We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Would it encourage him to have worked any harder at the crucial moments ?
Prime Ministers make plenty after office anyway, there's a bizzare corporate fetish for hearing them, any of them speak at their events.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
But they are not ludicrously high wages when compared to the job market of positions of a similar nature. Again, I thought you believed in a capitalist job market, or are you in favour of putting wage caps on different industries?
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
If we can afford to pay £500k then there hasn't been enough austerity.
Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.
Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.
Two roads to heard immunity.
Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.
In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,
On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.
Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.
There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.
I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.
I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.
#grammar police
FEWER overall deaths....
Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?
Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.
Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.
The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.
Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. Wikipedia
And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.
Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.
As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.
There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.
To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.
And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.
Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"
That shows the fall in standards yet 97%+ supposedly get great exam passes, makes you wonder just a little bit what all those teachers are doing with those 18 hour days 7 days a week including holidays. Education system is one big gravy train.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Would it encourage him to have worked any harder at the crucial moments ?
Prime Ministers make plenty after office anyway, there's a bizzare corporate fetish for hearing them, any of them speak at their events.
It might encourage more people to consider a career in politics, rather than curtain-twitching busy bodies?
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
If we can afford to pay £500k then there hasn't been enough austerity.
I assume you’re in favour of passing laws that mandate that corporate managing directors cut their pay to zero before making any redundancies?
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Cuckoo, he has only been there a handful of days, the fat lazy git is always on holiday, plus his expenses and other handouts mean he is likely already on more than 500K. Get a grip.
Furlough is interesting economically. It's a one off cost - not structural (Unless you do it again with a second peak) - so though it adds to the debt, it doesn't keep adding to the debt in the same way normal expenditure does. Hence if, and only if it's treated as a one off the real cost is the interest on the debt. With yields so low that's cheap right now.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
But they are not ludicrously high wages when compared to the job market of positions of a similar nature. Again, I thought you believed in a capitalist job market, or are you in favour of putting wage caps on different industries?
I believe in a capitalist job market where companies pay what they can afford and lose custom if they are not providing services people want. If an executive does a good job in a free market more people pay their organisation more money voluntarily so they can be paid more - if they do a bad job then they raise less money as a result and can afford to be paid less.
Given these "valued" apparently executives have been bumping their own pay while cutting services the "capitalist" response to that would be for me not to pay them forcing them to cut their cloth better. Can I opt out of paying taxes if I'm not happy with my services from the Council? If not, its not capitalist.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
Furlough is interesting economically. It's a one off cost - not structural (Unless you do it again with a second peak) - so though it adds to the debt, it doesn't keep adding to the debt in the same way normal expenditure does. Hence if, and only if it's treated as a one off the real cost is the interest on the debt. With yields so low that's cheap right now.
Absolutely. The cost to the govt of the furlough scheme is at least an order of magnitude lower than the direct and indirect costs of mass unemployment coupled with huge numbers of deaths and health service collapse.
Councils have a major advantage over a regular business, the customer simply must pay up regardless of service. All positions should be on that public sector matrix thingy including the Chief Exec.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
Is it so few ? All the smartest people I encountered in my local council planning and rating departments now work in the private sector. Or did until the pandemic...
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Either these deaths: - are really COVID in disguise - aren't COVID but an invitable consequence of it (e.g. lack of hospital capacity) - aren't COVID but a consequence of the lockdown, e.g people not seeking help/isolation
I think the first probably explains the majority, perhaps the vast majority, with the second being a factor and the third trailing behind...
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
The government borrows typically at 10, 30 or 50 year intervals for rollover and is currently borrowing at about 0.1% interest. Why would the rollovers start "quite soon" then? Why wouldn't they start in 10 plus years and if so why not take the big picture view on what is good for the economy?
Sweden is running a furlough scheme just like we are. In fact Sweden's furlough scheme is 90% of wages.
The debt would have to be serviced by an economy that has been smashed to pieces if we did what you want. The government is looking into the future not tomorrow and today.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Would it encourage him to have worked any harder at the crucial moments ?
Prime Ministers make plenty after office anyway, there's a bizzare corporate fetish for hearing them, any of them speak at their events.
The more cynical view would be that those speaking gigs are delayed payment for preferment whilst in office. In which case, there's an argument that higher pay for PM's could lead to better government. I don't really agree, because why be a millionaire when you could be a multi-millionaire, but there is an argument.
I agree. As I've mentioned before, when I've tied to use death certificate data I've found cause of death to be very incomplete (immediate cause probably fine, but underlying cause often lacking). Also interesting to exclude hospice deaths - ok, in adult hospice those people are going to die soon, but if it says Covid on the death certificate then it seems wrong to list it as a non-Covid excess death (it's not). Also wrong if it includes children's hospices - those children may be otherwise many years from death but that population will for many conditions be vulnerable to corona virus.
Although I do accept that there is a point (particularly for hospital services, where it may well have been reached) where shut down costs more lives than it saves.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
10 times as many deaths as the comparable Scandinavian Countries is arguable?
One reason why the argument lockdown is 'saving lives' is questionable at best/
Its rubbish since many of those who died will not have been tested to see if they had Covid-19. As with all your other arguments against the lockdown, it is built on sand.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
I am sure that is a great comfort to all those who have died unnecessarily as a result of the failed Swedish experiment.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.
Sorry did you say 'end up'?
You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.
So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.
I make no comment on the market, free or otherwise. Only on the lack of quality of our council leaders.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
This is inevitable. Despite the grants and guaranteed loans hundreds of thousands of small businesses have continued to rack up overhead with minimal income. They will have become balance sheet insolvent. The government has relaxed wrongful trading laws to allow them a chance to trade themselves out of it but if they have a restaurant, a café or a pub I really don't see how they do unless they can take the capital loss. They are not going to make up the loss, indeed trading profitably is going to be an enormous challenge. Someone who has given a personal guarantee to their bank should think very carefully about whether further trading is in their interests.
Most of those businesses would face disaster with or without the lockdown, though. Some will have a chance, if the lockdown and subsequent control measures can keep the virus sufficiently in check.
As in Korea's most affected city, Daegu: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13349607 ...In late April, a large banner still hung at a major hospital nearby that stated: “We are a base hospital for treating the novel coronavirus. We are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of people in the community.”
But it was an entirely different picture inside the market.
Dozens of cars were trying to enter the market’s parking lot.
Inside, shoppers wearing face masks were so densely packed that they were unable to pass each other without touching shoulders.
Seemingly without a care in the world, smiling shoppers chowed down on noodle soup dishes and munched snacks in close physical proximity as if the pandemic had never happened....
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You are aware of how much skill you need to successfully cut costs in a council. Some councils have successfully done so, others (Birmingham) have done it so badly they have liabilities due to incompetency running into Billions.
You really, really don't want an amateur cutting costs in a council, you really do need the exact opposite.
But I forget that you argue the toss without thinking, listening or any research so I will go and do some real work.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
10 times as many deaths as the comparable Scandinavian Countries is arguable?
Well it's a statement.
The only certainty about Contrarian's position is that if we hadn't locked down and five of those he most loved had died from the virus, he'd be one screaming loudest that we should've had a diamond-hard lockdown, weeks earlier....
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Cuckoo, he has only been there a handful of days, the fat lazy git is always on holiday, plus his expenses and other handouts mean he is likely already on more than 500K. Get a grip.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
I am sure that is a great comfort to all those who have died unnecessarily as a result of the failed Swedish experiment.
Plus contrarian is ignoring the fact that Sweden's experiment is not what their proponents in this country pretend it is.
Sweden has: * Closed many schools * Banned gatherings of 50+ people * Got a government backed furlough scheme encouraging businesses to close etc, etc
Much of what we are doing Sweden is doing too, the difference is that Sweden aren't doing it by force. The economic difference between Sweden and the UK is much exaggerated.
Either these deaths: - are really COVID in disguise - aren't COVID but an invitable consequence of it (e.g. lack of hospital capacity) - aren't COVID but a consequence of the lockdown, e.g people not seeking help/isolation
I think the first probably explains the majority, perhaps the vast majority, with the second being a factor and the third trailing behind...
Foxy was talking, the other day, about cases where the "headline" symptoms - nasty cough/flu at the start - didn't occur. The doctors only realised it was a COVID19 issue later, and started doing testing.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
I would certainly raise the PM's pay to at least £162 000 which would put them in the top 1% of earners but at the same time the PM is still in a public service, public sector role not a private sector role creating wealth so I wouldn't go as far as paying them £500k which is even more than the US President gets paid
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.
Sorry did you say 'end up'?
You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.
So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.
Repeat this very slowly: Councils are not operating in a free market.
Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
This is inevitable. Despite the grants and guaranteed loans hundreds of thousands of small businesses have continued to rack up overhead with minimal income. They will have become balance sheet insolvent. The government has relaxed wrongful trading laws to allow them a chance to trade themselves out of it but if they have a restaurant, a café or a pub I really don't see how they do unless they can take the capital loss. They are not going to make up the loss, indeed trading profitably is going to be an enormous challenge. Someone who has given a personal guarantee to their bank should think very carefully about whether further trading is in their interests.
Most of those businesses would face disaster with or without the lockdown, though. Some will have a chance, if the lockdown and subsequent control measures can keep the virus sufficiently in check.
As in Korea's most affected city, Daegu: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13349607 ...In late April, a large banner still hung at a major hospital nearby that stated: “We are a base hospital for treating the novel coronavirus. We are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of people in the community.”
But it was an entirely different picture inside the market.
Dozens of cars were trying to enter the market’s parking lot.
Inside, shoppers wearing face masks were so densely packed that they were unable to pass each other without touching shoulders.
Seemingly without a care in the world, smiling shoppers chowed down on noodle soup dishes and munched snacks in close physical proximity as if the pandemic had never happened....
Daegu also illustrates the utility of regional lockdowns. Which is something the government ought to be considering for the post lockdown period.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
The government's major errors were made in February and early March and if you want to include Cygnus (although that was the fault of Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt) back in 2016. While there is a danger of overcompensating for these mistakes by coming too slowly out of lockdown I am more concerned about throwing away the hard earned gains when they seem to be getting a handle on it.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.
Sorry did you say 'end up'?
You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.
So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.
Repeat this very slowly: Councils are not operating in a free market.
Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.
We’re talking about the free labour market here, where the revenue comes from is irrelevant.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I don't know why we're trying to reinvent the wheel on this one.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
The government can't wait to start lifting the lockdown until everyone is happy to go out again. Things have started getting back to normal again, and this process will very slowly continue until everything is normal again. If no vaccine is available, this will take several years. In the short term the government's priority will be to enable those people who are willing to go out again and work to do so. The government will continue to pay for many of those who want to stay at home to do so in the short term (not all as some have no jobs from which to be furloughed), but it will have to reduce the costs associated with this eventually.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.
Rather than just having useless seriously overpaid numpties as we do now.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
The government borrows typically at 10, 30 or 50 year intervals for rollover and is currently borrowing at about 0.1% interest. Why would the rollovers start "quite soon" then? Why wouldn't they start in 10 plus years and if so why not take the big picture view on what is good for the economy?
Sweden is running a furlough scheme just like we are. In fact Sweden's furlough scheme is 90% of wages.
The debt would have to be serviced by an economy that has been smashed to pieces if we did what you want. The government is looking into the future not tomorrow and today.
That is a good point but the sheer volume of gilts that will need to be sold may mean they choose, in some cases, shorter maturities. The Federal Reserve does.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.
Sorry did you say 'end up'?
You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.
So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.
Repeat this very slowly: Councils are not operating in a free market.
Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.
We’re talking about the free labour market here, where the revenue comes from is irrelevant.
No its not. Its entirely relevant.
The whole point of the free market is it is all connected. Where the revenue comes from matters tremendously.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
I suggest that what this debate really means is that there should be a discussion on what services should, in a civilised society, be 'officially' provided, and how they should be paid for.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I don't know why we're trying to reinvent the wheel on this one.
PHE defending their territory from private sector encroachment. They did it with testing as well.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.
Cuckoo, he has only been there a handful of days, the fat lazy git is always on holiday, plus his expenses and other handouts mean he is likely already on more than 500K. Get a grip.
Bit jealous are you Malc...
All true Brits will have their spirits uplifted by the pictures of Boris strolling through the park with no bodyguards in sight and his shirt button carelessly undone. Where he bought the coffee is a question for another day.
ETA the PM used to be on the equivalent of £500k. It was probably Mrs Thatcher who started the nonsense of turning down payrises that led eventually to the expenses scandal.
I think some are understating the variety in the sector - which ranges from a Personal Trainer in a garage to independents to huge self-service gyms such as Pure.
At ours we could operate with full social distancing, since a normal class is less than 20 people in 3000 sqft of open space 8m high, and 80-90% have continued paying fees at full amount, despite an offer to reduce by 75% if needed.
But the growth this year was around introducing a healthy cafeteria service, which will now be tricky.
Some places are very heavily dependent on non-membership income - snack bars, space rented out to therapists etc. That could be a serious loss for some.
I see growth in Park Run etc, as well as the relatively few who can afford it and have the space to do stuff at home, and online PTs who support them.
BigRich posted an interesting comment about why Sweden has probably done the right thing, and nearly all of the replies were to do with a grammar dispute.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
NHSX is not using the Apple/Google API though. It’s using a Bluetooth vulnerability...
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted. If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown). So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.
That's basically the furlough scheme.
Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
I think that is correct. What people will care about is -
- the App is in the App Store - is it branded "NHS"
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
This is inevitable. Despite the grants and guaranteed loans hundreds of thousands of small businesses have continued to rack up overhead with minimal income. They will have become balance sheet insolvent. The government has relaxed wrongful trading laws to allow them a chance to trade themselves out of it but if they have a restaurant, a café or a pub I really don't see how they do unless they can take the capital loss. They are not going to make up the loss, indeed trading profitably is going to be an enormous challenge. Someone who has given a personal guarantee to their bank should think very carefully about whether further trading is in their interests.
Most of those businesses would face disaster with or without the lockdown, though. Some will have a chance, if the lockdown and subsequent control measures can keep the virus sufficiently in check.
As in Korea's most affected city, Daegu: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13349607 ...In late April, a large banner still hung at a major hospital nearby that stated: “We are a base hospital for treating the novel coronavirus. We are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of people in the community.”
But it was an entirely different picture inside the market.
Dozens of cars were trying to enter the market’s parking lot.
Inside, shoppers wearing face masks were so densely packed that they were unable to pass each other without touching shoulders.
Seemingly without a care in the world, smiling shoppers chowed down on noodle soup dishes and munched snacks in close physical proximity as if the pandemic had never happened....
It is a fact that nearly all these businesses fail. But not all at once. Failing together will have major implications for rents, high street occupancy and employment.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
I am sure that is a great comfort to all those who have died unnecessarily as a result of the failed Swedish experiment.
Plus contrarian is ignoring the fact that Sweden's experiment is not what their proponents in this country pretend it is.
Sweden has: * Closed many schools * Banned gatherings of 50+ people * Got a government backed furlough scheme encouraging businesses to close etc, etc
Much of what we are doing Sweden is doing too, the difference is that Sweden aren't doing it by force. The economic difference between Sweden and the UK is much exaggerated.
And my favourite. You can't fly from London to Stockholm direct. They have banned flights from outside the EEA
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I don't know why we're trying to reinvent the wheel on this one.
PHE defending their territory from private sector encroachment. They did it with testing as well.
It has the same whiff of jobs for the boys that the council exec discussion has downthread.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
BigRich posted an interesting comment about why Sweden has probably done the right thing, and nearly all of the replies were to do with a grammar dispute.
Only in 2-5 years time when the disease is under control will we know which counties did the right thing.
Currently Sweden has a death rate that seems higher than appropriate comparisons but it may have been the correct approach.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I don't know why we're trying to reinvent the wheel on this one.
Why does this government do anything? Some combination of institutional neurosis and exceptionalism founded in arrogance.
On pay, is there really a difference in the quality of CEO you get by paying £200k or £500k or £2m?
I doubt it - anyone getting to £200k package should have demonstrated excellent performance and skills - they are not amateurs in any sense.
And at those levels the differences in pay are mostly down to a mix of luck, timing, who you know, and how easy it is to gain control of your organisations pay structure.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted. If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown). So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.
That's basically the furlough scheme.
Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.
It surely has to go on for as long as the government prevents business from earning.
Or it can decide to close businesses without compensation. Given the huge number affected - both directly and indirectly - that would be brave.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
Same attitude with airport restrictions. Oh we can't check everyone coming in thoroughly so we won't temperature scan... Just because something isn't completely sufficient doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.
Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.
Two roads to heard immunity.
Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.
In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,
On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.
Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.
There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.
I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.
I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.
#grammar police
FEWER overall deaths....
Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?
Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.
Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.
The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.
Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. Wikipedia
And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.
Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.
As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.
There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.
To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.
And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.
Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"
BigRich posted an interesting comment about why Sweden has probably done the right thing, and nearly all of the replies were to do with a grammar dispute.
Sometimes people do not seem willing to engage in sciientific discussion on this site.The graph yesterday showing that the R figure was below 1 before the lockdown and that the reduction coincided with the hand washing advice I thought was really striking. Yet alI I got was abuse for discussing it and no one seemed interested in it. If science does not agree with someones opinion then it seems it is not worthy.
For any sort of tracking you just need to talk to Apple & Google. I'd also have side discussions with Garmin, FItbit and Strava about some sort of potential smart watch integration.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
Report on the Frenchman who has been confirmed to have had the virus in December:
"A 43-year-old Frenchman has revealed himself as the country's potential 'patient zero' who was infected with coronavirus last December. Amirouche Hammar came forward after a hospital near Paris revealed it had re-tested old flu samples and found a positive test for coronavirus on December 27. The result suggests that the virus was spreading in France well before January 24, when the country confirmed its first case. Speaking to BFMTV, Hammar said he had suffered 'very serious' chest pains but said doctors had been mystified by his illness before eventually diagnosing a lung infection."
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111
Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?
Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.
Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.
Two roads to heard immunity.
Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.
In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,
On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.
Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.
There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.
I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.
I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.
#grammar police
FEWER overall deaths....
Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?
Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.
Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.
The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.
Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. Wikipedia
And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.
Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.
As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.
There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.
To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.
And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.
I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more conformable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invite Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.
The latter sounds completely wrong. I don't know about you but I would never say "John invited I for dinner" so the addition of Mary shouldn't make it "I".
"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner" "John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"
Absolutely. The best way is just to remove the 'and X' or 'X and' bit and let your ear do the rest.
in Danish less and fewer are applied but there are also different words for many and more , inclduing one that means 2 or more - but there are also different words for small depending if it is a plural so I suspect some of the English comes from that same Germanic base.
As for direct and indirect objects the arguments go on the same as in English but it really isn't that complicated - and casual usage of "my dad and me" is perfectly normal whereas "John invited I to dinner" is inescapably wrong, if only because it makes you sound like a pompous idiot desperately trying to sound posh or something - the sort of person who tries to stick "whom" into a sentence.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
Isn't it the case you can just turn your phone off?
FPT Last night I read a comment by TGOF666 re people putting their parents into care homes. I also saw some robust responses, but I did want to make my own response.
My mother got dementia not too long ago. She has since died. My father with our support decided she would definitely NOT go into care. We would look after her. I can only assume TGOF666 has not gone through this. Here are just a few examples of what can happen:
At 3 in the morning the washing up needs doing, while you are asleep, which includes the toaster.
Just wandering off any time of the day or night and not knowing where they are.
Start cooking on the hob and leaving it. Running taps and leaving them.
Attacking your husband (aged 90) with a walking stick because he is having an affair with the woman of the non existent other family living in the house.
Screaming at your son in front of his children 'why didn't you tell me my mother was a man' (she visualised my father as her mother). I was one of the few people who could sit down with my mother and explain what was going on, but this stumped me.
This requires 24 hour monitoring - when do you sleep?
Much to my surprise I was very impressed with the social care provided by social services and the Alzheimer society were magnificent. My mother ended up in a care home, which was also great and the staff magnificent - I don't know how they have the patience.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111
Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?
Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?
Eh it is very simple , 900/900 = 1 which is 100% , 1/900 =0. 001 which is 0.001%
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
I've been thinking, and I can't identify a single negative outcome from the government knowing where I am at any one specific moment in time.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
Isn't it the case you can just turn your phone off?
Indeed. Turning your phone off or on airplane mode will disable government tracking better than panicking about an NHS app will.
If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted. If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown). So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.
That's basically the furlough scheme.
Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.
The real problems come when a business is not closed by law, but can only operate to a certain capability or capacity by distancing measures.
This will be an issue for F&B outlets, especially late-night bars and clubs where the business model relies on packing people in. Many operators will find that they simply can't afford to operate with the same costs as before, but only a half or a third of the revenue.
Yes, interesting albeit very clearly biased article: "a classic failing of the Whitehall mindset that stretches back to the World War One trenches and further back still to the days of Great Houses and Men Who Knew Better.". Yeah, right, that really inspires confidence that the writer is viewing this objectively. He also claims that the UK 'finds itself almost alone', glossing over France, Norway and other countries.
So, leaving aside the partisan nonsense in it, the article appears to make one substantive claim, namely that the app won't actually work because the Bluetooth broadcast will stop unless the phone is active. That seems a pretty basic failing: I don't know enough about the subject, but either it is right - in which case the pilot will fail and the rollout won't go ahead - or it's wrong and the UK experts know what they are doing. I'd be surprised if there is such a crashingly obvious flaw in the app, but I guess we'll find out soon.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
Same attitude with airport restrictions. Oh we can't check everyone coming in thoroughly so we won't temperature scan... Just because something isn't completely sufficient doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Yep - abolishing private schools will not eliminate educational inequalities.
Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.
What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.
Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.
Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.
The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.
Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.
Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.
contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.
It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.
The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.
I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.
The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.
Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".
Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?
I am amazed you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
The government borrows typically at 10, 30 or 50 year intervals for rollover and is currently borrowing at about 0.1% interest. Why would the rollovers start "quite soon" then? Why wouldn't they start in 10 plus years and if so why not take the big picture view on what is good for the economy?
Sweden is running a furlough scheme just like we are. In fact Sweden's furlough scheme is 90% of wages.
The debt would have to be serviced by an economy that has been smashed to pieces if we did what you want. The government is looking into the future not tomorrow and today.
Fine as long as we can service our debt, inflation expectations are kept in check and while we still print our own money. Of course. But that stands whether the government is BoJo or Ed Milliband or Jeremy Corbyn or SKS. 75% of those are and have been criticised strongly (perhaps by your good self) for wanting to borrow large amounts of money.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
No it's not. This is historical movement data. The government doesn't have access to that currently and they need a warrant from a judge to get Google or Apple to hand it over.
The tremendous infrastructure on movement tracking is privately owned by commercial entities. I don't care that Google has all of my data because I know they're really only going to use it to make money.
I actually don't care that the government will have my own data, what worries me is that they will suddenly have access to all of this amazing user data under the guise of the NHS and will not want to let go of it.
If the app comes with a hard sunset clause then I think a lot of the reservations go away, but as it stands 27/29 people in my WhatsApp chat don't want to install it. That changes to just 10/29 if it were done by Google or Apple.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111
Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?
Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?
Eh it is very simple , 900/900 = 1 which is 100% , 1/900 =0. 001 which is 0.001%
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
No it's not. This is historical movement data. The government doesn't have access to that currently and they need a warrant from a judge to get Google or Apple to hand it over.
The tremendous infrastructure on movement tracking is privately owned by commercial entities. I don't care that Google has all of my data because I know they're really only going to use it to make money.
I actually don't care that the government will have my own data, what worries me is that they will suddenly have access to all of this amazing user data under the guise of the NHS and will not want to let go of it.
If the app comes with a hard sunset clause then I think a lot of the reservations go away, but as it stands 27/29 people in my WhatsApp chat don't want to install it. That changes to just 10/29 if it were done by Google or Apple.
If the government wants access to that they can get it at the minute already.
The app comes with a hard sunset clause. You can uninstall it whenever you want, that is your sunset clause. It has a sunset clause of whenever you want.
We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.
As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.
When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.
It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.
The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-
Previously: Government Adult Social care £10m Council expenditure £10m Total available £20m
After reforms: Council Expenditure £15m Total available: £15m
Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.
Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?
Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...
Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.
If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.
I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.
Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.
There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.
If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.
A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.
You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.
And what evidence do you have for that proposition?
My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.
I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.
Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.
Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.
Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.
If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.
So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.
Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.
'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'
The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.
Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111
Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?
Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?
Eh it is very simple , 900/900 = 1 which is 100% , 1/900 =0. 001 which is 0.001%
Sadly, I really have no idea if this is trolling or not.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
The way to go off the grid is first to dump your phone, then pay with everything by cash. And raise the cash by a combination of very occasional cash-in-hand jobs and begging. Need to sleep rough, or at least wild, too.
Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.
I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.
Can I let you in on a secret?
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.
It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
I've been thinking, and I can't identify a single negative outcome from the government knowing where I am at any one specific moment in time.
Nothing to fear, nothing to hide has been the cry of people at the top of the slippery slope down the ages.
Comments
Prime Ministers make plenty after office anyway, there's a bizzare corporate fetish for hearing them, any of them speak at their events.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/04/conor-burns-the-eurosceptic-stalwart-who-befriended-thatcher
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1257593652681093121?s=21
Hence if, and only if it's treated as a one off the real cost is the interest on the debt. With yields so low that's cheap right now.
Given these "valued" apparently executives have been bumping their own pay while cutting services the "capitalist" response to that would be for me not to pay them forcing them to cut their cloth better. Can I opt out of paying taxes if I'm not happy with my services from the Council? If not, its not capitalist.
The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.
Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.
All the smartest people I encountered in my local council planning and rating departments now work in the private sector. Or did until the pandemic...
- are really COVID in disguise
- aren't COVID but an invitable consequence of it (e.g. lack of hospital capacity)
- aren't COVID but a consequence of the lockdown, e.g people not seeking help/isolation
I think the first probably explains the majority, perhaps the vast majority, with the second being a factor and the third trailing behind...
Sweden is running a furlough scheme just like we are. In fact Sweden's furlough scheme is 90% of wages.
The debt would have to be serviced by an economy that has been smashed to pieces if we did what you want. The government is looking into the future not tomorrow and today.
Although I do accept that there is a point (particularly for hospital services, where it may well have been reached) where shut down costs more lives than it saves.
Well it's a statement.
If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.
Some will have a chance, if the lockdown and subsequent control measures can keep the virus sufficiently in check.
As in Korea's most affected city, Daegu:
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13349607
...In late April, a large banner still hung at a major hospital nearby that stated: “We are a base hospital for treating the novel coronavirus. We are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of people in the community.”
But it was an entirely different picture inside the market.
Dozens of cars were trying to enter the market’s parking lot.
Inside, shoppers wearing face masks were so densely packed that they were unable to pass each other without touching shoulders.
Seemingly without a care in the world, smiling shoppers chowed down on noodle soup dishes and munched snacks in close physical proximity as if the pandemic had never happened....
You really, really don't want an amateur cutting costs in a council, you really do need the exact opposite.
But I forget that you argue the toss without thinking, listening or any research so I will go and do some real work.
Sweden has:
* Closed many schools
* Banned gatherings of 50+ people
* Got a government backed furlough scheme encouraging businesses to close
etc, etc
Much of what we are doing Sweden is doing too, the difference is that Sweden aren't doing it by force. The economic difference between Sweden and the UK is much exaggerated.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7357395/Who-1-Britain-one-them.html
Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.
Which is something the government ought to be considering for the post lockdown period.
The whole point of the free market is it is all connected. Where the revenue comes from matters tremendously.
https://twitter.com/radio_gaz/status/1257333055267758080?s=21
For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.
The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.
ETA the PM used to be on the equivalent of £500k. It was probably Mrs Thatcher who started the nonsense of turning down payrises that led eventually to the expenses scandal.
I think some are understating the variety in the sector - which ranges from a Personal Trainer in a garage to independents to huge self-service gyms such as Pure.
At ours we could operate with full social distancing, since a normal class is less than 20 people in 3000 sqft of open space 8m high, and 80-90% have continued paying fees at full amount, despite an offer to reduce by 75% if needed.
But the growth this year was around introducing a healthy cafeteria service, which will now be tricky.
Some places are very heavily dependent on non-membership income - snack bars, space rented out to therapists etc. That could be a serious loss for some.
I see growth in Park Run etc, as well as the relatively few who can afford it and have the space to do stuff at home, and online PTs who support them.
Regardless I’m still going to download it.
If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted.
If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown).
So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.
That's basically the furlough scheme.
Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.
- the App is in the App Store
- is it branded "NHS"
https://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/lhr/stoc/200508/?adults=1&children=0&adultsv2=1&childrenv2=&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=0&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&ref=home
EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!
Currently Sweden has a death rate that seems higher than appropriate comparisons but it may have been the correct approach.
I doubt it - anyone getting to £200k package should have demonstrated excellent performance and skills - they are not amateurs in any sense.
And at those levels the differences in pay are mostly down to a mix of luck, timing, who you know, and how easy it is to gain control of your organisations pay structure.
The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.
Or it can decide to close businesses without compensation. Given the huge number affected - both directly and indirectly - that would be brave.
Just because something isn't completely sufficient doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1257303355199635456?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/8673/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-covid-19-it-s-not-your-fault/p1
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/05/uk_coronavirus_app/
I wouldn't quite consider The Register a reliable source, but at least they're technically competent.
Many are also dependent on paying non-attendees; about half of gym memberships are unused.
I wonder if these people will notice and stop their membership.
"A 43-year-old Frenchman has revealed himself as the country's potential 'patient zero' who was infected with coronavirus last December.
Amirouche Hammar came forward after a hospital near Paris revealed it had re-tested old flu samples and found a positive test for coronavirus on December 27.
The result suggests that the virus was spreading in France well before January 24, when the country confirmed its first case.
Speaking to BFMTV, Hammar said he had suffered 'very serious' chest pains but said doctors had been mystified by his illness before eventually diagnosing a lung infection."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8287645/Frenchman-43-reveals-patient-zero-coronavirus-December.html
Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?
If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.
As for direct and indirect objects the arguments go on the same as in English but it really isn't that complicated - and casual usage of "my dad and me" is perfectly normal whereas "John invited I to dinner" is inescapably wrong, if only because it makes you sound like a pompous idiot desperately trying to sound posh or something - the sort of person who tries to stick "whom" into a sentence.
My mother got dementia not too long ago. She has since died. My father with our support decided she would definitely NOT go into care. We would look after her. I can only assume TGOF666 has not gone through this. Here are just a few examples of what can happen:
At 3 in the morning the washing up needs doing, while you are asleep, which includes the toaster.
Just wandering off any time of the day or night and not knowing where they are.
Start cooking on the hob and leaving it. Running taps and leaving them.
Attacking your husband (aged 90) with a walking stick because he is having an affair with the woman of the non existent other family living in the house.
Screaming at your son in front of his children 'why didn't you tell me my mother was a man' (she visualised my father as her mother). I was one of the few people who could sit down with my mother and explain what was going on, but this stumped me.
This requires 24 hour monitoring - when do you sleep?
Much to my surprise I was very impressed with the social care provided by social services and the Alzheimer society were magnificent. My mother ended up in a care home, which was also great and the staff magnificent - I don't know how they have the patience.
TGOF666 post was disgraceful.
This will be an issue for F&B outlets, especially late-night bars and clubs where the business model relies on packing people in. Many operators will find that they simply can't afford to operate with the same costs as before, but only a half or a third of the revenue.
So, leaving aside the partisan nonsense in it, the article appears to make one substantive claim, namely that the app won't actually work because the Bluetooth broadcast will stop unless the phone is active. That seems a pretty basic failing: I don't know enough about the subject, but either it is right - in which case the pilot will fail and the rollout won't go ahead - or it's wrong and the UK experts know what they are doing. I'd be surprised if there is such a crashingly obvious flaw in the app, but I guess we'll find out soon.
The tremendous infrastructure on movement tracking is privately owned by commercial entities. I don't care that Google has all of my data because I know they're really only going to use it to make money.
I actually don't care that the government will have my own data, what worries me is that they will suddenly have access to all of this amazing user data under the guise of the NHS and will not want to let go of it.
If the app comes with a hard sunset clause then I think a lot of the reservations go away, but as it stands 27/29 people in my WhatsApp chat don't want to install it. That changes to just 10/29 if it were done by Google or Apple.
0.001 = 0.1%
The app comes with a hard sunset clause. You can uninstall it whenever you want, that is your sunset clause. It has a sunset clause of whenever you want.
Ask Walter Wolfgang (RIP) about it.