the snap general election thread

hallmark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Trouble is a very prominent public individual is stirring the nest.

Indeed. They like to spread false accusations but don't like it when people highlight what's going on. Looks like people are beginning to wake up though:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/818208/Grenfell-tower-fake-news-Jeremy-Corbyn-supporter-Skwawkbox-blog-death-toll-Lily-Allen

The blog claimed multiple sources had confirmed that reports about the death toll being much higher were true.

It also claimed the government had placed a D-notice (a Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) on the story which would affectively blocked journalists from reporting the truth.

No such order was issued to media organisations. But this didn’t stop the story spreading like wild fire.

Two other blogs which support Mr Corbyn, called EvolvePolitics and Novara Media, also used the story.





https://order-order.com/2017/06/17/mirror-front-page-wrong/

this front page claiming she didn’t meet survivors is just plain wrong. May met survivors yesterday in two separate visits…

Tromking

chucknorris wrote: »

Are these grown up 'big stuff' enough questions for you:

1. So from your previous posts above, you obviously are expecting Corbyn to increase public sector wages, how is he planning to do this, yet contain inflation?

2. How come no significant Labour MP's are part of Corbyn's cabinet, there are many very experienced and talented (much more so than Corbyn) MP's sitting on the back benches, why?

3. What is the rationale of free tuition fees for students, do you really think that this would represent value for the tax payer (don't forget that I am a university lecturer when you answer this one)

On questions 1 & 3, it comes down to what sort of country you want to inhabit. If suppressing public sector wages specifically is the difference between low and high inflation, then we've got problems. I've said this repeatedly, but what we as a nation decide to pay for and/or subsidise with taxpayers money is a political choice. For example, I would put free tuition fees above tax relief for private schools, but that's just me.
I rarely vote Labour, so their internal machinations are of no interest to me. Labour doing better than expected has changed the narrative on austerity, which does interest me.

chucknorris

Tromking wrote: »

On questions 1 & 3, it comes down to what sort of country you want to inhabit. If suppressing public sector wages specifically is the difference between low and high inflation, then we've got problems. I've said this repeatedly, but what we as a nation decide to pay for and/or subsidise with taxpayers money is a political choice. For example, I would put free tuition fees above tax relief for private schools, but that's just me.
I rarely vote Labour, so their internal machinations are of no interest to me. Labour doing better than expected has changed the narrative on austerity, which does interest me.

You are completely missing the point on tuition fees, numbers have approximately doubled since I was a student (when tuition fees were free), but you can't expect the numbers to double and the standard to remain high! There are many students who now read for degrees who simply shouldn't be at university, which is fine (almost, I'll come back to that) from their prospective, but why should the tax payer pay for them? Also I can tell you from my own experience the better students suffer, due to the less able students dampening the progress of lectures.

I also don't think it is particularly good for students to struggle through their degree, and merely scrape through after 3 years, what we would we replace it with? Well that's a good question, which needs to be addressed, I don't pretend to have that answer.

You completely avoided my second question, that was probably the most significant, so what are your thoughts on this, you must have some surely?

On the third question, I agree, it isn't dependant on PS salaries, but surely you accept that he is going to spend far more (e.g. tuition fees).

EDIT: If you normally don't vote for labour, but decided to vote for them because of Corbyn, who on earth do you normally vote for? The communist party?

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

If suppressing public sector wages specifically is the difference between low and high inflation, then we've got problems.

Without getting into specific parts of the public sector. In broad terms the total packages on offer. Pay, holidays, sick pay, pensions. Needs to be bench marked against private sector pay. Then there's output and productivity to be considered.

From my own experience the public sector is someway behind the private sector. Certainly at immediate management level which appears to operate as a self protecting club. Making significant change speedy impossible.

Under Brown spending on the NHS increased 10%. Productivity in the same period only 2%. Money alone isn't always the answer.

A pay rise is only beneficial for 6 weeks. Then it's forgotten. Peoples memories are very short.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Without getting into specific parts of the public sector. In broad terms the total packages on offer. Pay, holidays, sick pay, pensions. Needs to be bench marked against private sector pay. Then there's output and productivity to be considered.

From my own experience the public sector is someway behind the private sector. Certainly at immediate management level which appears to operate as a self protecting club. Making significant change speedy impossible.

In my experience a significant number of people in the public sector don't actually know the value of their pensions, and they don't realise that even though their private sector counterparts have a higher 'headline' salary, their overall package may be worth more, especially when things like flexi-time/holidays/lack of working overtime are taken into account. I can tell you for certain that working in the private sector was far less favourable for me.

Moby

May admits support 'was not good enough'

Prime minister Theresa May has issued a statement admitting that “support on the ground for families who needed help or basic information in the initial hours after this appalling disaster was not good enough”.

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

I can tell you for certain that working in the private sector was far less favourable for me.

With 30 days annual leave, 26 flexi days and 8 bank holidays. I'm effectively on holiday 3 months of the year! Hardly surprising that no one leaves until they are offered a VE package. There's no need. Life is simply so cushy.

Most I ever accrued has been 24 days a year leave. On top of which I worked hours of unpaid overtime.

The Union guys never lose any pay when they go on strike either. Simply sit around and accrue flexi time.

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

May admits support 'was not good enough'

Prime minister Theresa May has issued a statement admitting that “support on the ground for families who needed help or basic information in the initial hours after this appalling disaster was not good enough”.

Hmm OK, a (late) step in the right direction, but the real problem is that May isn't good enough (and I am Tory!). I think I know what the issue is, she isn't confident enough, and fills that void by doing what she feels everyone else wants her to do. She wants to be liked/admired, stuff that, politicians have to believe in something, and that either fits or it doesn't. She is trying to fit what people want, that is backwards (just my 2 cents worth).

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With 30 days annual leave, 26 flexi days and 8 bank holidays. I'm effectively on holiday 3 months of the year! Hardly surprising that no one leaves until they are offered a VE package. There's no need. Life is simply so cushy.

Most I ever accrued has been 24 days a year leave. On top of which I worked hours of unpaid overtime.

The Union guys never lose any pay when they go on strike either. Simply sit around and accrue flexi time.

When I worked it back to an hourly rate to compare on a like for like basis, including the pension (which I did when I was offered the job) it was a real eye opener.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With 30 days annual leave, 26 flexi days and 8 bank holidays. I'm effectively on holiday 3 months of the year! Hardly surprising that no one leaves until they are offered a VE package. There's no need. Life is simply so cushy.

Most I ever accrued has been 24 days a year leave. On top of which I worked hours of unpaid overtime.

The Union guys never lose any pay when they go on strike either. Simply sit around and accrue flexi time.

They are leaving though, and in my sphere and lots of others in the public sector, in absolute droves.
I do get that you and others feel that PS workers are cosseted and ungrateful, but its simply not the case.
If its so cushy, then how do explain the chronic staff retention issues?