Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Labour’s taxing problem – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,164
edited August 4 in General
Labour’s taxing problem – politicalbetting.com

From what you've seen or heard, do you think the public finances that the outgoing Conservative government left behind were…Very good: 1%Fairly good: 10%Neither good nor bad: 18%Fairly bad: 26%Very bad: 35%https://t.co/EOFd1INBCO pic.twitter.com/WK24B1cgFD

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    edited July 30
    The correct answer in the third poll is demographics, but it's not an option (not even as "something else" or whatever). Oldies wanting pensions and medical treatment.

    I would 100% sign a living will which said euthanase me when I no longer recognise my own children (or if I had none some other nice clear objective test). This would solve many problems and increase the sum of human happiness.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    About par I would say. Reeves is trying to pin the blame for the tax rises on the previous government and is succeeding to some extent. But Labour will own any decisions from now on.

    I think Labour will be pretty happy with these numbers and that the narrative holds but perhaps saw more pushback from Hunt then they were expecting.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,464
    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,464
    I'm a bit worried about ChatGPT:

    My prompt: Please write for me a typical trade union boss name

    ChatGPT:
    A typical trade union boss name might be "John O'Reilly."
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,903
    As noted in the last thread, Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary about the differences between the numbers the last government signed off on, and those presented by Rachel Reeves yesterday.

    Following statements made in the House, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary on the concerning contradiction between the Main Estimates put before Parliament last week and the document presented by the Chancellor today.
    https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1818011536335704150

    Tweet includes letter to Cabinet Secretary.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,642

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    FF43 said:

    About par I would say. Reeves is trying to pin the blame for the tax rises on the previous government and is succeeding to some extent. But Labour will own any decisions from now on.

    I think Labour will be pretty happy with these numbers and that the narrative holds but perhaps saw more pushback from Hunt then they were expecting.

    The first 6 months are when you announce in advance all the bad news, firstly because it will be forgotten come the next election and secondly because you can pin it on the previous Government (and I suspect a lot of voters will accept it is the previous Government's fault).

    The problem Labour has is that the easiest fix for some of the taxes (Council tax is a big problem) takes 2-3 years to re-engineer which is why they won't be dealt with now because that will be connected to the next election.

    Although I do think there are ways of revaluing council tax quickly uses a combination of last sold price and the band the house is currently in.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,464

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    Maybe he was right but just 9 years too early?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    edited July 30

    I'm a bit worried about ChatGPT:

    My prompt: Please write for me a typical trade union boss name

    ChatGPT:
    A typical trade union boss name might be "John O'Reilly."

    Don't forget ChatGPT's US bias and the tendency for American union bosses to still be of Irish descent
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,642

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    Maybe he was right but just 9 years too early?
    Nah, the events following on from 2016 is what is likely to keep the Tories out of power for a generation.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    edited July 30

    On the “Labour knew how bad things were, they were *lying* to you Tory line. Question - do Tories not understand how utterly stupid that line is?

    If things really were that bad - as they claim - then why should anyone want to vote for them? And if they were that bad, why are any of the Tories pledges worth the paper they were crayoned on?

    Just daft.

    The public finances are stretched. The two big issues that got us there are bailing out the banks ( Brown ) and Covid ( Johnson ).

    Labour it seems will simply struggle along and do little to engender groth or improve productivity or overhaul infrastructure.

    So much for "change"
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,992

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    The Conservative and Unionist Party have not won an election since...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    ....and that 1% is posting on here and very angry he is too watching his champion being traduced.

    Personally whether it's true or not I have no sympathy whatsoever.

    The Tories chose to publicise Liam Byrne's private joke saying 'There's no money left' so this is small retribution.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,079
    That set of responses is fairly predictable, with the majority seemingly wanting public services but not to pay for them.

    But the complete mad LOL is the absurdly high numbers of Tory voters who believe they left the public finances in good shape.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,642
    Scott_xP said:

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    The Conservative and Unionist Party have not won an election since...
    2015 was an election victory for them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586
    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,221

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    Maybe he was right but just 9 years too early?
    Nah, the events following on from 2016 is what is likely to keep the Tories out of power for a generation.
    Though how much of 2016 was a manifestation of people being hacked off with austerity?

    A lot of the dynamic was schools, hospitals etc are creaking and the solution is to redirect EU subs and (more sotto voce) cut demand by keeping foreigners out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,079
    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851
    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Nigelb said:

    That set of responses is fairly predictable, with the majority seemingly wanting public services but not to pay for them.

    But the complete mad LOL is the absurdly high numbers of Tory voters who believe they left the public finances in good shape.

    The public finances were always destined to be in bad shape when the economy closed down for 2 years. BoJo hadnt the guts to take on the doctors and open the economy sooner; Starmer and Reeves would have made the bad state of finances even worse, but obviously dont want to talk about it.

    The surprising thing is the Conservatives dont make more of the impact of Covid.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,992

    The surprising thing is the Conservatives dont make more of the impact of Covid.

    Yes, the Tories should absolutely talk about the billions they funneled to their mates from the pub...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    edited July 30
    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

    You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

    So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    The sort of capitalist free market dominated by employer cartels and consortia?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    As noted in the last thread, Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary about the differences between the numbers the last government signed off on, and those presented by Rachel Reeves yesterday.

    Following statements made in the House, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary on the concerning contradiction between the Main Estimates put before Parliament last week and the document presented by the Chancellor today.
    https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1818011536335704150

    Tweet includes letter to Cabinet Secretary.

    In that letter Hunt implies civil servants may be at fault with their reporting because he can't stack up the argument there is no gap, as Reeves claims. The point @RochdalePioneers made above.

    Mildly hilarious he sent that letter to Simon Chase given his non grata status in the new government.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,841
    edited July 30
    The major change that I am identifying is that the current government has committed to spending an extra £9bn on wages to meet the recommended pay reviews of various groups of public servants. That does not seem to have been accounted for because, I suspect, the Conservatives would not have done it.

    The price of not doing it would have been the ongoing warfare that has so damaged productivity in much of the public sector, not least in the NHS. I think, whatever their estimates provided, the Tories would have had to buy peace with the likes of the junior doctors eventually so they were not being entirely honest about that. OTOH Reeves was clear that they would make this commitment so she should have known that this additional money had to be found so she is being dishonest too.

    Its also worth bearing in mind that £9bn is roughly 1.2% of government spending. As usual, our politics is played out on an incredibly small canvas with no inclination from either side to face the bigger picture.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,221
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    Careful what you wish for though.

    Multiple employers fighting for staff who are expensive and time-consuming to train so there's an underlying shortage...

    ... sounds like a recipe for doctors to play their employers like a fiddle and make even more than they do now. Near-monopsony (that's the word, isn't it?) probably helps the government keep pay down.

    And I don't know about you, but I'd like my doctors to be able to command a well above average wage.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Let's be clear - the payrises are the ones recommended by independent pay review committees. So your argument is that the Tory Government would have tried to get away with paying less.

    As I said when the election was called Rishi knew from now on all the news would be bad so he went for a July rather than a Autumn election. Could it be that the payrises (which are obviously large) was one of those bad bits of news only he and Hunt were aware of...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    DavidL said:

    The major change that I am identifying is that the current government has committed to spending an extra £9bn on wages to meet the recommended pay reviews of various groups of public servants. That does not seem to have been accounted for because, I suspect, the Conservatives would not have done it.

    The price of not doing it would have been the ongoing warfare that has so damaged productivity in much of the public sector, not least in the NHS. I think, whatever their estimates provided, the Tories would have had to buy peace with the likes of the junior doctors eventually so they were not being entirely honest about that. OTOH Reeves was clear that they would make this commitment so she should have known that this additional money had to be found so she is being dishonest too.

    Its also worth bearing in mind that £9bn is roughly 1.2% of government spending. As usual, our politics is played out on an incredibly small canvas with no inclination from either side to face the bigger picture.

    Remember Rishi went early - if he knew what the pay awards looked like - that would be a reason for going early, especially as the payrises look to roughly equally to 2p of NI cuts?
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    On the “Labour knew how bad things were, they were *lying* to you Tory line. Question - do Tories not understand how utterly stupid that line is?

    If things really were that bad - as they claim - then why should anyone want to vote for them? And if they were that bad, why are any of the Tories pledges worth the paper they were crayoned on?

    Not positively wrong, but irrelevant. You seem to be predicting the 2024 election result. That was then and this is now, and Labour are not exempt from the duty to tell the truth, nor Hunt from the duty to hold them to it. We see a lot of posts saying Hur, Hur Tories can't accept they are not in government. Labour have to accept they are in government (and past the honeymoon).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Scott_xP said:

    The surprising thing is the Conservatives dont make more of the impact of Covid.

    Yes, the Tories should absolutely talk about the billions they funneled to their mates from the pub...
    They can of course do that and I have no doubt Labour if in power would have done the same all those mates of Tony and Mandy would have taken their cut,

    However the vast amount of money went to people and businesses and the Conservatives skating over this is them selling themselves short.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,076
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,612
    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,079

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Has she ? We will see.
    In any event, the dynamic is rather different from that of the 70s.

    I wasn't saying it's black/white. It's her Tory critics who were making that implied argument with their critique of her fiscal announcement.

    Hunt was being every bit as disingenuous as she was.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    FF43 said:

    About par I would say. Reeves is trying to pin the blame for the tax rises on the previous government and is succeeding to some extent. But Labour will own any decisions from now on.

    I think Labour will be pretty happy with these numbers and that the narrative holds but perhaps saw more pushback from Hunt then they were expecting.

    "More pushback"! They're making themselves look ridiculous. Time for Hunt to man up. He doesn't command the stage anymore so all he's doing is diminishing himself. Most people remember him throwing out bribes left right and centre before and during the election. So what they assume -as I do- is that the shortfall are his chickens coming home to roost.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    That hasn't been the case with teachers where academic trusts can pay teachers above the national rates if they wish to (they don't and they haven't).
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,841
    FF43 said:

    As noted in the last thread, Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary about the differences between the numbers the last government signed off on, and those presented by Rachel Reeves yesterday.

    Following statements made in the House, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary on the concerning contradiction between the Main Estimates put before Parliament last week and the document presented by the Chancellor today.
    https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/.

    Tweet includes letter to Cabinet Secretary.

    In that letter Hunt implies civil servants may be at fault with their reporting because he can't stack up the argument there is no gap, as Reeves claims. The point @RochdalePioneers made above.

    Mildly hilarious he sent that letter to Simon Chase given his non grata status in the new government.

    That is not what he is saying. The estimates signed off and presented by the government last week do not show the gap from which he is inferring that there isn't one. Any "gap" comes from the spending decisions of the new government. Reeves is also complaining that the contingency fund has been spent. Well, that's what it is for. Its purpose is not to sit around in some sort of cookie jar so the new government can indulge their pet projects.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851
    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    Remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It was OK for landowners to get together to depress wages by mutual agreement but not at all OK, oh dear me no, for the labourers to get together.

    Quite a few PBers would still like to execute or exile workers for daring to be in unions and negotiating their wages.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,370

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    If you dig down into the Junior Doctors' 22.5% pay rise it includes last year, this year, next year and some of the year after. It is not a great deal more than the previous Government offered. The previous Government blamed the Junior Doctors for increases in NHS waiting lists, Doctors are leaving the service in droves. What did you expect this Government to do? Pick a fight with the BMA for the next five years.

    Some of your criticism is wish casting a Labour Government failure.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Let's be clear - the payrises are the ones recommended by independent pay review committees. So your argument is that the Tory Government would have tried to get away with paying less.

    As I said when the election was called Rishi knew from now on all the news would be bad so he went for a July rather than a Autumn election. Could it be that the payrises (which are obviously large) was one of those bad bits of news only he and Hunt were aware of...
    Yes and they should have it's other people's money funding the public sector. The country hasnt balanced the books for decades and needs to. Furthermore Reeves is advancing some lame argument that the last government didnt give the pay bodies the info to decide on rewards. If thats the case then she should be doing that now and telling them to recut their numbers. But instead she wants to buy warmth from her mates.

    Tough decisions my arse.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,221
    eek said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    That hasn't been the case with teachers where academic trusts can pay teachers above the national rates if they wish to (they don't and they haven't).
    In general they can't, since the per-pupil funding is fixed by the government formula.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,403
    eek said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    That hasn't been the case with teachers where academic trusts can pay teachers above the national rates if they wish to (they don't and they haven't).
    They can't afford to. Indeed, most of them are having some difficulty paying teachers *at* national rates due to recent unfunded pay rises. I didn't see anything about finding a way to pay for those in Reeves' statement, but I haven't seen all of it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    Who thought it was a good idea to do the swimming in the river?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    edited July 30
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    As noted in the last thread, Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary about the differences between the numbers the last government signed off on, and those presented by Rachel Reeves yesterday.

    Following statements made in the House, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary on the concerning contradiction between the Main Estimates put before Parliament last week and the document presented by the Chancellor today.
    https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/.

    Tweet includes letter to Cabinet Secretary.

    In that letter Hunt implies civil servants may be at fault with their reporting because he can't stack up the argument there is no gap, as Reeves claims. The point @RochdalePioneers made above.

    Mildly hilarious he sent that letter to Simon Chase given his non grata status in the new government.

    That is not what he is saying. The estimates signed off and presented by the government last week do not show the gap from which he is inferring that there isn't one. Any "gap" comes from the spending decisions of the new government. Reeves is also complaining that the contingency fund has been spent. Well, that's what it is for. Its purpose is not to sit around in some sort of cookie jar so the new government can indulge their pet projects.
    So you are saying that the gap comes from the pay announcements which Hunt seems to be implying.

    Call me cynical but those pay review committees usually report in mid to late May at about the time a general election was called in a massive hurry at no notice...
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    Carnyx said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    Remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It was OK for landowners to get together to depress wages by mutual agreement but not at all OK, oh dear me no, for the labourers to get together.

    Quite a few PBers would still like to execute or exile workers for daring to be in unions and negotiating their wages.
    Not even proper martyrs, they got an all expenses paid holiday down under.

    Seriously, appeals to the "free market" are almost always Thatcherite balls, there's hardly ever any such thing. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." A cartel of landowners is a cartel but so is a trades union.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Let's be clear - the payrises are the ones recommended by independent pay review committees. So your argument is that the Tory Government would have tried to get away with paying less.

    As I said when the election was called Rishi knew from now on all the news would be bad so he went for a July rather than a Autumn election. Could it be that the payrises (which are obviously large) was one of those bad bits of news only he and Hunt were aware of...
    Yes and they should have it's other people's money funding the public sector. The country hasnt balanced the books for decades and needs to.
    Who was in power for the last 14 years - hint it wasn't Labour, they came into power just over 3 weeks ago.,.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,879
    Morning all :)

    Well, yes, always best to get the pain in first even if that means a prolonged mid term trough. If you have a majority of 170 and the main opposition party in disarray, so much the better.

    The problem with increasing taxes is 50 years of almost constant propaganda that any and every tax rise is inherently wrong. I'm not sure that's true but nobody wants to be worse off though I would point out misery loves company and if we can see the next guy suffering to a similar or even greater extent that mitigates our discomfort to a degree.

    I don't know what else Reeves could or should have done - in truth, £20 billion isn't a lot of money set against the totality of public expenditure. It's a third of what we spend on defence, a fifth of what we're paying in debt interest every year. In essence, she's tinkering at the edges to try to get the deficit down a little and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

    I do know the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance (which was absurd) for non-benefit paying pensioners will be sending some to the barricades or to the equal futility of supporting the Conservatives but it was an anomaly which needed to be rectified (the Conservatives could hardly do it given the age of their voters). It's not in itself a game changer but sends a signal.

    CGT on all house sales is going to be one of the big changes - downsizing and taking the profit on the family home funds retirement (or at least the preferred retirement lifestyle) for many but to what extent is any of that "earned" or simply a function of the housing market and inflation? Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior bought their four bedroom house in the mid 60s for £10k and sold it nearly forty years for over £500k. Now, that's a decent return in anybody's language but to what extent was that anything other than supply and demand plus inflation?

    My one disappointment with yesterday's announcements was social care. Perhaps Labour have their own ideas - the Dilnot commission has been around almost as long as the Conservatives were last in power but I presume the problem isn't a solution in and of itself but a politically sellable solution (any workable proposal can be a suicide note).

    Labour are the ones holding the hot potato or more accurately the grenade with the pin out - IF CGT reduces or closes down the option of funding a retirement lifestyle from asset appreciation how do we get the various schemes and savings plans out there to provide the kind of retirement lifestyle to which most aspire or will that inherently force people to work well into their 70s?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    If you dig down into the Junior Doctors' 22.5% pay rise it includes last year, this year, next year and some of the year after. It is not a great deal more than the previous Government offered. The previous Government blamed the Junior Doctors for increases in NHS waiting lists, Doctors are leaving the service in droves. What did you expect this Government to do? Pick a fight with the BMA for the next five years.

    Some of your criticism is wish casting a Labour Government failure.
    They are going to fail. Get that in your head, handing out unfunded payrises is daft.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    As noted in the last thread, Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Secretary about the differences between the numbers the last government signed off on, and those presented by Rachel Reeves yesterday.

    Following statements made in the House, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary on the concerning contradiction between the Main Estimates put before Parliament last week and the document presented by the Chancellor today.
    https://x.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/.

    Tweet includes letter to Cabinet Secretary.

    In that letter Hunt implies civil servants may be at fault with their reporting because he can't stack up the argument there is no gap, as Reeves claims. The point @RochdalePioneers made above.

    Mildly hilarious he sent that letter to Simon Chase given his non grata status in the new government.

    That is not what he is saying. The estimates signed off and presented by the government last week do not show the gap from which he is inferring that there isn't one. Any "gap" comes from the spending decisions of the new government. Reeves is also complaining that the contingency fund has been spent. Well, that's what it is for. Its purpose is not to sit around in some sort of cookie jar so the new government can indulge their pet projects.
    That's what he would like to say but he can't challenge Reeves directly on the points she made. When Reeves says there's a gap of X, Y and Z, Hunt doesn't say X, Y and Z are wrong - there's no gap. So he goes the disingenuous route of saying, well civil servants put this together, how do you explain that?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    That hasn't been the case with teachers where academic trusts can pay teachers above the national rates if they wish to (they don't and they haven't).
    They can't afford to. Indeed, most of them are having some difficulty paying teachers *at* national rates due to recent unfunded pay rises. I didn't see anything about finding a way to pay for those in Reeves' statement, but I haven't seen all of it.
    Isn't that typical Government playbook - state that X is possibly while ensuring that X is utterly impossibly through other methods..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,403
    edited July 30
    tlg86 said:

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    Who thought it was a good idea to do the swimming in the river?
    To be fair, many of us think it would be a good idea to make Thames Water's executives go for regular swims in a river.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,403

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    If you dig down into the Junior Doctors' 22.5% pay rise it includes last year, this year, next year and some of the year after. It is not a great deal more than the previous Government offered. The previous Government blamed the Junior Doctors for increases in NHS waiting lists, Doctors are leaving the service in droves. What did you expect this Government to do? Pick a fight with the BMA for the next five years.

    Some of your criticism is wish casting a Labour Government failure.
    A friend of mine in the NHS has texted that there's a non-trivial chance the offer will be rejected again, for that reason.

    If so, that might be awkward all round.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    I thought you were a triathlete so why ha ha ha? I am a MTBer and I would have been gutted not to have yesterday's race

    It's odd that the alternative is run bike run, why not have the swim in a swimming pool (shortened course/late at night if availablity is a problem)?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    Whoops, and after they’d made a rather large fanfare of having cleaned up the river, then made it the centrepiece of an otherwise dire opening ceremony.

    They’ll say they got unlucky with heavy rain in the last week, but even an act of God wasn’t going to delay the Olympics.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    edited July 30
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Well, yes, always best to get the pain in first even if that means a prolonged mid term trough. If you have a majority of 170 and the main opposition party in disarray, so much the better.

    The problem with increasing taxes is 50 years of almost constant propaganda that any and every tax rise is inherently wrong. I'm not sure that's true but nobody wants to be worse off though I would point out misery loves company and if we can see the next guy suffering to a similar or even greater extent that mitigates our discomfort to a degree.

    I don't know what else Reeves could or should have done - in truth, £20 billion isn't a lot of money set against the totality of public expenditure. It's a third of what we spend on defence, a fifth of what we're paying in debt interest every year. In essence, she's tinkering at the edges to try to get the deficit down a little and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

    I do know the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance (which was absurd) for non-benefit paying pensioners will be sending some to the barricades or to the equal futility of supporting the Conservatives but it was an anomaly which needed to be rectified (the Conservatives could hardly do it given the age of their voters). It's not in itself a game changer but sends a signal.

    CGT on all house sales is going to be one of the big changes - downsizing and taking the profit on the family home funds retirement (or at least the preferred retirement lifestyle) for many but to what extent is any of that "earned" or simply a function of the housing market and inflation? Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior bought their four bedroom house in the mid 60s for £10k and sold it nearly forty years for over £500k. Now, that's a decent return in anybody's language but to what extent was that anything other than supply and demand plus inflation?

    My one disappointment with yesterday's announcements was social care. Perhaps Labour have their own ideas - the Dilnot commission has been around almost as long as the Conservatives were last in power but I presume the problem isn't a solution in and of itself but a politically sellable solution (any workable proposal can be a suicide note).

    Labour are the ones holding the hot potato or more accurately the grenade with the pin out - IF CGT reduces or closes down the option of funding a retirement lifestyle from asset appreciation how do we get the various schemes and savings plans out there to provide the kind of retirement lifestyle to which most aspire or will that inherently force people to work well into their 70s?

    I do question where people continually seem to reference CGT on primary properties - I just don't see it happening because every country in the world has massive exceptions for it for the reasons that people need to move and any tax discourages movement (even more that stamp duty does).

    any idea where the source of the rumour is this time around...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    If you dig down into the Junior Doctors' 22.5% pay rise it includes last year, this year, next year and some of the year after. It is not a great deal more than the previous Government offered. The previous Government blamed the Junior Doctors for increases in NHS waiting lists, Doctors are leaving the service in droves. What did you expect this Government to do? Pick a fight with the BMA for the next five years.

    Some of your criticism is wish casting a Labour Government failure.
    Alan will still be banging on about how Labour are going to fail after they comfortably romp home in the 2028 GE.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586
    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    What I suspect we would have seen, is a more regional spread of salaries than we see today.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    Sandpit said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    What I suspect we would have seen, is a more regional spread of salaries than we see today.
    Why? House prices don't actually differ that much for the type of house a doctor / consultant wants...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,297
    Paul Johnson pretty clear that the asylum money was not known: https://x.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1817939986412433798?t=wZB8H7S_YKGpvy9e0E4omA&s=19

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,670
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Let's be clear - the payrises are the ones recommended by independent pay review committees. So your argument is that the Tory Government would have tried to get away with paying less.

    As I said when the election was called Rishi knew from now on all the news would be bad so he went for a July rather than a Autumn election. Could it be that the payrises (which are obviously large) was one of those bad bits of news only he and Hunt were aware of...
    If governments are just going to ignore independent public sector payboards (into which they put their own case) then why not abolish them entirely and go back to collective bargaining and public sector industrial action?

    Part of the deal to have no industrial action is for the payboards to come up with a reasonable figure.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Well, yes, always best to get the pain in first even if that means a prolonged mid term trough. If you have a majority of 170 and the main opposition party in disarray, so much the better.

    The problem with increasing taxes is 50 years of almost constant propaganda that any and every tax rise is inherently wrong. I'm not sure that's true but nobody wants to be worse off though I would point out misery loves company and if we can see the next guy suffering to a similar or even greater extent that mitigates our discomfort to a degree.

    I don't know what else Reeves could or should have done - in truth, £20 billion isn't a lot of money set against the totality of public expenditure. It's a third of what we spend on defence, a fifth of what we're paying in debt interest every year. In essence, she's tinkering at the edges to try to get the deficit down a little and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

    I do know the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance (which was absurd) for non-benefit paying pensioners will be sending some to the barricades or to the equal futility of supporting the Conservatives but it was an anomaly which needed to be rectified (the Conservatives could hardly do it given the age of their voters). It's not in itself a game changer but sends a signal.

    CGT on all house sales is going to be one of the big changes - downsizing and taking the profit on the family home funds retirement (or at least the preferred retirement lifestyle) for many but to what extent is any of that "earned" or simply a function of the housing market and inflation? Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior bought their four bedroom house in the mid 60s for £10k and sold it nearly forty years for over £500k. Now, that's a decent return in anybody's language but to what extent was that anything other than supply and demand plus inflation?

    My one disappointment with yesterday's announcements was social care. Perhaps Labour have their own ideas - the Dilnot commission has been around almost as long as the Conservatives were last in power but I presume the problem isn't a solution in and of itself but a politically sellable solution (any workable proposal can be a suicide note).

    Labour are the ones holding the hot potato or more accurately the grenade with the pin out - IF CGT reduces or closes down the option of funding a retirement lifestyle from asset appreciation how do we get the various schemes and savings plans out there to provide the kind of retirement lifestyle to which most aspire or will that inherently force people to work well into their 70s?

    I do question where people continually seem to reference CGT on primary properties - I just don't see it happening because every country in the world has massive exceptions for it for the reasons that people need to move and any tax discourages movement (even more that stamp duty does).

    any idea where the source of the rumour is this time around...
    Tory press probably
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.

    The A303 (Stonehenge) and A27 projects weren't fiction, just highly contentious...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    Foxy said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    Let's be clear - the payrises are the ones recommended by independent pay review committees. So your argument is that the Tory Government would have tried to get away with paying less.

    As I said when the election was called Rishi knew from now on all the news would be bad so he went for a July rather than a Autumn election. Could it be that the payrises (which are obviously large) was one of those bad bits of news only he and Hunt were aware of...
    If governments are just going to ignore independent public sector payboards (into which they put their own case) then why not abolish them entirely and go back to collective bargaining and public sector industrial action?

    Part of the deal to have no industrial action is for the payboards to come up with a reasonable figure.
    So again we comeback to the remarkable suddenness of a July election announced just as the independent pay awards provided their suggested figures in May...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,221
    Sandpit said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    What I suspect we would have seen, is a more regional spread of salaries than we see today.
    Going which way?
    Genuinely curious, because I can see it going either way.

    On one hand, cost of living and pressure from other prestige professions is greater in London.

    On the other, the harder-to-fill posts are probably in Grimton General, Redwall.

    Possibly, the two cancel out.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited July 30

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    "In the case of triathlon the heat has a positive effect because the sunlight and the increased temperature is beneficial in the sense that it kills bacteria," Paris 2024 operations director Lambis Konstantinidis told BBC Sport.

    Really? How hot is that water going to get?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,297
    Some good some bad from Rachel Reeves. It's clear her debt rule is a millstone that will prevent investment.

    Cancelling fictional hospitals is fine, but not upgrading roads, e.g. a27 bypass means lower growth in future.

    On the plus side, it's really good progress on doctors strike, and I'm delighted Labour is standing up for itself on the economy and rightfully blaming the Tories for the mess they've inherited. Beefing up the OBR to investigate when they're being lied to also seems necessary and would be a good thing for our institutions.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.
    @David__Osland

    Reeves' announcement this afternoon will be devastating news for many towns where the the Tories had promised to build new hospitals, including Ambridge, Camberwick Green, Market Blandings, Royston Vasey and Walmington on Sea
    There's an important point here. Unfunded projects aren't real projects. But taking them off the table is just as much a political decision as putting them on the table in the first place. Labour could have continued the fiction from the previous government that these hospitals would be built.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,297
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.

    The A303 (Stonehenge) and A27 projects weren't fiction, just highly contentious...
    Why is a27 contentious?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.

    The A303 (Stonehenge) and A27 projects weren't fiction, just highly contentious...
    Why is a27 contentious?
    From https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2024-07-29/transport-projects-scrapped-in-south-east-as-part-of-government-spending-cull

    Reacting to the announcement, a spokesperson for Walberton Parish Council, said: "The Government's decision regarding the A27 bypass is an extremely welcome one for the villages of Walberton, Binsted and Fontwell, which were all adversely affected by the proposed Grey route.

    "The route was the longest, most expensive, most environmentally disruptive route of all options presented and, whilst we recognise the need to solve the A27 problem at Crossbush, we hope that the government will now consider cheaper, more sensible and more sustainable solutions."

    Now that may be a few people but it carries as much weight as the A303 in the story...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,879
    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    There's a clear risk the 22% (over two years) might be viewed as some kind of benchmark but this isn't the 1970s and the "Unions" aren't the force they were. Despite what @Richard_Tyndall and others claimed yesterday, there's clear evidence of strong wage growth in parts of the private sector.

    Look at the day rates being charged by some professions especially those related to construction (aided by shortages) and it's clear some self-employed have done very well out of the post-Covid period and if Labour intend to "build build, build" will no doubt continue to prosper.

    I did my time in the public sector and for many staff at many councils the 2010s was a decade of real term pay cuts - often pay freezes against a backdrop of inflation and even if you do get a 3-5% pay increase in 2021-22, that's not much use with inflation running at double that so the public sector might argue (with conviction) they need a big wage rise to get back even to 2010 levels.

    How though can Councils pay workers more when even the most well-run are under huge financial pressure because of the failure of now successive Governments to tackle the issue of adult social care? @MisterBedfordshire and others might claim the system is being abused (it probably is in some cases) but SEN is also about qualified teachers (a shortage) and appropriate accommodation (another shortage). There is an issue about transport provision which needs to be addresses.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586
    edited July 30
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

    You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

    So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
    I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spent a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

    All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    Thing is it’s not really “ha ha ha ha” for the athletes - the people who will have honed their training, eating and everything on a schedule for the race now unsure when it will happen and how it will happen.

    An absolute case of French vanity, wanting to show off Paris being more important than sporting integrity.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,612

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    I thought you were a triathlete so why ha ha ha? I am a MTBer and I would have been gutted not to have yesterday's race

    It's odd that the alternative is run bike run, why not have the swim in a swimming pool (shortened course/late at night if availablity is a problem)?
    I am a triathlete (I've done one, at least, and another hopefully soon).

    I'm laughing because Paris tried to clean up the river on the cheap. It was a gamble, but it was not doing the job properly. This was pointed out in civ eng circles a couple of years ago. They've been unlucky that there's been heavy rain, but they took that risk. Note that the 'solution' put in place for the games cost a billion euros, yet appears not to work very well. Remember, this is happening in summer, when rainfall is relatively low, yet the system has been overrun.

    It's a shit solution to shit.

    The options are to run the mens' swim after the women's tomorrow; run them both on an alternate date in a few days; or do a duathlon. There was talk about swimming on another river (the Meuse?) , but I presume that will be logistically difficult, as the bike and run courses would need to be nearby, even with split transitions - and then there's all the broadcasting stuff as well.

    I don't know why they couldn't do it in a pool: I assume an access problem to a 50-metre pool, and the same problem with the bike and run courses needing to be nearby.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,403
    Protests in Venezuela at Maduro's rigging of the elections.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw5yze5k500o

    So far at least, the police and army remain foursquare behind him, so I don't see the protests succeeding.

    One interesting development is that seven South American nations have broken off diplomatic relations, including Argentina. That's maybe a sign of patience wearing thin.

    Also interesting is that Brazil and Mexico may be about to weigh in, along with Colombia:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-29/brazil-mexico-colombia-negotiate-joint-statement-on-venezuela-election?embedded-checkout=true

    That would leave Maduro completely isolated in the region with only Cuba pretending to find the results credible.

    Whether it will make a difference to the bastard's grip on power I don't know (I suspect not unless he moves to an actual war) but it's hard to imagine it will help him.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

    You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

    So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
    I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

    All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
    Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.

    As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,370
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Simply waking up every day knowing that the BoZo fan club are no longer in charge is a joy, but the meltdown from the usual suspects on here, this hard, this early, is an unexpected bonus

    It devalues the site unfortunately.

    The Field Marshal has posted the same unhinged critique of Reeves about fifty times in the last 18 hours. And yet not a peep out of them when Johnson was bringing his party and the nation into disrepute and Truss soiled herself so badly she was forced out by 49 days.
    This is just simply the reverse of how the Labour fanatics have behaved on here. It is amazing how, for instance, politicians flying around in helicopters or private jets suddenly became acceptable post July 5th as an example and Labour clearly can do no wrong. Reeves is an economic genius apparently.

    You're just as bad as each other. Your own side are virtuous, your enemies lacking in virtue.

    The Lib Dem fanatics, just as bad.
    I don't believe that to be true. Most non -Conservatives on here are simply that, non- Conservatives. We are often more circumspect as to the shortcomings of non-Conservative parties. It is also true that a significant number of lifelong PB Tories were highly critical of the post-Brexit Conservative Government, which equals that out. Although we also have fanbois.

    There are a handful of Conservative -'til-I-die posters on here who are critical of this government after three weeks simply because "Labour are always shit". The irony being, did they not notice the Conservative Government from at least 2019.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,194
    Chap on the radio said that Labour/BoE could do some sort of QE switcheroo that would save £50 Bn. I know @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned it here before and it was in Reform's manifesto but the man on the radio was an ex BoE MPC member iirc, so should know 100% what he's on about. Apparently the ECB and Swiss banks would in theory have our £50 Bn saving if they were the BoE so it sounds to me like it is an implied £50 Bn bung to British banks which we could function perfectly well without.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851
    edited July 30

    Carnyx said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    Remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It was OK for landowners to get together to depress wages by mutual agreement but not at all OK, oh dear me no, for the labourers to get together.

    Quite a few PBers would still like to execute or exile workers for daring to be in unions and negotiating their wages.
    Not even proper martyrs, they got an all expenses paid holiday down under.

    Seriously, appeals to the "free market" are almost always Thatcherite balls, there's hardly ever any such thing. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." A cartel of landowners is a cartel but so is a trades union.
    Notd much of a holiday when they were doing the skivvy and grunt work. And when they came back to England they tried to settle but were driven out by the local landowners.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,403
    FF43 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.
    @David__Osland

    Reeves' announcement this afternoon will be devastating news for many towns where the the Tories had promised to build new hospitals, including Ambridge, Camberwick Green, Market Blandings, Royston Vasey and Walmington on Sea
    There's an important point here. Unfunded projects aren't real projects. But taking them off the table is just as much a political decision as putting them on the table in the first place. Labour could have continued the fiction from the previous government that these hospitals would be built.
    There is another important point:

    Are unfunded pay rises real pay rises?

    Because we've had a hell of a lot of them recently.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,612
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

    You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

    So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
    I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

    All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
    Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.

    As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
    Yeah, I've said the stations on projects such as HS2 should be seen as separate projects, perhaps as part of regeneration schemes, and the lines between them as separate. AIUI that is how they do it on the continent.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.
    @David__Osland

    Reeves' announcement this afternoon will be devastating news for many towns where the the Tories had promised to build new hospitals, including Ambridge, Camberwick Green, Market Blandings, Royston Vasey and Walmington on Sea
    There's an important point here. Unfunded projects aren't real projects. But taking them off the table is just as much a political decision as putting them on the table in the first place. Labour could have continued the fiction from the previous government that these hospitals would be built.
    There is another important point:

    Are unfunded pay rises real pay rises?

    Because we've had a hell of a lot of them recently.
    In the case of schools there are funds available - but as you say it's a rob Peter to pay Paul situation that just creates problems either elsewhere or further down the line...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Simply waking up every day knowing that the BoZo fan club are no longer in charge is a joy, but the meltdown from the usual suspects on here, this hard, this early, is an unexpected bonus

    It devalues the site unfortunately.

    The Field Marshal has posted the same unhinged critique of Reeves about fifty times in the last 18 hours. And yet not a peep out of them when Johnson was bringing his party and the nation into disrepute and Truss soiled herself so badly she was forced out by 49 days.
    This is just simply the reverse of how the Labour fanatics have behaved on here. It is amazing how, for instance, politicians flying around in helicopters or private jets suddenly became acceptable post July 5th as an example and Labour clearly can do no wrong. Reeves is an economic genius apparently.

    You're just as bad as each other. Your own side are virtuous, your enemies lacking in virtue.

    The Lib Dem fanatics, just as bad.
    I don't believe that to be true. Most non -Conservatives on here are simply that, non- Conservatives. We are often more circumspect as to the shortcomings of non-Conservative parties. It is also true that a significant number of lifelong PB Tories were highly critical of the post-Brexit Conservative Government, which equals that out. Although we also have fanbois.

    There are a handful of Conservative -'til-I-die posters on here who are critical of this government after three weeks simply because "Labour are always shit". The irony being, did they not notice the Conservative Government from at least 2019.
    At least they've moved on from assuming that anyone who dares to oppose the Conservatives is a Corbynite socialist. So there's a glimmer of hope yet.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,586
    Pulpstar said:

    Chap on the radio said that Labour/BoE could do some sort of QE switcheroo that would save £50 Bn. I know @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned it here before and it was in Reform's manifesto but the man on the radio was an ex BoE MPC member iirc, so should know 100% what he's on about. Apparently the ECB and Swiss banks would in theory have our £50 Bn saving if they were the BoE so it sounds to me like it is an implied £50 Bn bung to British banks which we could function perfectly well without.

    It’s basically a default on the government bonds bought with the QE money.

    Highly likely to somewhat upset the rest of the bond market, even if they insist they’re not defaulting on more regular bonds.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,078
    Scott_xP said:

    Except it's not particularly clear if Cameron did reap the rewards: his voteshare was essentially the same and the majority was achieved by eviscerating the LDs.

    It was in the context of the likes of Mervyn King saying whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
    The Conservative and Unionist Party have not won an election since...
    It was the Liberal Democrats that got punished.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    I thought you were a triathlete so why ha ha ha? I am a MTBer and I would have been gutted not to have yesterday's race

    It's odd that the alternative is run bike run, why not have the swim in a swimming pool (shortened course/late at night if availablity is a problem)?
    I am a triathlete (I've done one, at least, and another hopefully soon).

    I'm laughing because Paris tried to clean up the river on the cheap. It was a gamble, but it was not doing the job properly. This was pointed out in civ eng circles a couple of years ago. They've been unlucky that there's been heavy rain, but they took that risk. Note that the 'solution' put in place for the games cost a billion euros, yet appears not to work very well. Remember, this is happening in summer, when rainfall is relatively low, yet the system has been overrun.

    It's a shit solution to shit.

    The options are to run the mens' swim after the women's tomorrow; run them both on an alternate date in a few days; or do a duathlon. There was talk about swimming on another river (the Meuse?) , but I presume that will be logistically difficult, as the bike and run courses would need to be nearby, even with split transitions - and then there's all the broadcasting stuff as well.

    I don't know why they couldn't do it in a pool: I assume an access problem to a 50-metre pool, and the same problem with the bike and run courses needing to be nearby.
    I cycle 8 miles out and back to swim in a river on days like today. Not allowed to run because artificial hips, so I think this makes me morally a triathlete.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,370

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    Why does it have to be black white ? They would have awarded some, just not the gangbuster amounts Reeves has awarded.

    And now she has opened the payrise gates the flood of demands will follow.

    I didnt think I would have to live through the 1970s again
    If you dig down into the Junior Doctors' 22.5% pay rise it includes last year, this year, next year and some of the year after. It is not a great deal more than the previous Government offered. The previous Government blamed the Junior Doctors for increases in NHS waiting lists, Doctors are leaving the service in droves. What did you expect this Government to do? Pick a fight with the BMA for the next five years.

    Some of your criticism is wish casting a Labour Government failure.
    They are going to fail. Get that in your head, handing out unfunded payrises is daft.
    You might as well just post "Labour are shite" every fifth post because your analysis isn't very much more sophisticated.

    If your posts are indicative of the quality we can expect post July 5th, I'm off to ConHome for a more measured and balanced insight.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,792
    Eww...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1rr1qqqny0o

    Delays in food hygiene inspections a 'serious public health issue'

    Consumers are being exposed to an increased risk of food poisoning because of delays in food hygiene inspections, a BBC investigation has found.

    Analysis shows one in five restaurants and takeaways had not been seen by food inspectors for more than two years.

    Environmental health teams say a recruitment crisis and a backlog from the pandemic are behind the trend.

    The public services union Unison said it was a "serious public health issue".

    A spokesman said: “Inspections are now so delayed that it’s perfectly possible for food businesses with shoddy hygiene practices to operate with little fear of ever being caught.”
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,612
    boulay said:

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    Thing is it’s not really “ha ha ha ha” for the athletes - the people who will have honed their training, eating and everything on a schedule for the race now unsure when it will happen and how it will happen.

    An absolute case of French vanity, wanting to show off Paris being more important than sporting integrity.
    Yeah, I'm laughing at France, not the athletes - as I said, a duathlon would be unfair on people who had been training for years for this opportunity.

    I'm also laughing at the French mayor, who said she would swim in the river to prove it was clean. The date for this was moved a couple of times until the water was clean enough - just. And now, a few days later, it is not.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/crg5z6qv4zlo
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,001
    Certainly Labour seem to be targeting mainly Tory leaning pensioners and over 55s initially with the end of the winter fuel allowance for most and no social care cap. Though more to come with a 40% top rate of capital gains tax rumoured by the autumn the polls may well have narrowed
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,194
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ratters said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the whole 'public sector pay rises are Labour's choice' thing which has been the theme of the last day or so, are Tories (led by the Shadow Chancellor) arguing that a Conservative government would have awarded no pay rise at all ?

    That's the logic of the fiscal arguments they've been making.

    And, of course, they are a party of the free market. So ...
    Yes, the whole concept of the government negotiating centrally with ‘the doctors’ is totally alien to a free market.
    True, but in this instance it is more likely the government using it's market power as (almost) sole employer of junior doctors to depress doctor wages, which necessarily needs a union on the other side arguing the doctor's corner.

    Move to contracts by individual NHS Trust's at an individual level and we'll be more market aligned. I also suspect doctor wages would increase from here as the NHS's bargaining power is currently strongest.
    What I suspect we would have seen, is a more regional spread of salaries than we see today.
    Why? House prices don't actually differ that much for the type of house a doctor / consultant wants...
    Are you sure ?

    Half a million still gets you more house in Reading compared to say Darlo, although scanning rightmove it *feels* like northern housing has moved up in price recently.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,371
    edited July 30

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...

    You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...

    So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
    I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.

    All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
    Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.

    As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
    Yeah, I've said the stations on projects such as HS2 should be seen as separate projects, perhaps as part of regeneration schemes, and the lines between them as separate. AIUI that is how they do it on the continent.
    I mention Florence yesterday so I may as well do it again today.

    That is a multiple stage project

    1) build HS track to outskirts join local network
    2) bring trains into the existing station
    3) build track through Florence (underground)
    4) build the station...

    They are at 2 and 3/4 are currently being built for 2.7 billion euros to be finished in 2028.

    We can't do this because we run things at capacity but we should be looking at improving Euston / Crewe / Piccadilly as separate projects.

    Especially as Euston has 2 different parts to it and the original plan had the underground improvements included in the CrossRail 2 scheme. Which again is wrong it should be 4 separate projects

    1) HS track into Euston
    2) Euston station improvements
    3) Euston Tfl capacity improvements
    4) Cross Rail 2..

    Instead 3 has been bundled into whichever combination of 2/4 arrives first.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.

    Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.

    The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.

    Those "infrastructure projects" had no funding and no prospect of funding under previous and current revenue assumptions. That's why they hadn't gone anywhere under the previous government. Infrastructure projects haven't been cancelled to pay for current spending because, simply, they weren't real. All Reeves has done here is drop the fiction.

    The A303 (Stonehenge) and A27 projects weren't fiction, just highly contentious...
    Checking further I don't think the Arundel bypass had funding or a definite go ahead. But the Stonehenge tunnel was contracted so presumably there will be cancellation charges to pay.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,194
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Chap on the radio said that Labour/BoE could do some sort of QE switcheroo that would save £50 Bn. I know @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned it here before and it was in Reform's manifesto but the man on the radio was an ex BoE MPC member iirc, so should know 100% what he's on about. Apparently the ECB and Swiss banks would in theory have our £50 Bn saving if they were the BoE so it sounds to me like it is an implied £50 Bn bung to British banks which we could function perfectly well without.

    It’s basically a default on the government bonds bought with the QE money.

    Highly likely to somewhat upset the rest of the bond market, even if they insist they’re not defaulting on more regular bonds.
    How come other central banks are able to do this. Like the ECB ? I mean that's basically the second biggest central bank in the world.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,612

    Ha ha ha ha ha

    "Men's triathlon postponed due to poor water quality"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngjz32j4do

    I really hope it can go ahead on the alternate dates, and that it does not become a duathlon, as that would be unfair on the strong swimmers.

    I thought you were a triathlete so why ha ha ha? I am a MTBer and I would have been gutted not to have yesterday's race

    It's odd that the alternative is run bike run, why not have the swim in a swimming pool (shortened course/late at night if availablity is a problem)?
    I am a triathlete (I've done one, at least, and another hopefully soon).

    I'm laughing because Paris tried to clean up the river on the cheap. It was a gamble, but it was not doing the job properly. This was pointed out in civ eng circles a couple of years ago. They've been unlucky that there's been heavy rain, but they took that risk. Note that the 'solution' put in place for the games cost a billion euros, yet appears not to work very well. Remember, this is happening in summer, when rainfall is relatively low, yet the system has been overrun.

    It's a shit solution to shit.

    The options are to run the mens' swim after the women's tomorrow; run them both on an alternate date in a few days; or do a duathlon. There was talk about swimming on another river (the Meuse?) , but I presume that will be logistically difficult, as the bike and run courses would need to be nearby, even with split transitions - and then there's all the broadcasting stuff as well.

    I don't know why they couldn't do it in a pool: I assume an access problem to a 50-metre pool, and the same problem with the bike and run courses needing to be nearby.
    I cycle 8 miles out and back to swim in a river on days like today. Not allowed to run because artificial hips, so I think this makes me morally a triathlete.
    Totally agree. :)

    Incidentally yesterday evening, I met a lady (older than me, I think) who is just doing two half-ironman 70.3 races in two consecutive weekends. She did one last week, and is doing one next week. A few years ago, whilst training for her first Olympic distance, she was in a bike crash (*) and broke her neck. She was back swimming a couple of months later.

    People are amazing.

    (*) The driver's fault...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,016
    It seems that Jerry Hunt's was a magical world.

    Anyone get the music reference?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,851
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly Labour seem to be targeting mainly Tory leaning pensioners and over 55s initially with the end of the winter fuel allowance for most and no social care cap. Though more to come with a 40% top rate of capital gains tax rumoured by the autumn the polls may well have narrowed

    "rumoured"

    Clickbait.
This discussion has been closed.