Jacinda Ardern’s Labour is now at 25% in the last poll.
Partly because she is unfairly blamed for inflation, interest rate hikes, and economic slowdown.
Partly because she is bloody useless.
If that's the Roy Morgan poll, that's ancient history. The last poll I saw had National ahead 38-33 with ACT on 11% and the Greens on 9%. A National-ACT coalition would have an overall majority, albeit small, on those numbers.
We may glean more from the Hamilton West by-election this weekend. The seat was taken by Labour from National at the 2020 election on an 18.5% swing but one poll at the end of last month put the National candidate 13 points up. It will be interesting to see if Ardern's unpopularity (or is it Luxon's popularity) causes this electorate to swing back to the centre-right.
It’s a new Roy Morgan.
Yes, the by-election this weekend in Hamilton West (traditionally a bellwether) will be fascinating.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
That is some inflation number.
They only slit it open for people they dont like (according to my local coal merchant). You just ask for the bags intact and they comply (thats how we do things in the wilds of sussex). I pay £20 for 25k bags of large lump coal. You wont be able to buy it at all from March. They advice I was given is to buy in bulk around Feb time. It wont last forever but then again it wont go off.
For a moment I thought you had got a truly amazing deal there.
Then it dawned on me that perhaps you meant '25 kilogram bags' not 'twenty five thousand bags.'
I watched a little bit of PMQ's today and he was very, very rubbish. Even the normal 'Yah boo!' you'd expect from his own side was half (quarter?) hearted.
The sweet spot is a Labour - LibDem coalition because Labour unfettered will be excruciating.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled. The free market response would be a big pay rise.
Yes, market forces are only favoured by this government when it suits them.
I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
Railways use less.
Doesn't that depend.
I suspect that diesel powered locomotives will use an order of magnitude more on a per mile basis, albeit over smaller distances. For an electrically powered train, where solar and wind is providing the electricity is is, of course, far less.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled. The free market response would be a big pay rise.
Yes, market forces are only favoured by this government when it suits them.
I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.
Given inflation was only 2% last year on average even a 4% rise would not normally be unreasonable, however it is the sanctions and restrictions on supply from the Ukraine war which has pushed inflation to an abnormal 10%. Yet while there may be a case for a 6% rise matching the UK average a 10% public sector wage rise will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral while having to be paid for by tax rises on private sector workers
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
Railways use less.
Doesn't that depend.
I suspect that diesel powered locomotives will use an order of magnitude more on a per mile basis, albeit over smaller distances. For an electrically powered train, where solar and wind is providing the electricity is is, of course, far less.
A little research suggests they use about twice as much on a per ton per mile basis, if they are diesel hauled. 24g of CO2 per ton per km is the 2018 average,* as against about 10.8g.**
Equally, the 'smaller distances' are about 4% of the distance - Cumbria to Port Talbot is 305 miles, Peru to Port Talbot is over 8,000 miles.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.
To be blunt, I am sceptical that much of it will be exported. I think it unlikely it will compete in price with other local sources on 'the far side of the world.' However, I could be wrong.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
That is some inflation number.
They only slit it open for people they dont like (according to my local coal merchant). You just ask for the bags intact and they comply (thats how we do things in the wilds of sussex). I pay £20 for 25k bags of large lump coal. You wont be able to buy it at all from March. They advice I was given is to buy in bulk around Feb time. It wont last forever but then again it wont go off.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
Railways use less.
Doesn't that depend.
I suspect that diesel powered locomotives will use an order of magnitude more on a per mile basis, albeit over smaller distances. For an electrically powered train, where solar and wind is providing the electricity is is, of course, far less.
A little research suggests they use about twice as much on a per ton per mile basis, if they are diesel hauled. 24g of CO2 per ton per km is the 2018 average,* as against about 10.8g.**
Equally, the 'smaller distances' are about 4% of the distance - Cumbria to Port Talbot is 305 miles, Peru to Port Talbot is over 8,000 miles.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled. The free market response would be a big pay rise.
Yes, market forces are only favoured by this government when it suits them.
I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.
Given inflation was only 2% last year on average even a 4% rise would not normally be unreasonable, however it is the sanctions and restrictions on supply from the Ukraine war which has pushed inflation to an abnormal 10%. Yet while there may be a case for a 6% rise matching the UK average a 10% public sector wage rise will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral while having to be paid for by tax rises on private sector workers
Yes, but it is this year that has 10% inflation, and many public sector workers have had sub-inflation parishes for a decade.
As you agree, the rise in inflation is not caused by workers pay rises but rather by external factors, so any pay award less than inflation is not going to push inflation up.
I see that 10% on benefits and pensions is not considered inflationary. Why should nurses, paramedics and junior doctors get less?
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
The other point is it goes far beyond pay. We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal. The goodwill is fast draining away.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
If 85% of the mine's coal is set to be exported, I don't see how you work out that the coal produced will cost 'massively above market rates'.
Market rates are not set by through the cycle production costs. They are set by the marginal cost of production, and by supply and demand.
Right now, coal prices are at extraordinary high levels - which is the consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that sending the price of gas rocketing.
The global benchmark for seaborne coal is Newcastle coal (that's Newcastle, Australia). Between 2016 and 2020 it basically traded between $38 and about $90. Covid changed it up a bit, as gas drilling stopped for a while in the US and it went in the $125-150 range, and then Ukraine came along, and it went to $400+.
In other words, if you want to import seaborne coal today, it's costing you about 10x what it was a few years ago.
Lots of new mine projects suddenly look very economic when the price of coal is $400/tonne.
I'm sure this is one of them. And you know what, I'm sure it will wash it's face if the coal price is $150/tonne.
But what if the coal price is $40 (or even $35) again?
Massive open pit mines in Queensland Australia or Colombia or Malaysia or in the Powder River Basin have economies of scale that no mine in the UK could ever match.
This project had been planned long, long before the current energy crisis. That may be what has got it over the line Government-wise, but it hasn't come about as a result of that. I raised it here years ago. You said much the same thing then, and said that's why there were no coal mines in the UK, and I linked to this proposed mine. Perhaps you should investigate further and potentially update your information.
The other point is it goes far beyond pay. We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal. The goodwill is fast draining away.
At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
Teaching, Nursing and Medicine all have massive numbers of vacancies, and a tsunami of people planning to leave. Clearly those "perks" are not enough to make those jobs desirable.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
There is that balance, sure. And you can add the feelgood people geninely get from doing these jobs well.
But there's an important change I'd make to your comment. The other side of the coin is what is the level which people were willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
Some of it is that the pay squeeze of the last decade and a bit has finally gone from "meh" to "that's not enough to live on". Some of it is the government's blather about wanting a high pay economy. Some of it is random bad luck. One of the big USPs of teaching used to be having holidays that coincided with when the kids were off school. The increase in flexible office-style work means this is less of a bonus than it used to be.
Maybe all the groups of workers who are complaining about the smallness of their pay rises ought to be more grateful for what they are getting. But ultimately, that's not how it works. The government is left with a pretty rubbish choice- pay up for the staff it needs or go without- but to govern is to choose, even when the choices are all rubbish.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
I'm not sure your friend had that much annual leave. Maximum leave under current terms and conditions is 33 days + bank holidays. Maybe there was a bit of compressed hours going on? I know of some nurses that work three day weeks by working 12.5 hour shifts.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
This is very true. My Mam and Dad retired at 53 and 52 on final salary teacher's pensions. But this, as well as job security, are increasingly not available to new starters, or anywhere approaching as generous. Just uncompetitive pay for the equivalent roles in the private sector and lousy working conditions. Which is why we can't get cover.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
I'm not sure your friend had that much annual leave. Maximum leave under current terms and conditions is 33 days + bank holidays. Maybe there was a bit of compressed hours going on? I know of some nurses that work three day weeks by working 12.5 hour shifts.
It’s possible if there was an older contract. I know of at least one academic who refused promotion as it would entail changing to the more normal 35 days plus BH contract (from a much better version).
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.
If our coal exports displace another exporter, there won't be any increase in overall CO2 levels automatically. Also, it is likely that our environmental standards in mining for the coal result in less CO2 in the production of the coal.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
Teaching, Nursing and Medicine all have massive numbers of vacancies, and a tsunami of people planning to leave. Clearly those "perks" are not enough to make those jobs desirable.
Teaching and nursing I can accept. Medicine, people leave because they have been paid excessively and can afford to take early retirement.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
Teaching, Nursing and Medicine all have massive numbers of vacancies, and a tsunami of people planning to leave. Clearly those "perks" are not enough to make those jobs desirable.
Teaching and nursing I can accept. Medicine, people leave because they have been paid excessively and can afford to take early retirement.
Plus face a real issue re pension pots, that could be solved in about 30s.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
The other point is it goes far beyond pay. We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal. The goodwill is fast draining away.
At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?
There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls. At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall. Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal then too.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
I'm not sure your friend had that much annual leave. Maximum leave under current terms and conditions is 33 days + bank holidays. Maybe there was a bit of compressed hours going on? I know of some nurses that work three day weeks by working 12.5 hour shifts.
After 32 years service I get 32 days plus BH. Bear in mind that I also work 5 weekends a year, so get 10 days less time off than 9 to 5 workers on my basic contract.
In practice I get more as I prefer time in lieu when covering rota gaps, as overtime just causes tax difficulties. TOIL also doesn't get management off the hook as they wind up needing cover another day, so incentivises them to fill the vacancy.
The other point is it goes far beyond pay. We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal. The goodwill is fast draining away.
At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?
There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls. At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall. Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal too.
Cheers. No dinner ladies now? Are there even school dinners?
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
Few make it to hedge fund managers and if you don't perform and made a profit for your clients and firm you will soon be out
Instead of waving his knob for the benefit of Mail and Express readers, why doesn't Rishi Rich actually do something to try and get a resolution to the disputes?
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
Royal Mail still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Train drivers' pay increased as a result of privatisation. Rather than train new drivers, TOCs preferred to poach drivers from each other.
And most drivers continue to work in the private sector.
Instead of waving his knob for the benefit of Mail and Express readers, why doesn't Rishi Rich actually do something to try and get a resolution to the disputes?
Because he is a spineless non-entity who is in hiding, playing with his spreadsheets and with his Instagram.
The other point is it goes far beyond pay. We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal. The goodwill is fast draining away.
At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?
There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls. At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall. Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal too.
Cheers. No dinner ladies now? Are there even school dinners?
There are school dinners. But the dinner ladies have been cut back to just 2 serving the food not supervising. When we have enough that is. We went for two weeks with the canteen closed due to lack of staff, so Secondary School pupils got two slices of bread with a slice of ham or cheese for lunch. Behaviour got worse.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
Royal Mail still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
Few make it to hedge fund managers and if you don't perform and made a profit for your clients and firm you will soon be out
So you agree that there are more applicants than vacancies. Therefore cut the salary and all the roles would still be filled.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!
There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:
Not much difference really and any there is mainly due to workload, they still are very well paid at senior level with pensions not available to private sector workers
Sunaks plan to make it harder to strike does bugger all to confront the issue of poor pay, low staff morale and ever increasing vacancies in a sector we need to support
I don’t think the Tories will have the public on their side
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.
Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
Few make it to hedge fund managers and if you don't perform and made a profit for your clients and firm you will soon be out
Sure. And knowing this, there are still massive queues of people willing to chance their arms. Which implies that the terms and conditions are too generous.
C. Northcote Parkinson (he of the Law) had a subsiduary law about recruitment adverts. If the rewards, conditions, difficulty and so on of a job are correctly described in an advert, it should lead to exactly one applicant who can be appointed without any more bother. Pitch the rewards too low (an OBE instead of a knighthood, for example) and nobody will apply. Pitch the challenge too low and you will have multiple applicants.
OK, that was a satirical squib, but the broad point is valid. If an employer demands too little and gives too much, people will queue round the block to work there. If they demand too much and give too little, potential employees simply won't darken their door.
Now this may not be fair, or scientifically accurate. But that doesn't matter. Employment trends are driven by the wisdom of crowds. The free-enough market.
And we all know what the great Maggie said about the buckability of the market.
Oh. I didn't think to check what type of plane I'd be flying in. It's a 737 Max 8. Are they fixed now, or still well dodgy?
Should I be alright if we make it past the first few minutes?
Nice knowing you all, anyway.
Not to worry. The stats are your friend.
On our first flight together, Mrs C was very taken aback to find a book on air crash analysis in the airport bookshop, and me buying it and happily reading it on the flight without even realising the incongruity.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
Few make it to hedge fund managers and if you don't perform and made a profit for your clients and firm you will soon be out
Sure. And knowing this, there are still massive queues of people willing to chance their arms. Which implies that the terms and conditions are too generous.
C. Northcote Parkinson (he of the Law) had a subsiduary law about recruitment adverts. If the rewards, conditions, difficulty and so on of a job are correctly described in an advert, it should lead to exactly one applicant who can be appointed without any more bother. Pitch the rewards too low (an OBE instead of a knighthood, for example) and nobody will apply. Pitch the challenge too low and you will have multiple applicants.
OK, that was a satirical squib, but the broad point is valid. If an employer demands too little and gives too much, people will queue round the block to work there. If they demand too much and give too little, potential employees simply won't darken their door.
Now this may not be fair, or scientifically accurate. But that doesn't matter. Employment trends are driven by the wisdom of crowds. The free-enough market.
And we all know what the great Maggie said about the buckability of the market.
So what, it is up to private sector firms what they want to pay their staff not the government and hedge fund managers are high risk, high reward. If they screw up they are out the door
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
Sunaks plan to make it harder to strike does bugger all to confront the issue of poor pay, low staff morale and ever increasing vacancies in a sector we need to support
I don’t think the Tories will have the public on their side
The Tories can’t solve the problem. They are the problem.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!
There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:
Not much difference really and any there is mainly due to workload, they still are very well paid at senior level with pensions not available to private sector workers
You don't think a 5% drop at a time when demand is through the roof, and population increasing is a problem?
The Tories aren't capable of running a whelk stall.
Sunaks plan to make it harder to strike does bugger all to confront the issue of poor pay, low staff morale and ever increasing vacancies in a sector we need to support
I don’t think the Tories will have the public on their side
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.
Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said
No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.
Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said
No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."
Which is correct, it does, older staff still have kept their final salary pensions they got from when it was in the public sector
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
They do quite well then they do so.
I think employment law improving has made many shopfloor disputes no longer matters for the union, but in inflationary times with low unemployment private sector workers can use their sharp elbows.
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%
Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?
Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.
Few make it to hedge fund managers and if you don't perform and made a profit for your clients and firm you will soon be out
Sure. And knowing this, there are still massive queues of people willing to chance their arms. Which implies that the terms and conditions are too generous.
C. Northcote Parkinson (he of the Law) had a subsiduary law about recruitment adverts. If the rewards, conditions, difficulty and so on of a job are correctly described in an advert, it should lead to exactly one applicant who can be appointed without any more bother. Pitch the rewards too low (an OBE instead of a knighthood, for example) and nobody will apply. Pitch the challenge too low and you will have multiple applicants.
OK, that was a satirical squib, but the broad point is valid. If an employer demands too little and gives too much, people will queue round the block to work there. If they demand too much and give too little, potential employees simply won't darken their door.
Now this may not be fair, or scientifically accurate. But that doesn't matter. Employment trends are driven by the wisdom of crowds. The free-enough market.
And we all know what the great Maggie said about the buckability of the market.
So what, it is up to private sector firms what they want to pay their staff not the government and hedge fund managers are high risk, high reward. If they screw up they are out the door
High risk, my arse. They only risk other people's money while trousering a fortune. Their job could be done by AI anyway.
How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?
Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.
I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.
Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.
Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too
Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off
Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.
Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said
No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."
Which is correct, it does, older staff still have kept their final salary pensions they got from when it was in the public sector
But that's in a historic sense. They don't operate for current emploument. You said "still has."
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
In practice, private sector workers refused a payrise simply leave to a better employer who will pay more. It is one reason that there are so many private sector vacancies.
The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
You have a point on 2. But on your 1., no well-run trades union would allow such victimisation of its members. And regardless, I was recommending private sector workers join a union en masse, so they can't be picked off as you suggest.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
In practice, private sector workers refused a payrise simply leave to a better employer who will pay more. It is one reason that there are so many private sector vacancies.
The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.
Yes, you can move to the private sector, private hospitals for example or private dentists or private schools though the patients and parents will be more demanding for the fees they are paying and you won't get as good a pension
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Or it is a recession purely resulting from a reduction in spending on PPE and Covid tests. Meanwhile BAU for the rest of the economy.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
People without flexible mortgages, or working for private employers, and with only modest utility bills are doing fine at the moment, particularly in London.
There is a simple reason that you don't see the people who are scrimping and saving because they cannot afford a night out.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
I posted already this week that Bath is absolutely rammed this week.
Edit: Must be tired as that is an appalling sentence
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Christmas.
No, I've been out around Christmas, this was properly rush out packed and it's been like that in the evenings for weeks. Even Christmas pre-pandemic wasn't like this, Wednesday isn't a particularly big day for Xmas parties either companies tend to pick Thursday or Friday. Even the pub quiz prize was over £200 which means more than 100 people taking part (we won too).
There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.
Just an idle thought. Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
In practice, private sector workers refused a payrise simply leave to a better employer who will pay more. It is one reason that there are so many private sector vacancies.
The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.
Yes you do, you can move to the private sector, private hospitals for example or private dentists or private schools
But didn't you claim that public sector benefits were so much better? On that basis all the BUPA nurses should be flocking back to the NHS.
That's interesting because I would have imagined that it would have been better than us at this kind of logical reasoning. That it isn't certainly suggests that it falls a long way short of any kind of consciousness, and is simply good at providing a vaguely plausible-sounding polish on what is essentially meaningless verbiage. I wonder if it attended one of our ancient universities or great public schools?
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Christmas.
No, I've been out around Christmas, this was properly rush out packed and it's been like that in the evenings for weeks. Even Christmas pre-pandemic wasn't like this, Wednesday isn't a particularly big day for Xmas parties either companies tend to pick Thursday or Friday. Even the pub quiz prize was over £200 which means more than 100 people taking part (we won too).
There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.
Well I’m commuting home from London after a Xmas do. I’m not sure Old St is completely representative of the U.K. economy.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
People without flexible mortgages, or working for private employers, and with only modest utility bills are doing fine at the moment, particularly in London.
There is a simple reason that you don't see the people who are scrimping and saving because they cannot afford a night out.
But that would be noticeable from fewer people being out. The pubs, bars and restaurants (and trains home) have been heaving for weeks, not just tonight.
Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
Christmas.
No, I've been out around Christmas, this was properly rush out packed and it's been like that in the evenings for weeks. Even Christmas pre-pandemic wasn't like this, Wednesday isn't a particularly big day for Xmas parties either companies tend to pick Thursday or Friday. Even the pub quiz prize was over £200 which means more than 100 people taking part (we won too).
There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.
Well I’m commuting home from London after a Xmas do. I’m not sure Old St is completely representative of the U.K. economy.
It’s not just there though, Bath is exceeding busy this year. Wednesday afternoon is not a normal busy slot on Dec 7th.
Comments
Yes, the by-election this weekend in Hamilton West (traditionally a bellwether) will be fascinating.
Arden is unpopular, Luxon is merely meh.
Then it dawned on me that perhaps you meant '25 kilogram bags' not 'twenty five thousand bags.'
I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-63896146
I suspect that diesel powered locomotives will use an order of magnitude more on a per mile basis, albeit over smaller distances. For an electrically powered train, where solar and wind is providing the electricity is is, of course, far less.
Equally, the 'smaller distances' are about 4% of the distance - Cumbria to Port Talbot is 305 miles, Peru to Port Talbot is over 8,000 miles.
*https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport
**https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Emissions-statistics-dry-bulk-carriers_fig3_225381457
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned
Given this tendency, I'd suggest it might be better suited to generating estate agent blurb, football commentary and travel brochure content.
As you agree, the rise in inflation is not caused by workers pay rises but rather by external factors, so any pay award less than inflation is not going to push inflation up.
I see that 10% on benefits and pensions is not considered inflationary. Why should nurses, paramedics and junior doctors get less?
The market does not apply to labour, obvs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10926153/RMT-union-chief-Mick-Lynch-insists-striking-rail-workers-deserve-11-pay-rise.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-nurses-pay-rise-strike-minister-chris-heaton-harris-nhs
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.
The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.
Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1600607367200182300
Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.
But there's an important change I'd make to your comment. The other side of the coin is what is the level which people were willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.
Some of it is that the pay squeeze of the last decade and a bit has finally gone from "meh" to "that's not enough to live on". Some of it is the government's blather about wanting a high pay economy. Some of it is random bad luck. One of the big USPs of teaching used to be having holidays that coincided with when the kids were off school. The increase in flexible office-style work means this is less of a bonus than it used to be.
Maybe all the groups of workers who are complaining about the smallness of their pay rises ought to be more grateful for what they are getting. But ultimately, that's not how it works. The government is left with a pretty rubbish choice- pay up for the staff it needs or go without- but to govern is to choose, even when the choices are all rubbish.
But this, as well as job security, are increasingly not available to new starters, or anywhere approaching as generous.
Just uncompetitive pay for the equivalent roles in the private sector and lousy working conditions.
Which is why we can't get cover.
Ambulance + fire brought into line with cops and prison guards
Minimum service on transport too - but other sectors added by SI
Thresholds and strike lead time to be dramatically hiked
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20685474/ban-ambulance-drivers-firefighters-striking/
Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.
And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.
At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall.
Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal then too.
In practice I get more as I prefer time in lieu when covering rota gaps, as overtime just causes tax difficulties. TOIL also doesn't get management off the hook as they wind up needing cover another day, so incentivises them to fill the vacancy.
The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.
There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt
https://www.healthjobs.co.uk/blog/the-gp-salary--and--pay-guide/
And most drivers continue to work in the private sector.
Should I be alright if we make it past the first few minutes?
Nice knowing you all, anyway.
supervising.
When we have enough that is.
We went for two weeks with the canteen closed due to lack of staff, so Secondary School pupils got two slices of bread with a slice of ham or cheese for lunch.
Behaviour got worse.
YouTube's automated closed captioning is struggling with the fact that Annie Ernaux is delivering her Nobel Prize lecture in French
https://mobile.twitter.com/alex_shephard/status/1600527281000161282
There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:
The benefits of yore aren't available now. Which is why recruitment is tricky.
I don’t think the Tories will have the public on their side
C. Northcote Parkinson (he of the Law) had a subsiduary law about recruitment adverts. If the rewards, conditions, difficulty and so on of a job are correctly described in an advert, it should lead to exactly one applicant who can be appointed without any more bother. Pitch the rewards too low (an OBE instead of a knighthood, for example) and nobody will apply. Pitch the challenge too low and you will have multiple applicants.
OK, that was a satirical squib, but the broad point is valid. If an employer demands too little and gives too much, people will queue round the block to work there. If they demand too much and give too little, potential employees simply won't darken their door.
Now this may not be fair, or scientifically accurate. But that doesn't matter. Employment trends are driven by the wisdom of crowds. The free-enough market.
And we all know what the great Maggie said about the buckability of the market.
On our first flight together, Mrs C was very taken aback to find a book on air crash analysis in the airport bookshop, and me buying it and happily reading it on the flight without even realising the incongruity.
Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?
The Tories aren't capable of running a whelk stall.
I think employment law improving has made many shopfloor disputes no longer matters for the union, but in inflationary times with low unemployment private sector workers can use their sharp elbows.
2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.
Labour to charge £25,000 to 'Platinum sponsors' of London conference - as Reeves declares party 'back in business'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-charge-25k-sponsor-conference-28680816
The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.
I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.
We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.
There is a simple reason that you don't see the people who are scrimping and saving because they cannot afford a night out.
Edit: Must be tired as that is an appalling sentence
There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.