Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Under the previous approach doctors I know were being offered 3k for a single shift. Paying them a bit more salary and reducing the absurd rates we have to regularly pay for emergency cover is going to to work out fine.
LOL what planet are you on. They will pocket the money and still charge massive shift Premiums. There will be no savings.
Um the massive shift premiums come from the locum doctors. Pay a bit more and a lot of those locum doctors will take more permanent work
There are however a whole set of issues with GPs at the moment including some incentives that have resulted in some trained GPs being unable to find jobs. That really does need to be fixed first..
News for you: most locum doctors are locum doctors because they like the flexibility. Not many GPs are out of work, and if they are they aren't trying very hard. Please don't fall for the BMA propaganda. The UK medical profession is the most entitled and featherbedded profession in the world
Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.
It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
Sean Ingle @seaningle The Italian Angela Carini is crying her eyes out in the ring.
She decides not to continue after being hit hard twice by the Algerian Imane Khelif. Fight lasted 46 seconds. First punched knocked her chin strap off and she was holding her nose.
The most interesting thing about the boxing at this Olympics is that there is no boxing in 2028 unless a boxing organisation that the Olympics can approve gets a critical mass of membership. And watching the fights this week I'm seeing zero reason for it to continue in subsequent Olympics.
I've got to say good; I'm not a fan of boxing in general and women's in particular. I still recall the regular bouts in the school gym seventy or so years ago and how one couldn't concentrate in the next lesson.
I don’t think I could have concentrated as a teenager after watching women’s boxing in my school gym either. Remarkably liberal your alma mater, particularly for the 50s.
LOL. Must remember (again) to re-read my posts in future to avoid double of triple interpretations. For the avoidance of doubt my alma mater was not liberal, even by the standards of the time.
Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.
It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
Any noun can be verbed.
but not all nouns can be verbed without consequences to the English language
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
So for a car hitting you at 20 mph, it would need to be 2.25 times (30/20 * 30/20) as heavy as a car hitting you at 30 mph to do the same damage?
You may have to get the units right, so convert to m/s rather than mph, but it's lunchtime and I can't think it through.
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Hang on.
If it was a square block running into a square block dead on, then that might well be true.
But the energy is not all dissipated in that way. In particular, a pedestrian is (typically) thrown up and onto the car. 30mph crashes are incredibly dangerous compared to 20mph one because you don't have time to get thrown upwards and the damage to your lower body - including severing of the spinal column - is extreme.
Like everything else, it's complicated. But one explanation for the US figures is that getting hit by a tall SUV is a bit like colliding with a square block dead on - and is much more likely to result in a severe head injury.
Not going to disagree with that
There's some serious abuse of physics going on in that thread.
The mass of a car, any car, is so much greater than that of a person that the mass of a car involved in a collision with a pedestrian is almost completely irrelevant. What causes injury is the force exerted on the pedestrian and its distribution, and that depends on such things as: a) the speed of the car b) the shape of the front of the car c) the hardness of the front of the car
Edit: Honestly, it's sometimes like when I was teaching physics to secondary school kids. You can't just grab a formula, plug some numbers in, and call that the answer. Physics is more about understanding the problem than doing the maths.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Under the previous approach doctors I know were being offered 3k for a single shift. Paying them a bit more salary and reducing the absurd rates we have to regularly pay for emergency cover is going to to work out fine.
LOL what planet are you on. They will pocket the money and still charge massive shift Premiums. There will be no savings.
Um the massive shift premiums come from the locum doctors. Pay a bit more and a lot of those locum doctors will take more permanent work
There are however a whole set of issues with GPs at the moment including some incentives that have resulted in some trained GPs being unable to find jobs. That really does need to be fixed first..
News for you: most locum doctors are locum doctors because they like the flexibility. Not many GPs are out of work, and if they are they aren't trying very hard. Please don't fall for the BMA propaganda. The UK medical profession is the most entitled and featherbedded profession in the world
Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden, Swati Dhingra, Clare Lombardelli and Dave Ramsden 5 Cut Megan Greene, Jonathan Haskel, Catherine L Mann and Huw Pill 4 Hold
I'm beginning to think that the odds on Ms Harris are looking attractive.
Not as attractive as they were... closed from 2.8 a day or so ago to 2.3. The only reason Trump is still in with a chance is assumptions on the levels of misogyny and racism of the US electorate, sadly.
Of those two it's sexism/misogyny that imo is the bigger threat electorally. Nevertheless I do think she'll win. Or to put it more accurately I'm confident Trump will lose - as I have been for ages with just a brief wobble when it looked like a sick and frail old man was going to insist on running against him. Once that was dealt with it's BAU as far as I'm concerned - he's a poor candidate with a low vote ceiling and a very narrow path. He's clear 2nd fav for me.
I note from Edinburgh Minute (great newsletter that gives you today's local news in a digest form) that Edinburgh bin men are going on strike from August 14th to the 22nd - i.e. right in the middle of the Edinburgh festival...
Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.
It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
Any noun can be verbed.
but not all nouns can be verbed without consequences to the English language
And other languages - for example if we Frenched heavily verbed English then l'Académie Française may become fitted
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
So for a car hitting you at 20 mph, it would need to be 2.25 times (30/20 * 30/20) as heavy as a car hitting you at 30 mph to do the same damage?
You may have to get the units right, so convert to m/s rather than mph, but it's lunchtime and I can't think it through.
Ratios should mean it doesn't matter, right? The 30mph/20mph * 30mph/20mph has no units.
The reason I wonder whether it's the right decision is that inflation is at target and the economy has grown about 1.3% YTD and the FTSE100 is approaching all time highs again. Companies having to be lean hasn't hurt the economy, in fact I think it's probably forced a level of discipline on management that's been an overall benefit, unwinding that might not be as good as we hope for.
I'm beginning to think that the odds on Ms Harris are looking attractive.
Not as attractive as they were... closed from 2.8 a day or so ago to 2.3. The only reason Trump is still in with a chance is assumptions on the levels of misogyny and racism of the US electorate, sadly.
Of those two it's sexism/misogyny that imo is the bigger threat electorally. Nevertheless I do think she'll win. Or to put it more accurately I'm confident Trump will lose - as I have been for ages with just a brief wobble when it looked like a sick and frail old man was going to insist on running against him. Once that was dealt with it's BAU as far as I'm concerned - he's a poor candidate with a low vote ceiling and a very narrow path. He's clear 2nd fav for me.
The other point about the interview, which will impact even his more toxic support, is this one.
The most important takeaway from the NABJ interview - the real story, and what all the headlines should be about - is that Trump isn’t capable of handling real events that aren’t staged to promote him.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Under the previous approach doctors I know were being offered 3k for a single shift. Paying them a bit more salary and reducing the absurd rates we have to regularly pay for emergency cover is going to to work out fine.
LOL what planet are you on. They will pocket the money and still charge massive shift Premiums. There will be no savings.
Um the massive shift premiums come from the locum doctors. Pay a bit more and a lot of those locum doctors will take more permanent work
There are however a whole set of issues with GPs at the moment including some incentives that have resulted in some trained GPs being unable to find jobs. That really does need to be fixed first..
That's interesting. I have a friend who is a partner and her practice is struggling to recruit (E Yorkshire). It must vary depending on where you are.
Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.
It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
So for a car hitting you at 20 mph, it would need to be 2.25 times (30/20 * 30/20) as heavy as a car hitting you at 30 mph to do the same damage?
You may have to get the units right, so convert to m/s rather than mph, but it's lunchtime and I can't think it through.
Ratios should mean it doesn't matter, right? The 30mph/20mph * 30mph/20mph has no units.
Did we ever get the accident (etc) rates for Wales which were alleged to suggest that pedestrians were safer with 20mph?
The reason I wonder whether it's the right decision is that inflation is at target and the economy has grown about 1.3% YTD and the FTSE100 is approaching all time highs again. Companies having to be lean hasn't hurt the economy, in fact I think it's probably forced a level of discipline on management that's been an overall benefit, unwinding that might not be as good as we hope for.
I’m not convinced it’s the right decision either but we shall see. I would not be surprised to see it held at 5% now for a little while.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Under the previous approach doctors I know were being offered 3k for a single shift. Paying them a bit more salary and reducing the absurd rates we have to regularly pay for emergency cover is going to to work out fine.
LOL what planet are you on. They will pocket the money and still charge massive shift Premiums. There will be no savings.
Um the massive shift premiums come from the locum doctors. Pay a bit more and a lot of those locum doctors will take more permanent work
There are however a whole set of issues with GPs at the moment including some incentives that have resulted in some trained GPs being unable to find jobs. That really does need to be fixed first..
News for you: most locum doctors are locum doctors because they like the flexibility. Not many GPs are out of work, and if they are they aren't trying very hard. Please don't fall for the BMA propaganda. The UK medical profession is the most entitled and featherbedded profession in the world
But looking at it there are different issues there but still issues that could be addressed..
Is this not down to Physician Associates. There were alot of angry Locums on twitter recently annoyed at not getting their £1,500 a day and complaining about the use of Physician associates.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Yes and no. In many cases it will mean that they will be able to fill the vacancies that are currently being filled by people like me, on a 150% premium.
In fact if the role I'm filling as a contractor was advertised at a 20% higher rate than the current salary band, I might be tempted even though it would be a small cut in my headline salary.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Second thought of the day - consider it a BOGOF for the first day of the new month.
I've been interested to read the Police citing disinformation as a cause for some of the disturbances coming off the Southport murders. One example - there was a video showing a couple of groups of young men in Southen fighting at one end of the promenade with machetes and that inevitably went viral and caused all sort of comment.
Youngsters fighting in Southend is hardly news - it's been going on for at least 60 years if not longer. It might be machetes now rather than switchblades or baseball bats but let's not imagine this is some new horror vested on us. The change is it is filmed in real time, uploaded onto X and within minutes is seen by hundreds if not thousands helped by a nice attention grabbling title like "Big Machete Fight in Southend" or whatever.
The power of misinformation or disinformation has been exposed this week (if it wasn't known even back in 2011 for example when the disorder then was largely fanned if not orchestrated by a nascent Twitter). You can't put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately but as we know a growing number of people get their "news" from X or other social media how do we respond?
Those with a functioning brain cell might want to consider the wisdom of commenting on every X posting as soon as it happens or taking half a story and making it the full story (as we've seen with the Manchester Airport business). We're not Reuters or the PA - reading something from X doesn't make it true (a wise man once said the truth is out there, perhaps, but it's becoming a lot harder to find in the jungle of disinformation).
As an aside, we also know the impact of the combination of hot weather and easily available alcohol on some people. Somebody once spoke about personal responsibility - wither that?
Sorry, I think machetes are in a different league to switchblades or baseball bats. Bystanders are far more likely to be accidentally involved.
Crowdstrike isn’t even the funniest legal news of the day.
Energy drinks company Prime is being sued by US Olympics, for not only one of the most blatant trademark infringement cases in history, with a fcuk ton of case law and primary legislation to back them up, but also for ignoring a cease and desist notice sent out the week before the Games started.
Prime are still selling drinks branded for the Games, an event with which they have no commercial relationship whatsoever, and whom Coca-Cola have paid a rather large sum of money for an exclusive deal.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Under the previous approach doctors I know were being offered 3k for a single shift. Paying them a bit more salary and reducing the absurd rates we have to regularly pay for emergency cover is going to to work out fine.
LOL what planet are you on. They will pocket the money and still charge massive shift Premiums. There will be no savings.
Um the massive shift premiums come from the locum doctors. Pay a bit more and a lot of those locum doctors will take more permanent work
There are however a whole set of issues with GPs at the moment including some incentives that have resulted in some trained GPs being unable to find jobs. That really does need to be fixed first..
That's interesting. I have a friend who is a partner and her practice is struggling to recruit (E Yorkshire). It must vary depending on where you are.
Probably; the availability of pharmacy locums varies dramatically across the country.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
So for a car hitting you at 20 mph, it would need to be 2.25 times (30/20 * 30/20) as heavy as a car hitting you at 30 mph to do the same damage?
You may have to get the units right, so convert to m/s rather than mph, but it's lunchtime and I can't think it through.
Ratios should mean it doesn't matter, right? The 30mph/20mph * 30mph/20mph has no units.
Did we ever get the accident (etc) rates for Wales which were alleged to suggest that pedestrians were safer with 20mph?
Hot off the press: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cydvr2rnm4ro 23% drop in KSI, apparently. The numbers are not huge anyway, so the confidence intervals could be quite wide. But I'd be surprised on those figures if it's not a significant finding.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
We are reaching that point where all those people who knew what they were voting against are suddenly find out what they have voted for.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
We are a blended economy, public and private sector. It's an argument for the 1980s to suggest public sector workers are non -productive. Oh and public sector workers pay taxes.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
While cutting benefits for those who aren't working. Addressing the winter fuel allowance is a start for that, ending the triple lock should be the next step.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
You're talking about aiming a water pistol at a burning building. The government is raising state spending and liabilities at an alarming rate, the remedies will be 3-4p on the basic and higher rates of tax, not small time measures like NI on unearned income (which I agree needs to happen).
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
Make damn sure their parents are paying Employer NI on it.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
You're talking about aiming a water pistol at a burning building. The government is raising state spending and liabilities at an alarming rate, the remedies will be 3-4p on the basic and higher rates of tax, not small time measures like NI on unearned income (which I agree needs to happen).
So abolish liabilities where possible.
Cut jobs that don't need to be done. I could give a list of those.
And cut unearned benefits that aren't justified or required.
But don't cut the pay of those who are doing jobs that need doing, at a time we have full employment and vacancies.
And the private sector needs wage inflation too.
Transfer earnings from those on fixed incomes, to those who are working for their income.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited. 2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.
It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
Language has evolved throughout human history. It is inevitable, chill and embrace it.
Any noun can be verbed.
Can verbs be nouned?*
Or would it be acceptable for anyone doing that to be given the lynch?
*Note my verbing of 'noun', although of course that's no more out there than verbing 'verb'. Give me shoot.
All verbs can be nouned. But some take new forms in so doing - contrast believe/belief with thought/thought, for example. Or indeed doing/doing...
My favourites in UK English are the ones that switch spelling in a US-kind of way, e.g. licence/license
My favo(u)rite US verb-noun is Burgle>Burglar>Burglarize, presumably leading to Burglarizer sooner or later.
Shakespeare was an inveterate noun verbaliser:
'Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle' is my personal favourite.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
But they are being paid for what theyre doing. Just dictating pay rises doesnt work We are living substantially beyond our means and have a government who appears to want to buy off its mates.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
I note from Edinburgh Minute (great newsletter that gives you today's local news in a digest form) that Edinburgh bin men are going on strike from August 14th to the 22nd - i.e. right in the middle of the Edinburgh festival...
They did the same in 2022. Almost a Festival tradition..
Is it possible to tell the difference, given how much litter the Festival attendees like to scatter? Not to mention the flyposters, and the prats who hand oujt reams of handbills which just get dumped.
Possibly, though I guess it’s the poor residents with back courts full of rotting rubbish that will bear the brunt. I’m sure the media will be holding SLab-led (with sotto voce support from Unionist parties) Edinburgh Council to account, lots of photos of John Swinney pointing at piles of bulging bin bags and scampering rats. Or perhaps not.
Hang on - it seems as if it is *Edinburgh* that is not (yet) going on strike 14-22 Aug - it's the other local authorities involved in the ballot. I see Mr Day is nevertheless blaming the SG in advance for aforesaid heaps and rodents. As if they don't have both at Festival time anyway.
"The leader of City of Edinburgh Council has urged people to take their rubbish home with them if strikes go ahead during the Edinburgh Festival."
26% reduction in road casualities 23% in killed / seriously injured 55% drop in people killed 27% drop in slight injuries
And insurance claims down 20%.
The thing that convinced me that this speed reduction policy was a good idea was the stat that vehicles are getting heavier.
Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.
That is patently false and not represented by the data whatsoever.
Decades of technological and safety improvements, including crash test designs and iterations, mean you are far, far, far less likely to die today than decades ago. Which includes pedestrians.
That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".
Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
It does contradict it.
A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.
In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average. In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
So for a car hitting you at 20 mph, it would need to be 2.25 times (30/20 * 30/20) as heavy as a car hitting you at 30 mph to do the same damage?
You may have to get the units right, so convert to m/s rather than mph, but it's lunchtime and I can't think it through.
Ratios should mean it doesn't matter, right? The 30mph/20mph * 30mph/20mph has no units.
Did we ever get the accident (etc) rates for Wales which were alleged to suggest that pedestrians were safer with 20mph?
Hot off the press: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cydvr2rnm4ro 23% drop in KSI, apparently. The numbers are not huge anyway, so the confidence intervals could be quite wide. But I'd be surprised on those figures if it's not a significant finding.
Although, there seems to be a downwards trend anyway year on year for some time, in general, so you'd need a bit more analysis to really draw conclusions, taking a few years. Dif in dif with England would be interesting or an interrupted time series Wales only, but Covid will complicate that somewhat.
ETA: Or compare roads affected versus not affected within Wales (although even there it's possible there are other distortions - the limits may have changed traffic routing)
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited. 2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
Nice try, the NI cuts were fully funded (and then some) by a commensurate tax rise by freezing thresholds.
NI should have been cut further if the full tax rise had gone on funding it.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
But they are being paid for what theyre doing. Just dictating pay rises doesnt work We are living substantially beyond our means and have a government who appears to want to buy off its mates.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
Rishi didn't have a plan - if he had offered any plan he may have won a few more seats...
Being blunt I think the last Government with a plan for Growth was in 2004...
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
A total fk up, and he hadnt even prepared his party for it, Meanwhile Farage would have been too deeply involved in the US. so he would have had a much better election platform.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited. 2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
Nice try, the NI cuts were fully funded (and then some) by a commensurate tax rise by freezing thresholds.
NI should have been cut further if the full tax rise had gone on funding it.
Nope the freezing of the thresholds was announced years ago well before the NI cuts...
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
But they are being paid for what theyre doing. Just dictating pay rises doesnt work We are living substantially beyond our means and have a government who appears to want to buy off its mates.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
The independent pay reviews were conducted under terms and conditions set by the last government, under the auspices of the last government, and reported their results to the last government.
Yes we need to increase productivity across the board - that means across the board pay rises and abolish the jobs of anyone who doesn't justify the higher rrate of pay.
I'm beginning to think that the odds on Ms Harris are looking attractive.
Not as attractive as they were... closed from 2.8 a day or so ago to 2.3. The only reason Trump is still in with a chance is assumptions on the levels of misogyny and racism of the US electorate, sadly.
Of those two it's sexism/misogyny that imo is the bigger threat electorally. Nevertheless I do think she'll win. Or to put it more accurately I'm confident Trump will lose - as I have been for ages with just a brief wobble when it looked like a sick and frail old man was going to insist on running against him. Once that was dealt with it's BAU as far as I'm concerned - he's a poor candidate with a low vote ceiling and a very narrow path. He's clear 2nd fav for me.
The other point about the interview, which will impact even his more toxic support, is this one.
The most important takeaway from the NABJ interview - the real story, and what all the headlines should be about - is that Trump isn’t capable of handling real events that aren’t staged to promote him.
Indeed. He has a problem looming viz a debate with Harris. Risky to do it because he doesn't have the tools to 'debate' with anybody, let alone somebody alert, composed, enthused and prepped. Also hard to refuse it without looking like a wimp (thus cutting across a big part of his self-image and appeal, the tough smart cookie scared of nothing and nobody). I think he'll judge the first risk to be the greater and will come up with an excuse. Pity there's no market on it. The Yes/No and then a subsidiary one for if it's a No on what the excuse will be.
I note Broadbent has now left the MPC and new member Lombardelli is amongst the 5 who have voted to cut - There's further good news in the weeds too - Haskell who is slightly more hawkish than consensus is leaving for the next rate decision. He seemingly has no replacement for now so in effect the next vote starts at 5-3 (As they'll be down to 8 members) and if a 4-4 decision is reached Bailey counts as tiebreaker.
If Reeves has any sense she'll look for another Dinghra like Dove, loading the consensus position up to what would have been 6-3 at this decision.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
But they are being paid for what theyre doing. Just dictating pay rises doesnt work We are living substantially beyond our means and have a government who appears to want to buy off its mates.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
Rishi didn't have a plan - if he had offered any plan he may have won a few more seats...
Being blunt I think the last Government with a plan for Growth was in 2004...
It might have been a wek plam, but at least he had one, Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
Remember the NI "cuts" were more than offset by fiscal drag in not increasing allowances. Hunt's budget increased taxes, it didn't decrease them and it left some more tax increases to come as well. I don't think we would have had a full blown fiscal crisis, certainly not over £9bn, which is a rounding error in the accounts, but we undoubtedly had and will have a situation where the answer to the questions "will we have tax increases" and "will we need to moderate public spending" is yes.
Of course it didn't suit Reeves to "notice" that in the election campaign because so much of the Labour campaign was being built around so called Tory austerity but the reality is we need to pay more and get less, roughly £100bn less however that is balanced.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited. 2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
Nice try, the NI cuts were fully funded (and then some) by a commensurate tax rise by freezing thresholds.
NI should have been cut further if the full tax rise had gone on funding it.
Nope the freezing of the thresholds was announced years ago well before the NI cuts...
With lower inflation and due to expire.
Higher inflation and extending the freeze more than paid for NI.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
How ? In the wider spread of things interest rates were only one factor and lots of people dont have mortgages, theyre savers. Whereas as Max points out he would have a positive story on growth rates , inflation as well as no Farage,
Dowden is just another failed lawyer from Cambridge who you couldnt trust to clean a toilet.
I'm beginning to think that the odds on Ms Harris are looking attractive.
Not as attractive as they were... closed from 2.8 a day or so ago to 2.3. The only reason Trump is still in with a chance is assumptions on the levels of misogyny and racism of the US electorate, sadly.
Of those two it's sexism/misogyny that imo is the bigger threat electorally. Nevertheless I do think she'll win. Or to put it more accurately I'm confident Trump will lose - as I have been for ages with just a brief wobble when it looked like a sick and frail old man was going to insist on running against him. Once that was dealt with it's BAU as far as I'm concerned - he's a poor candidate with a low vote ceiling and a very narrow path. He's clear 2nd fav for me.
The other point about the interview, which will impact even his more toxic support, is this one.
The most important takeaway from the NABJ interview - the real story, and what all the headlines should be about - is that Trump isn’t capable of handling real events that aren’t staged to promote him.
Indeed. He has a problem looming viz a debate with Harris. Risky to do it because he doesn't have the tools to 'debate' with anybody, let alone somebody alert, composed, enthused and prepped. Also hard to refuse it without looking like a wimp (thus cutting across a big part of his self-image and appeal, the tough smart cookie scared of nothing and nobody). I think he'll judge the first risk to be the greater and will come up with an excuse. Pity there's no market on it. The Yes/No and then a subsidiary one for if it's a No on what the excuse will be.
Harris might open up such a lead that his campaign team feels he has nothing to lose ...
Sean Ingle @seaningle The Italian Angela Carini is crying her eyes out in the ring.
She decides not to continue after being hit hard twice by the Algerian Imane Khelif. Fight lasted 46 seconds. First punched knocked her chin strap off and she was holding her nose.
The Algerian trans boxer was banned from women's boxing by the International Boxing Federation which has put out a statement putting the responsibility for this on the IOC. Ms Carini was shouting in Italian "This is not just".
No. It isn't just to allow a man to hit a woman and claim that is a sport. It is dangerous and wrong. It isn't just to allow a man to take the place of a female competitor. That is cheating.
No doubt @kyf_100 will be along in a moment to accuse me (having been caught out this morning telling a straightforward lie about about a Cyclefree header) of being a pillock or something. Apparently being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
How ? In the wider spread of things interest rates were only one factor and lots of people dont have mortgages, theyre savers. Whereas as Max points out he would have a positive story on growth rates , inflation as well as no Farage,
Dowden is just another failed lawyer from Cambridge who you couldnt trust to clean a toilet.
These deals were taken out before the Liz Truss experience, so they were going to see some hefty increases on their mortgage costs.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
I'm puzzled by the idea that we should now start to prepare for much lower interest rates. It's not that rates are now historically high it is that they were previously historically low. I re-financed my mortgage on a 5 year in February deal based on interest rates being slightly lower over those 5 years than they are now. But not by much. Have those forecasts changed?
In other news I see the Southport suspect has appeared in court and turns 18 next week. Given the horrific nature of the crime it would seem strong grounds for removing anonymity. But could a judge do that for a suspect?
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Other options are available.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
do we mug kids for their pocket money ?
That's almost exactly what our economy is doing at the minute by underpaying workers and overtaxing them.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
But they are being paid for what theyre doing. Just dictating pay rises doesnt work We are living substantially beyond our means and have a government who appears to want to buy off its mates.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
Rishi didn't have a plan - if he had offered any plan he may have won a few more seats...
Being blunt I think the last Government with a plan for Growth was in 2004...
It might have been a wek plam, but at least he had one, Reeves is just making it up as she goes along.
Sure.
She's come up with this simple change in a month, which the Tories failed to do for a decade.
You're entitled to come to a judgment in due course, but pretending you know the outcome of Labour's policies a few weeks into government is just the expression of prejudices.
And oi, I never got offered my $10 voucher, do only American customers count Crowdstrike?
How does this work? If it fails, it removes a bit of money from all shareholders as Crowdstrike will need to pay out lawyers. If it succeeds, then essentially it "pinches" money from all shareholders and gives it to shareholders that are part of this action, with a cut taken by lawyers. So all shareholders should logically join this action. Which means that money is taken from shareholders, some of it is taken by lawyers, and then it is given back to the shareholders.
What am I missing?
Anyway it's fine by me. As I recommended to y'all at the time, and unusually for me, I'm short CRWD...
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Please tell me which million staff you would cut. Perhaps we should abolish the armed forces or the Police - sack all the teachers?
In terms of local Government, roughly 1.2 million people worked in local Government in 2022 - that was more than a third down on 2012 (that's austerity for you).
Are you going to propose firing everyone in local Government?
On taxation, increasing the basic rate to 23% would take us back to 1997 rates which I don't recall were considered onerous in extremis. I also recall back then we were running a budget surplus.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
I remain of the view that Rishi had simply had enough and went into the campaign demob happy, which explains how grossly incompetent he was especially in the beginning of it.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
How ? In the wider spread of things interest rates were only one factor and lots of people dont have mortgages, theyre savers. Whereas as Max points out he would have a positive story on growth rates , inflation as well as no Farage,
Dowden is just another failed lawyer from Cambridge who you couldnt trust to clean a toilet.
These deals were taken out before the Liz Truss experience, so they were going to see some hefty increases on their mortgage costs.
So what ? there are loads of ways you can put money in people's pockets if you want to, The desire to call the election in July was just plain daft. And if Dowden was pushing for it he should be kept away from political decisions.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
Sean Ingle @seaningle The Italian Angela Carini is crying her eyes out in the ring.
She decides not to continue after being hit hard twice by the Algerian Imane Khelif. Fight lasted 46 seconds. First punched knocked her chin strap off and she was holding her nose.
The Algerian trans boxer was banned from women's boxing by the International Boxing Federation which has put out a statement putting the responsibility for this on the IOC. Ms Carini was shouting in Italian "This is not just".
No. It isn't just to allow a man to hit a woman and claim that is a sport. It is dangerous and wrong. It isn't just to allow a man to take the place of a female competitor. That is cheating.
No doubt @kyf_100 will be along in a moment to accuse me (having been caught out this morning telling a straightforward lie about about a Cyclefree header) of being a pillock or something. Apparently being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women.
If that's not misogyny the word has no meaning.
I am sure Kyf_100 will claim you have been radicalised like anyone else who dares not to follow the Stonewall line.
Looks like Reeves will have to discover another big black hole.
Giving out a 22% pay increase was never going to go unnoticed by the rest of the public sector. Expect a lot of strikes over the next year and 10%+ pay settlements becoming the norm. The private sector is going to be hollowed out over the next 5 years until our economy looks like France.
Hopefully it won't go unnoticed by either the public or private sector.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Public sector pay increases will be paid for by higher taxation on private sector productivity or borrowing which is a tax on future productivity. We already have a bloated public sector, the government needs to plan to cut employment in the public sector by 1m people, not make it more attractive to work in it.
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
Please tell me which million staff you would cut. Perhaps we should abolish the armed forces or the Police - sack all the teachers?
In terms of local Government, roughly 1.2 million people worked in local Government in 2022 - that was more than a third down on 2012 (that's austerity for you).
Are you going to propose firing everyone in local Government?
On taxation, increasing the basic rate to 23% would take us back to 1997 rates which I don't recall were considered onerous in extremis. I also recall back then we were running a budget surplus.
I would, yes.
1: Abolish Local Councils and elections. Get rid of the whole bureaucratic and pointless mess. 2: Abolish anyone involved in planning. Have a law on what is permitted then let anyone do whatever the hell they want with their own land and tell noisy neighbours to mind their own business.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
Do we claim this is all down to Rachel Reeves' good management of the economy just to annoy Alan?
No this is just more evidence Sunak was a prat.
It would appear so. There has to be some reason for calling a July election, surely?
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
The reason is clear - the independently set public sector pay award draft figures would have arrived in mid May. Suddenly we have a general election and within a month of that election we have a full blown Government finance crisis... It's almost like the NI cuts should not have been done...
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited. 2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
Nice try, the NI cuts were fully funded (and then some) by a commensurate tax rise by freezing thresholds.
NI should have been cut further if the full tax rise had gone on funding it.
Nope the freezing of the thresholds was announced years ago well before the NI cuts...
And the gains from freezing thresholds had already been spent. And the ones from the incoming threshold freeze have already been booked.
The NI reductions were only affordable in the sense that government debt would only go up for the next four years out of five. (Seriously. I don't like government debt, but the Conservatives have lost the right to lecture anyone on that subject for a good long time.)
And as for the government leaving certain functions... We have just had a government which has spent fourteen years looking for activities it can stop doing. The things they have kept doing... there might be a reason for that.
And oi, I never got offered my $10 voucher, do only American customers count Crowdstrike?
How does this work? If it fails, it removes a bit of money from all shareholders as Crowdstrike will need to pay out lawyers. If it succeeds, then essentially it "pinches" money from all shareholders and gives it to shareholders that are part of this action, with a cut taken by lawyers. So all shareholders should logically join this action. Which means that money is taken from shareholders, some of it is taken by lawyers, and then it is given back to the shareholders.
What am I missing?
Anyway it's fine by me. As I recommended to y'all at the time, and unusually for me, I'm short CRWD...
I am assuming they have two aims:
1. Change of management, not just a figurehead or a scapegoat but the whole damn lot of them. 2. A detailed public airing of what exactly happened internally and why, something that might be avoided if 1. above were to happen first.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Sean Ingle @seaningle The Italian Angela Carini is crying her eyes out in the ring.
She decides not to continue after being hit hard twice by the Algerian Imane Khelif. Fight lasted 46 seconds. First punched knocked her chin strap off and she was holding her nose.
The Algerian trans boxer was banned from women's boxing by the International Boxing Federation which has put out a statement putting the responsibility for this on the IOC. Ms Carini was shouting in Italian "This is not just".
No. It isn't just to allow a man to hit a woman and claim that is a sport. It is dangerous and wrong. It isn't just to allow a man to take the place of a female competitor. That is cheating.
No doubt @kyf_100 will be along in a moment to accuse me (having been caught out this morning telling a straightforward lie about about a Cyclefree header) of being a pillock or something. Apparently being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women.
If that's not misogyny the word has no meaning.
"Caught out in an absolute lie" = trying to remember the exact header content from a couple of months ago and getting a couple of details wrong.
Having read the header in question, it's even more transphobic than I remember. Not only does it focus on threats against one specific MP (while paying lip service to past violence against other MPs), while ignoring violence against trans women (four times more likely to be assaulted than cis women), it is explicitly transphobic in its content, opening with the lines "If you want to understand (and you really should want to) how gender ideology – the belief that men can turn into women simply by saying so based on some internal feeling they have –" which is a funny way to begin a post about violence against MPs, if you ask me. And several other posters pointed out the 'violence against an MP' motif was a cover for a "yet again another anti-trans diatribe, poorly hidden amongst concern for politicians? Or just one politician, in this case?" to quote but one.
I also now have the absolute joy of catching you out in an absolute lie when you accuse me of "being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women" and since the post in question was just a few posts below yours in last night's thread, you don't have the same excuse of failing to remember content in granular detail. I stated: "That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?"
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
Many already have and are being paid then by the public sector at locum rates because the job still needs doing. So you're just increasing our tax bill doing that.
Its not either/or, its both public and private sector wages that need to go up. Funded by those who aren't working getting a lower share of what those who are working are working for.
Comments
But looking at it there are different issues there but still issues that could be addressed..
For the avoidance of doubt my alma mater was not liberal, even by the standards of the time.
The mass of a car, any car, is so much greater than that of a person that the mass of a car involved in a collision with a pedestrian is almost completely irrelevant. What causes injury is the force exerted on the pedestrian and its distribution, and that depends on such things as:
a) the speed of the car
b) the shape of the front of the car
c) the hardness of the front of the car
Edit: Honestly, it's sometimes like when I was teaching physics to secondary school kids. You can't just grab a formula, plug some numbers in, and call that the answer. Physics is more about understanding the problem than doing the maths.
Megan Greene, Jonathan Haskel, Catherine L Mann and Huw Pill 4 Hold
Andrew Bailey is a tool of Rachel Reeves.
#BaileyOut
https://www.reuters.com/legal/crowdstrike-is-sued-by-shareholders-over-huge-software-outage-2024-07-31/
And oi, I never got offered my $10 voucher, do only American customers count Crowdstrike?
The most important takeaway from the NABJ interview - the real story, and what all the headlines should be about - is that Trump isn’t capable of handling real events that aren’t staged to promote him.
It was going so badly his campaign panicked & yanked him off the stage.
https://x.com/clearing_fog/status/1818764497953472775
In fact if the role I'm filling as a contractor was advertised at a 20% higher rate than the current salary band, I might be tempted even though it would be a small cut in my headline salary.
We have full employment need a good few years of high wage inflation.
Let those who are not working and have major assets pay higher fees to those who are working if they want a service doing. Whether that be a public or private service, people who are working need to be paid for what they're doing.
The solution to public overspending is to cut employment of people whose job doesn't need doing, and cut the unnecessary entitlements those out of work get, not cut remuneration for those who are working a job that is actually important to do.
If we're not going to have a 70-80% cut in house prices the only way to get things affordable again is a good few years of high wage-led inflation.
Energy drinks company Prime is being sued by US Olympics, for not only one of the most blatant trademark infringement cases in history, with a fcuk ton of case law and primary legislation to back them up, but also for ignoring a cease and desist notice sent out the week before the Games started.
Prime are still selling drinks branded for the Games, an event with which they have no commercial relationship whatsoever, and whom Coca-Cola have paid a rather large sum of money for an exclusive deal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/olympics/us-olympic-committee-sues-logan-paul-prime-hydration-rcna162917
We're heading for an IMF bailout in 2028 at this rate. Our spending is out of control and taxes can't go up any more than this.
23% drop in KSI, apparently. The numbers are not huge anyway, so the confidence intervals could be quite wide. But I'd be surprised on those figures if it's not a significant finding.
Merge Income Tax and National Insurance so that pensioners make the same contribution as the private sector and taxes would go up without costing those who are working or their firms a single penny.
If wealthy pensioners want a doctor for themselves, or a teacher for their grandchildren, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as the private sector?
We need a transfer of earnings from those who aren't working to those who are - that requires pay rises for those who are working.
While cutting benefits for those who aren't working. Addressing the winter fuel allowance is a start for that, ending the triple lock should be the next step.
I'm sure you didn't mind my gentle ribbing. I of course do not think she is entitled to one iota of credit for it, although no doubt at some stage credit will be claimed.
We need to rebalance to say that those who are working are paid for what they're doing - and get to keep more of what they earn too. That means that those who can afford to, who aren't working, pay their own way for those who are working.
https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1818962107032903863
'Broadcast suspended'
Every summer Olympics under a Tory PM since 2010 we finished ahead of the France.
Another Starmer failure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx92wjll8k8t
Cut jobs that don't need to be done. I could give a list of those.
And cut unearned benefits that aren't justified or required.
But don't cut the pay of those who are doing jobs that need doing, at a time we have full employment and vacancies.
And the private sector needs wage inflation too.
Transfer earnings from those on fixed incomes, to those who are working for their income.
And if Rishi hadn't run in July and instead had to agree to the pay deal he would have had 2 options.
1) Deal with the budget issues Reeves has inherited.
2) force a cheaper pay deal resulting in strikes leading up to the election.
Although at least with 2 the decision would have been one that we could have decided during the election...
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
'Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle' is my personal favourite.
If we are going to pay people more in the productive part of the economy we need to train them , increase productivity and cut the load of the state sector while at the same time getting back to a growth rate of 3%.
Increasingly it appears this government will not do this. While we could laugh when Sunak said he had a plan, at least he did. I can see no plan from Reeves, but maybe she'll surprise me in October.
"The leader of City of Edinburgh Council has urged people to take their rubbish home with them if strikes go ahead during the Edinburgh Festival."
https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2024/07/bin-strikes-in-edinburgh-not-inevitable/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c06k024p46do
ETA: Or compare roads affected versus not affected within Wales (although even there it's possible there are other distortions - the limits may have changed traffic routing)
NI should have been cut further if the full tax rise had gone on funding it.
Being blunt I think the last Government with a plan for Growth was in 2004...
That made going in July logical.
Yes we need to increase productivity across the board - that means across the board pay rises and abolish the jobs of anyone who doesn't justify the higher rrate of pay.
There's further good news in the weeds too - Haskell who is slightly more hawkish than consensus is leaving for the next rate decision. He seemingly has no replacement for now so in effect the next vote starts at 5-3 (As they'll be down to 8 members) and if a 4-4 decision is reached Bailey counts as tiebreaker.
If Reeves has any sense she'll look for another Dinghra like Dove, loading the consensus position up to what would have been 6-3 at this decision.
Of course it didn't suit Reeves to "notice" that in the election campaign because so much of the Labour campaign was being built around so called Tory austerity but the reality is we need to pay more and get less, roughly £100bn less however that is balanced.
Higher inflation and extending the freeze more than paid for NI.
Dowden is just another failed lawyer from Cambridge who you couldnt trust to clean a toilet.
No. It isn't just to allow a man to hit a woman and claim that is a sport. It is dangerous and wrong. It isn't just to allow a man to take the place of a female competitor. That is cheating.
No doubt @kyf_100 will be along in a moment to accuse me (having been caught out this morning telling a straightforward lie about about a Cyclefree header) of being a pillock or something. Apparently being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women.
If that's not misogyny the word has no meaning.
Axel Rudakubana as given on X a few days ago.
Remember everyone it's sub judice now despite this new development. So no presumptions of guilt or otherwise should be made
In other news I see the Southport suspect has appeared in court and turns 18 next week. Given the horrific nature of the crime it would seem strong grounds for removing anonymity. But could a judge do that for a suspect?
She's come up with this simple change in a month, which the Tories failed to do for a decade.
Getting Britain building
New planning changes will get more data centres, prisons, renewables, and labs built
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/getting-britain-building
You're entitled to come to a judgment in due course, but pretending you know the outcome of Labour's policies a few weeks into government is just the expression of prejudices.
What am I missing?
Anyway it's fine by me. As I recommended to y'all at the time, and unusually for me, I'm short CRWD...
In terms of local Government, roughly 1.2 million people worked in local Government in 2022 - that was more than a third down on 2012 (that's austerity for you).
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Workforce Infographic 2023 - 30 October 2023.pdf
Are you going to propose firing everyone in local Government?
On taxation, increasing the basic rate to 23% would take us back to 1997 rates which I don't recall were considered onerous in extremis. I also recall back then we were running a budget surplus.
Alleged triple killer named
1: Abolish Local Councils and elections. Get rid of the whole bureaucratic and pointless mess.
2: Abolish anyone involved in planning. Have a law on what is permitted then let anyone do whatever the hell they want with their own land and tell noisy neighbours to mind their own business.
The NI reductions were only affordable in the sense that government debt would only go up for the next four years out of five. (Seriously. I don't like government debt, but the Conservatives have lost the right to lecture anyone on that subject for a good long time.)
And as for the government leaving certain functions... We have just had a government which has spent fourteen years looking for activities it can stop doing. The things they have kept doing... there might be a reason for that.
1. Change of management, not just a figurehead or a scapegoat but the whole damn lot of them.
2. A detailed public airing of what exactly happened internally and why, something that might be avoided if 1. above were to happen first.
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Having read the header in question, it's even more transphobic than I remember. Not only does it focus on threats against one specific MP (while paying lip service to past violence against other MPs), while ignoring violence against trans women (four times more likely to be assaulted than cis women), it is explicitly transphobic in its content, opening with the lines "If you want to understand (and you really should want to) how gender ideology – the belief that men can turn into women simply by saying so based on some internal feeling they have –" which is a funny way to begin a post about violence against MPs, if you ask me. And several other posters pointed out the 'violence against an MP' motif was a cover for a "yet again another anti-trans diatribe, poorly hidden amongst concern for politicians? Or just one politician, in this case?" to quote but one.
I also now have the absolute joy of catching you out in an absolute lie when you accuse me of "being in favour of trans rights means being in favour of men hitting women" and since the post in question was just a few posts below yours in last night's thread, you don't have the same excuse of failing to remember content in granular detail. I stated: "That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?"
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Its not either/or, its both public and private sector wages that need to go up. Funded by those who aren't working getting a lower share of what those who are working are working for.