The GE2017 BBC leaders debate that TMay dodged – politicalbetting.com

NickPalmer said:

I agree with StillWaters here (a rare event). I think most people would define "corruption" as receiving money personally in return for political actions. To be fair, Bob Seely hasn't done that. If we accuse people of nasty things that they haven't done, we undermine outrage at the real crimes (which corruption is). He's made an unedifying deal, no more and no less.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Scott_xP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

Brexit is a binary choice.

We are in, or out.

There is no flex. That is a unicorn.

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).

Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.

The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).

The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.

Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.

That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

Brexit is a binary choice.

We are in, or out.

There is no flex. That is a unicorn.

We have a flexed model, we have a free trade agreement.

What more do you want?

Foxy said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.

Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption

As I pointed out, in yesterday's Yougov it was38% support the workers, 49% support the management, but it was the under 65s who were most supportive of the Union. My opinion on this is not as unusual as you seem to think.

RochdalePioneers said:

NickPalmer said:

I agree with StillWaters here (a rare event). I think most people would define "corruption" as receiving money personally in return for political actions. To be fair, Bob Seely hasn't done that. If we accuse people of nasty things that they haven't done, we undermine outrage at the real crimes (which corruption is). He's made an unedifying deal, no more and no less.

It is corruption of the process. We either make evidence-based decisions or we don't. We know the Tories have corrupted this process because we have got levelling-up money being promised to rich areas that just happen to be Tory battlegrounds like Yarm.

Horse trading goes on - of course it does. But to openly talk about it this way is daft - especially when you are believing a promise made by Boris Johnson's government...

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

Brexit is a binary choice.

We are in, or out.

There is no flex. That is a unicorn.

We have a flexed model, we have a free trade agreement.

What more do you want?

We do not have a free trade agreement. Completion of and inspection thereof of reams of paperwork to confirm that these products have zero tariff and zero quota, then inspection of said goods to confirm they comply with the exact same standards used on both sides of the customs border is not free trade.

RochdalePioneers said:

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

swing_voter said:

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.

The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.

He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.

Its predicted performace for 2023, this year we are expected to grow the most of any G7 Country.

Economic predictions are normally nonsense

Sentence 1: an economic prediction
Sentence 2: "economic predictions are nonsense"

OldKingCole said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.

Excellent post. To suggest that we can cooperate fully with the Pacific countries but not with the ones nearest to us is insane.

And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

That wouldn't have worked, and, in fact, would have depressed the Remain vote even further. Leave would have had an even bigger win.

Most people don't feel an emotional attachment to the European project. What you describe is of passionate interest to perhaps 10-15% of the population, mainly internationalists in metropolitan areas, but they are highly unrepresentative of the broader electorate.

Par for our European relationship has been, and remains, membership of a broader "common market" for trade, with a say in its technical rules, but respecting our traditions and sensitivities, a level of reciprocal free movement for work - but with clear limits to it and a brake if excessive - and absolutely no part in political, social, fiscal or economic union.

Rejoiners have no better answers as they simply hope that Brexit will fail and vindicate them so we can go back "all in" but that won't be the basis of a sustainable settlement - it will just trade one set of problems for another.

Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

Casino_Royale said:

Then, there will be no sustainable settlement.

You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.

Excellent post. To suggest that we can cooperate fully with the Pacific countries but not with the ones nearest to us is insane.

And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.

And yet no one is suggesting we don't cooperate with them. It is perfectly possible to cooperate very closely with the countries of Europe without being subsumed into a political edifice. It bears repeating that, no matter how much its supporters might try to claim otherwise, the EU is not Europe. It is a political project that we have chosen not to be part of.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.

Excellent post. To suggest that we can cooperate fully with the Pacific countries but not with the ones nearest to us is insane.

And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.

And yet no one is suggesting we don't cooperate with them. It is perfectly possible to cooperate very closely with the countries of Europe without being subsumed into a political edifice. It bears repeating that, no matter how much its supporters might try to claim otherwise, the EU is not Europe. It is a political project that we have chosen not to be part of.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

That wouldn't have worked, and, in fact, would have depressed the Remain vote even further. Leave would have had an even bigger win.

Most people don't feel an emotional attachment to the European project. What you describe is of passionate interest to perhaps 10-15% of the population, mainly internationalists in metropolitan areas, but they are highly unrepresentative of the broader electorate.

Par for our European relationship has been, and remains, membership of a broader "common market" for trade, with a say in its technical rules, but respecting our traditions and sensitivities, a level of reciprocal free movement for work - but with clear limits to it and a brake if excessive - and absolutely no part in political, social, fiscal or economic union.

Rejoiners have no better answers as they simply hope that Brexit will fail and vindicate them so we can go back "all in" but that won't be the basis of a sustainable settlement - it will just trade one set of problems for another.

Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

'Both sides' doesn't really reflect the reality, though. 'Rejoiners' have little or no influence in the opposition parties - even the Lib Dems are fairly realistic about that.

The majority of those who voted remain take a far more pragmatic view of future relations with the EU than do the Leavers who are in government.

Scott_xP said:

An eye-catcher… is a cabinet minister about to quit Johnson’s government and leave UK politics?

Guardian reports Sharma is considering an approach about the UN climate change role which becomes vacant next month.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/08/alok-sharma-in-running-to-be-uns-global-climate-chief?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

OldKingCole said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.

Excellent post. To suggest that we can cooperate fully with the Pacific countries but not with the ones nearest to us is insane.

And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Madness in China

A chunk of Shanghai has gone back into lockdown: meanwhile…


“China is building hundreds of thousands of permanent coronavirus testing facilities and expanding quarantine centres across many of its biggest cities as part of its zero-Covid policy, despite the economic and human toll on the world’s most populous country”

FT: ££

Not madness, just the regime exerting control over its population. Showing them who's boss.

Andy_JS said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

Because most people are getting zero per cent and aren't going on strike.

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Madness in China

A chunk of Shanghai has gone back into lockdown: meanwhile…


“China is building hundreds of thousands of permanent coronavirus testing facilities and expanding quarantine centres across many of its biggest cities as part of its zero-Covid policy, despite the economic and human toll on the world’s most populous country”

FT: ££

Not madness, just the regime exerting control over its population. Showing them who's boss.

Politically sane, maybe. MAYBE

Economically and socially crazy

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

Because most people are getting zero per cent and aren't going on strike.

You got zero percent? You lucky bastard. I have to pay to work.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.

Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?

Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.

If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.

Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?

Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.

If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.

The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The rail strikes are the first of many coming down the track (ha) as public sector unions (and, as you point out, the railways, to the extent that they are not back in public ownership are completely dependent on the public teat) flex their strength to try and protect their members from the severe drop in their standard of living caused by inflation. This is a part of the price the government has to pay for the incompetence of the monetary policy committee of the BoE in not only failing to foresee this inflation but also aggravating it by failing to increase interest rates soon enough, weakening Sterling and thus importing yet more inflation as a result.

The government will inevitably have to give way when the NHS staff, teachers and others do the same. Its going to cost a lot of money, something those screaming for a reduction in taxes seem reluctant to acknowledge.

I don't think you can really blame the BoE. Sure they might have done a bit more on interest rates, but the significant decisions which affect fiscal and monetary conditions are very much in the hands of government.

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_xP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Then, there will be no sustainable settlement.

You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.

There are 2 sustainable positions.

We had one. We threw it away.

We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.

Except it wasn't sustainable because a majority of our population voted to leave. They did so because of concerns over unrestricted and high levels of immigration and the political union and federalist vision written into the Lisbon Treaty, neither of which was solved in the "renegotiation".

If you want people to rejoin the EU and to settle the matter once and for all you are going to have to answer that question in a new accession treaty, and/or with changes to the EU's founding treaties, that allows it to give more flexibility to those who don't want to go all in.

Otherwise, even if you won a Rejoin referendum 54%-46% in 2028, say, it would soon become a UK political issue again as people remembered all the things they didn't like about it before and got carried along on the conveyor belt to ever closer union.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

People seem to support the concept of striking until people actually do it then they are opposed. I wonder what sort of strike people would support.

These of course will be the same people that drone on about cancel culture and freedom of speech

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I think we’ll possibly join EFTA or something like it but I think that will be it

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).

Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.

The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).

The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.

Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.

That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.

More than half say we shouldn't have done it.

Farooq said:

Oh God. Dalle-2's renditions of Homer Simpson in various film styles are horrifying:

https://twitter.com/Dalle2Pics/status/1534718838377529344

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.

Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?

Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.

If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.

The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.

algarkirk said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).

Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.

The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).

The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.

Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.

That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.

More than half say we shouldn't have done it.

Which is why you can't run a country by the variableness of opinion polls. When elections and referendums happen everyone knows they are for the long term.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.

Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?

Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.

If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.

The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.

The solution, as with most contexts where the free market can’t work, is some degree of state intervention. This is what we see in nearly every country in the world. Which is why I feel BR’s position is eccentric.

The free market can work. We're constantly told that you can't get a seat, that HS2 needs building as the rails are running at capacity etc

If the railways can't be self-funding despite all that, then perhaps its railways that don't work. Or perhaps staff are being paid too much and customers are not paying enough, because the state is bailing them out and that is distorting the market. End the subsidy and let the staff wages and customers fares come into whatever is the equilibrium.

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The rail strikes are the first of many coming down the track (ha) as public sector unions (and, as you point out, the railways, to the extent that they are not back in public ownership are completely dependent on the public teat) flex their strength to try and protect their members from the severe drop in their standard of living caused by inflation. This is a part of the price the government has to pay for the incompetence of the monetary policy committee of the BoE in not only failing to foresee this inflation but also aggravating it by failing to increase interest rates soon enough, weakening Sterling and thus importing yet more inflation as a result.

The government will inevitably have to give way when the NHS staff, teachers and others do the same. Its going to cost a lot of money, something those screaming for a reduction in taxes seem reluctant to acknowledge.

I don't think you can really blame the BoE. Sure they might have done a bit more on interest rates, but the significant decisions which affect fiscal and monetary conditions are very much in the hands of government.

I am not saying it is exclusively their fault but the Treasury make their decisions in the context of the models and forecasts of the BoE and the OBR and they were both seriously wrong, as many monetarists were pointing out a year ago.

The government should not have been increasing taxes on wages when we were going into an inflation storm. That only increased existing wage pressures. They should have focused on steps to reduce price increases whilst acknowledging that this would only help at the margins.

Pumping all that extra money into the economy to help everyone with fuel bills was like putting petrol on your BBQ. It boosts the quantity of money in circulation. It does nothing to restrain prices. It would have been much better to help those most vulmerable and otherwise reduce the proportion of our fuel bills made up in taxes. Our policies generally are not helping us deal with the very serious problems we have. Our politics is completely dominated by stupid little parties 2 years ago now and the lies told about them. We urgently need a government that is focused on working the problem, not its own survival. An opposition with something to say about this would be a welcome bonus too.

I don't really disagree - just that I place much of the blame with government.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....

Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy.
Rail included;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.

Sandpit said:

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.

If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.

Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.

Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

Management need to do their bloody jobs.

Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.

Government first needs to do its bloody job.

The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.

I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.

But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.

The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.

Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.

I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices.

Aren't we told the railways are in high demand? How often have people complained you can't get a seat? If so, why can it not be self funding?

Railways should find a market equilibrium where their revenues and expenditure matches, which means charging customers whatever it takes to pay the staff.

If you want to pay staff more then great, but your customers have to pay for that. If you want to charge your customers less then great, but you have less revenue for staff wages.

The problem with this is that in most parts of the country one railway company has a complete monopoly so there's no incentive to be price competitive. I need to go to London to work and there's no other way to get there so Thameslink can charge me whatever ridiculous price they like (and they do). I don't know what the solution is but it's deeply frustrating.

The solution is to allow more competition on each line. That brings its own problems, such as peak hour frequency of service for each operator, but it does allow a choice for consumers.

It does happen in a couple of places, for example Lumo on the East Coast line. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58992509

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.

Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.

It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).

Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.

The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).

The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.

Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.

That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.

More than half say we shouldn't have done it.

Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?

I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.

So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016

Theuniondivvie said:

Posted mainly for the gone but not forgotten thing.



https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/1534811876395302914?s=20&t=pHzaLWQx6TduWWZNVPahuQ