Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
I'd think that's a very easy question.
The 2 docs you mention, plus perhaps certain that require a strong checking process to obtain and are secure documents.
Quite a lot of people don't have either driving licences or passports. Particularly, I understand, among older ethnic minorities. Bus passes? Mine has a photo.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
The obvious thing to do is to have some kind of formal process for voters to initiate referenda, like in Switzerland or many of the western United States, and not leave it to a politician's whim.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Not to speak for anyone else, but if @RochdalePioneers had wanted to go to see his parents over the past 15 months he could have done so rather than wait for his hero Boris to tell him he could.
Have you ever read any of my posts?
LOL yes I have they are usually fantastic posts and I was using the term "hero" advisedly!
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
If the government expect us to show photo ID to vote, then they should avail us of a universal form of photo ID, issued free of charge. A national ID card, if you will.
Of course, those on the right will scream that it is an intolerable outrage to expect a freeborn Englishman to carry an ID card; that will make us akin to a police state.
Accept when it comes to voting, apparently, when it's being justified to tackle a problem - voter fraud - that doesn't exist in any meaningful way in this country.
It's the shamelessness that really galls.
It's quite transparent why they are doing so. A day after the Conservatives lose but two mayoralties they decide, let's change the system to our advantage.
I have a feeling that once the Covid dust settles, these sort of Dick Dastardly scams will blow up in their faces.
The only reason we have the Supplementary Vote system for Mayoral elections, rather than AV, is that SV is better for Labour than AV. It was a scam in the first place.
I prefer a Labour scam to a Tory one, but the status quo is short of a democratic ideal.
Given that 1/6 of votes in London were cast incorrectly SV seems too complex for the benefits it offers.
The problem with the London Mayor election was not the voting system but the confusing design of the ballot paper, as explored on previous threads.
A friend of mine, who is a qualified accountant aged 61 told me he voted Bailey first choice and Fox second, he said that he knew Fox couldn't win but he wanted him to get as many votes as possible and he wanted Bailey to beat Khan.
He was surprised when I told him that he should have voted them the other way round and I explained the voting system to him. If professionally qualified people don't understand the system what chance has the Hoi polloi?
There were too many candidates, the £10,000 deposit didn't put them off so in future I suggest that they up the number accenting signatures from each borough from 2 to say 20. This won't be any problem for the main parties or any small parties and independents with serious levels of support but might put off a few no hopers.
There were too many candidates, although we do need to be a bit careful here. The LibDems might have lost their deposit (depending which reports you read and whether the hurdle was set at 2.5 or 5 per cent) yet OGH assures us they are a serious political party. And the first election for London Mayor was won by an independent.
But if the ballot paper had been redesigned to place the party label next to the candidate's name, rather than underneath it, then all the candidates could have been in one column.
So this means there would be only one set of A and B columns of boxes. Why call them A and B, rather than, say, 1 and 2, or 1st and 2nd?
As an aside, this revised ballot paper would still have favoured the Conservative candidate simply because in alphabetical order, Shaun Bailey came top.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Most of them didn't vote SNP this time, the SNP did not win a majority as it did in 2011 before indyref1 in 2014 and on the constituency vote Unionist parties won more votes than Nationalist parties.
Leon is correct, the UK government has to stand up to the SNP some time and say a firm No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and this is that time
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Most of them didn't vote SNP this time, the SNP did not win a majority and on the constituency vote Unionist parties won more votes than Nationalist parties.
Leon is correct, the UK government has to stand up to the SNP some time and say a firm No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and this is that time
The constituency vote is irrelevant. Bit like you are.
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
I'd think that's a very easy question.
The 2 docs you mention, plus perhaps certain that require a strong checking process to obtain and are secure documents.
If voting needs a passport and driving licence, what about all the people who neither drive nor take foreign holidays?
How do they pick up parcels from the Post Office ?
The Post Office does not require a passport or driving licence. Just as well, since many people have neither.
Post office works on name from a bank card or similar.
Postwoman Sandra on our counter knows pretty much everyone in town and doesn't need to ask.
When I moved down here, on removal day I opened the front door for the first time to find a red card on the mat ( a welcome gift that had arrived early). I went straight down there, leaving the guys to hump boxes, and Sandra already knew a fair bit about me before I had even moved in.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Given indyref2 was in their manifesto this time, and the SGs, and the combined seat total has gone up, it's odd to claim it diminished.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
Note the "proven". The other explanation is that the lack of ID requirements means it's so piss easy to get away with and such a low priority for the police that nobody is ever caught, much less prosecuted.
Personally I think postal voting is probably the real scandal though, because anyone can see how you vote if you let them. It effectively undoes the secret ballot.
Should be reserved for exceptional circumstances in my opinion. Postal voting also means that people don't vote on the same day (possible weeks before), which I think is wrong, and people's votes can be influenced by others. Postal voting provides a route for turnout to be manipulated by party activists.
Confidentiality is vital and the polling station is a valuable ritual to maintain. It cannot be replicated. It takes effort to vote rather than ticking a box at home and sticking it in an envelope. Going to a polling station gives time to reflect and give proper consideration about how to vote. With postal voting it is more likely that some piece of news that pisses you off can result is a perfunctory tick in a different box without due though and subsequent regret.
Postal voting corrupts an already-great system of voting.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
I have a mate who used to drive HGV but now works in an office. He's been tempted back to work at weekends as the money is attractive. I guess in time others may come back to the Uk or get trained up..
I am coming round to the opinion that Brexit has caused a huge fracture for @Scott_xP that he needs to take up a new hobby just to retain his piece of mind
Constant 24/7 anti brexit posting on here is not going to change anyone's view
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Given indyref2 was in their manifesto this time, and the SGs, and the combined seat total has gone up, it's odd to claim it diminished.
It's gone up by one seat for the SNP, and two seats for the SGs - it's moving the drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin. You and I both know the SNP hoped Brexit would lead to at least a nationalist majority, and even a supermajority.
I've already conceded there is a mandate, but it's a weak one - Scotland is essentially split 50:50 - and therefore what happens next is a question of tactics.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
The country has already said no. That the 2014 ref was once-in-a-generation was repeatedly stated (and was the very basis on which it was agreed) and repeated by none other than Nippy herself.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
Variable costs can be difficult if self-employed driving. Small changes in costs can throw it all off.
They can be working through £600 a week of fuel in a decent sized vehicle.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Edit: I see you've already attracted the credulous.
Thanks for pointing it out - I missed it, done, as it was, two hours after her "Last Party Politics aside" tweet. Though I note the BAME male Tory MSP got no welcome. But good to see Holyrood heading in the right direction.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Given indyref2 was in their manifesto this time, and the SGs, and the combined seat total has gone up, it's odd to claim it diminished.
It's gone up by one seat for the SNP, and two seats for the SGs - it's moving the drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin. You and I both know the SNP hoped Brexit would lead to at least a nationalist majority, and even a supermajority.
I've already conceded there is a mandate, but it's a weak one - Scotland is essentially split 50:50 - and therefore what happens next is a question of tactics.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
Variable costs can be difficult if self-employed driving. Small changes in costs can throw it all off.
They can be working through £600 a week of fuel in a decent sized vehicle.
I asked him that, he doesn't own his own lorry. He simply gets calls from various companies saying that they need someone to drive their lorry, he turns up and does it. But he's self-employed in that he doesn't work for the same agency, or same company all the time. I don't know how he procured the work.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax due to the IR35 changes.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
That's not convincing. I'd been fairly sceptical simply because of the Scottish Pmt voting system which is intensely nonlinear. Total contrast to FPTP (which is also nonlinear but in the other direction).
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It will likely mean higher wages which will eventually mean higher prices. But if people are earning more that might not matter
What is interesting, here, is the echo of the Black Death. One of the most famous and unexpected consequences of the Black Death was the emancipation of millions of serfs, who - thanks to acute labour shortages due to the millions of dead - were finally able to up sticks, quit the village, and go find better wages. Which they did
Plagues have strangely positive effects, amid the generalized horror
I think what's more interesting is that this is another example of the old arguments about EU immigration not holding back working class wages being smashed to bits. The whole remain campaign was built on nothing.
It was the whole reason for the referendum and why Leave won. Low paid workers, whose job security and wages used to be protected by unions, had them offered out to the whole of Eastern Europe by their bosses, and told not to complain or you’ll be called a racist by the government and the opposition. So they voted Leave and don’t vote Labour anymore
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
Yes. It is. You know someone else has stolen your vote, and your money. It might not prevent the crime but it does detect it.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
It's also an interesting question how the Tory Brexiteers wouldr eact to a proposed agreement to have a referendum in the first place. The TP is a lot more right wing than it was when the Edinburgh Agreement was sorted out and signed.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
I genuinely don’t understand why all supermarkets can’t raise their prices by similar amounts to cover the additional labour costs. Are people going to stop buying food?
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
The "how" is for the market to resolve.
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
And that's the current problem - there isn't enough supply for the demand and most companies can't find the supply at a price they can afford.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
That's not convincing. I'd been fairly sceptical simply because of the Scottish Pmt voting system which is intensely nonlinear. Total contrast to FPTP (which is also nonlinear but in the other direction).
As several folk have pointed out the SNP achievement this time is arguably greater than 2011 since there was minimal tactical voting at that stage whereas now it's all about the tv.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
It's called inflation and supermarkets will pass it on, they always do. They just don't advertise that they are raising prices in the same way they advertise price cuts. Additionally the UK is pretty well placed to handle domestic inflation as we will have a contractionary monetary policy in the second half of this year and sterling is strengthening meaning imported inflation is going to be nil or negative.
Ultimately the companies will pay the drivers more or go out of business and supermarkets will pay some more or not have any supplies and the consumer will pay a bit more or not have anywhere to shop.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
I know it has become a accented truism by the Brexiters on here, but there was little evidence that FOM suppressed working class wages.
At a macro level, what seemed to happen is that migrants took lower skill jobs, allowing native workers to move *up* the value chain.
If the result of this haulier shortage is that we divert native workers to a low-productivity industry, then all we have succeeded in doing is effectively “de-industrialising”, with increased consumer prices and probably less consumer choice as well.
It would be interesting to see a thorough analysis of FOM on employment, productivity, balance of trade, and consumer utility.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
Yes. It is. You know someone else has stolen your vote, and your money. It might not prevent the crime but it does detect it.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
The "how" is for the market to resolve.
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
And whilst the market resolves this, the supply chain falls over. Lack of drivers = fewer links can be made from depot to depot. There isn't a pool of unemployed former truck drivers who can just step in - more can be recruited and trained but it will take time.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
The mandate is weak - vetoing the bill however creates a real grievance that will be played up over the next 3 years.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
Is "Not all of Brexit has happened yet! the new "Brexit hasn't happened yet!" ?
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
I have never been a Brexiteer.
I voted remain but accepted the decision and now we have left we have to make the best of it
Of course, there are pluses and minuses but because there are blips in the road, the idea we would just decide to say it was a mistake and return to the EU is simply not creditable
And the EU have been a covid disaster zone with zero PR and by being out, Boris was able to arrange our own world leading vaccine programme which should see us bounce back quicker than the EU
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
The "how" is for the market to resolve.
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
And whilst the market resolves this, the supply chain falls over. Lack of drivers = fewer links can be made from depot to depot. There isn't a pool of unemployed former truck drivers who can just step in - more can be recruited and trained but it will take time.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
Translation: Labour, please stay out of it and make the Unionist cause solely a Tory one headed up by Boris.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
Is "Not all of Brexit has happened yet! the new "Brexit hasn't happened yet!" ?
No, just saying it's still playing out. Unless I am missing something?
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
Away from the red wall, the tory performance was distinctly underwhelming, particularly Surrey. Elsewhere in the home counties and the shires? meh....
Hardly surprising, since that's where Johnson will be coming for the money to fund his tax and spend socialism. And that's where living standards are going to get pinched when inflation from money printing arrives.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
And that's the current problem - there isn't enough supply for the demand and most companies can't find the supply at a price they can afford.
You renegotiate the contract, if they refuse the company goes bankrupt and a new company with an identical structure and the same people is formed without those contracts. This isn't rocket science, it's very basic business management.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
Translation: Labour, please stay out of it and make the Unionist cause solely a Tory one headed up by Boris.
I'm thinking in terms of what is (and isn't) in it for SLAB in the first instance, after what happened to them in 2014-15, and their likely decision making. It's another likely big difference next time round.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
To be honest (a rarity, I know) I can’t exactly remember. If you’re right: my bad, and my apologies
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
The "how" is for the market to resolve.
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
People who can only see the world through detailed plans fail to appreciate just how quickly a marketplace can adjust without the need of external control.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
7: i'd get Better Together back together again now, with a better name, and get it out on the stump fighting for the Union day in day out, not wait for an indyref to actually happen. I'd get Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson as visible co-leaders - whatever price they name, pay it - with active involvement from Sarwar, Rennie and Ross - a good thing for me is that the Union parties each seems to have a decent and likeable leader right now each deemed to have had a reasonable election campaign (Ross perhaps less so, but he held 31 seats in testing circumstances - you can't argue against that). Hell, even get Galloway involved too if need be.
8 - i do think Boris shouldn't be afraid of venturing north of the border to fight for the UK too - i don't think he is as toxic as made out, and anyway, we've had the Holyrood election now, and Brexit is increasingly in the past - the UK needs the UK PM to be out there and not reinforce separatism by never feeling able to venture there!
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
Then you misunderstand.
My working hypothesis is that Starmer can't destroy Boris. The point is that he doesn't need to- Boris is more than capable of destroying himself.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Nah, supermarkets just inflate creatively with smaller portion sizes or turning a 50% off deal into a 40% off deal or a three for two into a four for three etc...
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
You're the one betraying ignorance in thinking that companies will stand back and do nothing while their supply chain collapses. 🙄
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
Disagree that the Scottish parliament should ever have the power to legislate for this without Westminster. Westminster is the only guarantor of UK interests and the only parliament England has. The integrity of the UK is more than a Scottish interest, it is an English one too. Not least because a separation by Scotland forces England, without being asked, to separate from Scotland and to live with a new land border it never wanted. Wider interests therefore must have some power over the matter.
Anyway, changing the subject, Nicola doesn't want a referendum so Boris' s best move is to do as little as possible. As one or both of them would be finished by a referendum it will suit both to have a stalemate.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
Away from the red wall, the tory performance was distinctly underwhelming, particularly Surrey. Elsewhere in the home counties and the shires? meh....
Hardly surprising, since that's where Johnson will be coming for the money to fund his tax and spend socialism. And that's where living standards are going to get pinched when inflation from money printing arrives.
When the time comes to pay the bills, the shire tories will revolt and con mps will ditch Boris.
And that will be the end of levelling up.
Boris & Sunak know this. They’re playing poker with the bond market.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Now's the time to man up, the shape of the battlefield is changing.
Since 2014 the Nats have had the advantage of no real opposition as Brexit overshadowed everything until 2019, May fked up the election so HMG came to a standstill and Covid picked up where Brexit left off. A chaotic Westminster spent no time looking at a unified SNP.
Time marches on.
Looking forward Brexit has now been put to bed, CV19 will be hopefully a bad memory by the end of this year and HMG has a strong majority and no real opposition bar the Nats. Add in that Sturgeon now has to fight a guerilla war with Alba in her heartland, unionist tactical voting will get better organised and she has a shit record on many aspects of her government .
So Scotland moves up the UK govts agenda, the Nats actually face proper opposition and at some point lady luck ditches Sturgeon and decides she's off somewhere else. Could well be Nicola Merkel in 12 months time.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
That's not convincing. I'd been fairly sceptical simply because of the Scottish Pmt voting system which is intensely nonlinear. Total contrast to FPTP (which is also nonlinear but in the other direction).
Nat majority was odds-on at one point. That’s just a fact
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
Over the past 10 years the trend doesn't look up tbh.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its a critical issue - work doesn't pay for millions of people who work long hours and their arses off and yet remain broke.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
The "how" is for the market to resolve.
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
People who can only see the world through detailed plans fail to appreciate just how quickly a marketplace can adjust without the need of external control.
Precisely. The market doesn't need to be "managed" with a "how" to do so.
The market works because every company in it does whatever they need to in order to solve their problems. If the choice is go out of business or find a solution, good companies will do whatever it takes to solve their problems - and bad companies will either follow or go out of business and be replaced.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Indeed. You will remember there were comments (even complaints) from PBTories that Mr Sarwar wasn't rallying to the UJ over the last couple of months.
Also - there would be a lot fewer Labour MPs this time round (assuming no GE). They used to have 41. Now 1. Which tends to explain Mr S's attitude.
Comments
Bus passes? Mine has a photo.
Other times I want to hide behind the sofa in embarrassment
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
But if the ballot paper had been redesigned to place the party label next to the candidate's name, rather than underneath it, then all the candidates could have been in one column.
So this means there would be only one set of A and B columns of boxes. Why call them A and B, rather than, say, 1 and 2, or 1st and 2nd?
As an aside, this revised ballot paper would still have favoured the Conservative candidate simply because in alphabetical order, Shaun Bailey came top.
Leon is correct, the UK government has to stand up to the SNP some time and say a firm No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and this is that time
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
When I moved down here, on removal day I opened the front door for the first time to find a red card on the mat ( a welcome gift that had arrived early). I went straight down there, leaving the guys to hump boxes, and Sandra already knew a fair bit about me before I had even moved in.
Literally. One day this syndrome will be in textbooks and the authors will cite Scott
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
Confidentiality is vital and the polling station is a valuable ritual to maintain. It cannot be replicated. It takes effort to vote rather than ticking a box at home and sticking it in an envelope. Going to a polling station gives time to reflect and give proper consideration about how to vote. With postal voting it is more likely that some piece of news that pisses you off can result is a perfunctory tick in a different box without due though and subsequent regret.
Postal voting corrupts an already-great system of voting.
Almost like how the market should work..
Constant 24/7 anti brexit posting on here is not going to change anyone's view
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
I've already conceded there is a mandate, but it's a weak one - Scotland is essentially split 50:50 - and therefore what happens next is a question of tactics.
It will be easy for either side to cock it up.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Thank you.
They can be working through £600 a week of fuel in a decent sized vehicle.
The challenge for "higher wages will solve everything" is how we actually do that. Punters will not pay the cost of production of products in the supermarket. So the supermarkets can't pass on any price rises. And the cost pressure goes back down the chain which is where we end up with hauliers reliant on IR35 (gone) and foreign drivers (gone).
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
That's the supermarkets, the agencies, the drivers etc job - that's not the government's job. To ensure those who are doing the job aren't dodging taxes (IR35) is the government's job.
And that's the current problem - there isn't enough supply for the demand and most companies can't find the supply at a price they can afford.
It's the new "Fatcha"
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
Ultimately the companies will pay the drivers more or go out of business and supermarkets will pay some more or not have any supplies and the consumer will pay a bit more or not have anywhere to shop.
At a macro level, what seemed to happen is that migrants took lower skill jobs, allowing native workers to move *up* the value chain.
If the result of this haulier shortage is that we divert native workers to a low-productivity industry, then all we have succeeded in doing is effectively “de-industrialising”, with increased consumer prices and probably less consumer choice as well.
It would be interesting to see a thorough analysis of FOM on employment, productivity, balance of trade, and consumer utility.
There's no getting away from that.
And now, work beckons.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
I voted remain but accepted the decision and now we have left we have to make the best of it
Of course, there are pluses and minuses but because there are blips in the road, the idea we would just decide to say it was a mistake and return to the EU is simply not creditable
And the EU have been a covid disaster zone with zero PR and by being out, Boris was able to arrange our own world leading vaccine programme which should see us bounce back quicker than the EU
Can we get Angela's Rayner's name right? It's Rayner – not Raynor. Commonly seen blunder on here.
I would have thought the PB Political Experts should be able to spell the Dloto's name?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
Hardly surprising, since that's where Johnson will be coming for the money to fund his tax and spend socialism. And that's where living standards are going to get pinched when inflation from money printing arrives.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
7: i'd get Better Together back together again now, with a better name, and get it out on the stump fighting for the Union day in day out, not wait for an indyref to actually happen. I'd get Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson as visible co-leaders - whatever price they name, pay it - with active involvement from Sarwar, Rennie and Ross - a good thing for me is that the Union parties each seems to have a decent and likeable leader right now each deemed to have had a reasonable election campaign (Ross perhaps less so, but he held 31 seats in testing circumstances - you can't argue against that). Hell, even get Galloway involved too if need be.
8 - i do think Boris shouldn't be afraid of venturing north of the border to fight for the UK too - i don't think he is as toxic as made out, and anyway, we've had the Holyrood election now, and Brexit is increasingly in the past - the UK needs the UK PM to be out there and not reinforce separatism by never feeling able to venture there!
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
My working hypothesis is that Starmer can't destroy Boris. The point is that he doesn't need to- Boris is more than capable of destroying himself.
It's been common practice for absolutely ages.
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
Anyway, changing the subject, Nicola doesn't want a referendum so Boris' s best move is to do as little as possible. As one or both of them would be finished by a referendum it will suit both to have a stalemate.
Mind you, so was that Mr Foot.
But I think we can say that poor results are indicative of a poor future.
And that will be the end of levelling up.
Boris & Sunak know this. They’re playing poker with the bond market.
Since 2014 the Nats have had the advantage of no real opposition as Brexit overshadowed everything until 2019, May fked up the election so HMG came to a standstill and Covid picked up where Brexit left off. A chaotic Westminster spent no time looking at a unified SNP.
Time marches on.
Looking forward Brexit has now been put to bed, CV19 will be hopefully a bad memory by the end of this year and HMG has a strong majority and no real opposition bar the Nats. Add in that Sturgeon now has to fight a guerilla war with Alba in her heartland, unionist tactical voting will get better organised and she has a shit record on many aspects of her government .
So Scotland moves up the UK govts agenda, the Nats actually face proper opposition and at some point lady luck ditches Sturgeon and decides she's off somewhere else. Could well be Nicola Merkel in 12 months time.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/cznt/mm23
The market works because every company in it does whatever they need to in order to solve their problems. If the choice is go out of business or find a solution, good companies will do whatever it takes to solve their problems - and bad companies will either follow or go out of business and be replaced.
Also - there would be a lot fewer Labour MPs this time round (assuming no GE). They used to have 41. Now 1. Which tends to explain Mr S's attitude.