Starmer sacks shadow transport minister for appearing on picket line

Nano

Well-known member
I was on about above inflation pay rises, not inflation matching pay rises from 2010 to 2019. I'm 100% for making up those public sector wages to match standard inflation, along with everyone else who didn't get that either in the private sector (especially those worse off). The only thing I'm concerned with is if Labour could afford to do that (I'm not saying they can't, but I'd like to see how they could), as they would be budgeting for Tory budget issues. They might have a 15 year Tory debt/ problem to make up, which is probably not possible in one term. It might be looking too far ahead but trying to do something too quickly could just lead to a loss in 2030 or whatever, and we end up with another 10-15 years of the Tories. 5 years of gain for 15 of pain isn't a great long term deal.

We had over 10 years with Labour (under Blair, who most of the anti Starmer lot also seemed to hate) on the early part of the graph below, where wages were averaging 2% above inflation. I'd like to go back to that, and we had decent growth then too.

The problem is a recession comes at a price, and is always going to recoup some of those previous gains (see 2010-2015 below), and a recession will always come at a cost to the public sector and private sector, just like a period of boom should benefit both.
Voting in the Tories will always come at a price, sometimes one which is unrecoverable short term. The Tories don't give out enough to the worse off in times of growth (especially to the public sector), and just don't give enough (to the worse off) in the bad times either.

View attachment 42254



I think 99% of us are hoping inflation drops, it's the number one problem for the UK at the minute, and as much as I hate to say it, the Tories and Labour need to get on the same page with how best to tackle that

I just think we need to be realistic, we need to realise there was a cost for the 2010 recession (which wasn't fully paid), a cost for Brexit, a cost for Covid, a cost for this war/ energy war/ inflation and a cost for having the Tories in for 15 years. We're not going to get out of that scot free, not by a long shot.
I just don't see how anyone could recover that in one term, and everyone's going to pay a price for that. With the Tories, the worse off will foot most of that cost, under Labour (with anyone in charge) it would be far more balanced.

Even under Labour wages would not have matched inflation (across the board) from 2010-2015, but it could be seen as just to be off-setting that against 2000-2010 gains. I think Labour could have largely made that up that loss though, in 2015-2019, had they been in power. I don't think anyone can match the current 10% inflation, and that's going to take years to claw back.

Inflation is normally around 2%, so I suppose the long term answer is to aim for 2% above that, to pay for previous losses. But there needs to be a limit or the yearly/ 5 year budget won't work, or you end up losing power. So like now, where we have 10% v 3% or whatever it is, that's another 7% to claw back, an top of the 10% or so the public sector lost. That 17% could take 8 years to claw back, if wages were at like 4% growth and inflation 2%.
Every year you don't have an inflation matching raise means you need an above inflation raise to bring you back in line so they are essentially the same thing over the long term. Matching standard inflation for public sector wages is meaningless if you only do it every now and again. It has to be every year as a minimum otherwise you are supporting paycuts. Salary for my role is 17% higher than it was 10 years ago. Inflation is 35% higher. I would need an 18% increase this year to get back to level and that doesn't include all of the money I have lost over those 10 years from not having inflation matching raises. That's on top of the changes they have made to the payscales and pensions in that time which have taken more money off us.

Your graph is the economy as a whole which is driven by market forces. Public sector pay is very different because politicians make the decision. Labour complain every year when the Tories don't match inflation but they have made no noise about restoration if they get power. At best they will match inflation in the future but I will never get the 18% I've already lost.

Your comments about there being a cost is as Tory as it gets. Why does the cost always have to be paid by the public sector? Surely you can recognise that it is grossly unfair to always expect public sector wages to be on a permanent decline. We're not asking for inflation matching this year because we're hard done by this once. It has been the same every year for over a decade. We've had years where inflation barely went past 1% and they still couldn't give us the full amount. Even if Labour don't offer us all those lost years back the minimum they should be doing is making the case for linking public sector wages to inflation so we will automatically not be shafted every year.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
There is no half time or full time or kick off.
Ok, try half term, or pre-election, you know what I meant, don't pretend you don't.

The polls mean less than f*ck all.

You keep talking about adapting to the situation 🤣 I don't know what you think is changing. Starmer hasn't gone from saying nationalise utilities to backing the status quo cause of some exciting new info he's only just heard about. Get real. It's very simple. He lied to con Labour members into voting for him as leader. From the moment he got in he no longer needed to maintain those lies.
Strange, you were saying the polls mattered a lot back in 2021, when the Tories were polling high with the vaccine rollout? Which way is it?
You're all for the polls when they suit your narrative, and against them when they're not, maybe be consistent?

To me the polls matter, even more so when one is clearly ahead of the other, and there's a visible trend over time.

If Labour start to poll badly, then I'll be happy to acknowledge it. Like I keep saying, the polls will probably change direction with the new Tory leader and if/ when inflation starts to drop, Labour just need to do something to stay ahead. If things start to pick up, then I'd expect Labour would be offering more, as the situation would likely dictate that they could.

You keep talking about adapting to the situation 🤣 I don't know what you think is changing.
The economic situation is changing, has changed a lot, and is hard to predict short term (especially with the war on). Not sure why you think this doesn't matter?
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Every year you don't have an inflation matching raise means you need an above inflation raise to bring you back in line so they are essentially the same thing over the long term. Matching standard inflation for public sector wages is meaningless if you only do it every now and again. It has to be every year as a minimum otherwise you are supporting paycuts. Salary for my role is 17% higher than it was 10 years ago. Inflation is 35% higher. I would need an 18% increase this year to get back to level and that doesn't include all of the money I have lost over those 10 years from not having inflation matching raises. That's on top of the changes they have made to the payscales and pensions in that time which have taken more money off us.

Your graph is the economy as a whole which is driven by market forces. Public sector pay is very different because politicians make the decision. Labour complain every year when the Tories don't match inflation but they have made no noise about restoration if they get power. At best they will match inflation in the future but I will never get the 18% I've already lost.

Your comments about there being a cost is as Tory as it gets. Why does the cost always have to be paid by the public sector? Surely you can recognise that it is grossly unfair to always expect public sector wages to be on a permanent decline. We're not asking for inflation matching this year because we're hard done by this once. It has been the same every year for over a decade. We've had years where inflation barely went past 1% and they still couldn't give us the full amount. Even if Labour don't offer us all those lost years back the minimum they should be doing is making the case for linking public sector wages to inflation so we will automatically not be shafted every year.
Yeah, of course, totally understand that, was just being simplistic, it's like compound interest (or compound loss, so to speak), there's a lot of catching up to do.

Totally agree that the public sector get shafted more than the private sector, under the Tories, and under labour it's a hell of a lot more balanced. Like I say, recovering what will be 15 years of losses under the Tories is going to be exceptionally hard to do, which is why I don't get why some of the public sector vote tory (albeit I don't think I know any that do or would now, I know a few who did in 2010/2015).

I said there will to be a cost of the Tories, the UK voting for them for the last 4 elections is the problem, it's not me voting for them, I vote against them.
Everyone should gain in a boom, but equally everyone should expect a hit in a recession, if it's balanced (it's not balanced, it favours the rich). There should be far more gains than losses, over time.
Under the Tories that is not going to be balanced, in either case, and under Labour it would be more balanced, like it was when they were last in power. I don't think it's a lot to ask for public sector wages to match inflation long term, the same way I don't think it's a lot to ask that those worse off in the private sector get the same.

I don't know how far we go back, to use as the index point? 20 years? Maybe look at what public sector wages where then and try and get them back to par? That's what I would want, at least, but it would take a long time.

I'd be happy to back a policy where public sector wages matched inflation (averaged out), but you would want to do that when you got back to par, or like you say you're locking in that loss which you got under the Tories. I don't want that loss locked in for the public sector, I want it clawing back, but it's hard to do when inflation is 10%.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
Truss might not be the brightest but she’s going to make the Tories highly electable and the polls will likely reflect this very soon

There might be a short term boost but I don't see it lasting or them getting aead of Labour.

Truss is great news for Labour. Her interviews are car crash and she comes across dreadfully. Johnson was a great public speaker - Truss is woeful. Her policies are designed to appeal to the hard right in the party and will only alienate the centre more.

I think it won't take long before the public realise that Truss isn't capable of running the country and she'll guide the Tories to a big loss.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
There might be a short term boost but I don't see it lasting or them getting aead of Labour.

Truss is great news for Labour. Her interviews are car crash and she comes across dreadfully. Johnson was a great public speaker - Truss is woeful. Her policies are designed to appeal to the hard right in the party and will only alienate the centre more.

I think it won't take long before the public realise that Truss isn't capable of running the country and she'll guide the Tories to a big loss.
I have to agree with this. Truss will out tory the tories in the search for power. Problem is she is a woeful communicator, will be an erg puppet and isn't really that bright. I don't see much of a bounce at all.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
I have to agree with this. Truss will out tory the tories in the search for power. Problem is she is a woeful communicator, will be an erg puppet and isn't really that bright. I don't see much of a bounce at all.

I also have a suspicion that the 'Red Wall' people that switched from Labour to Conservative in the last election did so for Brexit and Johnson and now 'Brexit is done' and Johnson is gone I think the Tories will struggle to get their votes again (in sufficient numbers). They have alienated big swathes of the public recently and I'm not sure Truss has the nouse to win those people back.

Not sure that these people will go back to Labour mind, but some will and less Tory votes is only a good thing.
 

Nano

Well-known member
Yeah, of course, totally understand that, was just being simplistic, it's like compound interest (or compound loss, so to speak), there's a lot of catching up to do.

Totally agree that the public sector get shafted more than the private sector, under the Tories, and under labour it's a hell of a lot more balanced. Like I say, recovering what will be 15 years of losses under the Tories is going to be exceptionally hard to do, which is why I don't get why some of the public sector vote tory (albeit I don't think I know any that do or would now, I know a few who did in 2010/2015).

I said there will to be a cost of the Tories, the UK voting for them for the last 4 elections is the problem, it's not me voting for them, I vote against them.
Everyone should gain in a boom, but equally everyone should expect a hit in a recession, if it's balanced (it's not balanced, it favours the rich). There should be far more gains than losses, over time.
Under the Tories that is not going to be balanced, in either case, and under Labour it would be more balanced, like it was when they were last in power. I don't think it's a lot to ask for public sector wages to match inflation long term, the same way I don't think it's a lot to ask that those worse off in the private sector get the same.

I don't know how far we go back, to use as the index point? 20 years? Maybe look at what public sector wages where then and try and get them back to par? That's what I would want, at least, but it would take a long time.

I'd be happy to back a policy where public sector wages matched inflation (averaged out), but you would want to do that when you got back to par, or like you say you're locking in that loss which you got under the Tories. I don't want that loss locked in for the public sector, I want it clawing back, but it's hard to do when inflation is 10%.
We will never get back to where we were last year never mind 20 years ago. Agenda for change was launched in 2004 so we can see directly what salaries were then and now and we know the inflation rate. Band 8a salary would've been £39,953 in 2004. It's now £54,619 (37% increase). If it had matched inflation it would now be £64k (58%).

It's not only Tories that screw us either. When Labour left power in 2010 that salary was £46,621 (17% increase) but inflation was 22% over that time period so they had also been giving out below inflation pay rises (as well as reducing pensions etc).
 

Laughing

Well-known member
We will never get back to where we were last year never mind 20 years ago. Agenda for change was launched in 2004 so we can see directly what salaries were then and now and we know the inflation rate. Band 8a salary would've been £39,953 in 2004. It's now £54,619 (37% increase). If it had matched inflation it would now be £64k (58%).

It's not only Tories that screw us either. When Labour left power in 2010 that salary was £46,621 (17% increase) but inflation was 22% over that time period so they had also been giving out below inflation pay rises (as well as reducing pensions etc).
The last paragraph is true as far as it goes but misses the point that when Labour was last in pay rises exceeded inflation in all but one of the years. Had they stayed in power pay would have continued to increase above inflation and the defect against inflation wiped out.

No party gets voted in saying they will give the public sector a 50% pay rise. Let's stay in the real world with what is and isn't possible.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
We will never get back to where we were last year never mind 20 years ago. Agenda for change was launched in 2004 so we can see directly what salaries were then and now and we know the inflation rate. Band 8a salary would've been £39,953 in 2004. It's now £54,619 (37% increase). If it had matched inflation it would now be £64k (58%).

It's not only Tories that screw us either. When Labour left power in 2010 that salary was £46,621 (17% increase) but inflation was 22% over that time period so they had also been giving out below inflation pay rises (as well as reducing pensions etc).
Cheers for the numbers (y) Do you know what it was from like 1990 onwards so we can see what it was before Blair came in etc?
I was in the public sector from 2000-2008, but can't even recall what rises we got. I suppose I was younger and dafter then.

I found this for 2010-18, everyone got shafted, but clearly the public sector took more of the hit. Would be good to see that for 20 years or even 30 years.

1659350031460.png

I suppose we would need to consider income tax rates, tax free allowance and benefits etc, to get the full picture.

I see Sunak is proposing a 4% cut on the basic rate income tax, and whilst this appears good, it means those who are much better off are getting more of a benefit. I suppose a better result (for those worse off) might have been to greatly increase the tax free allowance and either not cut the tax, or even increase it.
 

Nano

Well-known member
Cheers for the numbers (y) Do you know what it was from like 1990 onwards so we can see what it was before Blair came in etc?
I was in the public sector from 2000-2008, but can't even recall what rises we got. I suppose I was younger and dafter then.

I found this for 2010-18, everyone got shafted, but clearly the public sector took more of the hit. Would be good to see that for 20 years or even 30 years.

View attachment 42259

I suppose we would need to consider income tax rates, tax free allowance and benefits etc, to get the full picture.

I see Sunak is proposing a 4% cut on the basic rate income tax, and whilst this appears good, it means those who are much better off are getting more of a benefit. I suppose a better result (for those worse off) might have been to greatly increase the tax free allowance and either not cut the tax, or even increase it.
No. Pre-Agenda for Change wasn't like for like with A4C and it's not as easy to find the data. I presume it'll be out there somewhere but don't know how to find it.

That graph will be even more startling if it included this year's info. Other non-NHS public sector workers have been shafted even worse than the NHS. The NHS have at least had some payrises through Covid. I'd guess that trajectory will be similar for Public but CPI and Private will have increased significantly so the gap is even bigger. Private may throw some unusual numbers up during the covid years though.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Look at this article and graph. See how public sector pay has stagnated since the tories took over and compare that with the trajectory under labour.

Workers are better off under a labour government, always have been and always will be. This is regardless of the leadership, on either side. Its not fertile ground to argue against starmer
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
That graph will be even more startling if it included this year's info. Other non-NHS public sector workers have been shafted even worse than the NHS. The NHS have at least had some payrises through Covid. I'd guess that trajectory will be similar for Public but CPI and Private will have increased significantly so the gap is even bigger. Private may throw some unusual numbers up during the covid years though.
Yeah, totally agree. I think the NHS have probably had the roughest time during Covid mind, and with the lack of staff etc, rough times, to say the least.
Yeah the 2020-22 numbers are going to be all over the place, and probably the same going forward.

The inflation is going to be hard for any sector to match with wages, and even if we did try that, it's only going to further increase inflation, or at least help prop it up.
 
Top