"Six in ten French people are in favour of Emmanuel Macron resigning as president, according to a new poll conducted by Odaxa Backbone for Le Figaro newspaper.
“Only senior citizens are against,” said Gaël Sliman, president of Odoxa, adding: “The social categories most in favour are the working classes (72 per cent) and young people (70 per cent).”
The poll also suggests the French see ousted prime minister Michel Barnier as “collateral damage”, with only 4 per cent of those polled holding him personally responsible for the crisis - compared with 40 per cent who blame the French president."
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
He'd be a good chancellor in a Streeting government.
I still think in 2028 it will be a Streeting coronation and they'll go into 2029 with a different leader.
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
How do you explain Boris Johnson? Clearly all optics, no substance yet he won a decisive majority... the Tories were in power for a decade and consistently made us poorer yet kept winning elections.
Two of those elections were versus Corbyn, and one versus Ed. David Miliband probably would have won easily.
Maybe David would have won, but only because he was more telegenic and charismatic. In terms of substance/policy you'd have to concede not much difference between them.
The trouble with Starmer absolutely ISN'T lack of va va voom. Nobody could sell this turd sandwich of a Government.
Politics watchers, especially those on the left it seems to me, are constantly on the lookout for someone more telegenic, better back story, better communicator, more gutsy and working class, but these days, people don't want optics, they want to prosper. You can't heat your house with optics.
Sir Bellend is in the business of making people poorer. His policies set out to make people poorer. They will raise the price of energy, raise the price of having a car, raise the price of housing, raise the costs of doing business. That's quite apart from his bans on things and ugly disregard for free speech. Any party that wishes to survive will turn away from these policies quick sticks, but Labour has doubled-down. They will rightly be booted out hopefully never to return.
To have an offer to the voters, Labour will need to move away from their broken business model, of piling too much tax and debt on the private sector to give to an ever-voracious public sector.
Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, declined on Thursday to commit to supporting Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for defense secretary, after a high-stakes private meeting with him on Wednesday that came as Mr. Trump weighed dumping him.
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
On topic: Trouble is, Starmer is NOT Thatcher, lol! 😂
Thank God
Both are lawyers, both have troubled relationships with their predecessors (as party leaders), both were written off early in their first terms, both closed the mines, the comparisons go on.
On topic: Trouble is, Starmer is NOT Thatcher, lol! 😂
Thank God
Both are lawyers, both have troubled relationships with their predecessors (as party leaders), both were written off early in their first terms, both closed the mines, the comparisons go on.
Justin Welby has faced strong criticism from colleagues and abuse survivors for the “frivolous tone” of his farewell speech in the Lords, his first public appearance since resigning as Archbishop of Canterbury over an abuse scandal.
The archbishop, who formally leaves the role on January 6, told peers in a debate on housing and homelessness that he “had to stand down” because his was the only “head that rolls well enough” for the church’s failure to tackle abuse.
He joked about his diary secretary deserving pity because his engagements next year had to be cancelled and about a former archbishop whose head had literally rolled when it was chopped off.
An abuse victim said he was “dismayed” by the “frivolous tone” of some of the remarks, while the Bishop of Newcastle said she was “deeply disturbed” by his language, calling his tone “unwise to say the very least”.
The archbishop had told peers that he had no choice but to resign because of the church’s institutional failings, but appeared to downplay his personal responsibility for them.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Justin Welby has faced strong criticism from colleagues and abuse survivors for the “frivolous tone” of his farewell speech in the Lords, his first public appearance since resigning as Archbishop of Canterbury over an abuse scandal.
The archbishop, who formally leaves the role on January 6, told peers in a debate on housing and homelessness that he “had to stand down” because his was the only “head that rolls well enough” for the church’s failure to tackle abuse.
He joked about his diary secretary deserving pity because his engagements next year had to be cancelled and about a former archbishop whose head had literally rolled when it was chopped off.
An abuse victim said he was “dismayed” by the “frivolous tone” of some of the remarks, while the Bishop of Newcastle said she was “deeply disturbed” by his language, calling his tone “unwise to say the very least”.
The archbishop had told peers that he had no choice but to resign because of the church’s institutional failings, but appeared to downplay his personal responsibility for them.
At the end of the day he has gone and probably doesn't care much now. Yes he could have followed up information given to police on Smyth faster but it was the police and CPS who didn't take any action in 2013.
Smyth was in any case a barrister not a priest, he just ran some evangelical camps, the Bar Council and his chambers must also have some questions to answer? Plus Winchester college from where many of the camp attendees came
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
Well something doesn't add up here. Perhaps as a teacher you feel you're working all the time. I can see that.
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
Well something doesn't add up here. Perhaps as a teacher you feel you're working all the time. I can see that.
On topic: Trouble is, Starmer is NOT Thatcher, lol! 😂
Thank God
Both are lawyers, both have troubled relationships with their predecessors (as party leaders), both were written off early in their first terms, both closed the mines, the comparisons go on.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
Well something doesn't add up here. Perhaps as a teacher you feel you're working all the time. I can see that.
Why doesn't it add up?
Well frankly because I don't believe it's possible to actually work 95% of the time you're supposed to work. At least not in a non-production line sort of a job.
Teaching of course is a bit different in that you're surrounded by students and to that extent working all the time.
In football, fourth tier team Cacereno are leading Atletico Madrid 1-0 at half-time in the Copa del Rey. There might be some betting opportunities wrt this match.
On topic: Trouble is, Starmer is NOT Thatcher, lol! 😂
Thank God
Both are lawyers, both have troubled relationships with their predecessors (as party leaders), both were written off early in their first terms, both closed the mines, the comparisons go on.
Starmer is the new Thatcher.
He didn't help to invent an ice-cream which would upset many of us if we were offered it today.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
He'd be a good chancellor in a Streeting government.
I still think in 2028 it will be a Streeting coronation and they'll go into 2029 with a different leader.
You may be right, for all I know. But this was the result in Wes's seat in July.
General election 2024: Ilford North Party Candidate Votes % Labour Wes Streeting 15,647 33.4 Independent Leanne Mohamad 15,119 32.2 Conservative Kaz Rizvi 9,619 20.5 Reform UK Alex Wilson 3,621 7.7 Green Rachel Collinson 1,794 3.8 Lib Democrats Fraser Coppin 1,088 2.3 Majority 528
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
Well something doesn't add up here. Perhaps as a teacher you feel you're working all the time. I can see that.
Why doesn't it add up?
Well frankly because I don't believe it's possible to actually work 95% of the time you're supposed to work. At least not in a non-production line sort of a job.
Teaching of course is a bit different in that you're surrounded by students and to that extent working all the time.
I would love for you to shadow me for a day. I think you would be truly shocked.
(For context I have worked in many other settings. A very rough estimate of the time spent doing productive work in each: DfE 20% Westland helicopters 50% Halcrow 60% RSA 50% Cornwall Council 20% Packing daffodils in a warehouse 80% (it was piece rate) FT 10% Charity sector 40% Consultancy 60% (mandated by billable hours))
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
Justin Welby inadvertently making a very good case for why he had to resign with such a self-serving resignation speech.
Where do they find these people?
I am utterly shocked that somebody who is inter alia, privately educated, an alumnus of the University of Cambridge, and a former banker oilman, lacks self awareness and empathy for others.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
He'd be a good chancellor in a Streeting government.
I still think in 2028 it will be a Streeting coronation and they'll go into 2029 with a different leader.
You may be right, for all I know. But this was the result in Wes's seat in July.
General election 2024: Ilford North Party Candidate Votes % Labour Wes Streeting 15,647 33.4 Independent Leanne Mohamad 15,119 32.2 Conservative Kaz Rizvi 9,619 20.5 Reform UK Alex Wilson 3,621 7.7 Green Rachel Collinson 1,794 3.8 Lib Democrats Fraser Coppin 1,088 2.3 Majority 528
He would need to squeeze the Con and Reform vote to keep the hard left Independent out
The solution to productivity is not to work more hours. We already work the most hours in Europe.
Hours at work perhaps - hours actually working, I'd be amazed.
I regard myself as a very good employee - I really do work a lot nearly all of the time that my employer askes me to do so. Often much more. But even I as this self-anointed paragon, I probably only actually work about 70% of that time.
Whereas I can confidently say that I work 95% of the time I'm at school including break and lunch times. It's why public sector productivity is poorly understood by many.
Well something doesn't add up here. Perhaps as a teacher you feel you're working all the time. I can see that.
Why doesn't it add up?
Well frankly because I don't believe it's possible to actually work 95% of the time you're supposed to work. At least not in a non-production line sort of a job.
Teaching of course is a bit different in that you're surrounded by students and to that extent working all the time.
In my final (private sector) consulting job l spent around 25% of the time at the cinema. It was a sign to hang up my trilby.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
I've liked Darren Jones from the start. A smart, well presented and seemingly sound chap. But VERY inexperienced. Perhaps that's an advantage?
I agree - he comes across as sensible and principled on the media, and is one of the few politicians who actually appears to think about what he has been asked. He will have done a lot of thinking behind the budget and financial strategy.
But I wouldn’t back him as a future leader - some people are destined to be in the top team but not the top job, and he is clearly one such.
He'd be a good chancellor in a Streeting government.
I still think in 2028 it will be a Streeting coronation and they'll go into 2029 with a different leader.
You may be right, for all I know. But this was the result in Wes's seat in July.
General election 2024: Ilford North Party Candidate Votes % Labour Wes Streeting 15,647 33.4 Independent Leanne Mohamad 15,119 32.2 Conservative Kaz Rizvi 9,619 20.5 Reform UK Alex Wilson 3,621 7.7 Green Rachel Collinson 1,794 3.8 Lib Democrats Fraser Coppin 1,088 2.3 Majority 528
Depends on what's going on in Israel really or if there's another conflict in the Middle East that Labour is on the 'wrong side' of. If not, Streeting should be fine.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
It's not even in senior roles, it's all roles that aren't very junior.
I've got lots of friends coming up now that wouldn't work for the public sector unless their salaries were bumped 30%.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
Read that one back to yourself slowly.
No what I said makes perfect sense.
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
If they stopped hiring consultants on short term contracts it would be so much easier to get salaries up for tech roles. What I think is the bigger blocker is that engineers don't want to work for non technical people. I remember doing it and I absolutely hated it for that year or so and it drove me to quit my job. The reports I get from people doing engineering, data or product roles in the public sector are always the same - no drive to achieve anything, management is universally awful and they don't understand the intricacies of what needs doing.
I just think there needs to be a huge culture change to improve productivity and that means moving on many, many hundreds of thousands in senior and middle management that add no value and replacing them with 20% of the people but have them earn more and have a highly technical skillset, can work independently and are capable of managing other technical people as well as contribute to the code base.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
It's not even in senior roles, it's all roles that aren't very junior.
I've got lots of friends coming up now that wouldn't work for the public sector unless their salaries were bumped 30%.
Some of us have been pointing this out for a while.
Yes, the pensions cover a degree of pay gap, but that only goes so far.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
Read that one back to yourself slowly.
No what I said makes perfect sense.
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
It will be relevant to you when you retire with a 5k non index linked pension vs a public sector 20k a year index linked pension
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
Yes, agreed. I want to go client-side, and have done for years, but they can't pay. Not close. And they often don't even trouble to ask.
Construction (infrastructure) is very poorly understood by clients and recruiters who think if you go client-side you have to be a big delivery person from a contractor who's used to managing contractors pouring concrete.
Lots of us could do that anyway but they dont recognise that's not the core skill a client leader needs but the label consultant has a branding problem and the intellectual and technical value they offer is harder to understand.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
There's another point: at the top end of the public sector you have to work very hard and long hours, and drop everything for a minister at any hour night or day, whilst carrying a lot of dross in your department beneath you who are basically passengers. I bet it's thankless, stressful and utterly relentless.
I suppose the reward one day is a gong, as well as the final salary pension, but you can't blame many for quitting and going to work as a Big 4 partner instead, where they might make salaries and bonuses that creep into 7 figures.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
If they stopped hiring consultants on short term contracts it would be so much easier to get salaries up for tech roles. What I think is the bigger blocker is that engineers don't want to work for non technical people. I remember doing it and I absolutely hated it for that year or so and it drove me to quit my job. The reports I get from people doing engineering, data or product roles in the public sector are always the same - no drive to achieve anything, management is universally awful and they don't understand the intricacies of what needs doing.
I just think there needs to be a huge culture change to improve productivity and that means moving on many, many hundreds of thousands in senior and middle management that add no value and replacing them with 20% of the people but have them earn more and have a highly technical skillset, can work independently and are capable of managing other technical people as well as contribute to the code base.
I now manage people in my role and I write less code than I used to, in fact it decreases month by month and ultimately will decrease to zero. Personally I am happy with that but others prefer to go to the IC route.
Do I think I'd be better at running a large team because of my technical background, not necessarily, I've met many good people that didn't - but it's probably not wrong to say that they are the outlier.
Priorities being constantly shifted is what annoys people - and this is something which is universally loathed but never seems to change. I am sure this is also a problem in the public sector.
In any case, the pay for the public sector is so poor and what I'd be working on wouldn't have anything like the potential pay off of where I am now. I am sure many feel the same.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
Read that one back to yourself slowly.
No what I said makes perfect sense.
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
It will be relevant to you when you retire with a 5k non index linked pension vs a public sector 20k a year index linked pension
Not necessarily.
If you can take a higher salary now that means you can afford to own your own home and retire mortgage-free then you may be better off than having a lifetime of struggling to pay rent ending in a retirement with a higher pension that all gets swallowed up by paying your rent in retirement.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
It's not even in senior roles, it's all roles that aren't very junior.
I've got lots of friends coming up now that wouldn't work for the public sector unless their salaries were bumped 30%.
Some of us have been pointing this out for a while.
Yes, the pensions cover a degree of pay gap, but that only goes so far.
Proportion of critics of high public sector pay who are actually willing to work in public sector and accept the overly generous pay: <5% Proportion of critics of high public sector pay who want an exemption and increase for their particular skillset: >95%
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
There's another point: at the top end of the public sector you have to work very hard and long hours, and drop everything for a minister at any hour night or day, whilst carrying a lot of dross in your department beneath you who are basically passengers. I bet it's thankless, stressful and utterly relentless.
I suppose the reward one day is a gong, as well as the final salary pension, but you can't blame many for quitting and going to work as a Big 4 partner instead, where they might make salaries and bonuses that creep into 7 figures.
I have to work very long and hard hours now - and I'm in the middle. But the point is that I have ownership in the company I am working for. And I have the ability to make real change. I just don't think I'd get the same opportunities at a public sector organisation or for a large firm.
The fact my salary doubled when I moved here is another nice bonus and my pension is decent, it's just not something that I think appeals to many people. So I'd cut the pension significantly in the public sector and pay people a lot more money.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
If they stopped hiring consultants on short term contracts it would be so much easier to get salaries up for tech roles. What I think is the bigger blocker is that engineers don't want to work for non technical people. I remember doing it and I absolutely hated it for that year or so and it drove me to quit my job. The reports I get from people doing engineering, data or product roles in the public sector are always the same - no drive to achieve anything, management is universally awful and they don't understand the intricacies of what needs doing.
I just think there needs to be a huge culture change to improve productivity and that means moving on many, many hundreds of thousands in senior and middle management that add no value and replacing them with 20% of the people but have them earn more and have a highly technical skillset, can work independently and are capable of managing other technical people as well as contribute to the code base.
I now manage people in my role and I write less code than I used to, in fact it decreases month by month and ultimately will decrease to zero. Personally I am happy with that but others prefer to go to the IC route.
Do I think I'd be better at running a large team because of my technical background, not necessarily, I've met many good people that didn't - but it's probably not wrong to say that they are the outlier.
Priorities being constantly shifted is what annoys people - and this is something which is universally loathed but never seems to change. I am sure this is also a problem in the public sector.
In any case, the pay for the public sector is so poor and what I'd be working on wouldn't have anything like the potential pay off of where I am now. I am sure many feel the same.
You are choosing better pay now private sector or better pension later public sector
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
Read that one back to yourself slowly.
No what I said makes perfect sense.
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
It will be relevant to you when you retire with a 5k non index linked pension vs a public sector 20k a year index linked pension
Not necessarily.
If you can take a higher salary now that means you can afford to own your own home and retire mortgage-free then you may be better off than having a lifetime of struggling to pay rent ending in a retirement with a higher pension that all gets swallowed up by paying your rent in retirement.
Our broken housing system distorts everything.
I put away a decent amount into savings which I invest into an index-linked fund, I am confident I will have more than enough to retire on. And assuming my current gig pays off, I'll be alright for some time.
I don't think any notional pension advantage in the public sector can change my mind.
I could work in the public sector but I'd take a 30% salary cut. I get the pension but that's not relevant to me at the moment and won't be for a long time.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
Read that one back to yourself slowly.
No what I said makes perfect sense.
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
It will be relevant to you when you retire with a 5k non index linked pension vs a public sector 20k a year index linked pension
Most tech companies have around 5% contributions plus 5% from yourself. For a senior dev that's probably between £8-10k per year minimum, over a 25+ year career as a senior or above plus's accruals it's going to be a pretty substantial pension pot.
Comments
I still think in 2028 it will be a Streeting coronation and they'll go into 2029 with a different leader.
Walking the walk
Immediate action
No transformation without perspiration
NY Times blog
https://www.statista.com/statistics/280763/average-working-hours-uk/
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240530-1#:~:text=A closer look at EU,) and Germany (34.0).
Our roads are safe. Casualties are at the lowest they've been in decades and cars and pedestrians are getting safer annually at existing speeds.
I am not against this policy just Drakeford's implementation which has been discredited by his own government
You will see in the new year the announcements by the local authorities of the changes back to 30mph and they will be sensible
Starmer is the new Thatcher.
The archbishop, who formally leaves the role on January 6, told peers in a debate on housing and homelessness that he “had to stand down” because his was the only “head that rolls well enough” for the church’s failure to tackle abuse.
He joked about his diary secretary deserving pity because his engagements next year had to be cancelled and about a former archbishop whose head had literally rolled when it was chopped off.
An abuse victim said he was “dismayed” by the “frivolous tone” of some of the remarks, while the Bishop of Newcastle said she was “deeply disturbed” by his language, calling his tone “unwise to say the very least”.
The archbishop had told peers that he had no choice but to resign because of the church’s institutional failings, but appeared to downplay his personal responsibility for them.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/religion/article/justin-welby-says-head-had-to-roll-after-abuse-scandal-dtltnl9t9
Smyth was in any case a barrister not a priest, he just ran some evangelical camps, the Bar Council and his chambers must also have some questions to answer? Plus Winchester college from where many of the camp attendees came
How come we haven't been locked down.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Teaching of course is a bit different in that you're surrounded by students and to that extent working all the time.
Shrugs.
Where do they find these people?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/spanish-copa-del-rey/cacereno-v-atletico-madrid-betting-33836029
General election 2024: Ilford North
Party Candidate Votes %
Labour Wes Streeting 15,647 33.4
Independent Leanne Mohamad 15,119 32.2
Conservative Kaz Rizvi 9,619 20.5
Reform UK Alex Wilson 3,621 7.7
Green Rachel Collinson 1,794 3.8
Lib Democrats Fraser Coppin 1,088 2.3
Majority 528
(For context I have worked in many other settings. A very rough estimate of the time spent doing productive work in each:
DfE 20%
Westland helicopters 50%
Halcrow 60%
RSA 50%
Cornwall Council 20%
Packing daffodils in a warehouse 80% (it was piece rate)
FT 10%
Charity sector 40%
Consultancy 60% (mandated by billable hours))
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
BTW I was nearly run over this afternoon. On the pavement. A driver just wanted to do a U turn without enough room.
bankeroilman, lacks self awareness and empathy for others.I think you've finally got me. I concede the battlefield.
Idiot.
So I stay in consultancy.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8037/CBP-8037.pdf (p18)
Taxpayers also pay in the public sector and managers have to ensure projects stay within the budget they provide
By-election if he wins?
Presumably when these things happened under Johnson, they were not his fault?
Has he reached his thousandth appearance yet?
BBC will bitterly regret giving all this air time over the years when he becomes PM and ends the licence fee and makes them PBS-lite.
Increase the salary of public sector engineers 30% and we can talk.
I've got lots of friends coming up now that wouldn't work for the public sector unless their salaries were bumped 30%.
Does that mean Con Home has become Ref Home?
How good the pension is, is not relevant to where I choose to work. That is the case for most people I work with, in the 20 to 40 bracket. It's a nice to have but I wouldn't go to the public sector because it has a better pension.
Would I go somewhere for stock options, yes - and that's what I did for where I currently am.
Personally, I think he should have just put all our taxes.
I just think there needs to be a huge culture change to improve productivity and that means moving on many, many hundreds of thousands in senior and middle management that add no value and replacing them with 20% of the people but have them earn more and have a highly technical skillset, can work independently and are capable of managing other technical people as well as contribute to the code base.
Pedestrian casualties are collapsing even as pedestrian traffic is rising, but you don't let actual facts get in the way of a good rant, do you?
Yes, the pensions cover a degree of pay gap, but that only goes so far.
Construction (infrastructure) is very poorly understood by clients and recruiters who think if you go client-side you have to be a big delivery person from a contractor who's used to managing contractors pouring concrete.
Lots of us could do that anyway but they dont recognise that's not the core skill a client leader needs but the label consultant has a branding problem and the intellectual and technical value they offer is harder to understand.
I suppose the reward one day is a gong, as well as the final salary pension, but you can't blame many for quitting and going to work as a Big 4 partner instead, where they might make salaries and bonuses that creep into 7 figures.
Do I think I'd be better at running a large team because of my technical background, not necessarily, I've met many good people that didn't - but it's probably not wrong to say that they are the outlier.
Priorities being constantly shifted is what annoys people - and this is something which is universally loathed but never seems to change. I am sure this is also a problem in the public sector.
In any case, the pay for the public sector is so poor and what I'd be working on wouldn't have anything like the potential pay off of where I am now. I am sure many feel the same.
If you can take a higher salary now that means you can afford to own your own home and retire mortgage-free then you may be better off than having a lifetime of struggling to pay rent ending in a retirement with a higher pension that all gets swallowed up by paying your rent in retirement.
Our broken housing system distorts everything.
Proportion of critics of high public sector pay who want an exemption and increase for their particular skillset: >95%
The fact my salary doubled when I moved here is another nice bonus and my pension is decent, it's just not something that I think appeals to many people. So I'd cut the pension significantly in the public sector and pay people a lot more money.
Talk about a well hung Parliament:
Con 219 Seats
Lab 207 Seats
Lib 67 Seats
Ref 95 Seats
Green 6 Seats
SNP 22 Seats
Pick that bones out of that!
The only possible viable combination looks to be a Conservative/Labour National Government?
I don't think any notional pension advantage in the public sector can change my mind.
Not Boris, Not Truss, Not Sunak or their predecessors who destroyed the NHS...
No.. It's all Starmer fault.
Independent investigative Journalism is dead in the UK
RIP