According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
Two excellent posts. Sorry three!
Post 2 suggests that the BoE are p*ssing up a rope by increasing mortgage rates to reduce spending capacity to reduce demand and hence the money supply to combat inflation.
It's forty years since I studied economics and I am a bit rusty, but generating a recession in the short term to reduce inflation when growth and productivity would resolve the issue in the medium term seems counter-intuitive.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
Two excellent posts.
Post 2 suggests that the BoE are p*ssing up a rope by increasing mortgage rates to reduce spending capacity to reduce demand and hence the money supply, to combat inflation.
It's forty years since I studied economics and I am a bit rusty, but generating a recession in the short term to reduce inflation when growth and productivity would resolve the issue in the medium term seems counter-intuitive.
Increasing interest rates to reduce demand is silly but there is another problem, which is the exchange rate. The Bank of England does need to keep interest rates more-or-less in line with America in order to shore up the exchange rate. A lower rate means exports become cheaper and imports more expensive, and right now it is imports that are the problem.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
PART 4: COMMENTARY
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
To use the language of the times, I think a lot in the public sector are "quiet quitting".
I notice that far more clinics in our outpatients finish by 1230, while previously they were still crowded at that time. A lot of my colleagues don't overbook urgent cases anymore, as was near universal a decade ago. It probably was just hiding capacity gaps in the past.
Beyond a certain point, Aaron Bell's question, Does the Prime Minister think I'm a fool? becomes inescapable.
And whilst there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Rishi being a squillionaire, or having a squillionaire as Prime Minister, there is a problem with him telling other people they can't have an inflation-matching pay rise from his government.
Having a squillionire as PM is a symptom that there's something fundamentally wrong.
Hint: also, erm, this non-dom stuff not a million miles away ...
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
Two excellent posts.
Post 2 suggests that the BoE are p*ssing up a rope by increasing mortgage rates to reduce spending capacity to reduce demand and hence the money supply, to combat inflation.
It's forty years since I studied economics and I am a bit rusty, but generating a recession in the short term to reduce inflation when growth and productivity would resolve the issue in the medium term seems counter-intuitive.
Increasing interest rates to reduce demand is silly but there is another problem, which is the exchange rate. The Bank of England does need to keep interest rates more-or-less in line with America in order to shore up the exchange rate. A lower rate means exports become cheaper and imports more expensive, and right now it is imports that are the problem.
We also have the added bonus nugget of increasing gilt yields if we do nothing to bluntly combat inflation.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
PART 4: COMMENTARY
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
PART 5: END
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. If you have any questions I will take them now...5/5
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
Very true. We see that exemplified on here by that bastion of the Conservative Party, the only true Tory, HYUFD. Plenty to say on matters close to Tory members' hearts but no economic ideas whatsoever.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
PART 4: COMMENTARY
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
PART 5: END
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. If you have any questions I will take them now...5/5
Thought provoking. See my question in response to part 2
@Benpointer I am currently on the Zoe programme. I am finding it very useful. The tests showed my blood sugar control was poor and my blood fat control worse. This was subsequently backed up with some blood tests I had which showed elevated cholesterol; so that reassured me further about the Zoe programme.
It provides individualised scores on food to your biology. I find it useful and the lessons and support is decent. I am still struggling to manage my blood fats and understand why some meals work and don't work (although you can chat to support teams). But I have felt better on the scheme and lost some weight too.
It seems the most individualised system I've seen. Support can be a little slow at times, but they do score foods not in their system if you ask. Overall I am enjoying it and think gut science is increasingly key.
One thing they need to improve going forwards (which they are testing) is a follow up testing plan so users can assess progress over time.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the response James, that sounds positive.
I have signed up now... but they have such demand I have been told I will not get my testing kit until October* :-(
(*Tbf that delay was made clear before I signed up.)
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
To use the language of the times, I think a lot in the public sector are "quiet quitting".
I notice that far more clinics in our outpatients finish by 1230, while previously they were still crowded at that time. A lot of my colleagues don't overbook urgent cases anymore, as was near universal a decade ago. It probably was just hiding capacity gaps in the past.
Beyond a certain point, Aaron Bell's question, Does the Prime Minister think I'm a fool? becomes inescapable.
And whilst there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Rishi being a squillionaire, or having a squillionaire as Prime Minister
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
PART 4: COMMENTARY
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
PART 5: END
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. If you have any questions I will take them now...5/5
Bravo. Two questions from a provincial science teacher:
What does "work" even mean in terms of economic ideas right now? A chunk of the lamentation on the right seems to be that the recent world (cheap usable hydrocarbons, easy compound growth) has gone and probably isn't coming back.
Was Trussonomics really full-fat Thatcherism, or uncomprehending cosplay Thatcherism? Truss seemed to jump straight to the Lawson boom, overlooking the austerity and tax rises of the early 80s. Sound Money and whatnot.
Ms. Heathener, while those are terrible numbers aren't they also par for the course at this point? A bit "Titanic still sinking"?
Hi MD. In as objective and empirical terms as possible, what is notable is a widening of the gap in recent weeks.
I'm concerned that those betting on the outcome of the General Election, which is now either 10 months or 15 months away should be as factually based as possible. For reasons previously stated, I think we make a mistake in using GE2019 as a benchmark for swing. December GE2019 was a unique 'Get Brexit Done' election against an unelectable anti-semitic trotskyite. The real GE benchmark, I have argued, is the June 2017 one, which was a hung parliament.
p.s. Saw loads of Morris Dancers in Teignmouth a couple of Saturdays back. Many wearing dark outfits which was new to me.
Is there still a summer affect in the polls?
effect (sorry)
'summer affect' is just a mistake. Far less ugly than 'summer impact'.
I'm not sure if it's just a senior moment but Biden answered as question from the press corps about why cluster bombs are now being sent to Ukraine by saying, "They've run out of ammunition."
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Yes I think 6.5% is a fair compromise. This is not the 35% the doctors seem to be demanding
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
PART 4: COMMENTARY
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
PART 5: END
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. If you have any questions I will take them now...5/5
I can't think of a question that's both relevant and puts me in a good light so I'll just say ... cheers, an excellent read.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Happened to me in La Rochelle in the 80s. Total panic, as I was going to have to cancel all my cards and we were wondering how we could pay to get home. Went to the local police station - someone had handed it in with all the cash intact. I bloody love the French!
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer.
So combatting inflation by restricting teacher's pay just doesn't work any more. And the Conservative Party just doesn't realise it... 2/n
PART 3
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
Whilst I agree that traditional Keynesian economic models struggle to explain the modern world given the vast increase in international trade and the free flow of capital I think your analysis goes too far. If, taking your example, public sector pay is restricted that does reduce domestic demand. Not by as much as it might given the free access to credit but it does. If that happens internationally traded goods and services can either get a lower price here or go elsewhere. If they go elsewhere supply is reduced with demand and the implications for price are uncertain.
In short, the policy works to a degree but there are various inefficiencies that reduce its effectiveness. If you do the opposite, however, then you have excess demand which may be met by higher prices or additional supply or both. If we consume goods and services beyond what we produce we have a trade deficit and that, over time, reduces our wealth, our standard of living and our children's futures.
What those in charge of the economy need to focus on is whether we are producing enough to satisfy our current standard of living. If not, we need to either increase output or reduce consumption. These are our choices.
Most interesting aspect of Rutte government collapse in NL is WHY it collapsed. Immigration
The topic is going to haunt European politics for the foreseeable. NL was - I believe - one of the seven EU countries demanding a “Rwanda” solution
It collapsed over a proposal put forward by Rutte to prevent asylum seekers (presumably those who were granted asylum) from then bringing their families into the country.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
But that’s even worse if you lose it. Phone AND everything else
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
It was an Albanian taxi driver
- my money's on a superwoke progressive young Europhile. Aka your typical Londoner. They didn't realize the wallet belonged to a rancid old reactionary but it wouldn't have mattered one jot.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer...
That ignores the fact that it's caused by BOTH those things. An increased money supply still increases inflation - which is more ur less what the BoE is in about when refers to 'core inflation', which persists as commodity prices have come down.
It's not either or.
And has globalisation ended ? China's trade with the US, for example, is currently higher than it has ever been.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
But that’s even worse if you lose it. Phone AND everything else
But you are monitoring it the whole time. I have to check about every 90 seconds for evidence of people being wrong on the internet.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
It was an Albanian taxi driver
- my money's on a superwoke progressive young Europhile. Aka your typical Londoner. They didn't realize the wallet belonged to a rancid old reactionary but it wouldn't have mattered one jot.
Or maybe a right wing travel writer-cum-novelist with a proclivity for progressive young women the age of his daughter. I understand that there are quite a lot of them in London.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
staff (particularly females) are too intimidated to report abuse to their supervisors
...
Probably quicker to list the organisations which don't have this problem.
Having run a small organisation in the 70s, and having been involved with all sorts of public activities, I look back on some of the decisions I made, some of the questions I asked, with a certain degree of horror. I certainly wouldn’t ask them today, and I certainly wouldn’t have made some of the decisions that I then made in today’s climate. Given all that, I was always regarded as reasonably progressive, and sometimes foolishly so!
Most interesting aspect of Rutte government collapse in NL is WHY it collapsed. Immigration
The topic is going to haunt European politics for the foreseeable. NL was - I believe - one of the seven EU countries demanding a “Rwanda” solution
It collapsed over a proposal put forward by Rutte to prevent asylum seekers (presumably those who were granted asylum) from then bringing their families into the country.
A perfectly reasonable proposal by Rutte
If you are lucky enough to be given asylum, the host country is not then obliged to allow your wife, kids, granny, and third cousins to join you
And if a country does do that, it is inviting every economic migrant in the world to try asylum seeking instead, as a brilliant route to chain migration for extended families
The asylum system is dead in the water. We have to harden our hearts and accept we 1. Can’t take everyone or 2. If we take everyone, the UK’s population will balloon to 100m and we will become majority black/Muslim very quickly
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
I'm not sure our Lords and Masters share your intelligence, David.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
But that’s even worse if you lose it. Phone AND everything else
But you are monitoring it the whole time. I have to check about every 90 seconds for evidence of people being wrong on the internet.
lol true. But losing your phone is nonetheless quite traumatic. I had mine snatched a few months ago. Not nice
Tho I did admire the skill with which this Remainery young kid sailed his e-bike past me and plucked the phone from my hand with nary a wobble, and sped away. I could see the phone on my map as it disappeared into Belsize Park. @kinabalu-land. Woke Central
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Yes I think 6.5% is a fair compromise. This is not the 35% the doctors seem to be demanding
6.5% is pretty much the pay rise the rentier class has been awarded, being the interest you can now get on a 1 year deposit
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
That really depends on your definition of racism. There are many people across the world who would not describe themselves as racist, yet would be uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a minority culture or race within their own country.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
But that’s even worse if you lose it. Phone AND everything else
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer...
That ignores the fact that it's caused by BOTH those things. An increased money supply still increases inflation - which is more ur less what the BoE is in about when refers to 'core inflation', which persists as commodity prices have come down.
It's not either or.
And has globalisation ended ? China's trade with the US, for example, is currently higher than it has ever been.
Yup - pay rises are inflationary. Doesn’t mean that pay rises are good or bad. Just that they are inflationary.
What has changed in globalisation is that the instant, easy win of “post the factory to China. Hire a design team in Latvia, we’ll keep the boardroom in London” is no longer there.
COVID had broken some things at the low end of labour market as well. From the point of view of the employers.
For governments - the endless fall in the prices of low and mid range consumer goods are gone. As is the phenomenon of endless cheap labour in delivery etc. which means a big chunk of the deflationary component of the basket of prices has disappeared. Inflation was always there - but masked by deflation of other components.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
PART 1
It's a hangover from previous times. Many of the ideas in people's heads about how to run an economy (what causes inflation, how to prevent unemployment, etc) were built in the 70's and 80s. The theory goes that inflation is driven by the "money supply" - the amount of money in the economy. The theory says that the amount of goods and services in an economy changes slowly, so if the amount of money in the economy goes up quickly, inflation inevitably grows. By restricting teacher's pay, he hopes to discourage others and prevent money supply from growing and hence kill inflation
But here's the problem... 1/n
PART 2
In the 70's and 80's the UK economy, despite the inheritance of the British Empire, was still a closed economy compared to now. In the intervening years credit has become far more available and we have become far more open and we import far more: this is globalisation. In our present moment inflation is driven by a global rise in costs: Ukraine used to be the European breadbasket, China produced cheap chips, the US finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a global order, and so on. Inflation is no longer caused by an increase in money supply, it's caused by - drum roll - goods becoming rarer...
That ignores the fact that it's caused by BOTH those things. An increased money supply still increases inflation - which is more ur less what the BoE is in about when refers to 'core inflation', which persists as commodity prices have come down.
It's not either or.
And has globalisation ended ? China's trade with the US, for example, is currently higher than it has ever been.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
That really depends on your definition of racism. There are many people across the world who would not describe themselves as racist, yet would be uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a minority culture or race within their own country.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
I'm not sure our Lords and Masters share your intelligence, David.
Yes but what @DavidL seems to be suggesting is economic and physical contraction. We eat less to reduce our demand on imported food and we do less to reduce domestic demand.
Yet when South Cambridgeshire Council runs a 4-day week, that silly old fool Gove stamps on it with some ludicrous argument about how if the Council Tax payers are working five days a week (many of them don't I'd argue), the Council staff have to.
As for eating less, I know that's an undercurrent meme on this site - the country's full of fat people and we get the occasional numpty boasting about they've run 10 miles or cycled 100 miles - but there are solutions about using agricultural land better which could create more food - albeit more of the turnipy type favoured by one Government Minister and as Coffey found out, trying to sell a 1920s diet in the 2020s isn't going to be welcome.
How do you "moderate domestic demand"? How would British companies react? You could substantially increase taxes - perhaps 15p on high rate - that would slow the economy down. The problem with interest rates is they arne't the powerful mechanism they were back when most of us were mortgagees. Many home owners now live mortgage free so are delighted when rates go up as their savings do better, they have more money to spend - oh wait.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
An interesting parliamentary exchange between John Redwood and a certain sword-bearer:
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): It would be better to get inflation down by expanding supply, rather than hitting mortgage holders again to get them to spend less. Can we have an urgent statement, before the summer recess, from the Government on measures to expand our domestic output of food, oil and gas, and industrial products with suitable incentives and facilitations?
Penny Mordaunt, Leader of the House: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful suggestion. He will know that, as Treasury questions are not until after the summer recess, he will have no opportunity to raise it there, so I will make sure that the Chancellor has heard his suggestion. I know that that will be welcomed by many Members across the House.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Yes I think 6.5% is a fair compromise. This is not the 35% the doctors seem to be demanding
6.5% is pretty much the pay rise the rentier class has been awarded, being the interest you can now get on a 1 year deposit
Meanwhile, junior doctors in Scotland have been offered 14.5%, plus inflation plus for the next three years. Difficult to see English doctors accepting less.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
That really depends on your definition of racism. There are many people across the world who would not describe themselves as racist, yet would be uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a minority culture or race within their own country.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
LOL, jog on sunshine I could buy and sell lowlifes like you.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
I'm not sure our Lords and Masters share your intelligence, David.
Yes but what @DavidL seems to be suggesting is economic and physical contraction. We eat less to reduce our demand on imported food and we do less to reduce domestic demand.
Yet when South Cambridgeshire Council runs a 4-day week, that silly old fool Gove stamps on it with some ludicrous argument about how if the Council Tax payers are working five days a week (many of them don't I'd argue), the Council staff have to.
As for eating less, I know that's an undercurrent meme on this site - the country's full of fat people and we get the occasional numpty boasting about they've run 10 miles or cycled 100 miles - but there are solutions about using agricultural land better which could create more food - albeit more of the turnipy type favoured by one Government Minister and as Coffey found out, trying to sell a 1920s diet in the 2020s isn't going to be welcome.
How do you "moderate domestic demand"? How would British companies react? You could substantially increase taxes - perhaps 15p on high rate - that would slow the economy down. The problem with interest rates is they arne't the powerful mechanism they were back when most of us were mortgagees. Many home owners now live mortgage free so are delighted when rates go up as their savings do better, they have more money to spend - oh wait.
What does the panel make of this theory?
But my sour contention is that there are real, important economic goods that we do need more of – and the crud-production described above is in no useful sense fungible with that.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
I don't mind what ethnic background or colour people are, or their individual religion but I would not want to live in a country with a majority fundamentalist religion. I don't think of that as racist but in favour of pluralism.
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
My objection is more basic.
The purpose of pay is to hire and retain the people you need to do the job. It has bugger all to do with inflation.
There are two big reasons for inflation:
(a) the external shocks caused by Covid and the Ukraine War.
(b) the government showered the economy with money during the pandemic. They weren’t wrong to do so, but there’s a price to be paid.
But inflation will fall sharply in coming months, and pay rises will outpace it. That is good news, not bad.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
It worked in the 1990s because more housing stock was mortgaged, ownership was higher, the vast majority were on variable rates (so interest rate rises took effect immediately) and our economy was less globalised. It's easy to forget just how much more global (and less Western) our economy has become in the last 30 years.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
My objection is more basic.
The purpose of pay is to hire and retain the people you need to do the job. It has bugger all to do with inflation.
There are two big reasons for inflation:
(a) the external shocks caused by Covid and the Ukraine War.
(b) the government showered the economy with money during the pandemic. They weren’t wrong to do so, but there’s a price to be paid.
But inflation will fall sharply in coming months, and pay rises will outpace it. That is good news, not bad.
Good for the ones getting the big pay rises , not so for the other poor sods.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
That really depends on your definition of racism. There are many people across the world who would not describe themselves as racist, yet would be uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a minority culture or race within their own country.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
LOL, jog on sunshine I could buy and sell lowlifes like you.
You get the £10 if you are busking on the bagpipes, and/or have a fetching doggie on a piece of string. Just so you know.
Most interesting aspect of Rutte government collapse in NL is WHY it collapsed. Immigration
The topic is going to haunt European politics for the foreseeable. NL was - I believe - one of the seven EU countries demanding a “Rwanda” solution
It collapsed over a proposal put forward by Rutte to prevent asylum seekers (presumably those who were granted asylum) from then bringing their families into the country.
VVD and D66 are a bad fit, despite both being Liberals.
John Goodenough, who has died aged 100, was a materials scientist who became the oldest winner of a Nobel Prize at 97, when he won a third of the £740,000 2019 Prize in Chemistry for his contribution to the development of the lithium-ion battery.
The rechargeable battery has helped to fuel the global revolution in portable electronics, transforming technology with power for devices ranging from cellphones, computers and pacemakers to electric cars – and its development, much of which took place at Oxford University, should have been a British success story.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Teachers should have rejected the 6.5% - that's roughly a 5% real terms pay cut. They have been beyond reasonable in agreeing to a pay cut, and are getting taken for a ride as a result.
It is interesting as a follow-up to @Richard_Tyndall 's question earlier that many have argued the Triple Lock and associated rises should be kept as they're supposedly 'not inflationary' as there's no business seeing its cost increase to pay for pension increases, so won't pass on the higher wages, so won't feed an inflationary spiral. As Mr Tyndall implies, that's the case for teachers too, but a 5% real terms pay cut is supposedly "inflationary" according to Rishi Rich? Its nonsense.
Of course any money the government pays out can boost money supply circulation, so can be theoretically inflationary, but that applies to the triple lock and benefits and everything else they're doing too equally.
Those who are working for a living should be at least as well off as those who are not, that should be a reasonable Conservative principle - and that should apply to teachers etc too.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
LOL, jog on sunshine I could buy and sell lowlifes like you.
You get the £10 if you are busking on the bagpipes, and/or have a fetching doggie on a piece of string. Just so you know.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
My objection is more basic.
The purpose of pay is to hire and retain the people you need to do the job. It has bugger all to do with inflation.
There are two big reasons for inflation:
(a) the external shocks caused by Covid and the Ukraine War.
(b) the government showered the economy with money during the pandemic. They weren’t wrong to do so, but there’s a price to be paid.
But inflation will fall sharply in coming months, and pay rises will outpace it. That is good news, not bad.
Good for the ones getting the big pay rises , not so for the other poor sods.
Workers, pensioners and depositors form a large majority of the population.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
I'm not sure our Lords and Masters share your intelligence, David.
Yes but what @DavidL seems to be suggesting is economic and physical contraction. We eat less to reduce our demand on imported food and we do less to reduce domestic demand.
Yet when South Cambridgeshire Council runs a 4-day week, that silly old fool Gove stamps on it with some ludicrous argument about how if the Council Tax payers are working five days a week (many of them don't I'd argue), the Council staff have to.
As for eating less, I know that's an undercurrent meme on this site - the country's full of fat people and we get the occasional numpty boasting about they've run 10 miles or cycled 100 miles - but there are solutions about using agricultural land better which could create more food - albeit more of the turnipy type favoured by one Government Minister and as Coffey found out, trying to sell a 1920s diet in the 2020s isn't going to be welcome.
How do you "moderate domestic demand"? How would British companies react? You could substantially increase taxes - perhaps 15p on high rate - that would slow the economy down. The problem with interest rates is they arne't the powerful mechanism they were back when most of us were mortgagees. Many home owners now live mortgage free so are delighted when rates go up as their savings do better, they have more money to spend - oh wait.
What does the panel make of this theory?
But my sour contention is that there are real, important economic goods that we do need more of – and the crud-production described above is in no useful sense fungible with that.
He objects to the fact that modern life is complicated. All his points have the same flaw, but the most obvious is (example of undesirable crud) "Straightforward crime and the anti-crime measures. Constantly upgraded IT systems to fight cyber attacks are the most obvious example." Yes, this is bad, but how does he propose to stop it? Abolish crime by statute, persuade all the criminals to give it up voluntarily, desist from countermeasures and let the criminals win, or carry on roughly as we are?
Most interesting aspect of Rutte government collapse in NL is WHY it collapsed. Immigration
The topic is going to haunt European politics for the foreseeable. NL was - I believe - one of the seven EU countries demanding a “Rwanda” solution
It collapsed over a proposal put forward by Rutte to prevent asylum seekers (presumably those who were granted asylum) from then bringing their families into the country.
A perfectly reasonable proposal by Rutte
If you are lucky enough to be given asylum, the host country is not then obliged to allow your wife, kids, granny, and third cousins to join you
And if a country does do that, it is inviting every economic migrant in the world to try asylum seeking instead, as a brilliant route to chain migration for extended families
The asylum system is dead in the water. We have to harden our hearts and accept we 1. Can’t take everyone or 2. If we take everyone, the UK’s population will balloon to 100m and we will become majority black/Muslim very quickly
Let the voters decide
Labour will almost certainly open up immigration and asylum rules upon taking office.
Alongside their desire to socially engineer, regulate, hector and nanny us, nationalise industry to placate their union client base, and up debt and tax, it creates a heck of an opportunity for a rapid Conservative comeback.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
It worked in the 1990s because more housing stock was mortgaged, ownership was higher, the vast majority were on variable rates (so interest rate rises took effect immediately) and our economy was less globalised. It's easy to forget just how much more global (and less Western) our economy has become in the last 30 years.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
Big cuts in standards of living for thee but not for me, seems to be the orthodoxy among central bankers.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
It worked in the 1990s because more housing stock was mortgaged, ownership was higher, the vast majority were on variable rates (so interest rate rises took effect immediately) and our economy was less globalised. It's easy to forget just how much more global (and less Western) our economy has become in the last 30 years.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
Big cuts in standards of living for thee but not for me, seems to be the orthodoxy among central bankers.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
I don't mind what ethnic background or colour people are, or their individual religion but I would not want to live in a country with a majority fundamentalist religion. I don't think of that as racist but in favour of pluralism.
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
Andrew Neil recently suggested the difference between Britain and Europe is their immigration tends to be uniformly from one region, whereas ours is from everywhere. Whether there's anything in that, especially beyond France, I'm not sure. Germany is quite diverse, at least in my experience of working for multinational and global megacorps.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
It is a mistake to think of inflation as a single thing. A price shock, such as happened to food prices when the Russian barbarians invaded Ukraine, creates inflation but the response to it has to be different because international prices are not affected by demand from the UK. If we cut our own demand we simply get less food. An internal labour shortage, however, can be moderated by reducing domestic demand which will reduce upward pressure on wages as the competition for labour becomes less intense. Much of our current inflation is in the first category and our responses have to acknowledge that.
I'm not sure our Lords and Masters share your intelligence, David.
Yes but what @DavidL seems to be suggesting is economic and physical contraction. We eat less to reduce our demand on imported food and we do less to reduce domestic demand.
Yet when South Cambridgeshire Council runs a 4-day week, that silly old fool Gove stamps on it with some ludicrous argument about how if the Council Tax payers are working five days a week (many of them don't I'd argue), the Council staff have to.
As for eating less, I know that's an undercurrent meme on this site - the country's full of fat people and we get the occasional numpty boasting about they've run 10 miles or cycled 100 miles - but there are solutions about using agricultural land better which could create more food - albeit more of the turnipy type favoured by one Government Minister and as Coffey found out, trying to sell a 1920s diet in the 2020s isn't going to be welcome.
How do you "moderate domestic demand"? How would British companies react? You could substantially increase taxes - perhaps 15p on high rate - that would slow the economy down. The problem with interest rates is they arne't the powerful mechanism they were back when most of us were mortgagees. Many home owners now live mortgage free so are delighted when rates go up as their savings do better, they have more money to spend - oh wait.
What does the panel make of this theory?
But my sour contention is that there are real, important economic goods that we do need more of – and the crud-production described above is in no useful sense fungible with that.
Agree completely. Not all economic activity is valued fairly or equally useful - and I say that as someone whose career has mostly been in industries with no or little net benefit for society yet I've been relatively well paid, certainly in relation to many key workers.
The free market economy is best when it is not 100% free but directed, not a lot, but "a bit". It is just that finding the correct level and content of "a bit" is hard. Doesn't mean governments shouldn't try though.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
It worked in the 1990s because more housing stock was mortgaged, ownership was higher, the vast majority were on variable rates (so interest rate rises took effect immediately) and our economy was less globalised. It's easy to forget just how much more global (and less Western) our economy has become in the last 30 years.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
Big cuts in standards of living for thee but not for me, seems to be the orthodoxy among central bankers.
It's analogous to their attitudes on climate change, where it's perfectly acceptable for them to jet around the world- and go on exotic holidays- because they're important, but not the average Joe.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Teachers should have rejected the 6.5% - that's roughly a 5% real terms pay cut. They have been beyond reasonable in agreeing to a pay cut, and are getting taken for a ride as a result.
It is interesting as a follow-up to @Richard_Tyndall 's question earlier that many have argued the Triple Lock and associated rises should be kept as they're supposedly 'not inflationary' as there's no business seeing its cost increase to pay for pension increases, so won't pass on the higher wages, so won't feed an inflationary spiral. As Mr Tyndall implies, that's the case for teachers too, but a 5% real terms pay cut is supposedly "inflationary" according to Rishi Rich? Its nonsense.
Of course any money the government pays out can boost money supply circulation, so can be theoretically inflationary, but that applies to the triple lock and benefits and everything else they're doing too equally.
Those who are working for a living should be at least as well off as those who are not, that should be a reasonable Conservative principle - and that should apply to teachers etc too.
6.5% going forward should be a real pay increase. And, the government ought to honour it.
Thunder rumbling around here. Backs up windy which looks similar for Headingley. Can't see too much play today at the cricket
Silverstone doesn’t know whether to be wet or dry. It just went from wet, to dry, to wet, and to dry again, in the space of an 18-lap Fromula 3 race. Somewhat chaotic!
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
The wallet struck me as anachronistic. Was he riding round on a velocipede when it fell out of the pocket of his frock coat?
Why the fuck do you need anything but a phone? It's got multiple cards in it and copies of all the documents/ID I'll ever need.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
They never did back in the 90s, either. Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
It worked in the 1990s because more housing stock was mortgaged, ownership was higher, the vast majority were on variable rates (so interest rate rises took effect immediately) and our economy was less globalised. It's easy to forget just how much more global (and less Western) our economy has become in the last 30 years.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
Big cuts in standards of living for thee but not for me, seems to be the orthodoxy among central bankers.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
Truss was just applying dogma, not intellect. It's one I'd dearly have loved to be true, because I liked the tax policies, but it's fingers in the ears approach to the real world was neither clever nor responsible.
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
An interesting parliamentary exchange between John Redwood and a certain sword-bearer:
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): It would be better to get inflation down by expanding supply, rather than hitting mortgage holders again to get them to spend less. Can we have an urgent statement, before the summer recess, from the Government on measures to expand our domestic output of food, oil and gas, and industrial products with suitable incentives and facilitations?
Penny Mordaunt, Leader of the House: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful suggestion. He will know that, as Treasury questions are not until after the summer recess, he will have no opportunity to raise it there, so I will make sure that the Chancellor has heard his suggestion. I know that that will be welcomed by many Members across the House.
Penny on manoeuvres?
Not really, or at least, not here. It is her job as Leader of the House. Redwood requests a debate and LoH Mordaunt says she'll pass it on. As an aside, PMQs used to be similar in that the Prime Minister would divert questions to the relevant departments, until Mrs Thatcher decided she needed to run everything from Number 10.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Teachers should have rejected the 6.5% - that's roughly a 5% real terms pay cut. They have been beyond reasonable in agreeing to a pay cut, and are getting taken for a ride as a result.
It is interesting as a follow-up to @Richard_Tyndall 's question earlier that many have argued the Triple Lock and associated rises should be kept as they're supposedly 'not inflationary' as there's no business seeing its cost increase to pay for pension increases, so won't pass on the higher wages, so won't feed an inflationary spiral. As Mr Tyndall implies, that's the case for teachers too, but a 5% real terms pay cut is supposedly "inflationary" according to Rishi Rich? Its nonsense.
Of course any money the government pays out can boost money supply circulation, so can be theoretically inflationary, but that applies to the triple lock and benefits and everything else they're doing too equally.
Those who are working for a living should be at least as well off as those who are not, that should be a reasonable Conservative principle - and that should apply to teachers etc too.
6.5% going forward should be a real pay increase. And, the government ought to honour it.
6.5% won't make up for the inflation that has happened, so will be a real pay cut. Even if inflation is sub-6.5% going forwards, real-terms pay will still be lower than it was, which is why we look back at inflation and prior inflation is taken into account with uplifts normally.
Yes it should be honoured, but its less than it should have been and shows remarkable restraint from teachers to have been willing to accept so much less than inflation, at a time so much more was being offered to others.
Not to forget of course that even if pay had been uplifted all the way by inflation, then the freezing of tax allowances means take home pay would have gone down in real terms still anyway.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
The wallet struck me as anachronistic. Was he riding round on a velocipede when it fell out of the pocket of his frock coat?
Why the fuck do you need anything but a phone? It's got multiple cards in it and copies of all the documents/ID I'll ever need.
I find functioning without a phone liberating.
I don't want to be compelled to spend my whole life craning my neck at a tiny screen that I have to continually tap at and charge.
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
Only fannies put stuff in their phone case, mainly because they have little to put in. How would a real person like Leon get his huge wad and stack of cards into a stupid phone case. Grow up.
The card is on the phone, and I carry one £5 and one £10 in case I am in a good mood and see an indigent like you begging by the roadside.
The wallet struck me as anachronistic. Was he riding round on a velocipede when it fell out of the pocket of his frock coat?
Why the fuck do you need anything but a phone? It's got multiple cards in it and copies of all the documents/ID I'll ever need.
I find functioning without a phone liberating.
I don't want to be compelled to spend my whole life craning my neck at a tiny screen that I have to continually tap at and charge.
I find functioning with a phone liberating.
I don't look at the screen except for when I need to. And I never carry my wallet with me anymore, I keep my wallet safe and secure at home and only take it out if I have a special reason I think I might need it, like my passport.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
I don't mind what ethnic background or colour people are, or their individual religion but I would not want to live in a country with a majority fundamentalist religion. I don't think of that as racist but in favour of pluralism.
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
Andrew Neil recently suggested the difference between Britain and Europe is their immigration tends to be uniformly from one region, whereas ours is from everywhere. Whether there's anything in that, especially beyond France, I'm not sure. Germany is quite diverse, at least in my experience of working for multinational and global megacorps.
I keep being astonished that France have managed to hold onto French Guiana in South America.
It's a proper colony but they've got away with it by folding it into metropolitan France.
One wonders why on earth we didn't do the same, for example, Malta.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
Truss was just applying dogma, not intellect. It's one I'd dearly have loved to be true, because I liked the tax policies, but it's fingers in the ears approach to the real world was neither clever nor responsible.
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
Truss screwed up but was at least asking the right questions. And while her budget collapsed, she did try to course-correct in replace Kwasi with Hunt though by then it was too little, too late.
I am not sure where this notion that Sunak is clever and gets good results comes from.
He's sticking rigidly to dogmas that are not suitable for today, any more than Truss. The problem is that his dogmas are less explosive, but that doesn't mean they're any less flawed.
Those of us who are working and have decades of career still left ahead of us are really getting screwed over by Rishi's failed dogmas.
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
I don't mind what ethnic background or colour people are, or their individual religion but I would not want to live in a country with a majority fundamentalist religion. I don't think of that as racist but in favour of pluralism.
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
Andrew Neil recently suggested the difference between Britain and Europe is their immigration tends to be uniformly from one region, whereas ours is from everywhere. Whether there's anything in that, especially beyond France, I'm not sure. Germany is quite diverse, at least in my experience of working for multinational and global megacorps.
I am not sure I agree with Neil's point, but I believe Germany immigration was until very recently overwhelmingly Eastern Europe particularly a large Turkish population. More recently obviously they took a large number of Syrians. But I don't believe they have ever really had substantial immigrant populations from places like South Asian, Caribbean or Chinese, or even former African colonies.
Here in the UK, we definitely have the large Eastern European immigrant population plus all of those listed previously and dating back 50+ years with likes of the Windrush generation.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
A more fundamental question - and one that may show my ignorance so apologies in advance and thanks to anyone for putting me right
How can any pay rise to teachers in the public sector be inflationary?
As I understand it inflation is measured against the costs of things that we, as the public, buy. Different forms of inflation inlcude different things but in the end they are all about stuff we directly pay for.
But we do not buy state education - we pay for it out of our taxes. Yes ultimately we are paying for it but it is not something that is measured by any of the normal inflation criteria that I am aware of. At worst (and it is of course bad) pay rises for teachers means more Government spending leading to more debt, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. But it does not mean that the price of anything we are directly paying for goes up.
So how is a public sector pay increase inflationary?
Teachers buy things, too. Also, if government is borrowing to pay public sector suffers, it is increasing the money supply in general. The increase in pay isn't, as you note, linked to any increase in goods or services.
The overall effect is small - but one public sector pay deal influences others.
Above inflation pay rises across the economy are the definition of wage inflation, if pay is increasing faster than the increase in gods and services. More money chasing the same amount of stuff pushes prices up.
That doesn't mean I'm but in favour of a decent settlement fund teachers, btw. And definitely fully funded.
The government's choice is either spend more money or have fewer teachers. Stuff costs what it costs.
Quite. And note the likely pay review body recommendation - 6.5% - is likely to be rejected by government, despite being below inflation. Teachers have says they'll accept it, IF fully funded.
The government is simply wrong on this.
Yes I think 6.5% is a fair compromise. This is not the 35% the doctors seem to be demanding
6.5% is pretty much the pay rise the rentier class has been awarded, being the interest you can now get on a 1 year deposit
Meanwhile, junior doctors in Scotland have been offered 14.5%, plus inflation plus for the next three years. Difficult to see English doctors accepting less.
Not quite, this is the deal that the BMA is putting to its Scottish members, and calling off the strike there:
Thunder rumbling around here. Backs up windy which looks similar for Headingley. Can't see too much play today at the cricket
Silverstone doesn’t know whether to be wet or dry. It just went from wet, to dry, to wet, and to dry again, in the space of an 18-lap Fromula 3 race. Somewhat chaotic!
Prost and Piquet racing on the F1 channel at the moment sponsors include Marlboro and Campari. No spoilers please 😅
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
Truss was just applying dogma, not intellect. It's one I'd dearly have loved to be true, because I liked the tax policies, but it's fingers in the ears approach to the real world was neither clever nor responsible.
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
Truss screwed up but was at least asking the right questions. And while her budget collapsed, she did try to course-correct in replace Kwasi with Hunt though by then it was too little, too late.
I am not sure where this notion that Sunak is clever and gets good results comes from.
He's sticking rigidly to dogmas that are not suitable for today, any more than Truss. The problem is that his dogmas are less explosive, but that doesn't mean they're any less flawed.
Those of us who are working and have decades of career still left ahead of us are really getting screwed over by Rishi's failed dogmas.
Truss fans seem to give her a load of credit for understanding that the UK is in a state of managed decline.
Nearly everyone agrees there is managed decline, the differences are on how we deal with that. No credit for "asking the right questions" or "understanding the problems the UK faces".
An interesting parliamentary exchange between John Redwood and a certain sword-bearer:
It's difficult to tell how old JR is because he looks like a Cyberman constructed from Pek luncheon meat. I looked it up and the prick is 72! We could have to put up with his prolix Nacht und Nebel decrees for another 10 years.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
Truss was just applying dogma, not intellect. It's one I'd dearly have loved to be true, because I liked the tax policies, but it's fingers in the ears approach to the real world was neither clever nor responsible.
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
Truss screwed up but was at least asking the right questions. And while her budget collapsed, she did try to course-correct in replace Kwasi with Hunt though by then it was too little, too late.
I am not sure where this notion that Sunak is clever and gets good results comes from.
He's sticking rigidly to dogmas that are not suitable for today, any more than Truss. The problem is that his dogmas are less explosive, but that doesn't mean they're any less flawed.
Those of us who are working and have decades of career still left ahead of us are really getting screwed over by Rishi's failed dogmas.
Is it dogma, or just deeply cynical politics?
Sunak's desperation to cut the basic rate of income tax is palpable. Whether that's because he thinks that "RISHI TELLS BRITAIN: 2p OFF" headlines will stop Britain telling him much the same, or whether he just wants to salt the ground for the next government, I don't know or particularly care. But he, and the rest of the Conservative party, want a tax cut, even if it leaves people paying more tax.
The numbers don't really add up for that now. They certainly won't add up if he has to pay public sector workers more. And the cads don't even vote for him, so who gives a stuff what they think?
"This country isn't racist" vs "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
I don't mind what ethnic background or colour people are, or their individual religion but I would not want to live in a country with a majority fundamentalist religion. I don't think of that as racist but in favour of pluralism.
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
Andrew Neil recently suggested the difference between Britain and Europe is their immigration tends to be uniformly from one region, whereas ours is from everywhere. Whether there's anything in that, especially beyond France, I'm not sure. Germany is quite diverse, at least in my experience of working for multinational and global megacorps.
I keep being astonished that France have managed to hold onto French Guiana in South America.
It's a proper colony but they've got away with it by folding it into metropolitan France.
One wonders why on earth we didn't do the same, for example, Malta.
Trucial States would have made our finances look slightly different!
Five hours ago I left my fat wallet at Camden Road station. En route to Richmond to get drunk with a friend by the river
I duly arrived, bereft, and got drunk, and it was all good and fun, but on the way back home just now, I began to tot up all the hassly expensive things I would now have to do, and how much it would all cost
At Camden Road station I discovered someone had handed in my wallet. Everything inside it intact
Thankyou London and Londoners and that lovely person. This one thing has restored my faith in my city, and in humanity. It doesn't take much, but TA
Bet it was somebody who voted Remain.
Bit gammony having a wallet these days shirley, don't people put stuff in their phone case?
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
But that’s even worse if you lose it. Phone AND everything else
But you are monitoring it the whole time. I have to check about every 90 seconds for evidence of people being wrong on the internet.
lol true. But losing your phone is nonetheless quite traumatic. I had mine snatched a few months ago. Not nice
Tho I did admire the skill with which this Remainery young kid sailed his e-bike past me and plucked the phone from my hand with nary a wobble, and sped away. I could see the phone on my map as it disappeared into Belsize Park. @kinabalu-land. Woke Central
Presumably you were able to track it on your other phone.
I'm not sure anyone knows how to control inflation in today's economy now, other than replaying the greatest hits from the 1990s and crossing fingers that a scorched earth policy does the trick. There's a total lack of thinking and leadership.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
You supported the current lack of leadership.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
You're a nutcase on Truss.
I acknowledge her failings but considered her overall mission to be vital. Sunak has utterly wasted everyone's time as was clear from the outset.
Truss was just applying dogma, not intellect. It's one I'd dearly have loved to be true, because I liked the tax policies, but it's fingers in the ears approach to the real world was neither clever nor responsible.
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
Truss screwed up but was at least asking the right questions. And while her budget collapsed, she did try to course-correct in replace Kwasi with Hunt though by then it was too little, too late.
I am not sure where this notion that Sunak is clever and gets good results comes from.
He's sticking rigidly to dogmas that are not suitable for today, any more than Truss. The problem is that his dogmas are less explosive, but that doesn't mean they're any less flawed.
Those of us who are working and have decades of career still left ahead of us are really getting screwed over by Rishi's failed dogmas.
Truss fans seem to give her a load of credit for understanding that the UK is in a state of managed decline.
Nearly everyone agrees there is managed decline, the differences are on how we deal with that. No credit for "asking the right questions" or "understanding the problems the UK faces".
How has Rishi attempted to deal with that?
Over the last few years his big ideas seem to be.
1. To increase National Insurance, a tax only paid by those who work for a living. 2. To massively increase Income Tax and National Insurance via fiscal drag, lifting more into higher rates of tax. 3. To increase Corporation Tax 4. To put the burden of dealing with inflation almost solely on those paying mortgages and those who are working. 5. All while increasing welfare by inflation to shield those on welfare from the charges.
How does any of that arrest a manage in decline? How is it even trying to?
And if a Labour Chancellor had done all that, then @Casino_Royale would quite deservedly be screaming blue murder at it, not saying its getting good results.
Comments
The Conservative Party no longer knows how to run an economy. Truss tried full-fat Thatcherism and it blew up on the pad. All the party theoreticians spent decades talking about the EU and now focus on cultural issues. They don't have a theory. Lacking a theory they fall back on fossil ideas in their lizard brain: clamp down on the unions, talk hard. But these techniques don't work in the 2020's. So they're flailing.
The reason why Con need to take time out and a time in opposition is not just because I want them to, it's so that they can rebuild ideas. All their theoreticians are fighting culture war, but these are luxury values in deglobalisation. They need to work out how to run an economy (or more likely, observe what works with others) so that they know what to do.
Because right now, they just don't...3/n
Post 2 suggests that the BoE are p*ssing up a rope by increasing mortgage rates to reduce spending capacity to reduce demand and hence the money supply to combat inflation.
It's forty years since I studied economics and I am a bit rusty, but generating a recession in the short term to reduce inflation when growth and productivity would resolve the issue in the medium term seems counter-intuitive.
We are all working off ideas formed during the period known as "neoliberalism" (1979?-2019?). The world that existed during that period was increasingly globalised, a global market driving growth thru cheap goods, underpinned by a US enforcing the world order. But that world is on the downslope: US focussing on Pacific, Ukrainan wheat has gone, China isn't nice. In this dying world our ideas no longer work and politicians are flailing, retreating to populism or old ideas. We notice it because of Brexit, but it's a global thing.
Until things stabilize and politicians work out ideas that work, we will have this problem...4/n
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/08/rnli-accused-of-misogyny-over-response-to-sexual-misconduct-claim
staff (particularly females) are too intimidated to report abuse to their supervisors
We do seem to be up an economic gum tree.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. If you have any questions I will take them now...5/5
Thanks for the response James, that sounds positive.
I have signed up now... but they have such demand I have been told I will not get my testing kit until October* :-(
(*Tbf that delay was made clear before I signed up.)
The topic is going to haunt European politics for the foreseeable. NL was - I believe - one of the seven EU countries demanding a “Rwanda” solution
And whilst there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Rishi being a squillionaire, or having a squillionaire as Prime Minister Bravo. Two questions from a provincial science teacher:
What does "work" even mean in terms of economic ideas right now? A chunk of the lamentation on the right seems to be that the recent world (cheap usable hydrocarbons, easy compound growth) has gone and probably isn't coming back.
Was Trussonomics really full-fat Thatcherism, or uncomprehending cosplay Thatcherism? Truss seemed to jump straight to the Lawson boom, overlooking the austerity and tax rises of the early 80s. Sound Money and whatnot.
This happened to me twice in London in pre-phone days, wallet handed in intact except for cash.
It's no wonder voters don't warm to that.
In short, the policy works to a degree but there are various inefficiencies that reduce its effectiveness. If you do the opposite, however, then you have excess demand which may be met by higher prices or additional supply or both. If we consume goods and services beyond what we produce we have a trade deficit and that, over time, reduces our wealth, our standard of living and our children's futures.
What those in charge of the economy need to focus on is whether we are producing enough to satisfy our current standard of living. If not, we need to either increase output or reduce consumption. These are our choices.
(Truss returning, I mean - I'd be delighted to see the Tories down to 50 MPs obvs.)
It's not either or.
And has globalisation ended ? China's trade with the US, for example, is currently higher than it has ever been.
Given all that, I was always regarded as reasonably progressive, and sometimes foolishly so!
If you are lucky enough to be given asylum, the host country is not then obliged to allow your wife, kids, granny, and third cousins to join you
And if a country does do that, it is inviting every economic migrant in the world to try asylum seeking instead, as a brilliant route to chain migration for extended families
The asylum system is dead in the water. We have to harden our hearts and accept we 1. Can’t take everyone or 2. If we take everyone, the UK’s population will balloon to 100m and we will become majority black/Muslim very quickly
Let the voters decide
Interest rates are a very blunt policy tool, but pretty well the only one where government has sufficient room for manoeuvre.
Rapid rises to combat inflation are an admission they fucked up, but at this point they're also necessary, in all likelihood.
Good policy, like bad, takes decades to play out. What any one administration can do is limited.
This inflation is being lead by shortage in the supply of energy and food, fundamentally. Those shortages were being addressed by the Truss administration; Sunak's seems to actively embrace such shortages and demand a recession to stop the proles being able to put their heating on and buy so much food.
Tho I did admire the skill with which this Remainery young kid sailed his e-bike past me and plucked the phone from my hand with nary a wobble, and sped away. I could see the phone on my map as it disappeared into Belsize Park. @kinabalu-land. Woke Central
vs
"I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"
These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.
Lorra rain marching northwards.
What has changed in globalisation is that the instant, easy win of “post the factory to China. Hire a design team in Latvia, we’ll keep the boardroom in London” is no longer there.
COVID had broken some things at the low end of labour market as well. From the point of view of the employers.
For governments - the endless fall in the prices of low and mid range consumer goods are gone. As is the phenomenon of endless cheap labour in delivery etc. which means a big chunk of the deflationary component of the basket of prices has disappeared. Inflation was always there - but masked by deflation of other components.
Yet when South Cambridgeshire Council runs a 4-day week, that silly old fool Gove stamps on it with some ludicrous argument about how if the Council Tax payers are working five days a week (many of them don't I'd argue), the Council staff have to.
As for eating less, I know that's an undercurrent meme on this site - the country's full of fat people and we get the occasional numpty boasting about they've run 10 miles or cycled 100 miles - but there are solutions about using agricultural land better which could create more food - albeit more of the turnipy type favoured by one Government Minister and as Coffey found out, trying to sell a 1920s diet in the 2020s isn't going to be welcome.
How do you "moderate domestic demand"? How would British companies react? You could substantially increase taxes - perhaps 15p on high rate - that would slow the economy down. The problem with interest rates is they arne't the powerful mechanism they were back when most of us were mortgagees. Many home owners now live mortgage free so are delighted when rates go up as their savings do better, they have more money to spend - oh wait.
It would be better to get inflation down by expanding supply, rather than hitting mortgage holders again to get them to spend less. Can we have an urgent statement, before the summer recess, from the Government on measures to expand our domestic output of food, oil and gas, and industrial products with suitable incentives and facilitations?
Penny Mordaunt, Leader of the House:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful suggestion. He will know that, as Treasury questions are not until after the summer recess, he will have no opportunity to raise it there, so I will make sure that the Chancellor has heard his suggestion. I know that that will be welcomed by many Members across the House.
Penny on manoeuvres?
But my sour contention is that there are real, important economic goods that we do need more of – and the crud-production described above is in no useful sense fungible with that.
https://freethinkecon.wordpress.com/2023/05/27/the-crud-economy-and-the-rationale-for-industrial-strategy
Podcast conversation with Giles Wilkes here: https://megaphone.link/PMO8720123054
FWIW I don't think it at all likely to happen in the UK before the AI takes over and doesn't care about any of this stuff.....
The purpose of pay is to hire and retain the people you need to do the job. It has bugger all to do with inflation.
There are two big reasons for inflation:
(a) the external shocks caused by Covid and the Ukraine War.
(b) the government showered the economy with money during the pandemic. They weren’t wrong to do so, but there’s a price to be paid.
But inflation will fall sharply in coming months, and pay rises will outpace it. That is good news, not bad.
My frustration is the lack of quality, intellect and integrity at the top of government and our institutions who are prepared to do fresh thinking.
The rechargeable battery has helped to fuel the global revolution in portable electronics, transforming technology with power for devices ranging from cellphones, computers and pacemakers to electric cars – and its development, much of which took place at Oxford University, should have been a British success story.
Instead, like computers, the internet and civil nuclear power, it became an example of the country’s failure to commercialise its scientific innovations. British companies remain bit players in a global lithium battery industry dominated by Japan, South Korea and China.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2023/07/06/john-goodenough-nobel-lithium-battery-cellphones-obituary/ (£££)
It is interesting as a follow-up to @Richard_Tyndall 's question earlier that many have argued the Triple Lock and associated rises should be kept as they're supposedly 'not inflationary' as there's no business seeing its cost increase to pay for pension increases, so won't pass on the higher wages, so won't feed an inflationary spiral. As Mr Tyndall implies, that's the case for teachers too, but a 5% real terms pay cut is supposedly "inflationary" according to Rishi Rich? Its nonsense.
Of course any money the government pays out can boost money supply circulation, so can be theoretically inflationary, but that applies to the triple lock and benefits and everything else they're doing too equally.
Those who are working for a living should be at least as well off as those who are not, that should be a reasonable Conservative principle - and that should apply to teachers etc too.
Alongside their desire to socially engineer, regulate, hector and nanny us, nationalise industry to placate their union client base, and up debt and tax, it creates a heck of an opportunity for a rapid Conservative comeback.
"By we, I of course mean you".
The free market economy is best when it is not 100% free but directed, not a lot, but "a bit". It is just that finding the correct level and content of "a bit" is hard. Doesn't mean governments shouldn't try though.
Why the fuck do you need anything but a phone? It's got multiple cards in it and copies of all the documents/ID I'll ever need.
That is a sacrifice I am prepared to make.”
Sunak is clever and works hard, and I think gets some good results, but I don't think his core political skills are sharp enough and he hasn't thought creatively enough on this one and isn't leading from the front
Fixing things one by one behind the scenes isn't enough.
Yes it should be honoured, but its less than it should have been and shows remarkable restraint from teachers to have been willing to accept so much less than inflation, at a time so much more was being offered to others.
Not to forget of course that even if pay had been uplifted all the way by inflation, then the freezing of tax allowances means take home pay would have gone down in real terms still anyway.
I don't want to be compelled to spend my whole life craning my neck at a tiny screen that I have to continually tap at and charge.
I don't look at the screen except for when I need to. And I never carry my wallet with me anymore, I keep my wallet safe and secure at home and only take it out if I have a special reason I think I might need it, like my passport.
It's a proper colony but they've got away with it by folding it into metropolitan France.
One wonders why on earth we didn't do the same, for example, Malta.
I am not sure where this notion that Sunak is clever and gets good results comes from.
He's sticking rigidly to dogmas that are not suitable for today, any more than Truss. The problem is that his dogmas are less explosive, but that doesn't mean they're any less flawed.
Those of us who are working and have decades of career still left ahead of us are really getting screwed over by Rishi's failed dogmas.
Here in the UK, we definitely have the large Eastern European immigrant population plus all of those listed previously and dating back 50+ years with likes of the Windrush generation.
Nearly everyone agrees there is managed decline, the differences are on how we deal with that. No credit for "asking the right questions" or "understanding the problems the UK faces".
Sunak's desperation to cut the basic rate of income tax is palpable. Whether that's because he thinks that "RISHI TELLS BRITAIN: 2p OFF" headlines will stop Britain telling him much the same, or whether he just wants to salt the ground for the next government, I don't know or particularly care. But he, and the rest of the Conservative party, want a tax cut, even if it leaves people paying more tax.
The numbers don't really add up for that now. They certainly won't add up if he has to pay public sector workers more. And the cads don't even vote for him, so who gives a stuff what they think?
Over the last few years his big ideas seem to be.
1. To increase National Insurance, a tax only paid by those who work for a living.
2. To massively increase Income Tax and National Insurance via fiscal drag, lifting more into higher rates of tax.
3. To increase Corporation Tax
4. To put the burden of dealing with inflation almost solely on those paying mortgages and those who are working.
5. All while increasing welfare by inflation to shield those on welfare from the charges.
How does any of that arrest a manage in decline? How is it even trying to?
And if a Labour Chancellor had done all that, then @Casino_Royale would quite deservedly be screaming blue murder at it, not saying its getting good results.