Tory new plan for regional pay deals

MolteniArcore said:
Quite right. I'm not sure what this obsession with policy is 2 years out from a GE. It's like the media are hounding Labour for them so they can pick it apart and help the Tories. Starmer & Labour need to keep their heads down for a bit now, let Truss implode and then come up with a sensible policy package that is very much the opposite of what Truss is offering.
Click to expand...
Yup, all seems so very simple. It would have been like Vote leave and every single leave campaigner all saying the same thing, "we're going to have a hard brexit", it wouldn't have got half the votes.

Fight the Tories when we need to, and don't leave ourselves open to attack in the meantime. I don't see much point in trying to stop a fight between two bullies, when there's a fair chance they will just stop scrapping and come after us instead.

In an ideal world we would have population which is more "left" and even a more balanced media, never mind one to the left. In that situation we could list out loads of policies, and people would come over and the press wouldn't have anything to attack, or want to attack it. The problem is that's not the game we're playing.
 
Nero said:
Even more than that too. Mogg said public sector workers get paid because of the private sector.

Mogg also admitted that Government debt is essentially owned to the government so don't worry about it. The Tories in 2010 created a myth of debt because of Labour and people believed it. They implemented austerity because of it and hammered normal people in this country.
Click to expand...
I think we're in uncharted waters at the moment, given how unashamedly brazen the Tories are with their messaging.

Their appallingly self-serving and uncaring ideologies are unmasked and yet far too many people are blind, or equally uncaring.
 
Andy_W said:
I've not read that but my immediate guess is it "might" work in places which are massive, but might make little sense in a small place like England/ UK?

Cost of basic groceries/ fuel/ energy/ imports/ amazon etc don't get any cheaper, no matter where you live in the UK. Housing does, but that's still ludicrously priced anywhere compared to wages (decreasing wages would make this worse). If you drive more people to cities by jacking up wages then it will only jack up the housing market and people would be no better off. You might also get the rich buying up property all over the UK, further screwing up peoples chances of getting on the ladder?

Deprived areas and places a long way from major cities (London etc) don't get the benefit of more things to do, better public transport, better transport links abroad etc. We need to be levelling up these areas, not letting them get further behind.

Some people like city life, some don't, you shouldn't have to force people to them areas.

I think it's understandable that city/ London wages are more, but we shouldn't be widening that gap.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that. At it's heart it's a brazen attempt to save some money and feed the great white elephant which is "the national debt".
 
changingman said:
Isn't this policy suggesting the exact opposite?

I read an article in Havard Business Review a while back and it's the approach Google are going for in the states (hence now being picked up in the UK). Effectively people in less advantageous cities/areas can either accept a real-term reduction in wages reflecting the cost of living in that area or move to an area with a higher cost of living (i.e. NYC, West Coast) for higher pay.
Click to expand...
I think that was actually to do with remote working. Places with HCOL tend to pay more but people were getting those jobs and not living there so these companies obviously know that someone is willing to do that work for less money and if they aren't in the office then why would they be paying them more to be close by. It'll be the same in the UK for London salaries.

There are a few ways this could go:
People in LCOL areas being able to get London salaries to work from home. Normalising property prices across the country as businesses and workers realise that proximity to London isn't important and so can choose to live in cheaper places until everywhere is valued evenly. This would require higher salaries in all regions to compete and because cost of living will go up.

Businesses realise they don't need to pay London prices so drop their salaries. House prices would crash in London where there because there is no benefit from being there. Everywhere else stays the same. Probably cause a big recession when businesses realise that people in Teesside doing that job for cheap can be undercut even further by someone in India.

Businesses require a presence in the office to force people in for no benefit or productivity gain but to justify having an office and to keep management something to do. Artificially driving the regional divide forever.
 
Nano said:
Businesses realise they don't need to pay London prices so drop their salaries. House prices would crash in London where there because there is no benefit from being there. Everywhere else stays the same. Probably cause a big recession when businesses realise that people in Teesside doing that job for cheap can be undercut even further by someone in India.
Click to expand...
I don't think that would cause house prices to crash (much), but it would likely stagnate the market so other places can get closer to catching up. Hopefully demand for rent goes down so all the BTL kings leave.

I suppose that's what I would be targeting in London, putting a very low cap on rents (much less than what a mortgage would be) or a higher tax on them, as we need these properties back into the hands of normal people.

A crash would be good for people looking to get on the ladder but would screw anyone who has got on it recently, as it could wipe their deposit and they end up in negative equity, and possibly unable to move.
 
Yesterday:
Jacob Rees-Mogg
"Anyone who currently works for the civil service will remain on their current terms but new people will be paid the market rate in the area in which they live - and that's quite rightly taking care of taxpayers' money."
He added that "if the government is the highest payer, it then crowds out private sector investment."'
Tax Payers Alliance argues it would help boost economic growth in regions such as the north-east of England and the Midlands by reducing inflated labour costs and thereby encouraging the private sector to invest in these areas.

Today:
Brandon Lewis
"But it was never about, at any point, reducing the pay of the public sector workers who’ve been so brilliant through Covid and the work over the last few years.”
🤔
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I don't like any of them pet. You keep cheering for the bloke in your colours.
Click to expand...

You don't have to like any of them. But which side do you like least, and where would you vote if the vote was today?

You can't always get what you want, and you never will in a system which has ~70m people in it.

My hate for the Tories eclipses any affiliation to any party, so I vote for the party most likely to beat them, for the local seat.

Not voting, or digging at all of them, like they're equal, is effectively sharing a vote with all of them, whether you like it or not, a person doing that is wearing all the colours.
 
Andy_W said:
You don't have to like any of them. But which side do you like least, and where would you vote if the vote was today?

You can't always get what you want, and you never will in a system which has ~70m people in it.

My hate for the Tories eclipses any affiliation to any party, so I vote for the party most likely to beat them, for the local seat.

Not voting, or digging at all of them, like they're equal, is effectively sharing a vote with all of them, whether you like it or not, a person doing that is wearing all the colours.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I don't like either of the Tories. I don't like Boris, but I think the new Tories are worse. They are being elected by a few hundred right wing loons. I'd rather have the bloke who was elected by the British public. As a result of Johnson going we now have a race to the bottom.
I also don't like your chap. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think I'll be voting for him. I think you lot need to stop being so precious about him receiving any criticism. Do you not see the irony about complaining that 19 posts into a Tory bashing thread there should be a post which does not show starmer in an agreeable light. I mean you really don't have to work that hard to see it.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I don't like either of the Tories. I don't like Boris, but I think the new Tories are worse. They are being elected by a few hundred right wing loons. I'd rather have the bloke who was elected by the British public. As a result of Johnson going we now have a race to the bottom.
I also don't like your chap. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think I'll be voting for him. I think you lot need to stop being so precious about him receiving any criticism. Do you not see the irony about complaining that 19 posts into a Tory bashing thread there should be a post which does not show starmer in an agreeable light. I mean you really don't have to work that hard to see it.
Click to expand...
Those not voting against the Tories are and will be the ones who are giving power to these right wing loons. If they didn't win to start with, the right wing loons wouldn't get a say.

I'm not bothered about the criticism, everyone can be criticised for something, but some are more worthy of it than others, depending on what you value the most, and what you dislike the most.

You're applying criticism to a guy who is the Leader of a party who is not in power, and you're applying it equally to those who have been in power for 12 years and 2 of those mentioned will be running the show for the next 2 years or so.

Who will you be voting for, or won't you be bothering?
 
changingman said:
Isn't this policy suggesting the exact opposite?

I read an article in Havard Business Review a while back and it's the approach Google are going for in the states (hence now being picked up in the UK). Effectively people in less advantageous cities/areas can either accept a real-term reduction in wages reflecting the cost of living in that area or move to an area with a higher cost of living (i.e. NYC, West Coast) for higher pay.
Click to expand...

I wasn't clear. That was a regional pay that I felt may be a good idea. The policy is quite atrocious.
 
Andy_W said:
Those not voting against the Tories are and will be the ones who are giving power to these right wing loons. If they didn't win to start with, the right wing loons wouldn't get a say.

I'm not bothered about the criticism, everyone can be criticised for something, but some are more worthy of it than others, depending on what you value the most, and what you dislike the most.

You're applying criticism to a guy who is the Leader of a party who is not in power, and you're applying it equally to those who have been in power for 12 years and 2 of those mentioned will be running the show for the next 2 years or so.

Who will you be voting for, or won't you be bothering?
Click to expand...
Mate it's a throw away comment on a message board. I'm not doling out percentages. It's not even the main thrust of my message. If I want to comment negatively on starmer I will.

I'll be looking at the manifestos but the likelihood is I will be voting green.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I don't like either of the Tories. I don't like Boris, but I think the new Tories are worse. They are being elected by a few hundred right wing loons. I'd rather have the bloke who was elected by the British public. As a result of Johnson going we now have a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...
He was no more elected by the British public than Truss. Both were elected in their constituencies. He was elected leader by the Conservative party as it looks likely she will.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Mate it's a throw away comment on a message board. I'm not doling out percentages. It's not even the main thrust of my message. If I want to comment negatively on starmer I will.

I'll be looking at the manifestos but the likelihood is I will be voting green.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Do Green have a fair chance of winning your seat? It's a fair intention, but I wouldn't do that in my seat, as it wouldn't do anything about putting a dent in the local Tory lead (which is probably quite close now).
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I don't like either of the Tories. I don't like Boris, but I think the new Tories are worse. They are being elected by a few hundred right wing loons. I'd rather have the bloke who was elected by the British public. As a result of Johnson going we now have a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...
25000 people voted for Johnson. 35000 voted for Truss. She has more of a mandate to rule than he does
 
NYboro said:
He was no more elected by the British public than Truss. Both were elected in their constituencies. He was elected leader by the Conservative party as it looks likely she will.
Click to expand...
This argument always baffles me. It's a technicality. It doesn't change my point at all. There's always someone who sticks their hand up at the back. "Actually you're voting for your local MP."

Yes I know....we all know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top