Ipsos Scotland poll has the SNP winning 56 of the 57 Scottish seats – politicalbetting.com

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.

Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?

He has heard of Margaret Thatcher

I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.

Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.

From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?

If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"

The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.

Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?

But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled.
The free market response would be a big pay rise.

Yes, market forces are only favoured by this government when it suits them.

I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.

What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).

In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.

This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.

That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.

And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.

Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.

Railways use less.

Doesn't that depend.

I suspect that diesel powered locomotives will use an order of magnitude more on a per mile basis, albeit over smaller distances. For an electrically powered train, where solar and wind is providing the electricity is is, of course, far less.

Interesting. The AI totally fails the cognitive reflection test. It gives the intuitive but incorrect answer every time. https://twitter.com/ArthurCDent/status/1599254361657716737/photo/1

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.

What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).

In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.

This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.

That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.

And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.

Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.

What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).

In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.

This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.

That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.

And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.

Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.

To be blunt, I am sceptical that much of it will be exported. I think it unlikely it will compete in price with other local sources on 'the far side of the world.' However, I could be wrong.

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.

What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).

In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.

This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.

That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.

And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.

Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.

Railways use less.

Seems intuitively wrong, because big cargo ships are so freaking big. Internet seems to agree ships are better. e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-much-rail-transport-cleaner-than-ocean-shipping-frank-shao-

Scott_xP said:

Interesting. The AI totally fails the cognitive reflection test. It gives the intuitive but incorrect answer every time. https://twitter.com/ArthurCDent/status/1599254361657716737/photo/1

The ChatGPT AI has been banned from Stack Overflow for producing copious amounts of plausible-sounding bullshit.

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned

Given this tendency, I'd suggest it might be better suited to generating estate agent blurb, football commentary and travel brochure content.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Given this tendency, I'd suggest it might be better suited to generating estate agent blurb, football commentary and travel brochure content.

I can see why Sean is concerned for his livelihood then...

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.

Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?

He has heard of Margaret Thatcher

I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.

Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.

From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?

If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"

The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.

Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?

But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled.
The free market response would be a big pay rise.

Yes, market forces are only favoured by this government when it suits them.

I am surprised that 30% of Tory voters support the Paramedics striking this December. It isn't just the usual suspects that think the government are being unreasonable with their massive real terms pay cuts to public sector workers.

Given inflation was only 2% last year on average even a 4% rise would not normally be unreasonable, however it is the sanctions and restrictions on supply from the Ukraine war which has pushed inflation to an abnormal 10%. Yet while there may be a case for a 6% rise matching the UK average a 10% public sector wage rise will just lead to an inflationary wage spiral while having to be paid for by tax rises on private sector workers

Yes, but it is this year that has 10% inflation, and many public sector workers have had sub-inflation parishes for a decade.

As you agree, the rise in inflation is not caused by workers pay rises but rather by external factors, so any pay award less than inflation is not going to push inflation up.

I see that 10% on benefits and pensions is not considered inflationary. Why should nurses, paramedics and junior doctors get less?

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10926153/RMT-union-chief-Mick-Lynch-insists-striking-rail-workers-deserve-11-pay-rise.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-nurses-pay-rise-strike-minister-chris-heaton-harris-nhs

The other point is it goes far beyond pay.
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.

Peru's president tries to dissolve parliament, is impeached, and then replaced in a day of political drama
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1600607367200182300

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

dixiedean said:

The other point is it goes far beyond pay.
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.

At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10926153/RMT-union-chief-Mick-Lynch-insists-striking-rail-workers-deserve-11-pay-rise.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-nurses-pay-rise-strike-minister-chris-heaton-harris-nhs

Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

There is that balance, sure. And you can add the feelgood people geninely get from doing these jobs well.

But there's an important change I'd make to your comment. The other side of the coin is what is the level which people were willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

Some of it is that the pay squeeze of the last decade and a bit has finally gone from "meh" to "that's not enough to live on". Some of it is the government's blather about wanting a high pay economy. Some of it is random bad luck. One of the big USPs of teaching used to be having holidays that coincided with when the kids were off school. The increase in flexible office-style work means this is less of a bonus than it used to be.

Maybe all the groups of workers who are complaining about the smallness of their pay rises ought to be more grateful for what they are getting. But ultimately, that's not how it works. The government is left with a pretty rubbish choice- pay up for the staff it needs or go without- but to govern is to choose, even when the choices are all rubbish.

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

This is very true. My Mam and Dad retired at 53 and 52 on final salary teacher's pensions.
But this, as well as job security, are increasingly not available to new starters, or anywhere approaching as generous.
Just uncompetitive pay for the equivalent roles in the private sector and lousy working conditions.
Which is why we can't get cover.

DM_Andy said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

I'm not sure your friend had that much annual leave. Maximum leave under current terms and conditions is 33 days + bank holidays. Maybe there was a bit of compressed hours going on? I know of some nurses that work three day weeks by working 12.5 hour shifts.

It’s possible if there was an older contract. I know of at least one academic who refused promotion as it would entail changing to the more normal 35 days plus BH contract (from a much better version).

FeersumEnjineeya said:

ydoethur said:

SandyRentool said:

By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.

What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).

In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.

This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.

That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.

And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.

Apparently, 85% of it is destined for export and so will be moved in highly polluting bulk carriers to a random country, possibly on the far side of the planet. Hard to see how that doesn't increase CO2 emissions.

If our coal exports displace another exporter, there won't be any increase in overall CO2 levels automatically. Also, it is likely that our environmental standards in mining for the coal result in less CO2 in the production of the coal.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Mick Lynch has been campaigning for an 11% payrise for train drivers and workers, above inflation, Dave Ward rejected a 9% payrise for postal workers, nurses want a 17% payrise when inflation is even now 10%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10926153/RMT-union-chief-Mick-Lynch-insists-striking-rail-workers-deserve-11-pay-rise.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-nurses-pay-rise-strike-minister-chris-heaton-harris-nhs

Surely the simple fact that we have a desperate shortage of nurses means that we need to pay them substantially more in order to attract new recruits. That's basic economics, isn't it?

Meanwhile folk are queueing round the block to become hedge fund managers. You could fill all the jobs for a fraction of the pay.

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:

The other point is it goes far beyond pay.
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.

At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?

There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls.
At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall.
Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal then too.

dixiedean said:

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:

The other point is it goes far beyond pay.
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.

At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?

There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls.
At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall.
Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal too.

Cheers. No dinner ladies now? Are there even school dinners?

Scott_xP said:

EXCL: Sunak plans blue light strike ban bill for 2nd week of Jan

Ambulance + fire brought into line with cops and prison guards

Minimum service on transport too - but other sectors added by SI

Thresholds and strike lead time to be dramatically hiked

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20685474/ban-ambulance-drivers-firefighters-striking/

Instead of waving his knob for the benefit of Mail and Express readers, why doesn't Rishi Rich actually do something to try and get a resolution to the disputes?

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

Royal Mail still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Train drivers' pay increased as a result of privatisation. Rather than train new drivers, TOCs preferred to poach drivers from each other.

And most drivers continue to work in the private sector.

Oh. I didn't think to check what type of plane I'd be flying in. It's a 737 Max 8. Are they fixed now, or still well dodgy?

Should I be alright if we make it past the first few minutes?

Nice knowing you all, anyway.

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:

The other point is it goes far beyond pay.
We are taking 10 minute dinner breaks because there just isn't the cover. You can have a butty, a tab or a brew. But not 2 of them. No one is eating anything approaching a meal.
The goodwill is fast draining away.

At the risk of being obtuse - do the kids not have lunch breaks anymore? Surely most staff will be able to have a break at the same time? Or am I being naive?

There used to be lunch supervisors and dinner ladies. And dining halls.
At our place our kids eat in their classroom or the assembly hall.
Supervised by teachers. Who used to eat a meal too.

Cheers. No dinner ladies now? Are there even school dinners?

There are school dinners. But the dinner ladies have been cut back to just 2 serving the food not
supervising.
When we have enough that is.
We went for two weeks with the canteen closed due to lack of staff, so Secondary School pupils got two slices of bread with a slice of ham or cheese for lunch.
Behaviour got worse.

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.

The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.

Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!

https://www.healthjobs.co.uk/blog/the-gp-salary--and--pay-guide/

Hard enough for there to be a GP staffing crisis!

There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

Royal Mail still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

The key words are "older staff".
The benefits of yore aren't available now. Which is why recruitment is tricky.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.

The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.

Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!

https://www.healthjobs.co.uk/blog/the-gp-salary--and--pay-guide/

Hard enough for there to be a GP staffing crisis!

There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:

Not much difference really and any there is mainly due to workload, they still are very well paid at senior level with pensions not available to private sector workers

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.

Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said

LostPassword said:

Oh. I didn't think to check what type of plane I'd be flying in. It's a 737 Max 8. Are they fixed now, or still well dodgy?

Should I be alright if we make it past the first few minutes?

Nice knowing you all, anyway.

Not to worry. The stats are your friend.

On our first flight together, Mrs C was very taken aback to find a book on air crash analysis in the airport bookshop, and me buying it and happily reading it on the flight without even realising the incongruity.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

As a matter of fact we cannot keep admin staff, and it is really impacting on service efficiency.

The exodus of senior doctors is because of the way pension contributions are taxed. Many cannot afford to work full time even if they want to do so.

Oh how hard it is on £98 k a year, plus long holidays and career average earning pensions private sector workers can only dream of!

https://www.healthjobs.co.uk/blog/the-gp-salary--and--pay-guide/

Hard enough for there to be a GP staffing crisis!

There are fewer WTE GPs than there were in 2015 and increasing demand:

FTE is the key there. None of the buggers work full time. That's if they haven't retired already.

Razedabode said:

Sunaks plan to make it harder to strike does bugger all to confront the issue of poor pay, low staff morale and ever increasing vacancies in a sector we need to support

I don’t think the Tories will have the public on their side

The Tories can’t solve the problem. They are the problem.

AND TAKE AWAY THEIR PENSIONS

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.

Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said

No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.

Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said

No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."

Which is correct, it does, older staff still have kept their final salary pensions they got from when it was in the public sector

Northern_Al said:

Just an idle thought.
Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?

1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.

2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

How can a below inflation pay rise, lead to an inflationary spiral?

Ordinary people need to take well-below inflationary pay rises in order for the rich to keep getting inflation-plus increases.

I don't see Sunak demanding that companies keep prices, profits and dividends well below inflation.

Good grief no, that would be 'interfering in the market'.

The market does not apply to labour, obvs.

The other side of the coin is what is the level which people are willing to accept, for the job security and (often tremendous) perks that they've accumulated by working in the public sector.

The edge of the coin is that all public sector employees are paid for by the govt. Which means ballooning debt or rising taxes.

Neither of which are good given we're heading into recession...

I'd like to know what tremendous perks I have accumulated? A lunch break would be nice.

Of course. And when we say 'the public sector' it isn't uniform. But I know someone who just retired from the NHS 2 years ago who was on so much annual holiday (which had grown by a day for every year of service) that he made every week into a 4 day week. And retired with a tremendous pension. From his position in hospital admin.

Similarly, my aunt was in the army and then worked for HMRC. Her pension was not available for someone in the private sector.

Indeed, unless you work in the City of London, are a corporate or commercial lawyer, or work for a big tech firm or are a director or executive of a big company, most workers are better off in the public sector taking account of more final salary pensions, longer holiday entitlements etc too

Yet there is an exodus of staff, and many unfilled vacancies.

Tories really don't like market forces much nowadays.

Is there? I haven't noticed an exodus of public sector admin staff, civil servants, surgeons etc. Nor of train drivers who get well above average salaries, holidays and pensions nor of Royal Mail workers to delivery firms like Amazon which give them fewer perks and time off

Royal Mail isn't puiblic sector. Do keep up.

And there have been great reductions in the public sector and civil service with considerable privatisation.

It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff.

There may have been some reductions in the civil service but Sunak axed plans for further cuts and those still in it get a very good deal

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/civil-service-91000-job-cuts-scrapped-2-pay-cap-looms-sunak-hunt

Not the case for RM. It's defined contribution now. The older staff do have salary based pensions, but from previous years and the terms weere changed in 2008. In any case, the salary based pensions don't accrue any more even for current employees.

Yes, so older staff still have their final salary pensions from pre privatisation as I said

No, you didn't. You clearly implied that RM still has the final salary schemes active and operating and growing. It doesn't, but that spoils your story, doesn't it? I'll cut and paste what you said: "It still has public sector style final salary pensions for many of its older staff."

Which is correct, it does, older staff still have kept their final salary pensions they got from when it was in the public sector

But that's in a historic sense. They don't operate for current emploument. You said "still has."

LostPassword said:

Northern_Al said:

Just an idle thought.
Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?

1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.

2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.

In practice, private sector workers refused a payrise simply leave to a better employer who will pay more. It is one reason that there are so many private sector vacancies.

The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.

LostPassword said:

Northern_Al said:

Just an idle thought.
Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?

1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.

2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.

You have a point on 2. But on your 1., no well-run trades union would allow such victimisation of its members. And regardless, I was recommending private sector workers join a union en masse, so they can't be picked off as you suggest.

MaxPB said:

Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.

I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.

We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.

Not on PB they're not.

MaxPB said:

Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.

I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.

We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.

Or it is a recession purely resulting from a reduction in spending on PPE and Covid tests. Meanwhile BAU for the rest of the economy.

MaxPB said:

Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.

I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.

We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.

I posted already this week that Bath is absolutely rammed this week.

Edit: Must be tired as that is an appalling sentence

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

LostPassword said:

Northern_Al said:

Just an idle thought.
Why don't workers in the private sector who are unhappy with their terms and conditions get organised, join a trade union, and engage in some tough collective bargaining?

1. In the private sector if you make yourself an awkward bugger you will end up losing your job. Sure the law says you shouldn't be victimised for trade union work, but that doesn't butter the parsnips when it happens and you'll have a tough job proving it.

2. In the public sector if you strike then there isn't much risk to your job as a result. The country will still want schools and hospitals. In the private sector if you striker them your employer loses business to companies that don't have strikes and you lose your job because your employer runs out of money.

In practice, private sector workers refused a payrise simply leave to a better employer who will pay more. It is one reason that there are so many private sector vacancies.

The public sector doesn't have that possibility as we are at the mercy of monopoly employers. The only thing we can do is to leave the sector or the country, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.

Yes you do, you can move to the private sector, private hospitals for example or private dentists or private schools

But didn't you claim that public sector benefits were so much better? On that basis all the BUPA nurses should be flocking back to the NHS.

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.

I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.

We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.

Christmas.

No, I've been out around Christmas, this was properly rush out packed and it's been like that in the evenings for weeks. Even Christmas pre-pandemic wasn't like this, Wednesday isn't a particularly big day for Xmas parties either companies tend to pick Thursday or Friday. Even the pub quiz prize was over £200 which means more than 100 people taking part (we won too).

There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.

Well I’m commuting home from London after a Xmas do. I’m not sure Old St is completely representative of the U.K. economy.

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Supposedly the UK is in recession yet there's no sign of it, I'm on the way home and the tube is rush hour packed full of people coming back from Old Street. Standing room only at half ten on a Wednesday. Not seen this in ages and usually only around sporting events rather than people just generally going out.

I wonder whether the ONS and BoE are properly picking up the signals because it's been like this for weeks, people are out there spending. Compared to the last proper recession in 2008 it's completely different, back then you could feel it, people weren't going out, jobs weren't available and people seemed depressed. Today there's none of that, we've still got a general labour shortage, everyone's out having fun and spending money.

We could have a situation where six months after declaring we had a recession in 2022 the ONS quietly revise it away and it turns out there wasn't a recession and we were never really close to one.

Christmas.

No, I've been out around Christmas, this was properly rush out packed and it's been like that in the evenings for weeks. Even Christmas pre-pandemic wasn't like this, Wednesday isn't a particularly big day for Xmas parties either companies tend to pick Thursday or Friday. Even the pub quiz prize was over £200 which means more than 100 people taking part (we won too).

There's still lots of money being spent, but it seems the statistical models assume it won't be.

Well I’m commuting home from London after a Xmas do. I’m not sure Old St is completely representative of the U.K. economy.

It’s not just there though, Bath is exceeding busy this year. Wednesday afternoon is not a normal busy slot on Dec 7th.