Tory new plan for regional pay deals

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
My fear is that after 2 years of truss killing the country and starmer doing nothing for fear of upsetting the blue rinse Tories whose votes he is wooing, the Tories will stab truss in the back and Boris will be welcomed back in to win an election.
It'll be kind of remember the good old days when we didn't have giant death robots, we just had that funny chap bumbling about.
Click to expand...
Yep - prodigal son returns to save us all!
 
Notice she has said she now no longer will be going ahead with it

So that confirms not only did she think it was a good idea it also confirms that she was going to go ahead with it.
 
Cambsred said:
I think regional pay increases for isolated locations would be an interesting proposal. A lot of rural areas have significant under staffing in the NHS for example and little in the way of pull to bring in a workforce.

Send additional resource to the poorer areas/ rural which may aid levelling up and recruitment/ retention.
Click to expand...
Pay boards are an interesting idea. Preston Council pays for services where the council improves the service charges to pay employees on low wages more.

Care workers pay is abysmal, its should be addressed in areas where the cost of living is higher. Labour there should have a a position that benefits working class people. Stammer doesn't. Nothing.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that once RoboTruss opened her gob she would prove that she is thicker than the average castle wall. And that would then open the door for Sunak.

She's never had a proper handle on any of her briefs throughout her political life. Even her father is ashamed of the personal values she holds.

All part of a long play by Johnson, to put in a puppet to f the job up and subsequently provide the platform for his political resurrection.

That's the only reason he would put a c. as useless as Truss into play.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
My fear is that after 2 years of truss killing the country and starmer doing nothing for fear of upsetting the blue rinse Tories whose votes he is wooing, the Tories will stab truss in the back and Boris will be welcomed back in to win an election.
It'll be kind of remember the good old days when we didn't have giant death robots, we just had that funny chap bumbling about.
Click to expand...
Funny chap? You mean the misogynistic racist habitual liar?
 
BiggEggo said:
I always thought that once RoboTruss opened her gob she would prove that she is thicker than the average castle wall. And that would then open the door for Sunak.

She's never had a proper handle on any of her briefs throughout her political life. Even her father is ashamed of the personal values she holds.

All part of a long play by Johnson, to put in a puppet to f the job up and subsequently provide the platform for his political resurrection.

That's the only reason he would put a c. as useless as Truss into play.
Click to expand...

Well that and the fact he simply doesn't give a **** about what happens to the country.

Whether he's hoping to engineer a way back or not he'll want the next PM to fail and if they stay in place come a GE, to lose it. It'll make him look good and protect the myth (that he probably believes) that he was some sort of legendary leader. Truss will certainly make him look a lot better than he was. And it is of course ultimately all about him.
 
The most troubling aspect of this staggeringly misguided policy, was the comment by Rees-Mogg, suggesting that public sector pay should be cut to enable the private sector to fill the gap created.

These people have such a warped sense of right and wrong it leaves me speechless.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
The most troubling aspect of this staggeringly misguided policy, was the comment by Rees-Mogg, suggesting that public sector pay should be cut to enable the private sector to fill the gap created.

These people have such a warped sense of right and wrong it leaves me speechless.
Click to expand...
Worse than that. It was that private companies can't compete with the averages wages that the public sector pay so reducing those wages would mean better staff for lower wages available for the private sector. Basically reducing public and private sector wages for all us northerners that aren't good enough for the median wage.
 
Get Northerners on £7.50/hour so we can give more tax breaks to very wealthy people - oh dear - that was poorly thought through Liz. But some interesting true colours showing through.

I thought this lass was from Leeds.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
The most troubling aspect of this staggeringly misguided policy, was the comment by Rees-Mogg, suggesting that public sector pay should be cut to enable the private sector to fill the gap created.

These people have such a warped sense of right and wrong it leaves me speechless.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
My fear is that after 2 years of truss killing the country and starmer doing nothing for fear of upsetting the blue rinse Tories whose votes he is wooing, the Tories will stab truss in the back and Boris will be welcomed back in to win an election.
It'll be kind of remember the good old days when we didn't have giant death robots, we just had that funny chap bumbling about.
Click to expand...

What can Starmer do in opposition when Truss will have an 80 seat majority? FFS.

(It only took 19 posts to start Starmer bashing. That might be a record on a Tory bashing thread)
 
Cambsred said:
I think regional pay increases for isolated locations would be an interesting proposal. A lot of rural areas have significant under staffing in the NHS for example and little in the way of pull to bring in a workforce.

Send additional resource to the poorer areas/ rural which may aid levelling up and recruitment/ retention.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MolteniArcore said:
What can Starmer do in opposition when Truss will have an 80 seat majority? FFS.

(It only took 19 posts to start Starmer bashing. That might be a record on a Tory bashing thread)
Click to expand...
I don't know why they don't understand that KS can't do anything unless Labour have power, and KS was left with 202 seats.

I'm not sure what they expect KS to do, start some sort of coup? Maybe he can go on twitter and get a mob to attack Downing St, like Trump did, that went down well.

The supposed "doing nothing" approach (not outlining firm policy, but firing shots at Tory policy) seems to be working exceptionally well, it's the perfect tactics against the current Tories, just like I said it would be. The Tories must absolutely hate not knowing what to fight with specific detail, and it gives the press little to attack, which is exactly what we want.

When you're not in power you don't have to commit to anything, or lay your cards on the table, it's by far the biggest advantage you have. It's a similar tactic to vote leave prior to the brexit vote, don't nail down anything specific then apparently everything is on the table, it makes it incredibly difficult to fight against a moving/ illusive target. Obviously vote leave were doing it for reasons which would ultimately be bad for the UK, and Labour are doing it to get into power which will ultimately be better for those who are worse off, and better for public services.

If Truss carries on like BJ then she'll head in the same direction BJ was, and Tories will have to spend more time sorting out their own crap, than being able to go after Labour.
 
Andy_W said:
I don't know why they don't understand that KS can't do anything unless Labour have power, and KS was left with 202 seats.

I'm not sure what they expect KS to do, start some sort of coup? Maybe he can go on twitter and get a mob to attack Downing St, like Trump did, that went down well.

The supposed "doing nothing" approach (not outlining firm policy, but firing shots at Tory policy) seems to be working exceptionally well, it's the perfect tactics against the current Tories, just like I said it would be. The Tories must absolutely hate not knowing what to fight with specific detail, and it gives the press little to attack, which is exactly what we want.

When you're not in power you don't have to commit to anything, or lay your cards on the table, it's by far the biggest advantage you have. It's a similar tactic to vote leave prior to the brexit vote, don't nail down anything specific then apparently everything is on the table, it makes it incredibly difficult to fight against a moving/ illusive target. Obviously vote leave were doing it for reasons which would ultimately be bad for the UK, and Labour are doing it to get into power which will ultimately be better for those who are worse off, and better for public services.

If Truss carries on like BJ then she'll head in the same direction BJ was, and Tories will have to spend more time sorting out their own crap, than being able to go after Labour.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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'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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top