about the absurd phenomenon of central government trying to use Council's as a whipping boy that gets blamed for what are basically their own bad political decisions.
What has happened is government have started sending in Commissioners when the financial position of the Council's in question becomes impossible. This has gone on for a while, in Liverpool and Croydon for instance, and what seems to happen is once the Commissioners are in, they tend not to leave, because there is no real way of fixing the problems, because they are rooted in the impossible financial position of local government, which is in turn due to failings in government policy, as well as other things like government creating large new unfunded statutory duties. It is basically all the 'austerity' chickens coming home to roost.
To address this problem and the increased demand for this work government are now setting up a new department to appoint inspectors to 'turn around' Councils. The wage...... £1200 per day. So that is the equivalent of £264000 per year (assuming you work for 44 weeks).
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
2. Make snow. Downhill areas do it regularly in the United States, and the same technology could be used for cross country. It could even be done inside, almost anywhere. The ice skaters have shown us what is possible; there are now National Hockey League teams in Tampa Bay and Los Angeles.
A politician could even encourage his city to build such a facility, arguing, correctly, that it would decrease levels of depression in the area, especially during the winter. Regular runners and competitive bicyclists might benefit from the cross training.
(I'll admit that you would have to travel further than I do to go skiing on a volcano, but not everyone wants that particular experience.)
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
"And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives"
Who are you talking about?
Howling at the moon after having swallowed a Mills and Boon novel
What does Brexit working mean? If you believe it means being in a state of existence, then it is working. If you believe it means delivering tangible benefits that outweigh those delivered by EU membership, then it is probably not working. Getting from point one to point two means removing the ERG’s veto over government policy. So there is really only one way to do it!
On the contrary, getting to step two really means removing the control of the state from those who wish to rejoin the EU (and will fiercely resist any form of divergence from EU writ, and in my opinion also resist any activity to ease the issues that have resulted from the new trading arrangements). It is natural now that we must diverge where it suits our national interests, and it isn't a slight against the EU if we do so.
Comments
Forget the idea that Rishi Sunak is a Thatcherite. All his political hopes and fears are embodied in John Major. Sunak desperately wants to emulate Major the general election winner of 1992, rather than the loser of 1997. That's why the Conservatives are already starting to borrow from their successful 1992 campaign playbook - and it's also why Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves should study the election that Labour lost in 1992, rather than the party's landslide win in 1997.
https://www.qmul.ac.uk/mei/news-and-opinion/items/rishi-sunaks-major-dilemma.html
Do Britons believe the UK Government is currently taking the right measures to address the cost-of-living crisis? (20 November)
No 58% (-8)
Yes 25% (+5)
Don't know 17% (+2)
Changes +/- 13 November
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1595024411459227648
This thread has been thrashed 6-2
What has happened is government have started sending in Commissioners when the financial position of the Council's in question becomes impossible. This has gone on for a while, in Liverpool and Croydon for instance, and what seems to happen is once the Commissioners are in, they tend not to leave, because there is no real way of fixing the problems, because they are rooted in the impossible financial position of local government, which is in turn due to failings in government policy, as well as other things like government creating large new unfunded statutory duties. It is basically all the 'austerity' chickens coming home to roost.
To address this problem and the increased demand for this work government are now setting up a new department to appoint inspectors to 'turn around' Councils.
The wage...... £1200 per day.
So that is the equivalent of £264000 per year (assuming you work for 44 weeks).
https://dluhc-turnacouncilaround.com/
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
It’s a fantasy world.
1. Travel. There are places in Britain that get snow regularly:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/snow/snowiest-places
And you aren't that far from, for example, Norway and Switzerland.
2. Make snow. Downhill areas do it regularly in the United States, and the same technology could be used for cross country. It could even be done inside, almost anywhere. The ice skaters have shown us what is possible; there are now National Hockey League teams in Tampa Bay and Los Angeles.
A politician could even encourage his city to build such a facility, arguing, correctly, that it would decrease levels of depression in the area, especially during the winter. Regular runners and competitive bicyclists might benefit from the cross training.
(I'll admit that you would have to travel further than I do to go skiing on a volcano, but not everyone wants that particular experience.)