Why I’m betting on a 2022 general election – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.geoffw said:
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?kjh said:
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.0 -
As an example:Pulpstar said:On pay, people earn plenty more in the private sector for the same job in the smoke. I mean my better half has been approached by some London banks with I think ~ 40% over and above what she's earning at the moment but it's not worth moving with the lack of 100% wfh with the little one, and our life in general.
What's the pay difference like atm for the public sector - there must be SOME London weighting ?
https://tinyurl.com/bdzb89v8
At ORR we have adopted hybrid working and we are currently expected to work from our designated office location a minimum of 2 days per week.
London: £42,668 - £46,500
Regional: £38,652- £44,0000 -
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.WhisperingOracle said:
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
0 -
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.0 -
Yes, that's unless he doesn't go off to enjoy a Goldman Sachs life in New York, or the Miami sun.DearPB said:
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.WhisperingOracle said:
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
0 -
If it were original, perhaps.LostPassword said:
I think there's some truth in that. The public are very willing to believe that there is a lot of money wasted in the public sector. No politician has ever suffered by promising to spend money or cut taxes by cutting waste in the public sector.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
And it's a less scary way for most voters to find the money that her previous idea, of simply borrowing it, was.
But 'efficiency cuts' is such a hackneyed trope that I doubt very many will be taken in - and fewer still if the next election is in two years' time.1 -
In that a scenario I can think of another higher profile figure who might think he was favourite. If he wanted it.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
0 -
I remember Sir John Major between November 1990 and April 1992 he felt like he was living in sin with the country.Benpointer said:
Lol. The point I was trying to make to @Richard_Tyndall is that while PM Truss may strictly have a democratic mandate, it won't feel like that.Driver said:
"Leader of the Opposition demands election" is "dog bites man" level. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.Benpointer said:
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
It was ever thus:
"UK Conservative leader urges Brown to call election"
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL031055960 -
And when you pick a highly implausible number ?Sandpit said:
Yep. Pick the highest plausibly correct number, without making a straight lie, and get your opponents talking about the number itself, rather than what it represents.geoffw said:
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?kjh said:
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
And your opponents immediately start talking about what that might actually mean ? As we have.0 -
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.0 -
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.Eabhal said:Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.1 -
And so the 1992 election was us marrying him? EuuughTheScreamingEagles said:
I remember Sir John Major between November 1990 and April 1992 he felt like he was living in sin with the country.Benpointer said:
Lol. The point I was trying to make to @Richard_Tyndall is that while PM Truss may strictly have a democratic mandate, it won't feel like that.Driver said:
"Leader of the Opposition demands election" is "dog bites man" level. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.Benpointer said:
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
It was ever thus:
"UK Conservative leader urges Brown to call election"
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL031055960 -
He’ll be Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, by the middle of September.dixiedean said:
In that a scenario I can think of another higher profile figure who might think he was favourite. If he wanted it.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
0 -
Lying little shitgeoffw said:
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?kjh said:
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
0 -
At the family and friends bash for my son's 18th birthday one of my friends lamented that "those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are".DearPB said:
Without external validation I find it very difficult to tell whether my children are clever or not. My 11 year old seems like a reasonably stupid human while all external feedback suggests he's a very bright 11 year old human.OldKingCole said:
As a parent and grandparent I can assure you that one wishes to be proud of one's children's and grandchildren's achievements. And I am proud to say that I am, but fortunately in this context my children and grandchildren have so far sought academic excellence, although none of our children did so initially; they had experience of life and decided later to become more academic.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Only if you think your offspring are useless, presumably. My kids are all pretty smart and so I would welcome a level playing field.noneoftheabove said:
I think adherence to and practical support for meritocracy decreases significantly when people become parents and further as they become grandparents!OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Which with our age driven politics does create a gap but not specifically driven by left v right.
Of course academic excellence is not the sole criterion for parental pride; our daughter spent a significant amount of her professional time on pro bono work.
I replied of course they would be; in 20 years time they would be holding down well-paid and highly thought of jobs. As indeed they were!0 -
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?DearPB said:
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared that people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."0 -
Muddling through is not likely to be political tactics or strategy in a high profile campaign.kjh said:
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.geoffw said:
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?kjh said:
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
0 -
We’ve been through this. What exactly is Sunak going to do that is “more interesting” than being a Cabinet Minister?DearPB said:
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.WhisperingOracle said:
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
I get that he could earn more money outside politics, but he’s already worth £700m. I get that he could have more “fun” outwith the scrutiny, but he’s a teetotal, happily married Hindu
Being a Cabinet Minister is tough but fascinating work, where you wield real power. And there are lots of perks. And Sunak is quite good at it. Going off to work for HSBC or whatever would be thin gruel in comparison
I accept that if he’s demoted to backbench MP then he’d be off
0 -
Yes, he took us up the aisle.DearPB said:
And so the 1992 election was us marrying him? EuuughTheScreamingEagles said:
I remember Sir John Major between November 1990 and April 1992 he felt like he was living in sin with the country.Benpointer said:
Lol. The point I was trying to make to @Richard_Tyndall is that while PM Truss may strictly have a democratic mandate, it won't feel like that.Driver said:
"Leader of the Opposition demands election" is "dog bites man" level. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.Benpointer said:
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
It was ever thus:
"UK Conservative leader urges Brown to call election"
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL031055961 -
I suppose I meant regional accent, or placeable accentDynamo said:
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?DearPB said:
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.0 -
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.1 -
Sunak now 5/5.3, but the next price lower than 5 (to back) is 4.2.
I wonder if we'll see him get shorter. As it were.1 -
Problem with that argument is that I know nowhere in the public sector that doesn't have difficulty recruiting at the moment.BartholomewRoberts said:
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.Eabhal said:Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
The reason why you don't see it is because they take on the best candidate who appears even if they are crap because the other options are worse....0 -
Toby's pa.bondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
1 -
Also, Toby Young’s fatherbondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.0 -
Only two internets? Why, is she shutting down most of them?CorrectHorseBattery said:We’ve already seen signs that Truss is going to have problems.
She’s announced a policy which doesn’t make any sense and will involve cutting the pay of basically everyone and she thinks two internets can operate in parallel.
There's a plethora of internets running in parallel. See: the 'dark web', Chinese version of the 'web' (good luck getting on a website critical of the CCCP there etc0 -
I think London Allowance is about £4,000. Outer London allowance probably £2000....tlg86 said:
As an example:Pulpstar said:On pay, people earn plenty more in the private sector for the same job in the smoke. I mean my better half has been approached by some London banks with I think ~ 40% over and above what she's earning at the moment but it's not worth moving with the lack of 100% wfh with the little one, and our life in general.
What's the pay difference like atm for the public sector - there must be SOME London weighting ?
https://tinyurl.com/bdzb89v8
At ORR we have adopted hybrid working and we are currently expected to work from our designated office location a minimum of 2 days per week.
London: £42,668 - £46,500
Regional: £38,652- £44,000
Those figures are worse than that but not out of the ordinary...0 -
Accent reduction tutorials are a real thing, at least in PlymouthDynamo said:
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?DearPB said:
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared that people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."0 -
I know it's difficult to hear your own accent, but I don't think Coventry has much of one. Leicester is also very very soft, whereas Brum is just as close and has a very distinct one.Dynamo said:
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?DearPB said:
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."0 -
Flipside is that he would be working under someone who he clearly doesn't respect much and to an agenda he doesn't particularly believe in. That rarely works well in any career.Leon said:
We’ve been through this. What exactly is Sunak going to do that is “more interesting” than being a Cabinet Minister?DearPB said:
Sunak definitely disappears to enjoy life after this.WhisperingOracle said:
Bademoch, Mordaunt and Sunak all still in it for the future, I think. Tugendhat needs a government post first, hence the Truss bootlicking.HYUFD said:
Badenoch would be favourite if she got to the last 2WhisperingOracle said:A 2022 election loss for Truss could see Mordaunt and Sunak returning into contention very quickly.
I get that he could earn more money outside politics, but he’s already worth £700m. I get that he could have more “fun” outwith the scrutiny, but he’s a teetotal, happily married Hindu
Being a Cabinet Minister is tough but fascinating work, where you wield real power. And there are lots of perks. And Sunak is quite good at it. Going off to work for HSBC or whatever would be thin gruel in comparison
I accept that if he’s demoted to backbench MP then he’d be off
I don't think it's good that most politicians reach a crest and then suddenly vanish; people like Clarke, Hague and Milliband are useful to have around. But I can understand why it happens.0 -
And Daniel Dunlop's grandson. (Which is important if you trace the link of wackiness down through Dartington and then read the meritocracy book very carefully).Leon said:
Also, Toby Young’s fatherbondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.2 -
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.0 -
I wasn't suggesting 'muddling through'. The options are:geoffw said:
Muddling through is not likely to be political tactics or strategy in a high profile campaign.kjh said:
I don't know. Politicians always exaggerate so it could just have been normal campaigning and then you get the bonus of the focus is on the amount and not the actual thing and bingo the message is getting across. To be fair whether he meant it or not he is going to take credit for being super sneaky clever isn't he. I suspect having decided to put the number on the bus they had to decide which one and went for the biggest one possible. It then looks like it is going pearshaped when challenged on the number, only to find that the number becomes the distraction and the message is getting through stronger.geoffw said:
Deliberate genius campaign by Cummings of course. This is generally accepted no?kjh said:
Good point. I didn't think of that and yet it is obvious. Do you think it is deliberate? Do you think the £350m was a deliberate ploy or just an exaggeration that ended up with the unintended consequences of working very well for other reasons?geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
I'm going for luck, but I might be being unfair to Cummings.
a) Normal campaign strategy that had an unexpected extra very successful bonus
OR
b) Very sneaky, well thought out, if we do this, then this might happen, and if it does then this might happen, which it did.
b) is either far fetched or very very clever (or spotted happening elsewhere).0 -
Price of WTI Crude has come down to $93 per barrel after shooting up to over $120 a couple of months ago. Weren't there people predicting $150-$160?Pulpstar said:BP being valued at < 80 billion looks cheap to me, seeing as they made 7 billion in a quarter - and well the war isn't going away any time soon.
0 -
Royal College of Nursing: "This is an attack on NHS values and a direct assault on its professionals. "National salaries are key to a national service."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/15544101766434897920 -
So allow localised supply and demand to operate.eek said:
Problem with that argument is that I know nowhere in the public sector that doesn't have difficulty recruiting at the moment.BartholomewRoberts said:
Done well it would do quite the opposite. Part of the problem in the economy is that national pay rates mean that public sector pay is relatively too high in some regions, crowding out investment in the private sector thus depressing the region - while it is relatively too low in London meaning anyone talented would leave to go to the private sector there.Eabhal said:Isn't the public sector pay policy announced by Truss going to overheat London even more, while depressing investment elsewhere?
I'd have thought the "levelling up" agenda would suggest the opposite. It depends whether public sector professionals on decent pay can stimulate a local economy (Treasury to Darlington, for example).
So the sensible thing to do would be to set up regional or even localised pay rates* and then review that the regions are far more cost-efficient than London is so shut down as much public sector in London and move it out to the regions.
* Even regional is too aggregated in my view, but its a small step in the right direction.
The reason why you don't see it is because they take on the best candidate who appears even if they are crap because the other options are worse....
If that means that pay needs to rise by a small amount in one region, but much more in another region, then that is what should happen. Rather than 'meeting in the middle' so you get too high pay in one region, crowding out alternatives and harming the region, and too low pay in another, ending up with nothing but duds.0 -
I had to read this twice, having parsed it as "personal assistant" the first timegeoffw said:
Toby's pa.bondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
2 -
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
0 -
I do wonder, if it was listed in New York rather than London though would the value be perhaps 300 billion or so ?FrankBooth said:
Price of WTI Crude has come down to $93 per barrel after shooting up to over $120 a couple of months ago. Weren't there people predicting $150-$160?Pulpstar said:BP being valued at < 80 billion looks cheap to me, seeing as they made 7 billion in a quarter - and well the war isn't going away any time soon.
1 -
However you speak, you use a certain set of pronunciations and that is your accent. It's just as much an accent as anyone else's accent. There is no "ideal English" that has no accent.Pulpstar said:
I know it's difficult to hear your own accent, but I don't think Coventry has much of one. Leicester is also very very soft, whereas Brum is just as close and has a very distinct one.Dynamo said:
I wonder how you speak at all without an accent. Never fails to amaze me how people think for example the queen doesn't speak in an accent or a dialect. Accents and dialects are for peasants and provincials only?DearPB said:
As a Northener who has worked hard to lose any accent even I found that (I assume) unintentionally hilarious!HYUFD said:
There is nothing wrong with learning to speak with received pronunciation, indeed that can be a form of meritocracy itselfOnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Perhaps there should be a finishing school in Kensington somewhere. "Just got a well-paid job but scared people might guess where you're from? We'll help you file off your rough edges."2 -
Story starting to turn towards Liz, if she’s enraging the Unions.Scott_xP said:Royal College of Nursing: "This is an attack on NHS values and a direct assault on its professionals. "National salaries are key to a national service."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/15544101766434897920 -
Wonder why Sunak has gone from 12 to 5 over the last 48 hours.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-23789610 -
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.0 -
The "Unions" are not all seen the same by the public. Pissing off nurses is not as electorally successful as pissing off Tube drivers or bankers.Sandpit said:
Story starting to turn towards Liz, if she’s enraging the Unions.Scott_xP said:Royal College of Nursing: "This is an attack on NHS values and a direct assault on its professionals. "National salaries are key to a national service."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/15544101766434897921 -
He sacrificed Edwina for the top job so why not.DearPB said:
And so the 1992 election was us marrying him? EuuughTheScreamingEagles said:
I remember Sir John Major between November 1990 and April 1992 he felt like he was living in sin with the country.Benpointer said:
Lol. The point I was trying to make to @Richard_Tyndall is that while PM Truss may strictly have a democratic mandate, it won't feel like that.Driver said:
"Leader of the Opposition demands election" is "dog bites man" level. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.Benpointer said:
By the letter you are right; in spirit you are wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:The second to last paragraph of this thread header is very misleading and OGH should know better than to promote such myths. Democratic legitimacy has always derived from the election of MPs not from who they choose to be Prime Minister. If they are not happy with her then they can vote her down and choose someone else. No General Election is necessary.
It was ever thus:
"UK Conservative leader urges Brown to call election"
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL03105596
His 14 million votes makes him the greatest political casanova we've ever had.0 -
As I said, national pay makes it incredibly clunky to do presently because it is so inflexible.eek said:
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
Localised pay would be able to be far more flexible and reactive.0 -
I don’t know where to start… have you compared their respective curricula?HYUFD said:
Comprehensives that are not outstanding are little different to Secondary moderns yesSimon_Peach said:
@HYUFD assertion that good comprehensives are de facto Secondary Modern schools illustrates his woeful ignorance of the education system… one hopes that he has no responsibility for children's services in his council role…kjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.1 -
But you've missed the point - even round here the national pay levels are so dire junior roles are hard to fill...BartholomewRoberts said:
As I said, national pay makes it incredibly clunky to do presently because it is so inflexible.eek said:
Can you give me one example anywhere in the UK where that occurs.BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
Even round here the new Treasury / Civil Service hub is having difficulty recruiting for the junior roles - because other places pay more...
Localised pay would be able to be far more flexible and reactive.
Senior ones are less so but that's because people are trading interesting work for less money...0 -
Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).0
-
Has the hand grenade blown up already
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/15544124128911769601 -
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.1 -
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
While there may seem to be money to save here - that money was already grabbed by Cameron and co between 2010 and 2015. public sector wages are way lower than they were in 2010...2 -
A man who was quite prepared to use his connections to get his son into a university for which he was not qualified!Driver said:
I had to read this twice, having parsed it as "personal assistant" the first timegeoffw said:
Toby's pa.bondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.0 -
That's interesting - I wouldn't regard meritocracy as inherently left-wing. Any more than I would think of paternalism / elitism as inherently of the right.bondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Two children of Michael Young are Toby Young and the Open University. Which highlight the cross-currents. Personally I view Thatcher as in some ways a meritocrat overthrowing several elitist establishments - one of the right, and another of the left. Others will differ.
To me one of the roots of the paternalistic left is Fabian, which had a good deal of input from enthusiasts for eugenics - very elitist and claiming the right to make judgements on others. Which have ironically been used in attempts to demonise Toby Young himself.
I'm far more comfortable with social reform programmes of the left underpinned by Christian Socialist values, and voluntarism as promoted by the likes of Lord Mawson in the Blair period - who cut his teeth at the Bromley by Bow Centre.
0 -
All the more reason for localised pay rates then. Increase pay by enough to fill those roles, and only those roles.eek said:
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
And perhaps shortages for masses of new junior economists etc in Darlington may not be the same as every other sector. A whole new campus setting up there is unrepresentative of the economy as a whole, as qualified people haven't been heading to Darlington as a first thought in the past.0 -
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.Andy_JS said:Wonder why Sunak has gone from 12 to 5 over the last 48 hours.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
Regional pay = T May care policy0 -
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
0 -
Promoted also by the likes of Clement Attlee!MattW said:
That's interesting - I wouldn't regard meritocracy as inherently left-wing. Any more than I would think of paternalism / elitism as inherently of the right.bondegezou said:
The term "meritocracy" was introduced to modern political parlance by Michael Young, a leftist, in his 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", but he used the term in a condemnatory sense, the book describing a dystopian future.OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Two children of Michael Young are Toby Young and the Open University. Which highlight the cross-currents. Personally I view Thatcher as in some ways a meritocrat overthrowing several elitist establishments - one of the right, and another of the left. Others will differ.
To me the roots of the paternalistic left are Fabian, which had a good deal of input from enthusiasts for eugenics. Which have ironically been used in attempts to demonise Toby Young himself.
I'm far more comfortable with social reform programmes of the left underpinned by Christian Socialist values, and voluntarism as promoted by the likes of Lord Mawson in the Blair period - who cut his teeth at the Bromley by Bow Centre.0 -
Not all schools are academies though, are they?eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
And indeed perhaps academies not being subject to national pay rates may have shown the existing national pay rates up which is why national pay rates are being changed? I don't know, just a thought.
If you're worried about an inability to fill vacancies that's all the more justification in local pay rates being more flexible until the vacancies are filled. Changing national pay rates is using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.0 -
That wasn't the jobs I was looking at or thinking of.BartholomewRoberts said:
All the more reason for localised pay rates then. Increase pay by enough to fill those roles, and only those roles.eek said:
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
And perhaps shortages for masses of new junior economists etc in Darlington may not be the same as every other sector. A whole new campus setting up there is unrepresentative of the economy as a whole, as qualified people haven't been heading to Darlington as a first thought in the past.
One department recently recruiting was the admin side of the sanctions regime.
When you pay less than Student Loans does you have a problem....0 -
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/government-to-set-2030-target-for-all-schools-to-become-academies/BartholomewRoberts said:
Not all schools are academies though, are they?eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
And indeed perhaps academies not being subject to national pay rates may have shown the existing national pay rates up which is why national pay rates are being changed? I don't know, just a thought.
If you're worried about an inability to fill vacancies that's all the more justification in local pay rates being more flexible until the vacancies are filled. Changing national pay rates is using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.1 -
The Govt has increased new teacher pay by less than inflation. In other words, a real terms pay cut. They haven't cut new teacher pay as much as they're cutting older teacher pay. They've taken years to get even to this stage.BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
National pay rates and central bargaining give public sector workers a modicum of security in the face of politicised actions by Governments that have nothing to do with market forces. Public sector pay is politicised because it's public sector money. Local pay rates aren't going to change that. Governments will still want to cut taxes.0 -
Not quite everyone. But levelling down the North and Midlands through regional wage cuts is a gift to Labour. Yes, she's going to have problems.CorrectHorseBattery said:We’ve already seen signs that Truss is going to have problems.
She’s announced a policy which doesn’t make any sense and will involve cutting the pay of basically everyone and she thinks two internets can operate in parallel.0 -
Yes and no.eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...0 -
Pelosi’s plane taking a very circuitous route, avoiding flying in international waters as much as possible. She’s going to go all the way up the Philippines, maybe even with another tech stop, before jumping across to Taiwan.1
-
How's that side of a bus strategy going ?
Liz Truss’s plans to cut public sector pay leave Tory mayor ‘speechless’
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/02/rees-mogg-denies-truss-plans-cut-public-sector-pay-outside-london0 -
So obviously this. It is Truss' first big error - will be an interesting test to see him long it takes to rectify. One day's bad press eminently survivable but letting it rumble. . . https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/15544079117864386570
-
Has Liz Truss just committed the most epic act of political suicide since Keith Joseph advocated eugenics at the start of his leadership campaign against Ted Heath?0
-
My working assumption is that if Truss is making news, that's not good for her.IshmaelZ said:
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.Andy_JS said:Wonder why Sunak has gone from 12 to 5 over the last 48 hours.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
Regional pay = T May care policy
She's ahead, she should be trying to avoid saying anything that might make people change their minds about her.1 -
Rishi ally: “This is becoming Dementia Tax moment for Liz. Colleagues are apoplectic”.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/15544148466318786570 -
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.Stuartinromford said:
Yes and no.eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.0 -
Another example of Team Truss masterful communications strategy.
...Rees-Mogg admitted he was wrong to say there would be no delays at the port of Dover caused by the UK leaving the EU.
In a radio interview with LBC, he said:
"Yes, of course I got it wrong, but I got it wrong for the right reason, if I may put it that way..."1 -
Aye, sadly I expect a u-turn or this to blow up her campaign, despite it being completely the right thing to do.rkrkrk said:
My working assumption is that if Truss is making news, that's not good for her.IshmaelZ said:
Truss deeply stupid last night. Success going to her head, plus she thinks she is speaking to the Tory membership *behind closed doors.* Really got the impression she thought the Internet doesn't reach as far West as Exeter and she could say what she liked.Andy_JS said:Wonder why Sunak has gone from 12 to 5 over the last 48 hours.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
Regional pay = T May care policy
She's ahead, she should be trying to avoid saying anything that might make people change their minds about her.0 -
It seems unlikely this regional pay idea is a "gaffe" or error, because Liz Truss was pushing the same idea in 2018 as Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or so the Telegraph reported at the time) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/21/blanket-public-sector-pay-rises-will-come-end-treasury-tells/0
-
Mr. xP, while the view of (presumably Parliamentary) colleagues matters, the real key is whether this alters Conservatives members' votes.
It might.
Or they might still have the 'betrayal' dislike of Sunak.0 -
In my constituency we pay extra to attract NHS staff, despite having some of the lowest average wages in the UK. Regional pay would mean longer waiting lists for surgery, longer waits at A&E....
https://twitter.com/mattwarman/status/15544110657604321280 -
Lefty journalists try to stoke up tory division latest.Scott_xP said:Has the hand grenade blown up already
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
Its obvious who the left want to lead the tories and why.0 -
Has Liz Truss announced yet how much a Norfolk MP will be paid compared to, say, a London MP?3
-
She should have stuck to “sacking all the diversity officers”0
-
You're right, its not an error, its the right thing to do.Scott_xP said:It seems unlikely this regional pay idea is a "gaffe" or error, because Liz Truss was pushing the same idea in 2018 as Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or so the Telegraph reported at the time) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/21/blanket-public-sector-pay-rises-will-come-end-treasury-tells/
It might be poor politics though. But its not an error.0 -
I'm not sure a promise to cut people's pay based on where they live will survive first contact with focus groups, let alone reality.
https://twitter.com/ChrisClarksonMP/status/15543978288768491540 -
Rayner: “If Liz Truss is handed the keys to Number 10, workers outside the M25 will see their pay levelled down as she kicks out the ladder. The Conservatives’ commitment to levelling up is dead on arrival with Lightweight Liz as Prime Minister."
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/15544172189847470090 -
Afraid so. I’m currently looking at a new role because my pay is awful compared to the private sector. I think this is worse than pitched because living costs in some cities (like Bristol, Edinburgh, increasingly Manchester) are nearly as high as London but don’t command London rate as it is. Then comes the obvious question: Are you proposing to cut existing pay rates or skew pay rises towards London? Both have awful optics.eek said:
But see my previous point - public sector pay is currently so bad few people want it anyway.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roberts, localised pay might be more flexible but it would necessarily lead to everywhere outside London offering less for the same jobs (to a greater extent than is currently the case).
While there may seem to be money to save here - that money was already grabbed by Cameron and co between 2010 and 2015. public sector wages are way lower than they were in 2010...
Badenoch had a much better right-wing message. Smaller state done and funded well. Not my political cup of tea but certainly more coherent.
1 -
Sunak currently 4.7/5.2, Betfair.
Edited extra bit: Now 4.3.0 -
Doubt this is the vision of ‘hope’
@PennyMordaunt spoke about yesterday…
Hope for Northerners pay being cut?
@trussliz needs to row back from this policy urgently.
https://twitter.com/JacobYoungMP/status/15543948771018547230 -
Good luck running an English department or even the rest of the school as all the teachers head off to other schools paying the national rates..BartholomewRoberts said:
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.Stuartinromford said:
Yes and no.eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
I've seen that attempt play out once - the end result was special measures within a year...1 -
Cabinet allies of Truss currently phoning Tory MPs saying the policy is going to be ditched. Fine. But why not just say it publicly.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/15544170161986355220 -
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.Nigelb said:I'm not sure a promise to cut people's pay based on where they live will survive first contact with focus groups, let alone reality.
https://twitter.com/ChrisClarksonMP/status/15543978288768491540 -
"those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are"OldKingCole said:
At the family and friends bash for my son's 18th birthday one of my friends lamented that "those young men and women won't be the men and women that we are".DearPB said:
Without external validation I find it very difficult to tell whether my children are clever or not. My 11 year old seems like a reasonably stupid human while all external feedback suggests he's a very bright 11 year old human.OldKingCole said:
As a parent and grandparent I can assure you that one wishes to be proud of one's children's and grandchildren's achievements. And I am proud to say that I am, but fortunately in this context my children and grandchildren have so far sought academic excellence, although none of our children did so initially; they had experience of life and decided later to become more academic.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Only if you think your offspring are useless, presumably. My kids are all pretty smart and so I would welcome a level playing field.noneoftheabove said:
I think adherence to and practical support for meritocracy decreases significantly when people become parents and further as they become grandparents!OnlyLivingBoy said:
One thing from that thread that I did think was interesting was that when I asserted that people should be judged by what they said and did not how they talked or who they knew, HYUFD said that that was typical leftist sentiment. I was kind of surprised by that response, because I thought I had expressed a fairly uncontroversial view that would be shared by most people across the political spectrum. Can PB Tories and rightists weigh in on this - is meritocracy an inherently left wing idea?kjh said:
Point taken. Please note my subsequent comment was made before I saw your post. My anger was not so much about the Grammar school debate, but hyufd's completely unnecessary rudeness on the last thread which made me respond.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Sometimes it is best to let previous threads die. Otherwise we end up with ongoing feuds, and it is not as if there is much more to say about grammar schools, and even if there is, the subject will recur organically in due course.kjh said:
You really do set yourself up sometimes @Leon don't you? Remember what you said to me the other day when I replied to a post you made to @kinabalu - You said I'm not talking to you. Well actually you said a lot more than that. Pot and kettle? Of course being an open forum I welcome all responses but a few more words might be useful..Leon said:
Whatevskjh said:
FPT (as usual I have been posting to an old thread when a new one is up and running)
@Mexicanpete said in response to @hyufd:
'Your last paragraph is not my experience. Nonetheless, let's assume you are right and I am wrong and a handful of council house kids hit the jackpot. Robert has made the excellent point that the 80% who fail the 11 plus could be subsequently lumbered with a sub standard education. That doesn't seem like value for money on anyone's metric.'
I made the same point in an earlier post and @hyufd's reply was that he didn't care. Those 75% of kids whether they go to a Comp or Secondary will end up in the same (presumably dead end) jobs. Very harsh. I also agree with you that it is not my experience that under-privileged kids get through to Grammars in any numbers anyway.
He also takes my success of getting to Uni as proof that Secondary schools work. He doesn't understand that I succeeded despite of it not because of it and there will always be these cases.
Also note the snide comments at the end of his comment to me. 'ego of self professed maths genius to match'. Completely uncalled for in a civilised discussion because I was showing how the 11 plus failed people. I had not been rude to him. It is as if he does not like the fact that someone from a status below him has been successful. @Richard_Tyndall made a comment sometime ago along the lines of him being in awe of power and dismissive of those without it. This certainly rings true. Knock back Catalans and Scots but give way to the IRA; admiration for dictators; admiration for the landed gentry, lawyers and doctors and Oxbridge and Russell Group Unis; dismissive of Secondary school kids and Comprehensives, but admire Grammar schools. The list goes on.
I guess we shouldn't try and aspire to get above our station. Does he really care for those poor kids who he says get into Grammar schools or is it just a cover to keep the plebs down.
Which with our age driven politics does create a gap but not specifically driven by left v right.
Of course academic excellence is not the sole criterion for parental pride; our daughter spent a significant amount of her professional time on pro bono work.
I replied of course they would be; in 20 years time they would be holding down well-paid and highly thought of jobs. As indeed they were!
They won't.
They will be better.
"I'll call my article," meditated the war correspondent, "'Mankind versus Ironmongery,' and quote the old boy at the beginning."
And he was much too good a journalist to spoil his contrast by remarking that the half-dozen comparatively slender young men in blue pajamas who were standing about their victorious land ironclad, drinking coffee and eating biscuits, had also in their eyes and carriage something not altogether degraded below the level of a man.
1 -
This is a terrible idea and would be hugely damaging to public services in Cornwall where we already struggle to recruit NHS staff.
https://twitter.com/stevedouble/status/15543921324835184640 -
As did Harriet Harman:Scott_xP said:It seems unlikely this regional pay idea is a "gaffe" or error, because Liz Truss was pushing the same idea in 2018 as Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or so the Telegraph reported at the time) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/21/blanket-public-sector-pay-rises-will-come-end-treasury-tells/
3 -
Which brings us back full circle to why there should not be national pay rates.eek said:
Good luck running an English department or even the rest of the school as all the teachers head off to other schools paying the national rates..BartholomewRoberts said:
All the more reason for localised, even individualised, pay rates.Stuartinromford said:
Yes and no.eek said:
Um, academies are not subject to national pay rates - if they wish to pay more they can (in a way other schools can't)BartholomewRoberts said:
@ydoethur has been talking about a teacher shortage, especially new teachers, and the government has just increased new teacher pay by more than other national pay rates are changing in response to that.bondegezou said:
If there's one thing the Conservative Government doesn't do, it's pay more in the public sector when there's a need to do so to attract people. When has a Tory PM's first reaction to shortages in public sector staffing ever been to increase pay?BartholomewRoberts said:
If you need to pay more to attract people in one locale or region then that would justify paying more to attract them in that locale or region. That's precisely why there should be localised pay rates.Cyclefree said:
It'll be GPs, nurses, care workers, dustmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, ambulance workers, paramedics, teachers, teaching assistants etc which will need to go if those sort of savings are to be made. It is absurd.geoffw said:£8b of savings looks to me like £350m on the side of a bus. The ingenuous focus their ire on the numbers, implicitly conceding the point about cutting diversity officers etc.
There are shortages of all such people at the moment. We need to pay more to attract and retain them.
Those who these sorts of cuts will hurt most are Tory voters - the old. Good luck trying to use the money saved in a tax cut to pay for an ambulance to take you to an overcrowded hospital tens of miles away.
Crowding out private sector investment in the regions by ensuring everyone talented does basic public sector work instead of investing in the private sector isn't a successful model that is working.
If you're going to treat public sector pay the same way as private sector pay, fine, but do so properly. A system that treats pay as a political football rather than as something set by the market has to offer something else instead to compensate.
The problem is though if you're going with national pay rates it will always be far more politicised and sclerotic than it should be. A small business can be affected by local supply and demand and set the pay rate at an individual level but national pay scales are always going to be dominated more by political whims than supply and demand. Only once supply and demand starts affecting politics will it be responsive.
The more localised it gets, the more responsive it can be.
A lot of academies stick to the national rates, because it's a recruitment selling point. A lot of people put quite a bit of value on not having to negotiate their pay rise individually, even if it means they are paid less.
More significantly, the funding the school gets doesn't change, so the total budget is still limited. One of the things coming down the track is the gap between the teacher pay rise that was announced recently and the cash schools are getting.
Watch for who the next PM makes EdSec. It will be a rival they want to destroy...
If a school has eg a shortage of Maths teachers, but an abundance of applicants to be English teachers, then the logical thing to do would be to increase the pay offered to those qualified to teach maths while freezing the pay of those qualified to teach English.
Central bargaining is the worst possible system for filling vacancies as it leads to a lowest common denominator system where either some roles will be uncompetitive, or some roles will be paid too much and money wasted. Most likely, both at the same time.
I've seen that attempt play out once - the end result was special measures within a year...
Of course you can't realistically undercut national pay rates if they exist.
All roads lead back to the same thing. If you want pay rates to react flexibly to fill vacancies, rather than being set by politics, then they need to be localised, even individualised. Collective bargaining prevents flexible pay rates.0 -
Sounds like Liz has had her own Theresa May 'Death Tax' moment. Bizarre. All she had to do was count the days down.0
-
Politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they're lies or not. The key is what people believe.Sandpit said:
She specifically said she has no intention of cutting anyone’s pay. More lies from Team Sunak.Nigelb said:I'm not sure a promise to cut people's pay based on where they live will survive first contact with focus groups, let alone reality.
https://twitter.com/ChrisClarksonMP/status/1554397828876849154
May's 'dementia tax' was nothing of the kind. But it was still politically devastating once the narrative that it was took hold.0 -
The tweets I just posted were all from Tory MPs.MISTY said:
Lefty journalists try to stoke up tory division latest.Scott_xP said:Has the hand grenade blown up already
Tory MPs starting to round on Truss and plans for public sector pay cuts outside London, including Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen and red wall MPs Jacob Young and Ric Holden. Others in south west also expressing alarm, including Steve Double and Selaine Saxby.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554412412891176960
Its obvious who the left want to lead the tories and why.
Side of the bus... !0 -
Team Rishi have a point, Labour is having a whale of a time with Truss’s plan 👇 https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1554418194365939714/photo/10
-
Truss might get lucky, and the news caravan moves on
“Channel Migrants: New daily high for 2022 set on Monday”
~700 in a day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62392898
0 -
Liz Truss is so shit, if she was a band she’d be Radiohead.1
-
I think the public understand the general sense of fairness. It won’t matter who’s saying it - the policy is crapbondegezou said:
The "Unions" are not all seen the same by the public. Pissing off nurses is not as electorally successful as pissing off Tube drivers or bankers.Sandpit said:
Story starting to turn towards Liz, if she’s enraging the Unions.Scott_xP said:Royal College of Nursing: "This is an attack on NHS values and a direct assault on its professionals. "National salaries are key to a national service."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1554410176643489792
1
