Howdy, Stranger!

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

A basket of unfavourables – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited September 29 in General
imageA basket of unfavourables – politicalbetting.com

Earlier on this week I said I was expecting Donald Trump to win the electoral college then somebody who I respect when it comes to polling and politics told me I was epically wrong. They told me to remember one of Mike Smithson’s adages that close to an election the net favourability scores are often a better predictor of election outcomes than standard voting intentions.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    First?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    algarkirk said:

    First?

    Yes, she will be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    Much more likely it's a Civil Servant still smarting from personal criticism after her report on the lockdown parties.

    Which is annoying, in fact, as any of the bastards involved should have been fired on the spot.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,069
    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,916
    I think this is also a manifestation of what I see to be a clear enthusiasm gap developing.

    Democrats have got on board with Harris, they have accepted her, are excited by the prospect of her winning, and seem to have lined up behind her as a way to stop Trump.

    Trump meanwhile, whilst hugely well-liked by the MAGA die-hards, feels a little diminished and spent at the moment.

    The candidate who gets their voters to the polls more successfully will win the election. It’s why I think, right now, Harris will edge it. Still very close though.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    The question is does this go beyond the weekend ?

    I suspect the Sundays will have a spread of troughing stories.

    Sky got the bit between their teeth yesterday and had an exposure of "gifts". Starmer was top dog but the surprise to me was Lucy Powell who got through£40k and claimed the number 2 spot.

    This reminds me a bit of MPs expenses and I suspect it will run. And before the Tories and LDs get too full of glee the expenses story dragged everyone in to the spotlight.

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,916

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Not particularly. Though it is early days.

    It is correct what a lot of people are saying on here - if voters start to feel improvements in the next 2-3 years then it gives Labour a potential trump card for the next GE, no matter their early stumbles. But that’s not a given, and it would have been far better for Labour to have an assured first few months in office rather than what they have had.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    But the polling is her personal favourability ratings and those have improved as people have seen more of her.

    However, as Mercator keeps correctly pointing out Trump leads on the Economy and Migration with voters. Whether this is enough to have an impact remains to be seen.

    I usually punt money on the US Election. Did well last time out. I am not touching this one with a bargepole.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    junior doctors should stop whining and get themselves a job as a train driver. More money shorter hours.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    Much more likely it's a Civil Servant still smarting from personal criticism after her report on the lockdown parties.

    Which is annoying, in fact, as any of the bastards involved should have been fired on the spot.
    According to the BBC, it is multiple people. That was how they published the story in the first place - need multiple sources saying the same thing, for old fashioned journalism.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    Is that a reference to this, by any chance?

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/trump-jewish-voters-antisemitism-event/index.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    Much more likely it's a Civil Servant still smarting from personal criticism after her report on the lockdown parties.

    Which is annoying, in fact, as any of the bastards involved should have been fired on the spot.
    According to the BBC, it is multiple people. That was how they published the story in the first place - need multiple sources saying the same thing, for old fashioned journalism.
    She criticised a lot of Civil Servants who are still there.

    And still drunk, to judge by their output.

    So I don't see that as invalidating the hypothesis.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    I thought the US govt was denying there's anything wrong with batshit. Chinese batshit especially.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420
    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    The question is does this go beyond the weekend ?

    I suspect the Sundays will have a spread of troughing stories.

    Sky got the bit between their teeth yesterday and had an exposure of "gifts". Starmer was top dog but the surprise to me was Lucy Powell who got through£40k and claimed the number 2 spot.

    This reminds me a bit of MPs expenses and I suspect it will run. And before the Tories and LDs get too full of glee the expenses story dragged everyone in to the spotlight.

    In the real world, where she lives, unlike the rest of us,* such things are normal.

    But she doesn't Neil to us.

    *Anyone else remember that infamous exchange?

    https://youtu.be/FRXzSo_mpX8
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420
    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    But the polling is her personal favourability ratings and those have improved as people have seen more of her.

    However, as Mercator keeps correctly pointing out Trump leads on the Economy and Migration with voters. Whether this is enough to have an impact remains to be seen.

    I usually punt money on the US Election. Did well last time out. I am not touching this one with a bargepole.
    Trump no longer leads on the economy.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,916
    I did say at the time that I thought hiring Sue Gray was a mistake and I stand by that. This is not because of the particular merits (or lack thereof) of Ms Gray or her ability to do the job.

    It’s because it gave a perceived idea of partiality and, as “the civil servant that took down Boris” (even if that is a bit overplayed) she was a known public figure. Far better to have a chief of staff in the shadows, managing things behind the scenes rather than being the story.

    Gray always had the potential to become the story. This is now playing out in full. I would be surprised if she makes the next election in the role, again not because of anything she has or hasn’t done, but likely because the weight of scrutiny will become unsustainable.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    Much more likely it's a Civil Servant still smarting from personal criticism after her report on the lockdown parties.

    Which is annoying, in fact, as any of the bastards involved should have been fired on the spot.
    According to the BBC, it is multiple people. That was how they published the story in the first place - need multiple sources saying the same thing, for old fashioned journalism.
    She criticised a lot of Civil Servants who are still there.

    And still drunk, to judge by their output.

    So I don't see that as invalidating the hypothesis.
    This feels like the sort of dynamic when a sour-faced old new broom comes into an organisation. People who can see the writing on the wall kick off in an attempt to break said new broom before they settle in. The new broom doesn't always win, but I wouldn't bet against this one.

    How long did it take PM Maggie to find her feet?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    The question is does this go beyond the weekend ?

    I suspect the Sundays will have a spread of troughing stories.

    Sky got the bit between their teeth yesterday and had an exposure of "gifts". Starmer was top dog but the surprise to me was Lucy Powell who got through£40k and claimed the number 2 spot.

    This reminds me a bit of MPs expenses and I suspect it will run. And before the Tories and LDs get too full of glee the expenses story dragged everyone in to the spotlight.

    Yes, it’s one of those media stories that will run and run, they love this crap internal whispers game.

    Of course that same media, especially the broadcasters, earn get paid a lot more than the politicians they cover.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    NC Republican Party is officially standing behind the Black Nazi with a trans porn fetish.
    https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1836924160854925765

    TBF, it's hardly worse than everything they already knew about him.

    Though the story going round this morning is that CNN was briefed by GOP staff who were trying to get Robinson to stand down before last night's ballot deadline.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Yes it looks that by selecting Trump again the GOP have probably handed the Democrats another electoral college win despite a not very popular Biden and Harris administration.

    Haley, who had higher favourables than Trump, would probably have won
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    edited September 20
    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Nigelb said:

    NC Republican Party is officially standing behind the Black Nazi with a trans porn fetish.
    https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1836924160854925765

    TBF, it's hardly worse than everything they already knew about him.

    Though the story going round this morning is that CNN was briefed by GOP staff who were trying to get Robinson to stand down before last night's ballot deadline.

    I love a bit of Red on Red early in the morning, and aren't we lucky to have a nice big double dose?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
    Any pension contributions normally follow pay rises. If there has been a re-structure of the pensions, it probably won’t have been in a favourable direction. Lots of public sector pensions have gotten worse in recent years.

    It’s lazy nonsense to argue that public sector pay can forever keep falling further and further behind private sector because the pensions are better.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
    Any pension contributions normally follow pay rises. If there has been a re-structure of the pensions, it probably won’t have been in a favourable direction. Lots of public sector pensions have gotten worse in recent years.

    It’s lazy nonsense to argue that public sector pay can forever keep falling further and further behind private sector because the pensions are better.
    I take it you work in the public sector.

    Here in the private we dont see it that way.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    We’re looking at changes in pay. Those ‘extras’ haven’t changed, or if they have, they’ve gotten worse in the public sector. So none of that argues against the point that public sector pay has risen less than private sector pay in recent years.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012

    I did say at the time that I thought hiring Sue Gray was a mistake and I stand by that. This is not because of the particular merits (or lack thereof) of Ms Gray or her ability to do the job.

    It’s because it gave a perceived idea of partiality and, as “the civil servant that took down Boris” (even if that is a bit overplayed) she was a known public figure. Far better to have a chief of staff in the shadows, managing things behind the scenes rather than being the story.

    Gray always had the potential to become the story. This is now playing out in full. I would be surprised if she makes the next election in the role, again not because of anything she has or hasn’t done, but likely because the weight of scrutiny will become unsustainable.

    I think that the point of employing her was to teach a very inexperienced shadow team the realities of government, how to get things done and what was likely to be possible rather than desirable. It wasn't the worst idea from that perspective and Starmer got some kudos when he brought it into effect about being serious about preparing for government.

    But the way this government has started suggests to me that she has not been entirely successful in this objective. She also created a lot of enemies during Partygate which is clearly having consequences for her own effectiveness. This has the feel of a Dominic Cumming experiment to me and I don't see it lasting too long.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    algarkirk said:

    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.

    Debt reduction is meant to be off the back of a growing economy. Rachel Wrecker is killing growth, not much chance of debt falling.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    The Taiwanese sound seriously pissed off with Israel for nicking their name and IP.

    But I wouldn't be the idiot in Hizbollah who placed the contract with what turned out to be a front organisation for Mossad for all the tea in China.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    algarkirk said:

    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.

    The only way that works is with serious currency devaluation, which means imports get a lot more expensive.

    Even the US is discovering this, as the Bidenomics of printing trillions has led to the Chinese and Saudis starting to agree to price oil in yuan.
  • Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
    Any pension contributions normally follow pay rises. If there has been a re-structure of the pensions, it probably won’t have been in a favourable direction. Lots of public sector pensions have gotten worse in recent years.

    It’s lazy nonsense to argue that public sector pay can forever keep falling further and further behind private sector because the pensions are better.
    I take it you work in the public sector.

    Here in the private we dont see it that way.
    Maybe if your reasoning skills were better, you’d have been able to get a job in the public sector!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,515
    algarkirk said:

    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.

    Agreed. Meanwhile the Tories are focusing on paying rich people’s heating bills
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Surely if your company pension contributions are paid as a percentage of salary, your pension has increased at the same rate. Ditto, as I am in the public sector, my sick pay and annual leave entitlement has increased in rate with my pay rise. Or it will, as my pay rise has been delayed this year due to waiting for the public sector pay commissions to report and I expect it by Christmas, rather than in July.

    Public sector workers, at least the well-paid ones, get all sorts of shit I don't get. Company cars, bonuses, health insurance, salary sacrifice schemes.

    Many public sector workers have had their earning power degraded over a number of years, due to a government believing you can run a country without paying its employees a competitive wage. This is clearly bollicks.

    So I will believe the official figures rather than your fantasy

    So I would believe
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
    Any pension contributions normally follow pay rises. If there has been a re-structure of the pensions, it probably won’t have been in a favourable direction. Lots of public sector pensions have gotten worse in recent years.

    It’s lazy nonsense to argue that public sector pay can forever keep falling further and further behind private sector because the pensions are better.
    I take it you work in the public sector.

    Here in the private we dont see it that way.
    Maybe if your reasoning skills were better, you’d have been able to get a job in the public sector!
    Funnily enough my skills worked out ok, In some of my jobs I even got paid more than Sue Gray but nowhere near the numbers of freebies as Starmer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    Is that a reference to this, by any chance?

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/trump-jewish-voters-antisemitism-event/index.html
    This ?

    Trump tells a Jewish group the Jews will be to blame if he loses: "I will put it to you very simply and gently: I really haven't been treated right, but you haven't been treated right because you're putting yourself in great danger."
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1836917356955602961
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    It's a bit like private schools. Most people think 'Eton' when they hear that, but the vast majority of private schools are nothing like Eton.

    And also, unfortunately, these people are usually the first people to suffer when cuts are made despite being useful (unlike Case).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    Wonder what next week's numbers will be.

    North Carolina Governor Polling:

    Stein (D): 50%
    Robinson (R): 37%

    Morning Consult / Sept 18, 2024 / n=1314

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1836954297356947600
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    We’re looking at changes in pay. Those ‘extras’ haven’t changed, or if they have, they’ve gotten worse in the public sector. So none of that argues against the point that public sector pay has risen less than private sector pay in recent years.
    Those benefits are also wage related so 5% for a public sector employee is worth more than 5% for a private sector employee when the total package is looked at. It is simplistic to simply look at the base wage. Having said that I agree that public sector pay has risen less over recent years.

    I also agree that these benefits are not what they were. My daughter works for the NHS and is expecting. Her maternity rights are still way ahead of the private sector equivalent but are nothing like what my cousin got a few years ago when she was on full pay for pretty much 3 years whilst being in the office for less than 6 months with 2 pregnancies.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Fewer than I thought- about 1% of the public sector and 7% of the private sector.

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7735/CBP-7735.pdf
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    TSE Crossover. It's now in the bag for Harris.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    ydoethur said:

    The Taiwanese sound seriously pissed off with Israel for nicking their name and IP.

    But I wouldn't be the idiot in Hizbollah who placed the contract with what turned out to be a front organisation for Mossad for all the tea in China.

    It’s only 14 years since Mossad pissed off a bunch of Western countries, including the UK and Australia, with this one in my back yard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

    29 suspects, all travelling on fake passports of genuine Western citizens with Israeli visas.

    But a stunning operation, you have to admire them for that.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Don't forget they also have yearly increments within their bands, so they get the yearly increase and an increase in their band until they reach the top, and far greater holiday entitlement as well.

    Pay really is not the only part of the package. Their pay may be less than the private sector but their package is far greater than what the private sector gets.

  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    ydoethur said:

    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    I think you may well be wrong. I suspect that a lot of those jobs you listed involve people working in the private sector on contracts for the public sector.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,609
    edited September 20

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    Does that include pensions which are sod all in the private sector and a significant cost in the public ?
    Any pension contributions normally follow pay rises. If there has been a re-structure of the pensions, it probably won’t have been in a favourable direction. Lots of public sector pensions have gotten worse in recent years.

    It’s lazy nonsense to argue that public sector pay can forever keep falling further and further behind private sector because the pensions are better.
    I take it you work in the public sector.

    Here in the private we dont see it that way.
    Maybe if your reasoning skills were better, you’d have been able to get a job in the public sector!
    That's not very nice but here is a genuine question

    How much does the employer put into the teachers pension fund

    (The employer being HMG and the taxpayer)

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    OT : The question is - How much of the available 10% Harris can pick up.

    45% is nailed on for the Dems
    45% is nailed on for the Republicans.

    At least in the polling
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    It's a bit like private schools. Most people think 'Eton' when they hear that, but the vast majority of private schools are nothing like Eton.

    And also, unfortunately, these people are usually the first people to suffer when cuts are made despite being useful (unlike Case).
    Though in the context of the 1%/7% stat, a lot of them will be employed by private sector contractors.

    They probably get the worst of both worlds.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Fewer than I thought- about 1% of the public sector and 7% of the private sector.

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7735/CBP-7735.pdf
    The public sector are mostly administrators, who don't tend to get paid minimum wage. Most "industrial" civil servants have been outsourced. Our cleaner and security guards, for example, would count as private sector
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    The question is does this go beyond the weekend ?

    I suspect the Sundays will have a spread of troughing stories.

    Sky got the bit between their teeth yesterday and had an exposure of "gifts". Starmer was top dog but the surprise to me was Lucy Powell who got through£40k and claimed the number 2 spot.

    This reminds me a bit of MPs expenses and I suspect it will run. And before the Tories and LDs get too full of glee the expenses story dragged everyone in to the spotlight.

    The expenses row was a net positive for the Lib Dems. They had a couple of MPs implicated (recall they had 60-odd MPs back then) but proportionally far fewer than the 2 main parties so they came out smelling if not of roses then certainly not of dogshit like the others. The good thing is this time we had so few MPs in the last parliament and no donors would have bothered paying much attention to Lib Dems that we're hopefully coming out of this nice and clean.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    glw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    I think you may well be wrong. I suspect that a lot of those jobs you listed involve people working in the private sector on contracts for the public sector.
    Depends where they're working. Some offices, possibly. In academy chains or museums it varies according to what the CEO was drinking when s/he made the decisions.

    But in any case, that only massages the figures it doesn't alter the principle.

    Since we were arguing about the figures I suppose that's technically the key point at stake, but in practice huge numbers of people work for the public sector on minimum wage, directly or indirectly.

    Ironically, of course, the subcontracting model means they get all of the duff pay and none of the perks of the public sector.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,378
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    But the polling is her personal favourability ratings and those have improved as people have seen more of her.

    However, as Mercator keeps correctly pointing out Trump leads on the Economy and Migration with voters. Whether this is enough to have an impact remains to be seen.

    I usually punt money on the US Election. Did well last time out. I am not touching this one with a bargepole.
    I think on this one I have to. The Potus elections have so much liquidity and information and the votes are so split that the chance of winning big is larger than normal. Problem is, the chance of losing big is also larger.

    In the UK GE I put money down on two bets, both on Greens, because the Labour odds were so dire. Here you have two picks and 50 states. There's got to be a gap somewhere... 🙏
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    edited September 20
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    It's a bit like private schools. Most people think 'Eton' when they hear that, but the vast majority of private schools are nothing like Eton.

    And also, unfortunately, these people are usually the first people to suffer when cuts are made despite being useful (unlike Case).
    TAs I’ll give you, but are the cleaners, cooks, gardeners, and drivers actually employed by the public sector rather than a contractor? Do they not mostly work for Sodexo or Crapita? All on minimum wage and minimum possible pension.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    It's been floating around that level for a while. I am slightly surprised by that headline. The 100% mark is not of great economic significance in itself. The challenge is to get current borrowing down to less than zero so that debt does not continue to grow. Its not going to be easy and will require a combination of more taxes and less spending. I really don't envy Reeves her inheritance but she must be very careful not to make it worse.
  • Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Fighting like rats in a sack. I think the budget is going to be make or break, I really do.

    Someone really doesn't like Sue Gray within the Labour ranks.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-handing-gold-plated-pension-to-sue-gray-as-pensioners-brace-for-winter-fuel-cut/ar-AA1qPZtO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=91b32126d6284f38a6b4b8ed347996a8&ei=12
    The question is does this go beyond the weekend ?

    I suspect the Sundays will have a spread of troughing stories.

    Sky got the bit between their teeth yesterday and had an exposure of "gifts". Starmer was top dog but the surprise to me was Lucy Powell who got through£40k and claimed the number 2 spot.

    This reminds me a bit of MPs expenses and I suspect it will run. And before the Tories and LDs get too full of glee the expenses story dragged everyone in to the spotlight.

    Yes, it’s one of those media stories that will run and run, they love this crap internal whispers game.

    Of course that same media, especially the broadcasters, earn get paid a lot more than the politicians they cover.

    They are also drowning in freebies.

    But that is no excuse for Starmer and co. To not understand just how ridiculously self-defeating such troughing is - on so many levels - really does beggar belief.

  • DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Surely if your company pension contributions are paid as a percentage of salary, your pension has increased at the same rate. Ditto, as I am in the public sector, my sick pay and annual leave entitlement has increased in rate with my pay rise. Or it will, as my pay rise has been delayed this year due to waiting for the public sector pay commissions to report and I expect it by Christmas, rather than in July.

    Public sector workers, at least the well-paid ones, get all sorts of shit I don't get. Company cars, bonuses, health insurance, salary sacrifice schemes.

    Many public sector workers have had their earning power degraded over a number of years, due to a government believing you can run a country without paying its employees a competitive wage. This is clearly bollicks.

    So I will believe the official figures rather than your fantasy

    So I would believe
    Many public sector workers have had their earning power degraded over a number of years, due to a government believing you can run a country without paying its employees a competitive wage. This is clearly bollicks.

    Yet for private sector workers, especially working class private sector workers, we've been told for years that the answer is to get ever more low paid immigrants and that pay rises had to be earned through productivity rises.

    There's a widespread belief that other groups are being overpaid while their own group should be paid more.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,495

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Always the way when they get to the trough, Scottish labour were experts at hovering up anything and everything
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,405
    edited September 20

    OT : The question is - How much of the available 10% Harris can pick up.

    45% is nailed on for the Dems
    45% is nailed on for the Republicans.

    At least in the polling

    The Democrats problem is that more of that 45% is wasted in an excess of votes in California (And New York to a lesser degree) being both the largest state and extremely safe Democrat whereas the GOP's largest states of TX and FL don't have particularly excessive numerical margins for the Republicans. That is essentially the source of the GOP EC bias.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited September 20
    DavidL said:

    It's been floating around that level for a while. I am slightly surprised by that headline. The 100% mark is not of great economic significance in itself. The challenge is to get current borrowing down to less than zero so that debt does not continue to grow. Its not going to be easy and will require a combination of more taxes and less spending. I really don't envy Reeves her inheritance but she must be very careful not to make it worse.
    It's largely a totemic figure and debt has in the past been much higher. The problem is that the direction of travel is wrong and government actions since July are going to make it worse.
    Labour have no economic ideas on how to deal with this.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    It's a bit like private schools. Most people think 'Eton' when they hear that, but the vast majority of private schools are nothing like Eton.

    And also, unfortunately, these people are usually the first people to suffer when cuts are made despite being useful (unlike Case).
    TAs I’ll give you, but are the cleaners, cooks, gardeners, and drivers actually employed by the public sector rather than a contractor? Do they not mostly work for Sodexo or Crapita? All on minimum wage and minimum possible pension.
    ha ha ha ha ha

    He said "pension"!!

    ha ha ha ha etc
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    But what we are seeing is Labour's broken business model in action: it ALWAYS loads more on to the private sector to pay for the public sector than is sustainable.

    Then, when they inevitably get booted out for mismanaging the economy, we will be treated to the orchestrated outrage of "Tory cuts!". No. Tory economic sanity, Labour economic profligacy. The cycle continues as it has for decades.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    I think Clinton was at -12 on this score, and Trump -21, before 2016. So the margin is a losing one for the Democratic nominee - Democrats being held to a higher standard by their pool of potential voters than Republicans by theirs.
  • HYUFD said:

    Yes it looks that by selecting Trump again the GOP have probably handed the Democrats another electoral college win despite a not very popular Biden and Harris administration.

    Haley, who had higher favourables than Trump, would probably have won

    Pretty much any normal candidate would have won, no?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    My wife has two public sector roles. One is part time 5 days a week, one is zero hours contract. Both are minimum wage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Pulpstar said:

    OT : The question is - How much of the available 10% Harris can pick up.

    45% is nailed on for the Dems
    45% is nailed on for the Republicans.

    At least in the polling

    The Democrats problem is that more of that 45% is wasted in an excess of votes in California (And New York to a lesser degree) being both the largest state and extremely safe Democrat whereas the GOP's largest states of TX and FL don't have particularly excessive numerical margins for the Republicans. That is essentially the source of the GOP EC bias.
    Trump is doing better in New York and California v Harris than he did v Biden and Hillary. Trump is polling worse in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania than he got in 2016 though and worse in North Carolina than he got in 2016 or 2020
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    malcolmg said:

    Labour - it isnt going well is it ?

    Always the way when they get to the trough, Scottish labour were experts at hovering up anything and everything
    Their recent poll numbers in Scotland have been shocking. Not as widely reported here as when the SNP poll numbers fell.

    Meanwhile headlines like this don't help Labour

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/prisoner-freed-early-by-starmer-back-in-jail-48-hours-later/ar-AA1qQ7fd?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=6081e40ee4ca4a2d844e49861fe7a6bb&ei=29
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864


    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Surely if your company pension contributions are paid as a percentage of salary, your pension has increased at the same rate. Ditto, as I am in the public sector, my sick pay and annual leave entitlement has increased in rate with my pay rise. Or it will, as my pay rise has been delayed this year due to waiting for the public sector pay commissions to report and I expect it by Christmas, rather than in July.

    Public sector workers, at least the well-paid ones, get all sorts of shit I don't get. Company cars, bonuses, health insurance, salary sacrifice schemes.

    Many public sector workers have had their earning power degraded over a number of years, due to a government believing you can run a country without paying its employees a competitive wage. This is clearly bollicks.

    So I will believe the official figures rather than your fantasy

    So I would believe
    Many public sector workers have had their earning power degraded over a number of years, due to a government believing you can run a country without paying its employees a competitive wage. This is clearly bollicks.

    Yet for private sector workers, especially working class private sector workers, we've been told for years that the answer is to get ever more low paid immigrants and that pay rises had to be earned through productivity rises.

    There's a widespread belief that other groups are being overpaid while their own group should be paid more.
    Though the minimum wage has gone up and immigration was falling as Sunak left office
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
    They needed to have the budget ready roughly 1 week after the election to announce it on September 11th - the OBR I think want a 2 month or so lead time.

    Which I think is why they've ended up with limbo until October because their self enforced use of the OBR to check things means they couldn't do it quickly enough..
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Don't forget they also have yearly increments within their bands, so they get the yearly increase and an increase in their band until they reach the top, and far greater holiday entitlement as well.

    Pay really is not the only part of the package. Their pay may be less than the private sector but their package is far greater than what the private sector gets.

    Not all public sector workers get automatic pay uplifts, DWP is on spot salaries, for example. Yes we get greater holiday entitlement, but if your wages go up by 5% then surely the cost of your annual leave goes up by 5% as does the cost of providing my pension (which is now career average revalued). We don't get anything that actually costs money. If you look at the non-salary parts of a pay package, the only things of real value are the holiday and the pension. What do you get? I can't believe you just get your salary and nothing more.

    People in the private sector have so much fantasy about the public sector, it is unbelievable.

    A mate in the pub yesterday complained he has lost $9,000 due to selling his share options too soon. Maybe he is not a good comparator as he is in a much better-paid job than me, but in the public sector you can *never* aspire to that sort of bounce.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    “between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.”

    https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

    How much of that private-sector growth can be accounted for by minimum wage increases?
    Doesn't that apply to the public sector as well? Going off the graph in that link, the public sector is well up at the 25th centile, roughly flat at the median, well down for higher centiles.

    Maddeningly, they don't seem to have the equivalent graph for the private sector.
    How many of the public sector are on mimunim wage?
    My wife has two public sector roles. One is part time 5 days a week, one is zero hours contract. Both are minimum wage.
    Really? A casual worker at Darlington theatre / swimming pool / Hopetown is on £12.50 an hour.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    DavidL said:

    It's been floating around that level for a while. I am slightly surprised by that headline. The 100% mark is not of great economic significance in itself. The challenge is to get current borrowing down to less than zero so that debt does not continue to grow. Its not going to be easy and will require a combination of more taxes and less spending. I really don't envy Reeves her inheritance but she must be very careful not to make it worse.
    The main problem with passing through the 100% level is the psychological effect. Once you go past 100%, and nothing terrible immediately happens, then 110% or 120% just don't seem that bad. Before you know it debt to GDP has reached 150% and the interest payments exert an even greater drag on the country, and you're that much further from undoing the damage.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    eek said:

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
    They needed to have the budget ready roughly 1 week after the election to announce it on September 11th - the OBR I think want a 2 month or so lead time.

    Which I think is why they've ended up with limbo until October because their self enforced use of the OBR to check things means they couldn't do it quickly enough..
    Another avoidable mistake. Using the OBR is a bad move,
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    edited September 20
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Don't forget they also have yearly increments within their bands, so they get the yearly increase and an increase in their band until they reach the top, and far greater holiday entitlement as well.

    Pay really is not the only part of the package. Their pay may be less than the private sector but their package is far greater than what the private sector gets.

    Increments barely exist in the civil service now (still exist in NHS and academia, if you count academia as public sector).


    I looked at a civil service job that had a band bottom slightly under my current pay and top end about £7k above, but with and a note in the advert that new entrants to civil service start at bottom of band (fuck knows why, it means you'll only tend to attract less experienced people from outside - why not match existing salary, within band?). Anyway, I still looked at it because I thought never mind, given increments I'd be at least on par within a year or so and the job looked interesting. But it emerged that increments are largely gone and the pay would not be reviewed until five years service, after which there was an, apparently automatic, fairly hefty jump to near the top of band. I didn't want five years of below inflation pay rises, so I looked elsewhere.

    It seems worst of both worlds - you put people off who can either get increments elsewhere in academia or NHS (this was UKHSA research post) or are confident in their skills that they'd progress faster in private sector, but you still give a barely competent time server a big pay rise for simply being there five years. If you're going to ditch increments, then you need to have negotiation each year within band based on performance review - you know, like people in the private sector professional jobs will have a performance ad pay review.

    ETA: And increments make below inflation pay rises much more palatable for staff - in most years as an academic I've had above inflation pay rises due to the increment and the pay settlement in combination, even with often below inflation settlements on pay spine points. So you feel like you're progressing: even if the whole hill is sinking, you're still climbing it.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 620
    She criticised a lot of Civil Servants who are still there.

    And still drunk, to judge by their output.

    So I don't see that as invalidating the hypothesis.

    Baffling that Labour haven't been more ruthless in cleaning the augean stables, it seems patently obvious who's orchestrating the damaging stories and that person was shown to be unfit for their role several years ago.
    I wonder if they are protected by other stuff they know.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 935
    Labour took a right pasting yesterday in the local by elections.
    Must be the shortest honeymoon period on record.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Quite a lot. Cleaners. Kitchen staff. Drivers. Gardeners. TAs. Community workers.

    People who never get thought about when we talk of 'public sector' because we all think of posh idiot fat cats like Case. But who nevertheless make up the great bulk of services we actually use.

    I think you may well be wrong. I suspect that a lot of those jobs you listed involve people working in the private sector on contracts for the public sector.
    Depends where they're working. Some offices, possibly. In academy chains or museums it varies according to what the CEO was drinking when s/he made the decisions.

    But in any case, that only massages the figures it doesn't alter the principle.

    Since we were arguing about the figures I suppose that's technically the key point at stake, but in practice huge numbers of people work for the public sector on minimum wage, directly or indirectly.

    Ironically, of course, the subcontracting model means they get all of the duff pay and none of the perks of the public sector.
    I agree with what you are saying, but the technicality does matter because as you say the people doing the worst paid "public sector" jobs don't even get the benefits of the public sector. There seem to be a lot of people in hospitals for example, like cleaners and porters, who have logos on the uniforms that imply they might not work directly for the NHS trust.
  • Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:

    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.

    The only way that works is with serious currency devaluation, which means imports get a lot more expensive.

    Even the US is discovering this, as the Bidenomics of printing trillions has led to the Chinese and Saudis starting to agree to price oil in yuan.
    The UK is effectively borrowing money from foreign countries so that UK people can have holidays in foreign countries.

    The UK had a trade surplus when international travel was much reduced during covid:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/ikbj/mret

    The UK has been acting like a oldies selling their assets for extra cruises and not worrying about the inheritance of future generations.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    eek said:

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
    They needed to have the budget ready roughly 1 week after the election to announce it on September 11th - the OBR I think want a 2 month or so lead time.

    Which I think is why they've ended up with limbo until October because their self enforced use of the OBR to check things means they couldn't do it quickly enough..
    I made the point yesterday - we had an election just before the summer recess, so not much has happened since.

    I suspect the WFA was announced quickly because they wanted to implement it this winter and felt people needed *some* notice.

    At DWP we have had nothing filter down about government plans for us, which is not usually the case 2½ months after an election
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    edited September 20

    DavidL said:

    It's been floating around that level for a while. I am slightly surprised by that headline. The 100% mark is not of great economic significance in itself. The challenge is to get current borrowing down to less than zero so that debt does not continue to grow. Its not going to be easy and will require a combination of more taxes and less spending. I really don't envy Reeves her inheritance but she must be very careful not to make it worse.
    The main problem with passing through the 100% level is the psychological effect. Once you go past 100%, and nothing terrible immediately happens, then 110% or 120% just don't seem that bad. Before you know it debt to GDP has reached 150% and the interest payments exert an even greater drag on the country, and you're that much further from undoing the damage.
    Yes it’s like 50% income tax, mostly a psychological crossing of a threshold - but which absolutely changes behaviours.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    HYUFD said:

    Yes it looks that by selecting Trump again the GOP have probably handed the Democrats another electoral college win despite a not very popular Biden and Harris administration.

    Haley, who had higher favourables than Trump, would probably have won

    Pretty much any normal candidate would have won, no?
    Yes, I think so. One of the less commented on consequences of Trump as candidate is that he has instilled iron discipline in his opponents.

    Against a GOP candidate who respects democratic norms, Biden may well not have stepped down - and if he had, there would have been an almighty fight amongst Dems on the question of his successor. Trump inspires 100% unity behind Harris.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 620

    eek said:

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
    They needed to have the budget ready roughly 1 week after the election to announce it on September 11th - the OBR I think want a 2 month or so lead time.

    Which I think is why they've ended up with limbo until October because their self enforced use of the OBR to check things means they couldn't do it quickly enough..
    Another avoidable mistake. Using the OBR is a bad move,
    I wonder if there's a previous example of a *new* Govt not having a budget reviewed by the OBR and what the outcome of that was?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    eek said:

    The thing that really surprises me, is not bringing the first budget forward. Actually do some stuff.
    I think the problem there is they had no plans, theyre making them now,

    And badly.
    They needed to have the budget ready roughly 1 week after the election to announce it on September 11th - the OBR I think want a 2 month or so lead time.

    Which I think is why they've ended up with limbo until October because their self enforced use of the OBR to check things means they couldn't do it quickly enough..
    Another avoidable mistake. Using the OBR is a bad move,
    Using the OBR is unavoidable after Truss screwed things up.

    Now granted they needed to have things ready to go and the budget should have been last week but I think Rishi's delays in kicking off the transition conversations combined with his sudden election announcement made an earlier budget impossible.

    Although I doubt it would have made any difference the stories that are now appearing would have appeared in July instead..
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    I think the conclusion is correct. It is not fatal. They can recover. But will they.

    "This is not a fatal moment for Sir Keir’s prime ministership. But it is a failure from which it is vital that Sir Keir should learn. He needs a stronger commitment to standards, effectively and independently enforced, so that politics and government can begin to be trusted again. That is not happening at the moment. But it is indispensable. Without it, the risks facing Labour in government will only continue to grow."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Might the gap widen? Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favours right now in terms of sanity.

    The trend seems to be slowing but not stopping.

    I was saying months ago I could not work out why she was so unpopular as she seemed reasonable enough to me.

    I guess it is a case the more people see her the more they like her, or don't dislike her.
    Also, remember who she!s up against. Her brief is to look less batshit than Trump, which is of course a very low bar.
    The Trumpdozer certainly seems to be having a moment or two.

    But the polling is her personal favourability ratings and those have improved as people have seen more of her.

    However, as Mercator keeps correctly pointing out Trump leads on the Economy and Migration with voters. Whether this is enough to have an impact remains to be seen.

    I usually punt money on the US Election. Did well last time out. I am not touching this one with a bargepole.
    I think on this one I have to. The Potus elections have so much liquidity and information and the votes are so split that the chance of winning big is larger than normal. Problem is, the chance of losing big is also larger.

    In the UK GE I put money down on two bets, both on Greens, because the Labour odds were so dire. Here you have two picks and 50 states. There's got to be a gap somewhere... 🙏
    If you're still risk averse about betting on a Harris win, some of the states might be worth a look ?
    Michigan, for example, looks pretty well nailed on now. A 50% return over a month and a half isn't to be sniffed at.

    Mercator might also take a look at that for his Harris cashout profits ?
  • Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:

    Now that national debt is 100% of GDP (£2.7tn) two questions need urgent review, and are not going to get it.

    How realistic is it to reduce national debt by continuing to borrow well over £100bn per annum (and not falling) and not paying anything back?

    Is this government going to stick to the bogus formula target of 'National net debt reducing as a % of GDP in the fifth year from now', with 'now' moving forward by 1 year every 12 months so never being reached?

    This is not sustainable.

    The only way that works is with serious currency devaluation, which means imports get a lot more expensive.

    Even the US is discovering this, as the Bidenomics of printing trillions has led to the Chinese and Saudis starting to agree to price oil in yuan.
    The UK is effectively borrowing money from foreign countries so that UK people can have holidays in foreign countries.

    The UK had a trade surplus when international travel was much reduced during covid:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/ikbj/mret

    The UK has been acting like a oldies selling their assets for extra cruises and not worrying about the inheritance of future generations.
    And bluntly, that's because we've had a decade or two of the UK being run on the behalf of people not worrying about the inheritance of future generations.

    (Or, indeed, worrying much about the condition of their parents when they were the ones paying the taxes to fund the pensions.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited September 20
    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT

    Interesting. Reeves could dig herself out of the political mess of the Winter Fuel Allowance scrapping by using the bump in CGT receipts this year because so many people are selling assets before 30th Oct.

    Ben Wilkinson
    Surely Labour couldn’t be this stupid?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/surely-labour-cant-be-this-stupid/

    Alternatively, the Telegraph wants to label Labour as stupid.

    Three things.

    Using windfalls to pay for ongoing commitments is the stupid that Britain has been doing for years, and is part of why we're in this hole.

    If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?

    Would the apparently inevitable Jenrick/Badenoch government of 2029 reintroduce a winter bonus for all pensioners? Of course they won't.
    "If there is a couple of billion more to spend, is replenishing something that is mostly a freebie find for the well-off really the best way of doing it?"

    I thought you were all for massive pay rises for doctors and trains drivers ?
    I'm in favour of reality and arithmetic.

    If the cost to the nation of allowing the strikes to drag on was higher than paying up, then settle the strikes.

    If recruitment and retention are a problem, pay more.

    The problem with the "they should accept X and be grateful model" is that the government can't enforce it.
    Well, up to a point. If recruitment and retention are a problem, make the job more attractive, sure.

    But acceding to strikers demands doesn't make fewer strikes. It shows that strikes work and brings them back for more.

    While it might be true that some of the strikers have had below inflation pay increases, that's true of everyone. It's bot obvious why private sector workers should accept higher taxes so public sector workers can have higher pay increases than them. Inflation isn't the right comparator: the comparator should be what the given worker might earn by changing jobs.
    “Average earnings growth in the whole of the private sector was 6.1% in the year to January, marginally down on 6.2% in the year to December. In the public sector, the rate of growth was 5.9% in the year to January, the same as the revised figure for the year to December.”

    https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/average-weekly-earnings
    But simply looking at the increase in wages doesn't give an accurate figure. Those in the public sector have final salary pension schemes which are tied to those increased earnings, whether on final salary or even an average salary basis. Those in the private sector don't. They will have a defined contribution pension which is far less generous. Those in the public sector have greatly enhanced rights in respect of sick pay, maternity rights, leave, etc Whilst it is true that some of the gold plating has been stripped off these they are still worth a lot of money, particularly for younger women and older workers more prone to lengthy illnesses.

    These rights don't come for free. They cost the tax payer money. So the total cost of employing that person is higher than the private sector equivalent.
    Do you have any numbers for "public sector on final salary pensions"? I think it might not be as many as some assume.

    The civil service pension scheme, for example, switched to career average not final salary in 2007 for new joiners, and in 2012 for existing members. A relative had a fight to not be re-categorised as a Civil Servant soon after that for this reason.

    And it switched from RPI to CPI in 2010.

    And normal pension age is the same as state pension age.

    OTOH the pension appears to be CPI linked so nto capped as aggressively as some.

    https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-pensions.html
This discussion has been closed.