Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
But they *have* quit. A significant cause of the non-service offered by Avanti et al is the lack of drivers. A big wave of departures and retirements after Covid and an industry which isn't allowed to fill the vacancies.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
If you take 100 people at random anywhere in the UK the chances are that 2 of them already work for the NHS. Surely there must come a point when more of everything is balanced by making better use of what we already have? Streeting, in fairness, does seem to recognise that (if not in his 30 second blurb) which is why he is unpopular with some of the unions.
Demands on the NHS are rising because of an ageing population. That means it needs more staff. The "more for less" attitude is why we are where we now, with millions waiting for operations, a rising sickness benefit bill and the system unable to fill vacancies because the pay is so shit. It's been completely broken by years of Tory incompetence and indifference.
He doesn't say how we will increase the workforce. They already struggle to recruit, but so do many public sector professions - teaching, police, prison officers etc.
It's not just about pay, either. Conditions, but also people have the basic skills and aptitude for the training. This is why (IMVHO) sorting schools is, long term, the real answer to most of our problems. But that's a looong term thing, so not attractive politically.
Would also be extremely expensive. Because that's another thing we've chronically underfunded for literally decades while making lots of mindless changes at the top.
Bluntly, we can have a French style system for the money we pay now, or a Scandinavian system if we put in 60% more money. We have been trying to have a Scandi system on a French resource base, which unsurprisingly is now disintegrating.
Or if you want the full Finnish system everyone loves, you'd need to abolish the private sector...
Singapore and Canada are now ahead of Finland in the PISA rankings and plenty of private schools there.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful Goldman Sachs banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Class war? Class war! Your class has been at war with decent, ordinary, hard working people for years. I hope that at the next GE we get the chance to fight back.
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
I can conceive of no sensible basis upon which this amendment might be rejected. As per the quote, this would not affect trans-rights in any way. It would merely stop those rights being abused by men who are *not trans*. Why would one want to aid & abet such men?
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
At a rough guess- more driving because of the geography we've chosen (suburbs with double garages, not townhouses and flats), and another manifestation of that 'consumption now' psychology. And we neither want to spend on healthy lifestyle information, or follow it ourselves, because of nanny statism.
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
If you take 100 people at random anywhere in the UK the chances are that 2 of them already work for the NHS. Surely there must come a point when more of everything is balanced by making better use of what we already have? Streeting, in fairness, does seem to recognise that (if not in his 30 second blurb) which is why he is unpopular with some of the unions.
Demands on the NHS are rising because of an ageing population. That means it needs more staff. The "more for less" attitude is why we are where we now, with millions waiting for operations, a rising sickness benefit bill and the system unable to fill vacancies because the pay is so shit. It's been completely broken by years of Tory incompetence and indifference.
He doesn't say how we will increase the workforce. They already struggle to recruit, but so do many public sector professions - teaching, police, prison officers etc.
It's not just about pay, either. Conditions, but also people have the basic skills and aptitude for the training. This is why (IMVHO) sorting schools is, long term, the real answer to most of our problems. But that's a looong term thing, so not attractive politically.
Would also be extremely expensive. Because that's another thing we've chronically underfunded for literally decades while making lots of mindless changes at the top.
Bluntly, we can have a French style system for the money we pay now, or a Scandinavian system if we put in 60% more money. We have been trying to have a Scandi system on a French resource base, which unsurprisingly is now disintegrating.
Or if you want the full Finnish system everyone loves, you'd need to abolish the private sector...
Singapore and Canada are now ahead of Finland in the PISA rankings and plenty of private schools there.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
Royal Mail has already made 10,000 postal workers redundant and replaced them with cheaper deliverers and agency workers on new contracts.
For every month further of strikes they will make more striking postal workers redundant and replace them with workers on cheaper contracts and new terms and conditions.
Remember too even Amazon often use Royal Mail for the final miles, especially in rural areas and small market towns
Had a really difficult night working in Paeds A&E. Massive waiting times but we worked as a great NHS team and got through it. I was actually feeling pretty good. Then I saw what @WesStreeting said in the Telegraph. Thanks. Didn't think our morale could sink any lower.
Mrs F tried to get a GP appointment this morning. Having constantly tried to get through to the surgery from the moment the lines opened, and having redialled 85 times before she eventually got through, she was told that all today’s appointments had been taken, and to try again tomorrow. If Labour can sort out GPs, they’ll be getting the votes from the Fairliered household.
I don’t think Westminster would have oversight of GPs in Scotland would they? Not to fall down the rabbit hole of anecdotage but I’ve never had a problem getting an appointment at my surgery (thankfully not often required so far) even during COVID. Mildly surprising since it’s in the East End of Glasgow and I’d expect demand to be high.
Westminster controls the amount that the Scottish Government has to spend. However, maybe it’s the next Holyrood election I need to vote Labour.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
It was just a wish list really. Impossible in current labour market conditions, unless they loosen up immigration?
We only ever talk about the supply side of the NHS, not why demand on it is increasing so much. Not a single mention of obesity or chronic conditions in that video.
Because that would mean people taking responsibility for their own health and circumstances rather than delegating responsibility to the state as seems the norm for all circumstances now. Neither party seems to want to make the point on personal responsibility.
I would have thought the Nanny State types would have loved a Vitality style program.
For those who don’t know - Vitality was a reward program set up by Prudential as part of one their private medical insurance offerings. Subsidised gym memberships, sports kit, bikes and activity monitors (Apple watches and the like)
The last part is key - there are benefits earned by actually being active. So you get freebies for doing x amount of exercise per week. A health checkup with good stats gets you more etc…
Proved to be very very successful in getting people active.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Decline is the word. This country is broken. When you have hospitals having to provide food banks for their own nurses who can't afford to pay the bills on their salary, thats when you know the system has broken down.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
If you take 100 people at random anywhere in the UK the chances are that 2 of them already work for the NHS. Surely there must come a point when more of everything is balanced by making better use of what we already have? Streeting, in fairness, does seem to recognise that (if not in his 30 second blurb) which is why he is unpopular with some of the unions.
Demands on the NHS are rising because of an ageing population. That means it needs more staff. The "more for less" attitude is why we are where we now, with millions waiting for operations, a rising sickness benefit bill and the system unable to fill vacancies because the pay is so shit. It's been completely broken by years of Tory incompetence and indifference.
He doesn't say how we will increase the workforce. They already struggle to recruit, but so do many public sector professions - teaching, police, prison officers etc.
It's not just about pay, either. Conditions, but also people have the basic skills and aptitude for the training. This is why (IMVHO) sorting schools is, long term, the real answer to most of our problems. But that's a looong term thing, so not attractive politically.
Would also be extremely expensive. Because that's another thing we've chronically underfunded for literally decades while making lots of mindless changes at the top.
Bluntly, we can have a French style system for the money we pay now, or a Scandinavian system if we put in 60% more money. We have been trying to have a Scandi system on a French resource base, which unsurprisingly is now disintegrating.
Or if you want the full Finnish system everyone loves, you'd need to abolish the private sector...
Singapore and Canada are now ahead of Finland in the PISA rankings and plenty of private schools there.
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful Goldman Sachs banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Class war? Class war! Your class has been at war with decent, ordinary, hard working people for years. I hope that at the next GE we get the chance to fight back.
Unemployment half the level Labour left in 2010. However the Labour core always want class war against the rich, the posh and private schools
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I thought Lynch was supposed to be a good media performer ?
Whether he thought them fair or not - and they weren't unreasonable, IMO & FWIW - his response to the questions on R4 was distinctly counterproductive.
In the face of a 9% pay offer strikes are no longer justified. If I were network rail management I'd let them strike and then lower the offer in January to 5%.
Rail workers are being offered an immediate rise of 9% to their wages? Wow, that’s pretty good, they should definitely accept it if that’s what’s on the table.
It's not. It's 5%, then 4% the following year. Despite the fact that that doesn't even add up to 9% (cos of how maths works, FFS, and that's from someone with a flat 'C' at GCSE), it's being frustratingly reported uncritically as a 9% rise all over the place. Rights and wrongs aside, this is a 5% increase, not a 9% increase.
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
And the working poor awarded less than Inflation. Max mentioned earlier that RMT are being awarded 9%. What he omitted was that 9% is over two years.
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
All state pensioners and everyone living on benefits are Rich Tory Scum. Didn’t you get the memo?
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
But they *have* quit. A significant cause of the non-service offered by Avanti et al is the lack of drivers. A big wave of departures and retirements after Covid and an industry which isn't allowed to fill the vacancies.
Bollock-swinging management machismo may work in a tight labour market with a relatively young demographic, but it is less likely to produce beneficial results when there is competition for labour and the population is getting older. This is not the 1980s.
I suspect that managements will end up winning these strikes. But that we’ll end up with an even worse public realm as a result. That is simply unsustainable.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
The one massive problem that is repeatedly cited is bed-blocking by patients who no longer need to be in hospital but cannot be discharged because there is no social care available for them. Why can this not be sorted?
Because politicians, including Wes Streeting, are elected on promises for more doctors, nurses and hospitals, and not on promises for more care workers.
It's the same reason we hear a lot more about police numbers, rather than on resources for the court system so that arrested suspects can face trial.
The fact that Labour can have a "plan" for the NHS, even a 30-second one, that doesn't even mention the "one massive problem" that causes most problems for the NHS is more than a little unfortunate.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
52 million should be enough
Okay, we are getting somewhere. Now about paying their salaries....
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
At a rough guess- more driving because of the geography we've chosen (suburbs with double garages, not townhouses and flats), and another manifestation of that 'consumption now' psychology. And we neither want to spend on healthy lifestyle information, or follow it ourselves, because of nanny statism.
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
Yes, one of the major hurdles to healthy living in the UK is the lack of cycling provision and culture. When I lived in Germany, I cycled everywhere. There was lots of properly designed cycling infrastructure, and cycling was a thing that normal people did in order to get from A to B, not the preserve of Lycra-clad athletes. Here in the UK midlands, I barely cycle at all. There are very few cycle paths and an inordinate number of angry drivers with an irrational hated of other modes of transport. I'm forced to use my car, and my waistline has suffered as a result.
Time to mobilise the striking rail workers into the military and make them work for the armed forces.
If they refuse, lock them up at Manston.
This cannot go on.
Time for the employers to make an offer that matches average private sector pay rises then.
So long as the unions agree to modernisation.
It is a fecking joke you cannot use contactless on the trains like you can on TfL because of the unions.
Is it really the unions? For very many years it was the *companies* that didn't want to know about common ticketing and so on across companies and services.
It is, I think most of you know what industry I work in, there was going to be a pilot in the rest of GB to roll out contactless Oyster cards, the DfT was told by the unions they would go on strike if this happened.
I mean given we have the strikes anyway - shouldn't they have just gone ahead?
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
At a rough guess- more driving because of the geography we've chosen (suburbs with double garages, not townhouses and flats), and another manifestation of that 'consumption now' psychology. And we neither want to spend on healthy lifestyle information, or follow it ourselves, because of nanny statism.
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
Yes, one of the major hurdles to healthy living in the UK is the lack of cycling provision and culture. When I lived in Germany, I cycled everywhere. There was lots of properly designed cycling infrastructure, and cycling was a thing that normal people did in order to get from A to B, not the preserve of Lycra-clad athletes. Here in the UK midlands, I barely cycle at all. There are very few cycle paths and an inordinate number of angry drivers with an irrational hated of other modes of transport. I'm forced to use my car, and my waistline has suffered as a result.
That's interesting because here in Staffordshire the cycling provision is actually pretty good. Could be better in many ways but cycling is a realistic transport option. I could, for example, cycle to Rugeley Trent Valley, or even Lichfield Trent Valley, to catch a train to London without going on public roads for any length of time. Stafford is more difficult but not by any means impossible.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Decline is the word. This country is broken. When you have hospitals having to provide food banks for their own nurses who can't afford to pay the bills on their salary, thats when you know the system has broken down.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
It does feel rather like the 1970s
But Labour didn’t lose power for two decades just because of that decline, the Tories came along with a leader who had a plan, who stuck to that plan, and who saved the nation. In the eyes of many
There is no evidence Labour has a clue what to do about our decline, other than maybe manage it slightly less badly than the Tories - if we’re lucky
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
It was just a wish list really. Impossible in current labour market conditions, unless they loosen up immigration?
We only ever talk about the supply side of the NHS, not why demand on it is increasing so much. Not a single mention of obesity or chronic conditions in that video.
Because that would mean people taking responsibility for their own health and circumstances rather than delegating responsibility to the state as seems the norm for all circumstances now. Neither party seems to want to make the point on personal responsibility.
I would have thought the Nanny State types would have loved a Vitality style program.
For those who don’t know - Vitality was a reward program set up by Prudential as part of one their private medical insurance offerings. Subsidised gym memberships, sports kit, bikes and activity monitors (Apple watches and the like)
The last part is key - there are benefits earned by actually being active. So you get freebies for doing x amount of exercise per week. A health checkup with good stats gets you more etc…
Proved to be very very successful in getting people active.
Yes, the health care companies in Germany offer similar incentives for people to lead healthy lives. It makes financial sense for them to do so.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
NHS spending is at a record high. NHS employment is at a record high. We locked down to "save the NHS".
And you can't get an operation in less than 3 years, with record employment and spending? 🤔
Is there a possibility perhaps that locking down the country to "save the NHS" in the long term didn't succeed in its objective?
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
If you take 100 people at random anywhere in the UK the chances are that 2 of them already work for the NHS. Surely there must come a point when more of everything is balanced by making better use of what we already have? Streeting, in fairness, does seem to recognise that (if not in his 30 second blurb) which is why he is unpopular with some of the unions.
Demands on the NHS are rising because of an ageing population. That means it needs more staff. The "more for less" attitude is why we are where we now, with millions waiting for operations, a rising sickness benefit bill and the system unable to fill vacancies because the pay is so shit. It's been completely broken by years of Tory incompetence and indifference.
He doesn't say how we will increase the workforce. They already struggle to recruit, but so do many public sector professions - teaching, police, prison officers etc.
It's not just about pay, either. Conditions, but also people have the basic skills and aptitude for the training. This is why (IMVHO) sorting schools is, long term, the real answer to most of our problems. But that's a looong term thing, so not attractive politically.
Would also be extremely expensive. Because that's another thing we've chronically underfunded for literally decades while making lots of mindless changes at the top.
Bluntly, we can have a French style system for the money we pay now, or a Scandinavian system if we put in 60% more money. We have been trying to have a Scandi system on a French resource base, which unsurprisingly is now disintegrating.
Or if you want the full Finnish system everyone loves, you'd need to abolish the private sector...
Singapore and Canada are now ahead of Finland in the PISA rankings and plenty of private schools there.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
NHS spending is at a record high. NHS employment is at a record high. We locked down to "save the NHS".
And you can't get an operation in less than 3 years, with record employment and spending? 🤔
Is there a possibility perhaps that locking down the country to "save the NHS" in the long term didn't succeed in its objective?
Is it possible that you are disingenuously mixing up saving the NHS (from immediate collapse in 2020) with its long term decline?
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
And the working poor awarded less than Inflation. Max mentioned earlier that RMT are being awarded 9%. What he omitted was that 9% is over two years.
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
And the working poor awarded less than Inflation. Max mentioned earlier that RMT are being awarded 9%. What he omitted was that 9% is over two years.
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
Are train drivers the working poor?
They're not working at the moment, so I suppose not.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
At a rough guess- more driving because of the geography we've chosen (suburbs with double garages, not townhouses and flats), and another manifestation of that 'consumption now' psychology. And we neither want to spend on healthy lifestyle information, or follow it ourselves, because of nanny statism.
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
Yes, one of the major hurdles to healthy living in the UK is the lack of cycling provision and culture. When I lived in Germany, I cycled everywhere. There was lots of properly designed cycling infrastructure, and cycling was a thing that normal people did in order to get from A to B, not the preserve of Lycra-clad athletes. Here in the UK midlands, I barely cycle at all. There are very few cycle paths and an inordinate number of angry drivers with an irrational hated of other modes of transport. I'm forced to use my car, and my waistline has suffered as a result.
That's interesting because here in Staffordshire the cycling provision is actually pretty good. Could be better in many ways but cycling is a realistic transport option. I could, for example, cycle to Rugeley Trent Valley, or even Lichfield Trent Valley, to catch a train to London without going on public roads for any length of time. Stafford is more difficult but not by any means impossible.
The only way I can get from (Andrew Mitchell's constituency) to Tamworth is along the side of the A453, which is verging on the suicidal. In Germany there would be a dedicated cycle path alongside the main road.
Not done this recently. COVID deaths down to 317 in the week ending 2 December, having been as high as 687 in October. Non-COVID deaths at 10,990 in the week ending 2 December. All deaths were 582 above the rolling five-year average. All deaths were 1,714 above the five-year average in the week ending 21 October.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Abolishing non-dom status could raise £3.2bn a year (assuming non doms don't take steps to avoid it, and there's a first time for everything) how a 1.6% increase in the NHS Budget (£199bn) is going to fund "more doctors and nurses than ever" is an intriguing question.....good politics, but laughable economics.
The reality is simple - "how can we afford that" gets met with "how can we NOT afford it? Whats the cost of not doing it?". The growing general strike is a bankism form of capitalism failing in its basic principles - that people doing work the economy needs cannot afford to pay their bills never mind have surplus cash to spend on consumption.
So we either invest in paying workers enough money or the system grinds to a halt. What happens to our society and our way of life if millions of people drop productivity because they are cold and hungry, never mind that they have cost so many other people their jobs because they have no cash to spend on consumption. What happens to educational standards when so many kids are sat hungry and dirty in the classroom?
Labour should talk about this more. Britain is broken. We either spend money on the things we need or it gets more broken. And how do we pay for it? Simple! We borrow, and invest. And gain a return on that investment. It used to be called capitalism. Until the Tory donor class scrapped it in favour of bankism.
"We'll just borrow the money and worry how to pay it back later" was tried very recently, by one L. Truss and one K. Kwarteng.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Not sure that makes much difference at the moment. People will be much more focussed on the 10-20% price rices in the supermarkets, and the fear of the next leccy and gas bill.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Yup keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation. It was a huge mistake to blanket let pensioners off the hook and pushing workers into real terms earnings cuts.
I think we underestimate how much Sunak is in touch with the rest of us.
Who among us has never been asked to do an impossible job, with no prospect of pleasing everyone, with idiot colleagues, taking over the complete horlicks left by an incompetent predecessor and a fundamental lack of the necessary money to do it well?
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Not sure that makes much difference at the moment. People will be much more focussed on the 10-20% price rices in the supermarkets, and the fear of the next leccy and gas bill.
Back in the Seventies the government's tried price controls as well as wage controls to curb inflation. Worked until the winter of 78-79.
Now it seems to be just the workers expected to suffer, with no restrictions on price rises or profits and unlimited bankers bonuses.
It seems the government expects the workers to fix inflation while the rich do as they please. So much for the Tories "high wage economy".
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
The Israel ranking surprised me too - its the WHO Europe region, so if we exclude Israel and Turkey (90% of population in Asia), we're second worst, behind only Malta, and easily worst among large European countries.
At a rough guess- more driving because of the geography we've chosen (suburbs with double garages, not townhouses and flats), and another manifestation of that 'consumption now' psychology. And we neither want to spend on healthy lifestyle information, or follow it ourselves, because of nanny statism.
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
Yes, one of the major hurdles to healthy living in the UK is the lack of cycling provision and culture. When I lived in Germany, I cycled everywhere. There was lots of properly designed cycling infrastructure, and cycling was a thing that normal people did in order to get from A to B, not the preserve of Lycra-clad athletes. Here in the UK midlands, I barely cycle at all. There are very few cycle paths and an inordinate number of angry drivers with an irrational hated of other modes of transport. I'm forced to use my car, and my waistline has suffered as a result.
That's interesting because here in Staffordshire the cycling provision is actually pretty good. Could be better in many ways but cycling is a realistic transport option. I could, for example, cycle to Rugeley Trent Valley, or even Lichfield Trent Valley, to catch a train to London without going on public roads for any length of time. Stafford is more difficult but not by any means impossible.
The only way I can get from (Andrew Mitchell's constituency) to Tamworth is along the side of the A453, which is verging on the suicidal. In Germany there would be a dedicated cycle path alongside the main road.
And yet along the A5 from Cannock to Burntwood/Brownhills there is a grade separated cycle path, followed by dedicated cycle routes on to Lichfield (one along a former minor road now closed to traffic) and from Lichfield there is a perfectly adequate towpath that will take you almost all the way to Derby. Or, you can turn right at Brownhills and cycle along the old South Staffs Railway right the way to Walsall.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Also - a lot of working folk will have grannies etc on the state pension or not much more, so they will be relieved about that.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
This is partly the governments fault. They didn't want to tell everyone that the increase in prices due to shortages of key commodities meant that the country was unavoidably poorer as a result. Instead they wanted to pretend that they could make it all go away with a few handouts and tax cuts.
Understandably, people don't see why they, individually, should be poorer when the government has told them that they are dealing with the cost of living crisis to protect people. Everyone wants to be part of the in-group that is protected from inflation, rather than uniquely picked on to suffer from it.
I did say that this would happen right at the start of this.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Not sure that makes much difference at the moment. People will be much more focussed on the 10-20% price rices in the supermarkets, and the fear of the next leccy and gas bill.
Back in the Seventies the government's tried price controls as well as wage controls to curb inflation. Worked until the winter of 78-79.
Now it seems to be just the workers expected to suffer, with no restrictions on price rises or profits and unlimited bankers bonuses.
It seems the government expects the workers to fix inflation while the rich do as they please. So much for the Tories "high wage economy".
And, indeed, low tax for the wealthy, as per the header, and anyone who lives in the CIs, uses the BVIs, claims nondom, etc. etc.. On which, has there been any rebuttal? Can't see one, just the usual BOAT MIGRANTS LOOK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING squirrel.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Blame the government.
I’m so old I remember the halcyon days of 2021 when the government was banging on about high salary increases.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
TBF, one can't make that criticism of those who are obviously employed by CCHQ, whether as salaried officers or volunteers, to put in the hard yards on the keyboard here.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
NHS spending is at a record high. NHS employment is at a record high. We locked down to "save the NHS".
And you can't get an operation in less than 3 years, with record employment and spending? 🤔
Is there a possibility perhaps that locking down the country to "save the NHS" in the long term didn't succeed in its objective?
The lockdown was to 'save the NHS' in the short term.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Not sure that makes much difference at the moment. People will be much more focussed on the 10-20% price rices in the supermarkets, and the fear of the next leccy and gas bill.
Back in the Seventies the government's tried price controls as well as wage controls to curb inflation. Worked until the winter of 78-79.
Now it seems to be just the workers expected to suffer, with no restrictions on price rises or profits and unlimited bankers bonuses.
It seems the government expects the workers to fix inflation while the rich do as they please. So much for the Tories "high wage economy".
There's also the point that inflation affects the rich and poor differently (apart from the obvious point of more/less money). If you spend much of your income on food and heating you are screwed.
Small British businesses unable to sell to customers in Ireland because Royal Mail/Post Office not implementing customs rules. Coming to the rest of the EU soon.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
I'm a management consultant. When client workload is low I post. When it is high I don't post. I know I am lucky in that respect.
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
And the working poor awarded less than Inflation. Max mentioned earlier that RMT are being awarded 9%. What he omitted was that 9% is over two years.
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
Are train drivers the working poor?
RMT isn't train drivers though is it? Don't they have their own union? The average rail worker isn't that well paid.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Then all the non doms will move abroad taking their investments in the UK economy and levy funds with them.
Streeting is a possible future Labour leader and PM but wrong on this. It looks like class war like their plan to abolish charity status for private schools. Even post Corbyn Starmer's more centrist Labour Party still will throw some class war meat to its base when needed, see also its plan to abolish the House of Lords.
Sunak having been a successful banker should stick to his guns and continue to keep non dom status and stand up for private schools and the Lords and our constitution. Conservative principles win or lose
Meanwhile the peasants grow evermore cold and hungry. Let them eat cake!
Benefits and the state pension and minimum wage were increased by 10% next year by Hunt
And the working poor awarded less than Inflation. Max mentioned earlier that RMT are being awarded 9%. What he omitted was that 9% is over two years.
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
Are train drivers the working poor?
RMT isn't train drivers though is it? Don't they have their own union? The average rail worker isn't that well paid.
Drivers are mostly ASLEF (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) but AIUI they can be in RMT instead if they choose.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
True. But we've just had a long period when inflation wasn't a problem and during that period the living standards of working people have at best stagnated whilst those at the upper end of the scale have done very nicely thank you.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Are you in Bros?
I'm thinking more he's one of the chaps who climbs Helvellyn every day to provide the weather report.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
I dunno, when people can get an operation in less than 3 years?
NHS spending is at a record high. NHS employment is at a record high. We locked down to "save the NHS".
And you can't get an operation in less than 3 years, with record employment and spending? 🤔
Is there a possibility perhaps that locking down the country to "save the NHS" in the long term didn't succeed in its objective?
Is it possible that you are disingenuously mixing up saving the NHS (from immediate collapse in 2020) with its long term decline?
It is also possible he has forgotten that record high NHS spending includes test and trace and vip'd ppe, as well as the construction costs of the 40 new hospitals Boris is building for us.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
State pensioners without a private pension get lower income per year than even those on minimum wage.
Though the minimum wage like the state pension also went up by 10%
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
Back when I was growing up, in the days of endless strikes, the Union reps would always get asked, at virtually every interview
- How long can you carry on - What is it costing your members - What about the public
There was a similarly standard set of questions for the management. So they always had answers to them.
The Economist did an analysis of strikes, going back decades, in the late eighties when the no-strike deals started becoming a thing. They found that nearly no dispute over pay actually made the strikers better off, in the end, once pay lost through the strikes was factored in. Hence the rapid spread of the no-strike, arbitrated pay and conditions agreements.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
Back when I was growing up, in the days of endless strikes, the Union reps would always get asked, at virtually every interview
- How long can you carry on - What is it costing your members - What about the public
There was a similarly standard set of questions for the management. So they always had answers to them.
The Economist did an analysis of strikes, going back decades, in the late eighties when the no-strike deals started becoming a thing. They found that nearly no dispute over pay actually made the strikers better off, in the end, once pay lost through the strikes was factored in. Hence the rapid spread of the no-strike, arbitrated pay and conditions agreements.
Counterfactual is tricky though. How much does the threat of strikes (an organised union with good membership) gain in pay negotiations, even in years when there is no action? There must be some amount of value there, I guess, though hard to quantify.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Decline is the word. This country is broken. When you have hospitals having to provide food banks for their own nurses who can't afford to pay the bills on their salary, thats when you know the system has broken down.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
It does feel rather like the 1970s
But Labour didn’t lose power for two decades just because of that decline, the Tories came along with a leader who had a plan, who stuck to that plan, and who saved the nation. In the eyes of many
There is no evidence Labour has a clue what to do about our decline, other than maybe manage it slightly less badly than the Tories - if we’re lucky
I don't believe anyone is going to arrest our decline. From now on it's going to be about who and how different groups within society are affected by our decline. One thing is for sure the Michelle Mone's of this world will continue to grab an even bigger slice for themselves.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
Back when I was growing up, in the days of endless strikes, the Union reps would always get asked, at virtually every interview
- How long can you carry on - What is it costing your members - What about the public
There was a similarly standard set of questions for the management. So they always had answers to them.
The Economist did an analysis of strikes, going back decades, in the late eighties when the no-strike deals started becoming a thing. They found that nearly no dispute over pay actually made the strikers better off, in the end, once pay lost through the strikes was factored in. Hence the rapid spread of the no-strike, arbitrated pay and conditions agreements.
Counterfactual is tricky though. How much does the threat of strikes (an organised union with good membership) gain in pay negotiations, even in years when there is no action? There must be some amount of value there, I guess, though hard to quantify.
By the same token, employers became more recalcitrant about providing pay rises without a strike, since they were “saving it” for negotiating with the strikers.
It becomes one of those futile arms races.
Hence the move to negotiated arbitration of nearly all issues. The union keeps strikes as an ultimate last resort - if the employer breaks the agreement. So in a way the threat of strikes is still there - just not used.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
I'm a management consultant. When client workload is low I post. When it is high I don't post. I know I am lucky in that respect.
I wasn't having a pop at you.
I am in a similar line, and I could be doing vastly more productive tasks in quiet moments, like making phone calls to drum up future business or collect late payments rather than dick about on here. Which brings me back to the ultimate irony of many of us on here bellyaching about lazy train drivers, posties and nurses.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Pensioners who have pensions in addition to the State pension by and large do get less (except for certain public sector pensions, for which I would agree with you). If they have DC pension pots they have taken a significant hit so actually negative returns.
So that just leaves those who survive on only a state pension and as @HYUFD pointed out that is a very very low income indeed.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Do they now at least pay tax on them? That would be a good start.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
True. But we've just had a long period when inflation wasn't a problem and during that period the living standards of working people have at best stagnated whilst those at the upper end of the scale have done very nicely thank you.
And the powers-that-be (i.e. the Bank of England) pumped gazillions of cash into the economy to ensure that working people couldn't enjoy their pay going a little bit further, but are reluctant to do the opposite now by making the necessary rises in interest rates.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
I'm a management consultant. When client workload is low I post. When it is high I don't post. I know I am lucky in that respect.
I wasn't having a pop at you.
I am in a similar line, and I could be doing vastly more productive tasks in quiet moments, like making phone calls to drum up future business or collect late payments rather than dick about on here. Which brings me back to the ultimate irony of many of us on here bellyaching about lazy train drivers, posties and nurses.
No pop was inferred. I was merely commenting on the outrageously privileged position I am in vs most. And yes, I also could be focussing more on relentlessly hawking myself but its nearly Christmas and I've just landed another interesting / juicy contract so screw it. Networking calls are happening when I am not typing.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Agree. The state pension is particularly low, hence I am in favour of the triple lock until it gets to an acceptable level for those who have no other income. For those for whom it is not really needed it maybe should be taxed more appropriately, although I'm not sure how.
I certainly don't need the winter fuel allowance, but to some it is critical. The £10 Christmas bonus (worth £100 in today's money when first given) is a joke. Get rid of it.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Do they now at least pay tax on them? That would be a good start.
Your state pension counts towards your taxable income, but it will be paid to you gross (before any tax is deducted). If your total income from all sources, including the state pension, is greater than your tax-free personal allowance (£12,570 for 2022/23 tax year), tax on your state pension is due. https://www.legalandgeneral.com/retirement/using-your-pension/pension-tax-relief/
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
I'm a management consultant. When client workload is low I post. When it is high I don't post. I know I am lucky in that respect.
I wasn't having a pop at you.
I am in a similar line, and I could be doing vastly more productive tasks in quiet moments, like making phone calls to drum up future business or collect late payments rather than dick about on here. Which brings me back to the ultimate irony of many of us on here bellyaching about lazy train drivers, posties and nurses.
Poor productivity is nearly never laziness. Poor organisational structure or poor physical setup of the workplace 99% of the time.
On the train from Brighton to Gatwick. A handful of picketers chatting to a postie and a Socialist Worker salesman. Train empty. Every 30 minutes instead of every 15, but as we speed through a snowy Sussex glad I didn’t drive.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Pensioners who have pensions in addition to the State pension by and large do get less (except for certain public sector pensions, for which I would agree with you). If they have DC pension pots they have taken a significant hit so actually negative returns.
So that just leaves those who survive on only a state pension and as @HYUFD pointed out that is a very very low income indeed.
Is is not simply that a state pension increase to someone with other taxable income will be taxed at their marginal rate on any increase.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Pensioners who have pensions in addition to the State pension by and large do get less (except for certain public sector pensions, for which I would agree with you). If they have DC pension pots they have taken a significant hit so actually negative returns.
So that just leaves those who survive on only a state pension and as @HYUFD pointed out that is a very very low income indeed.
Is is not simply that a state pension increase to someone with other taxable income will be taxed at their marginal rate on any increase.
Yep, although it could be argued that those on a high income who are retired should payback more than that on their state pension element, although that is getting complicated and also as @Andy_JS points out the winter fuel allowance really shouldn't be given to people like me.
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
I went to a Jewish wedding in Paris once. Most amazing buffet at the reception that I was having a great time with and stuffed myself. Then they cleared it all away and I then discovered that that buffet was just the starter. There followed 2 more ridiculous buffets for main course and desert when I was already feeling effects of the starter. If they all do that in Israel then I'm not surprised about the obesity!
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Agree. The state pension is particularly low, hence I am in favour of the triple lock until it gets to an acceptable level for those who have no other income. For those for whom it is not really needed it maybe should be taxed more appropriately, although I'm not sure how.
I certainly don't need the winter fuel allowance, but to some it is critical. The £10 Christmas bonus (worth £100 in today's money when first given) is a joke. Get rid of it.
Very simple rule. If you are a pensioner and paying high rate tax then you don't need freebies (i.e. winter fuel allowance, free bus pass etc.).
Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal is that rather being a source of funds the abolition of non dom status may well reduce the tax take in the UK. Labour always seem to assume that taxpayers are geese waiting quietly to be plucked and will not respond to changes in the tax code in any way other than writing larger cheques. These geese can and, in many cases, would, fly away taking their spending and tax payments with them. Would those that remained do more than make up the difference? Who knows? Certainly not Wes Streeting.
Plus the NHS already employs 1.3m people. At what point do we think that is enough?
When people can see a doctor. When people can get operations. When people don't have ito wait half the day for an ambulance. I do wonder how many of your 1.3m people are healthcare professionals and how many are the people managing the Lansley market structure on salaries vastly above the front line healthcare professionals.
The solution you are reaching for is to abolish the marketisation of the NHS. Which I suspect you aren't in favour of.
I have no fetish about the marketisation of the NHS but I do question the NHS's productivity. Our health spend has continued to rise in real terms in good times and bad. It is doing so now. We now spend £124bn on the NHS. This is an almost unimaginable sum of money. According to this website https://www.gilliankenny.com/blog/nhs-budget/ the original budget for the NHS was £427m which is the equivalent of £15bn today. So the NHS budget, in real terms, has increased by something like a factor of 7 since its creation.
More importantly, we are not far from the average spend for a western European country in terms of GDP on health. And we seem to be getting materially poorer results. An investigation into why is long overdue.
Because other European countries don't have the same fat and lazy population we do.
4th worst in Europe, behind only Turkey, Malta & Israel:
I went to a Jewish wedding in Paris once. Most amazing buffet at the reception that I was having a great time with and stuffed myself. Then they cleared it all away and I then discovered that that buffet was just the starter. There followed 2 more ridiculous buffets for main course and desert when I was already feeling effects of the starter. If they all do that in Israel then I'm not surprised about the obesity!
Polish weddings are exactly like that. Last one I went to, the 4th diner was the best - BBQ at 2am…
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Decline is the word. This country is broken. When you have hospitals having to provide food banks for their own nurses who can't afford to pay the bills on their salary, thats when you know the system has broken down.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
It does feel rather like the 1970s
But Labour didn’t lose power for two decades just because of that decline, the Tories came along with a leader who had a plan, who stuck to that plan, and who saved the nation. In the eyes of many
There is no evidence Labour has a clue what to do about our decline, other than maybe manage it slightly less badly than the Tories - if we’re lucky
The solutions to the problems that we have are not ones that Labour can really implement. We need to stop being so generous in many areas and find major efficiency savings. Labour only know how to tax more (although they'd have to go some to tax more than the Tories) and spend more. No way with the unions let them do this.
Tories are too tired to do what needs to be done either. So unfortunately we will be set for 5 years of paralysed Labour government. Probably the best we can hope for is for the Tories to lose narrowly and hope that some new Tory leader comes in with a real plan and for Labour to fall apart. Think the chances of that are less than 5% though.
What we all really need right now is for some resolution to be found to Ukraine.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Agree. The state pension is particularly low, hence I am in favour of the triple lock until it gets to an acceptable level for those who have no other income. For those for whom it is not really needed it maybe should be taxed more appropriately, although I'm not sure how.
I certainly don't need the winter fuel allowance, but to some it is critical. The £10 Christmas bonus (worth £100 in today's money when first given) is a joke. Get rid of it.
Very simple rule. If you are a pensioner and paying high rate tax then you don't need freebies (i.e. winter fuel allowance, free bus pass etc.).
Yes. The threshold for high rate tax paying pensioners should be reduced to cover the cost of the "freebies".
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
Productivity is our big challenge. So many people are stuck in gruelling jobs where they either have no way to advance or seek better pay / conditions, or they are so poorly paid that they are stuck in overpriced rotten housing without the ability to heat it or feed themselves, never mind consume by buying stuff or having little luxuries and holidays.
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
It does warrant a giggle when frequent flyer PBers complain about poor productivity. I'm guilty as charged too.
My job intrinsically has poor productivity. There are only two of us who do what I do, but we can't go down to one because that one does have to take four weeks of holiday a year. And if the workload ever again gets too high for one person to be able to cope with it (as used to be the case) we'd have to add a third.
Are you in Bros?
Yes, he is Craig Logan
Just got me thinking of how you can split pop duo acts into 2 types - where both are approx equal as opposed to where it's really a 'one plus'. Wham is an obvious example of the 2nd. I happen to like Ridgeley's contribution but you have to say it's cameo. A good example of 'equals' is Sony & Cher imo. She was the bigger star by far as it turned out but in the duet he was in no way a passenger. Then you have the interesting case of Simon & Garfunkel. Paul thinks they're a plus one, Art thinks they're equals. I'm in the middle on this one. They're not equals, Art is wrong there, but to class them as a 'plus one' like Wham is a nonsense, so Paul is wrong too. Art Garfunkel is not like Andrew Ridgeley.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour. Plus perhaps they hope that some of the Rail Strike mud will rub off on Mr Starmer whilst they stand aside as say "a matter for the employers." They need to be more worried about the RMT, and how the NHS professional organisations have becoming politicised.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour.
On the other hand, a permanent increase in cheap supermarket prices of very nearly 20% is not trivial. It's a permanent dent in your income. So a reduction in inflation doesn't remove that unless we go into actual deflation. Or increased wages.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour.
Yes, marginal gain (over what offered without strike). I wasn't clear about that, but was assuming that a 10% settlement would be significantly (say 5pp) above the baseline offer without strike.
Lynch says it’s press and network rail propaganda to ask questions about the draining support for strikes from RMT.. but he should listen to this from Labour MP..
Labour MP Carolyn Harris says union leaders need to "listen closer" to the people on strike, who are telling her "they can't afford" to keep up strike action.
Gravity always wins. The union can't fund these strikes indefinitely and the workers need to, you know, work to get paid. At a time of high inflation they probably need to work overtime if they are able. In the end Network Rail mat realise that the workers will accept a low ball offer because they will not be able to afford further strikes.
This is true for all of the strikers, but most especially the Royal Mail ones. Business is draining away from them and they are driving the company into bankruptcy at which point none of them have any jobs. Unions and management in this country are the worst among the world.
The bottom line is that if you treat people crappily for long enough they quit, strike or stop caring about doing their jobs to an adequate standard. Everyone loses as a result.
Let them quit. They won't because they're sitting it out until they get nice five figure voluntary redundancy pay offs, but I'd absolutely let them quit.
So fewer doctors, nurses and other care providers; fewer teachers; more train cancellations; even worse public services. I am not sure that’s a great idea. But it does encapsulate how we have got to where we are today. Unless the thinking changes, our decline will only continue.
Decline is the word. This country is broken. When you have hospitals having to provide food banks for their own nurses who can't afford to pay the bills on their salary, thats when you know the system has broken down.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
It does feel rather like the 1970s
But Labour didn’t lose power for two decades just because of that decline, the Tories came along with a leader who had a plan, who stuck to that plan, and who saved the nation. In the eyes of many
There is no evidence Labour has a clue what to do about our decline, other than maybe manage it slightly less badly than the Tories - if we’re lucky
The solutions to the problems that we have are not ones that Labour can really implement. We need to stop being so generous in many areas and find major efficiency savings. Labour only know how to tax more (although they'd have to go some to tax more than the Tories) and spend more. No way with the unions let them do this.
Tories are too tired to do what needs to be done either. So unfortunately we will be set for 5 years of paralysed Labour government. Probably the best we can hope for is for the Tories to lose narrowly and hope that some new Tory leader comes in with a real plan and for Labour to fall apart. Think the chances of that are less than 5% though.
What we all really need right now is for some resolution to be found to Ukraine.
Tories are too tired to fix the problems they've had 12 years to fix/create (delete to tase)? It's, to use the hoary old PB cliché, a view.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour.
Yes, marginal gain (over what offered without strike). I wasn't clear about that, but was assuming that a 10% settlement would be significantly (say 5pp) above the baseline offer without strike.
The railway strike isn't just about wages. It's about job cuts, job rearrangements and because of the latter 2 items the impact those cost savings will have on both health and safety and disability access to the railways.
Listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in on the strikes, it's mindboggling how many people don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. That if you just pay everyone more money without productivity gains, it won't achieve anything, it'll just mean money won't be worth as much as it was before.
I imagine that working folk would be more inclined to accepted wages rises below inflation if non-working folk like pensioners had also received income rises below inflation.
Most pensioners aren't particularly well-off. I agree that the wealthier ones shouldn't be receiving things like a winter fuel payment they don't need.
Agree. The state pension is particularly low, hence I am in favour of the triple lock until it gets to an acceptable level for those who have no other income. For those for whom it is not really needed it maybe should be taxed more appropriately, although I'm not sure how.
I certainly don't need the winter fuel allowance, but to some it is critical. The £10 Christmas bonus (worth £100 in today's money when first given) is a joke. Get rid of it.
Very simple rule. If you are a pensioner and paying high rate tax then you don't need freebies (i.e. winter fuel allowance, free bus pass etc.).
Yes. The threshold for high rate tax paying pensioners should be reduced to cover the cost of the "freebies".
Admin costs of means testing, though - because those are all done by different agencies, which can't and don't seem to talk to each other (compare DSS and HMRC - DSS can't even issue a P60 for the state pension, and have different rules to HMRC on what counts as income in a given time period). Simpler to make them universal and tax the WFP.
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour. Plus perhaps they hope that some of the Rail Strike mud will rub off on Mr Starmer whilst they stand aside as say "a matter for the employers." They need to be more worried about the RMT, and how the NHS professional organisations have becoming politicised.
Sorry - last para should say "more worried about the RCN".
To add one more, I wonder if in their black pit of cynicism certain Govt politicos are fantasising about a recrudescence of far left trade unionism (RMT, UCU, NUT, FBU etc) to damage Labour if they go back to the party (eg UCU non-party-affiliated, RMT affiliated to the TUSC groupuscule). Or even if they want to use this as a lever to make certain public services non-strike - potential for helping Tory unity?
Mishal Husain asked the average loss to members for striking
Mick Lynch told her "I find this a shocking stance that the BBC will take - you are just parroting the most right wing stuff you can get hold of on behalf of the establishment."
I'm left wondering whether he doesn't understand 'average' (with all the wittering on about it varying between different people) or simply didn't know the answer and so blustered.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
That's not quite how it works, because in the case of the rail strike they already have a +5% this year and +4% next year offer.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour.
On the other hand, a permanent increase in cheap supermarket prices of very nearly 20% is not trivial. It's a permanent dent in your income. So a reduction in inflation doesn't remove that unless we go into actual deflation. Or increased wages.
Comments
I can conceive of no sensible basis upon which this amendment might be rejected. As per the quote, this would not affect trans-rights in any way. It would merely stop those rights being abused by men who are *not trans*. Why would one want to aid & abet such men?
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1602477021111939073
Not actually American, but heading in that direction on a bad way. Wasn't it one of the theories for the UK's mediocre Covid outcomes?
For every month further of strikes they will make more striking postal workers redundant and replace them with workers on cheaper contracts and new terms and conditions.
Remember too even Amazon often use Royal Mail for the final miles, especially in rural areas and small market towns
For those who don’t know - Vitality was a reward program set up by Prudential as part of one their private medical insurance offerings. Subsidised gym memberships, sports kit, bikes and activity monitors (Apple watches and the like)
The last part is key - there are benefits earned by actually being active. So you get freebies for doing x amount of exercise per week. A health checkup with good stats gets you more etc…
Proved to be very very successful in getting people active.
People look back on the 1970s and remember a lost decade where everyone was on strike, industry went to shit and the price of everything went mental. The damage done saw Labour out of office for almost two decades. Yet the Tories - overseeing another lost decade - think there is no problem and people should vote for them again. Once out of office it will be a while before they return.
Was he expecting softball questions?
I am not sure who benefits from the industrial action; Labour (really not sure) or Sunak and his canny game of 12D chess (not sure either).
I suspect that managements will end up winning these strikes. But that we’ll end up with an even worse public realm as a result. That is simply unsustainable.
It's the same reason we hear a lot more about police numbers, rather than on resources for the court system so that arrested suspects can face trial.
The fact that Labour can have a "plan" for the NHS, even a 30-second one, that doesn't even mention the "one massive problem" that causes most problems for the NHS is more than a little unfortunate.
But Labour didn’t lose power for two decades just because of that decline, the Tories came along with a leader who had a plan, who stuck to that plan, and who saved the nation. In the eyes of many
There is no evidence Labour has a clue what to do about our decline, other than maybe manage it slightly less badly than the Tories - if we’re lucky
NHS employment is at a record high.
We locked down to "save the NHS".
And you can't get an operation in less than 3 years, with record employment and spending? 🤔
Is there a possibility perhaps that locking down the country to "save the NHS" in the long term didn't succeed in its objective?
*Not suggesting that HYUFD himself went in for this.
https://tinyurl.com/5n83duua
Not done this recently. COVID deaths down to 317 in the week ending 2 December, having been as high as 687 in October. Non-COVID deaths at 10,990 in the week ending 2 December. All deaths were 582 above the rolling five-year average. All deaths were 1,714 above the five-year average in the week ending 21 October.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
On paper we have a huge economy, one of the largest in the world. And yet millions are the working poor, and so many of these are the people the rest of society relies upon. The money is generated - a huge economy - yet is so sparsely available for most of things that most people need.
Why is that?
Who among us has never been asked to do an impossible job, with no prospect of pleasing everyone, with idiot colleagues, taking over the complete horlicks left by an incompetent predecessor and a fundamental lack of the necessary money to do it well?
Now it seems to be just the workers expected to suffer, with no restrictions on price rises or profits and unlimited bankers bonuses.
It seems the government expects the workers to fix inflation while the rich do as they please. So much for the Tories "high wage economy".
Weird.
Understandably, people don't see why they, individually, should be poorer when the government has told them that they are dealing with the cost of living crisis to protect people. Everyone wants to be part of the in-group that is protected from inflation, rather than uniquely picked on to suffer from it.
I did say that this would happen right at the start of this.
I’m so old I remember the halcyon days of 2021 when the government was banging on about high salary increases.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2022/12/13/an-post-row-with-uk-post-office-causing-return-of-online-purchases/
Small British businesses unable to sell to customers in Ireland because Royal Mail/Post Office not implementing customs rules. Coming to the rest of the EU soon.
Bizarre attack line when he talked about the sacrifices his members are making, when the question was indeed highlighting the sacrifices his members are making. Would be interesting to calculate the payback time on strikes versus pay settlements - i.e. if strikes are 5% of days in a year and the pay rise is 10% then clearly it pays back quickly, But for long running disputes it could be less clear cut/much longer return. For unsuccessful disputes, like the UCU ones, normally, it's just cost of course.
Though the minimum wage like the state pension also went up by 10%
- How long can you carry on
- What is it costing your members
- What about the public
There was a similarly standard set of questions for the management. So they always had answers to them.
The Economist did an analysis of strikes, going back decades, in the late eighties when the no-strike deals started becoming a thing. They found that nearly no dispute over pay actually made the strikers better off, in the end, once pay lost through the strikes was factored in. Hence the rapid spread of the no-strike, arbitrated pay and conditions agreements.
It becomes one of those futile arms races.
Hence the move to negotiated arbitration of nearly all issues. The union keeps strikes as an ultimate last resort - if the employer breaks the agreement. So in a way the threat of strikes is still there - just not used.
Jaw Jaw better than War War. Yet again.
I am in a similar line, and I could be doing vastly more productive tasks in quiet moments, like making phone calls to drum up future business or collect late payments rather than dick about on here. Which brings me back to the ultimate irony of many of us on here bellyaching about lazy train drivers, posties and nurses.
So that just leaves those who survive on only a state pension and as @HYUFD pointed out that is a very very low income indeed.
I certainly don't need the winter fuel allowance, but to some it is critical. The £10 Christmas bonus (worth £100 in today's money when first given) is a joke. Get rid of it.
https://www.legalandgeneral.com/retirement/using-your-pension/pension-tax-relief/
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1602617156788682752
Tories are too tired to do what needs to be done either. So unfortunately we will be set for 5 years of paralysed Labour government. Probably the best we can hope for is for the Tories to lose narrowly and hope that some new Tory leader comes in with a real plan and for Labour to fall apart. Think the chances of that are less than 5% though.
What we all really need right now is for some resolution to be found to Ukraine.
So the only benefit that the strike is obtaining is the marginal increase over those numbers. If they get 7% then they only have +2% from the strike. Even with optimising short strikes to maximise disruption (eg strike split across half of 2 shifts etc) it's a challenge to make the payback work.
For the NHS staff there is already an acceptance of +7.5% in Scotland, which looks as if it is going to stick.
In England the Govt has accepted the pay review body recommendation aiui, which is I think 4.5%. That is a lesson learned from last time when they tried it on offering a lower number than recommended.
RCN is demanding 17.5% or so, which has some interesting maths behind it. If they accept 7.5% as if starting to happen in Scotland the strike gain will be 2.5%.
I think the Govt also perhaps thinks that inflation has peaked, and any changes are in their favour. Plus perhaps they hope that some of the Rail Strike mud will rub off on Mr Starmer whilst they stand aside as say "a matter for the employers." They need to be more worried about the RMT, and how the NHS professional organisations have becoming politicised.
To add one more, I wonder if in their black pit of cynicism certain Govt politicos are fantasising about a recrudescence of far left trade unionism (RMT, UCU, NUT, FBU etc) to damage Labour if they go back to the party (eg UCU non-party-affiliated, RMT affiliated to the TUSC groupuscule). Or even if they want to use this as a lever to make certain public services non-strike - potential for helping Tory unity?
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1602608859197198337?t=udkt0oTBca0P4kJdOQV02w&s=19