Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Well done twh. Was that purely an inflationary rise?tailwindhome said:I don't know. I got 29% so 19% seems modest.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
To be clear, with a monopsonistic labour market where labour wages have been shrinking in real terms for a decade, you think it’s unreasonable to not to accept a real terms pay cut again?!Stevo_666 said:
It would be nice if many peoples salaries (including my own) had kept pace with inflation recently, but you don't always get what you want.rick_chasey said:
What if they were asking for the real wage equivalent of 2010 wages?Stevo_666 said:
It's what they're asking for. Realistic?skyblueamateur said:
😂Stevo_666 said:
I don't pretend to be an expert on market rates for salaries in that sector, unlike some. But just for info, inflation is not 19%skyblueamateur said:
There’s 133,000 vacancies in the NHS. That would suggest the current rate is too low. Above inflation pay rises all round 👍Stevo_666 said:
It's all about market rates. Seems some workers have optimistic ideas about what their market rate is.tailwindhome said:Worth remembering the Tory Party removed the cap on bankers' bonuses, so bankers wouldn't permanently withdraw their labour in search of more money, but plan to change the rules so other worker can't withdraw their labour temporarily in search of more money
Game's rigged
Just for info, I never said inflation was 19%. Can you show me evidence where I did? I said ‘above inflation pay rises’
Happy new year pal 👍
HNY to you too.
(Same thing)
How on earth do you think labour in a monopsonistic market is supposed to get a reasonable wage?
And what about the 130,000 vacancies makes you think health wages are at the optimum, most market efficient, level?
Let’s assume E1 is the optimal number of staff needed to run the NHS properly0 -
The vacancies suggest that a rise is likely needed, but what that rise should be I am not sure as I'm not the expert. So you tell us what you think it should be, remembering that even Labour have said that the requested 19% is not affordable.
Bonus points for using a clever word BTW "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Do you have a vacancy breakdown by region?rick_chasey said:
To be clear, with a monopsonistic labour market where labour wages have been shrinking in real terms for a decade, you think it’s unreasonable to not to accept a real terms pay cut again?!Stevo_666 said:
It would be nice if many peoples salaries (including my own) had kept pace with inflation recently, but you don't always get what you want.rick_chasey said:
What if they were asking for the real wage equivalent of 2010 wages?Stevo_666 said:
It's what they're asking for. Realistic?skyblueamateur said:
😂Stevo_666 said:
I don't pretend to be an expert on market rates for salaries in that sector, unlike some. But just for info, inflation is not 19%skyblueamateur said:
There’s 133,000 vacancies in the NHS. That would suggest the current rate is too low. Above inflation pay rises all round 👍Stevo_666 said:
It's all about market rates. Seems some workers have optimistic ideas about what their market rate is.tailwindhome said:Worth remembering the Tory Party removed the cap on bankers' bonuses, so bankers wouldn't permanently withdraw their labour in search of more money, but plan to change the rules so other worker can't withdraw their labour temporarily in search of more money
Game's rigged
Just for info, I never said inflation was 19%. Can you show me evidence where I did? I said ‘above inflation pay rises’
Happy new year pal 👍
HNY to you too.
(Same thing)
How on earth do you think labour in a monopsonistic market is supposed to get a reasonable wage?
And what about the 130,000 vacancies makes you think health wages are at the optimum, most market efficient, level?
Let’s assume E1 is the optimal number of staff needed to run the NHS properly0 -
Is this in the Labour thread because they have the better approach to it then?Stevo_666 said:The vacancies suggest that a rise is likely needed, but what that rise should be I am not sure as I'm not the expert. So you tell us what you think it should be, remembering that even Labour have said that the requested 19% is not affordable.
Bonus points for using a clever word BTW
There's going to be a higher rise than currently offered, it's not going to be 19%. Why do we need to have more strikes before the government starts talking?0 -
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-vacancies-survey/april-2015---september-2022-experimental-statisticssurrey_commuter said:
Do you have a vacancy breakdown by region?rick_chasey said:
To be clear, with a monopsonistic labour market where labour wages have been shrinking in real terms for a decade, you think it’s unreasonable to not to accept a real terms pay cut again?!Stevo_666 said:
It would be nice if many peoples salaries (including my own) had kept pace with inflation recently, but you don't always get what you want.rick_chasey said:
What if they were asking for the real wage equivalent of 2010 wages?Stevo_666 said:
It's what they're asking for. Realistic?skyblueamateur said:
😂Stevo_666 said:
I don't pretend to be an expert on market rates for salaries in that sector, unlike some. But just for info, inflation is not 19%skyblueamateur said:
There’s 133,000 vacancies in the NHS. That would suggest the current rate is too low. Above inflation pay rises all round 👍Stevo_666 said:
It's all about market rates. Seems some workers have optimistic ideas about what their market rate is.tailwindhome said:Worth remembering the Tory Party removed the cap on bankers' bonuses, so bankers wouldn't permanently withdraw their labour in search of more money, but plan to change the rules so other worker can't withdraw their labour temporarily in search of more money
Game's rigged
Just for info, I never said inflation was 19%. Can you show me evidence where I did? I said ‘above inflation pay rises’
Happy new year pal 👍
HNY to you too.
(Same thing)
How on earth do you think labour in a monopsonistic market is supposed to get a reasonable wage?
And what about the 130,000 vacancies makes you think health wages are at the optimum, most market efficient, level?
Let’s assume E1 is the optimal number of staff needed to run the NHS properly
Might be in there. Can’t see on my phone as they’re spreadies.
The vacancy rate is running around 10% fwiw.0 -
The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We don't have to have more strikes: that is the unions' choice.kingstongraham said:
Is this in the Labour thread because they have the better approach to it then?Stevo_666 said:The vacancies suggest that a rise is likely needed, but what that rise should be I am not sure as I'm not the expert. So you tell us what you think it should be, remembering that even Labour have said that the requested 19% is not affordable.
Bonus points for using a clever word BTW
There's going to be a higher rise than currently offered, it's not going to be 19%. Why do we need to have more strikes before the government starts talking?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?0 -
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree or disagree with the nurses' strikes, the government is choosing not to do anything to pause or stop them. I find that odd.Stevo_666 said:
We don't have to have more strikes: that is the unions' choice.kingstongraham said:
Is this in the Labour thread because they have the better approach to it then?Stevo_666 said:The vacancies suggest that a rise is likely needed, but what that rise should be I am not sure as I'm not the expert. So you tell us what you think it should be, remembering that even Labour have said that the requested 19% is not affordable.
Bonus points for using a clever word BTW
There's going to be a higher rise than currently offered, it's not going to be 19%. Why do we need to have more strikes before the government starts talking?0 -
...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Making an offer on day 1 could well give the impression of weakness and encourage more disruption. That said, the 9% offered looked reasonable to me.rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Possibly part of the negotiation strategy? No point appearing too keen.kingstongraham said:
Agree or disagree with the nurses' strikes, the government is choosing not to do anything to pause or stop them. I find that odd.Stevo_666 said:
We don't have to have more strikes: that is the unions' choice.kingstongraham said:
Is this in the Labour thread because they have the better approach to it then?Stevo_666 said:The vacancies suggest that a rise is likely needed, but what that rise should be I am not sure as I'm not the expert. So you tell us what you think it should be, remembering that even Labour have said that the requested 19% is not affordable.
Bonus points for using a clever word BTW
There's going to be a higher rise than currently offered, it's not going to be 19%. Why do we need to have more strikes before the government starts talking?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
rjsterry said:
...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.0 -
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.0 -
Thatcher also agreed big pay rises too.
Divide and conquer and all that.
Virtually the entire public is behind the NHS staff.
Everyone thinks the train staff treat us all like mugs anyway, so the trains are a different kettle of fish entirely.
We were all clapping etc in 2020 for hospital staff and all felt they were paid too little then. We all remember that.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
Thatcher also agreed big pay rises too.
Divide and conquer and all that.
Virtually the entire public is behind the NHS staff.
Everyone thinks the train staff treat us all like mugs anyway, so the trains are a different kettle of fish entirely.
We were all clapping etc in 2020 for hospital staff and all felt they were paid too little then. We all remember that.
Thatcher prepared the ground well, and (unlike the poll tax) assessed the balance of support she'd get - I suspect even her most ardent political enemies would concede that. Sunak, not surprisingly, hasn't got either of those strengths.0 -
Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.
You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?
The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.
If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.0 -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11588635/amp/The-cruel-inefficient-Tories-betrayed-Mrs-Thatchers-principles-argues-LORD-SAATCHI.html
I fear I may be becoming an old school Tory. I can’t disagree with a lot of that.
The fact that this shill of a Tory party isn’t even pretending to negotiate is playing into the unions hands.
If you offered nurses 9% this annum (not over two years as per Stevos railway workers offer) and they rejected it, public support would fall away quickly.
Not even talking to them just looks like incompetence, not strength0 -
Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.
You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?
The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.
If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
He's the easy one.rick_chasey said:Why the focus on Lynch? There are dozens of other industries with strike actions.
It's the same but opposite reason the focus is equally on nurses.
Ironic that he's the chosen easy target on the Labour thread when he represents a union that is not been affiliated with/was expelled by Labour (depending on your viewpoint).
Link from the newspaper of record about how kindly Lynch views the Labour Party: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/29/rail-unions-consider-leaving-labour-behind-keir-starmer-not/0 -
He's a good enough example.rick_chasey said:Why the focus on Lynch? There are dozens of other industries with strike actions.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Key word is sensible. Making an early offer doesn't show weakness; it shows an interest in resolving the matter quickly, which saves everyone money. Delay always has a cost. You are also in effect saying you are happy for the government to collude in inconveniencing everyone for the sake of some illusory saving.Stevo_666 said:
Making an offer on day 1 could well give the impression of weakness and encourage more disruption. That said, the 9% offered looked reasonable to me.rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.
You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?
The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.
If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The choice to strike is with the unions as I've already said. It sounds like you've bought into the union rhetoric of 'we were forced to strike'.rjsterry said:
Key word is sensible. Making an early offer doesn't show weakness; it shows an interest in resolving the matter quickly, which saves everyone money. Delay always has a cost. You are also in effect saying you are happy for the government to collude in inconveniencing everyone for the sake of some illusory saving.Stevo_666 said:
Making an offer on day 1 could well give the impression of weakness and encourage more disruption. That said, the 9% offered looked reasonable to me.rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What, by giving in?rjsterry said:
Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:...
I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.Stevo_666 said:
Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.rick_chasey said:
When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.Stevo_666 said:The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far
Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?
The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.
Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/
Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.
You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?
The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.
If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
