politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now partisan politics is getting back to normal and looks even

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

But they are not ludicrously high wages when compared to the job market of positions of a similar nature. Again, I thought you believed in a capitalist job market, or are you in favour of putting wage caps on different industries?

squareroot2 said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

That shows the fall in standards yet 97%+ supposedly get great exam passes, makes you wonder just a little bit what all those teachers are doing with those 18 hour days 7 days a week including holidays. Education system is one big gravy train.

MarqueeMark said:

And for political balance, Conor Burns, entitled pillock of a Conservative MP, was a complete twat too.

At least he had the good grace to resign. Might (re)start a welcome (and long overdue) trend...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/04/conor-burns-the-eurosceptic-stalwart-who-befriended-thatcher

I can’t believe there are anywhere near that many excess Non Covid deaths

https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1257593652681093121?s=21

Furlough is interesting economically. It's a one off cost - not structural (Unless you do it again with a second peak) - so though it adds to the debt, it doesn't keep adding to the debt in the same way normal expenditure does.
Hence if, and only if it's treated as a one off the real cost is the interest on the debt. With yields so low that's cheap right now.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.

The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.

Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.

Councils have a major advantage over a regular business, the customer simply must pay up regardless of service. All positions should be on that public sector matrix thingy including the Chief Exec.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

Is it so few ?
All the smartest people I encountered in my local council planning and rating departments now work in the private sector. Or did until the pandemic...

isam said:

I can’t believe there are anywhere near that many excess Non Covid deaths

https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1257593652681093121?s=21

Either these deaths:
- are really COVID in disguise
- aren't COVID but an invitable consequence of it (e.g. lack of hospital capacity)
- aren't COVID but a consequence of the lockdown, e.g people not seeking help/isolation

I think the first probably explains the majority, perhaps the vast majority, with the second being a factor and the third trailing behind...

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.

Would it encourage him to have worked any harder at the crucial moments ?

Prime Ministers make plenty after office anyway, there's a bizzare corporate fetish for hearing them, any of them speak at their events.

The more cynical view would be that those speaking gigs are delayed payment for preferment whilst in office. In which case, there's an argument that higher pay for PM's could lead to better government. I don't really agree, because why be a millionaire when you could be a multi-millionaire, but there is an argument.

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.

The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.

Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.

10 times as many deaths as the comparable Scandinavian Countries is arguable?

Well it's a statement.

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1257594223764914176

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You are aware of how much skill you need to successfully cut costs in a council. Some councils have successfully done so, others (Birmingham) have done it so badly they have liabilities due to incompetency running into Billions.

You really, really don't want an amateur cutting costs in a council, you really do need the exact opposite.

But I forget that you argue the toss without thinking, listening or any research so I will go and do some real work.

malcolmg said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.

Cuckoo, he has only been there a handful of days, the fat lazy git is always on holiday, plus his expenses and other handouts mean he is likely already on more than 500K. Get a grip.

Bit jealous are you Malc...

Richard_Tyndall said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.

The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.

Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.

I am sure that is a great comfort to all those who have died unnecessarily as a result of the failed Swedish experiment.

Plus contrarian is ignoring the fact that Sweden's experiment is not what their proponents in this country pretend it is.

Sweden has:
* Closed many schools
* Banned gatherings of 50+ people
* Got a government backed furlough scheme encouraging businesses to close
etc, etc

Much of what we are doing Sweden is doing too, the difference is that Sweden aren't doing it by force. The economic difference between Sweden and the UK is much exaggerated.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

isam said:

I can’t believe there are anywhere near that many excess Non Covid deaths

https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1257593652681093121?s=21

Either these deaths:
- are really COVID in disguise......

That seems to be the pattern across the world, irrespective of lockdowns.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

Almost ?

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

Sorry did you say 'end up'?

You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.

So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.

Repeat this very slowly: Councils are not operating in a free market.

Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

Sorry did you say 'end up'?

You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.

So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.

Repeat this very slowly: Councils are not operating in a free market.

Unless you can opt out of paying Council Tax etc if you determine that your Council is shit there is no free market.

We’re talking about the free labour market here, where the revenue comes from is irrelevant.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

The government can't wait to start lifting the lockdown until everyone is happy to go out again. Things have started getting back to normal again, and this process will very slowly continue until everything is normal again. If no vaccine is available, this will take several years. In the short term the government's priority will be to enable those people who are willing to go out again and work to do so. The government will continue to pay for many of those who want to stay at home to do so in the short term (not all as some have no jobs from which to be furloughed), but it will have to reduce the costs associated with this eventually.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

I am amazed you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.

The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.

Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.

The government borrows typically at 10, 30 or 50 year intervals for rollover and is currently borrowing at about 0.1% interest. Why would the rollovers start "quite soon" then? Why wouldn't they start in 10 plus years and if so why not take the big picture view on what is good for the economy?

Sweden is running a furlough scheme just like we are. In fact Sweden's furlough scheme is 90% of wages.

The debt would have to be serviced by an economy that has been smashed to pieces if we did what you want. The government is looking into the future not tomorrow and today.

That is a good point but the sheer volume of gilts that will need to be sold may mean they choose, in some cases, shorter maturities. The Federal Reserve does.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

I suggest that what this debate really means is that there should be a discussion on what services should, in a civilised society, be 'officially' provided, and how they should be paid for.

I’ve seen worse on here!

https://twitter.com/radio_gaz/status/1257333055267758080?s=21

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

Gyms.

I think some are understating the variety in the sector - which ranges from a Personal Trainer in a garage to independents to huge self-service gyms such as Pure.

At ours we could operate with full social distancing, since a normal class is less than 20 people in 3000 sqft of open space 8m high, and 80-90% have continued paying fees at full amount, despite an offer to reduce by 75% if needed.

But the growth this year was around introducing a healthy cafeteria service, which will now be tricky.

Some places are very heavily dependent on non-membership income - snack bars, space rented out to therapists etc. That could be a serious loss for some.

I see growth in Park Run etc, as well as the relatively few who can afford it and have the space to do stuff at home, and online PTs who support them.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

NHSX is not using the Apple/Google API though. It’s using a Bluetooth vulnerability...

Regardless I’m still going to download it.

The virus is an exquisite knot for Gov't.

If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted.
If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown).
So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.

That's basically the furlough scheme.

Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

I think that is correct. What people will care about is -

- the App is in the App Store
- is it branded "NHS"

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

I am amazed as astute a poster as you asked that question but OK. That debt will have to be repaid at some juncture. If it isn;t then some will need to be rolled over, possibly at much higher borrowing costs. Almost certainly not at lower ones. Depending on the maturities the government goes for, the roll overs could start quite soon.

The debt will have to be serviced by a private sector that has been smashed to pieces. Corona was always going to have a big effect I grant you that. But I don;t think that anybody could argue the government has made it much worse than a much lighter, shorter lockdown would have.

Indeed Sweden shows us this is true. I understand its economy has shrunk at a much slower rate than its Scandy peers. Against which it has endured more deaths now (though this too is arguable) but it is in a much stronger position to save them in the future.

I am sure that is a great comfort to all those who have died unnecessarily as a result of the failed Swedish experiment.

Plus contrarian is ignoring the fact that Sweden's experiment is not what their proponents in this country pretend it is.

Sweden has:
* Closed many schools
* Banned gatherings of 50+ people
* Got a government backed furlough scheme encouraging businesses to close
etc, etc

Much of what we are doing Sweden is doing too, the difference is that Sweden aren't doing it by force. The economic difference between Sweden and the UK is much exaggerated.

And my favourite. You can't fly from London to Stockholm direct. They have banned flights from outside the EEA

https://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/lhr/stoc/200508/?adults=1&children=0&adultsv2=1&childrenv2=&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=0&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&ref=home

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I don't know why we're trying to reinvent the wheel on this one.

Why does this government do anything? Some combination of institutional neurosis and exceptionalism founded in arrogance.

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.

Can I let you in on a secret?

The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

Same attitude with airport restrictions. Oh we can't check everyone coming in thoroughly so we won't temperature scan...
Just because something isn't completely sufficient doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.

Can I let you in on a secret?

The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.

Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.

Further thought on gyms.

Many are also dependent on paying non-attendees; about half of gym memberships are unused.

I wonder if these people will notice and stop their membership.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111

Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?

Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more conformable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invite Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.

The latter sounds completely wrong. I don't know about you but I would never say "John invited I for dinner" so the addition of Mary shouldn't make it "I".

"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner"
"John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"

Absolutely. The best way is just to remove the 'and X' or 'X and' bit and let your ear do the rest.

in Danish less and fewer are applied but there are also different words for many and more , inclduing one that means 2 or more - but there are also different words for small depending if it is a plural so I suspect some of the English comes from that same Germanic base.

As for direct and indirect objects the arguments go on the same as in English but it really isn't that complicated - and casual usage of "my dad and me" is perfectly normal whereas "John invited I to dinner" is inescapably wrong, if only because it makes you sound like a pompous idiot desperately trying to sound posh or something - the sort of person who tries to stick "whom" into a sentence.

FPT Last night I read a comment by TGOF666 re people putting their parents into care homes. I also saw some robust responses, but I did want to make my own response.

My mother got dementia not too long ago. She has since died. My father with our support decided she would definitely NOT go into care. We would look after her. I can only assume TGOF666 has not gone through this. Here are just a few examples of what can happen:

At 3 in the morning the washing up needs doing, while you are asleep, which includes the toaster.

Just wandering off any time of the day or night and not knowing where they are.

Start cooking on the hob and leaving it. Running taps and leaving them.

Attacking your husband (aged 90) with a walking stick because he is having an affair with the woman of the non existent other family living in the house.

Screaming at your son in front of his children 'why didn't you tell me my mother was a man' (she visualised my father as her mother). I was one of the few people who could sit down with my mother and explain what was going on, but this stumped me.

This requires 24 hour monitoring - when do you sleep?

Much to my surprise I was very impressed with the social care provided by social services and the Alzheimer society were magnificent. My mother ended up in a care home, which was also great and the staff magnificent - I don't know how they have the patience.

TGOF666 post was disgraceful.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.

Can I let you in on a secret?

The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.

Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.

It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.

If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.

I've been thinking, and I can't identify a single negative outcome from the government knowing where I am at any one specific moment in time.

Pulpstar said:

The virus is an exquisite knot for Gov't.

If a previously functioning business activity is restricted by law, it is unconscionable not to pay/loan/grant that business from the state (Or good as) whilst it is restricted.
If a business activity is not restricted by law, you can't ask the public to stay away from that business (The pub debacle just before lockdown).
So if you want the public to stay away from a business or service you need to pay/loan/grant the supplier of that business to sit at home.

That's basically the furlough scheme.

Is it's for a time limited period, it's fine. It's not a structural debt. But it can't go on forever.

The real problems come when a business is not closed by law, but can only operate to a certain capability or capacity by distancing measures.

This will be an issue for F&B outlets, especially late-night bars and clubs where the business model relies on packing people in. Many operators will find that they simply can't afford to operate with the same costs as before, but only a half or a third of the revenue.

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

Same attitude with airport restrictions. Oh we can't check everyone coming in thoroughly so we won't temperature scan...
Just because something isn't completely sufficient doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Yep - abolishing private schools will not eliminate educational inequalities.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.

Can I let you in on a secret?

The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.

Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.

It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.

If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.

No it's not. This is historical movement data. The government doesn't have access to that currently and they need a warrant from a judge to get Google or Apple to hand it over.

The tremendous infrastructure on movement tracking is privately owned by commercial entities. I don't care that Google has all of my data because I know they're really only going to use it to make money.

I actually don't care that the government will have my own data, what worries me is that they will suddenly have access to all of this amazing user data under the guise of the NHS and will not want to let go of it.

If the app comes with a hard sunset clause then I think a lot of the reservations go away, but as it stands 27/29 people in my WhatsApp chat don't want to install it. That changes to just 10/29 if it were done by Google or Apple.

...

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

So you would prefer a council to be run by amateurs rather than professionals people. It's a view I suppose but personally I'm happy to pay people money if the money they cost is less than the money I save overall.

Professional people who can maintain services with the budget they have absolutely pay them what they want.

If they need to cut services then start from the top with their own wages. If that means getting in amateurs so be it.

You do realise that every council is cutting services because they physically can’t afford to keep them going? An extra £50k per year is NOTHING compared to the cost of these services. It’s almost like you have no concept of the budgets of local councils.

'£50k here, £30k there and soon we're talking real money'

The annual budget of Newcastle City Council is circa £900m I believe? Even if a Chief Executive was being paid £1m per year that’s only 0.001% of the budget.

Which can be the same for any expenditure. If you're taking that attitude with executive pay, where else are you taking that attitude?

EDIT: And you're out by a factor of 100!!

How do you work that out , 1/900 = .0011111111111

Agreed that is what it is. And what is 0.0011111111111 in percentage terms?

Or are you proposing that if a budget was 900 million and the executive paid themselves 900 million then they were only getting paid 1% of the budget?

Eh it is very simple , 900/900 = 1 which is 100% , 1/900 =0. 001 which is 0.001%

Sadly, I really have no idea if this is trolling or not.

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Vox pops on the app. People more willing to install it if it were Apple or Google. Much less likely to do so atm. Will just go about their business without the app and wait for an Apple or Google version.

I think that's absolute bovine manure as many vox pops are and probably after a leading question.

For one thing Apple and Google aren't inventing their own versions. They're doing an API, each country still needs to do its own version.

The app when its launched will be an NHS branded app. We know what people in this country think of the NHS and I don't believe a non-NHS app would get more downloads. "Download the NHS app to protect the NHS and save lives" is a powerful message that will resonate.

They can brand it whatever they want, the calculation people have made is that Google and Apple already know their location all the time anyway. This is letting the government know, that's a step a lot of people just won't take, NHS branding or not. I expect we'll never get near the 80% or whatever is necessary.

Can I let you in on a secret?

The government can identify your location from your phone already anyway.

Yes, by cell tower triangulation. But that's in real time, inaccurate and needs the target to be moving at more than walking pace. It's not the same thing.

It pretty much is. If the government wants to track you then this app will not be how they do it. There's already tremendous infrastructure involved in tracking persons of interest - more than most people realise.

If you wish to go off the grid then what app you have on your phone won't matter.

I've been thinking, and I can't identify a single negative outcome from the government knowing where I am at any one specific moment in time.

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide has been the cry of people at the top of the slippery slope down the ages.

Ask Walter Wolfgang (RIP) about it.