Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
rscott said:
One of their biggest complaints is that the government are not implementing the suggestions of the pay review carried out by the current government - nothing to do with previous administrations.
From what I can see the government is offering to increase criminal legal aid rates by 15%, so the main compliant seems to be the erosion of pay rates since 2010. JagLover said:
rscott said:
One of their biggest complaints is that the government are not implementing the suggestions of the pay review carried out by the current government - nothing to do with previous administrations.
From what I can see the government is offering to increase criminal legal aid rates by 15%, so the main compliant seems to be the erosion of pay rates since 2010. The government's own review suggested a 25% increase.
rscott said:
Only for newly listed cases. Any ongoing cases will be paid at the old rates. The government said it's too complex to apply the changes to ongoing cases, even though they managed it a few years ago when they retrospectively reduced rates on certain case types.
The government's own review suggested a 25% increase.
So the problem seems to be the old rates.........based mostly on funding during the Cameron years. The barristers themselves are complaining about a fall in income since 2006, not since 2019. The government's own review suggested a 25% increase.
JagLover said:
rscott said:
Only for newly listed cases. Any ongoing cases will be paid at the old rates. The government said it's too complex to apply the changes to ongoing cases, even though they managed it a few years ago when they retrospectively reduced rates on certain case types.
The government's own review suggested a 25% increase.
So the problem seems to be the old rates.........based mostly on funding during the Cameron years. The barristers themselves are complaining about a fall in income since 2006, not since 2019. The government's own review suggested a 25% increase.
Young girl was allegedly raped at 13, but her attacker won't be in court until at least 3 years after the incident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62727964?xtor=AL-72-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62727964?xtor=AL-72-...
glazbagun said:
The government should sort this out quickly enough. It's not as if there's been no warning about the backlog and barrister sentiment.
Well, as they are wholly responsible for this mess, one might think they could sort it out.But it will take a while to remedy 15 years of asset stripping, a complete lack of investment and the abject failure to recognise the importance of a functioning criminal justice system.
However, as this catastrophe is entirely a product of Tory incompetence, how can we have any confidence in their ability to clean up after themselves?
Pat H said:
glazbagun said:
The government should sort this out quickly enough. It's not as if there's been no warning about the backlog and barrister sentiment.
Well, as they are wholly responsible for this mess, one might think they could sort it out.But it will take a while to remedy 15 years of asset stripping, a complete lack of investment and the abject failure to recognise the importance of a functioning criminal justice system.
However, as this catastrophe is entirely a product of Tory incompetence, how can we have any confidence in their ability to clean up after themselves?
The Cameron years were catastrophic on many many fronts.
skwdenyer said:
Replace “courts” with “NHS” and marvel at all those saying money isn’t the answer.
The Cameron years were catastrophic on many many fronts.
There's been a few posts recently where the "cost" of austerity has hit home.The Cameron years were catastrophic on many many fronts.
In the interest of balance though, I'm not sure what alternatives were around at the time?
- The government spending deficit had to be tackled.
- The finance led recession meant the UK was earning less
- Demand for public services continues to grow
A longer term view might have been better, but long term thinking usually costs more in the short term: money the UK didn't have, and voters weren't prepared to stump up as taxes (hence not voting for labour)
Ian Geary said:
skwdenyer said:
Replace “courts” with “NHS” and marvel at all those saying money isn’t the answer.
The Cameron years were catastrophic on many many fronts.
There's been a few posts recently where the "cost" of austerity has hit home.The Cameron years were catastrophic on many many fronts.
In the interest of balance though, I'm not sure what alternatives were around at the time?
- The government spending deficit had to be tackled.
- The finance led recession meant the UK was earning less
- Demand for public services continues to grow
A longer term view might have been better, but long term thinking usually costs more in the short term: money the UK didn't have, and voters weren't prepared to stump up as taxes (hence not voting for labour)
Pre-GFC, Govt spending was ~40% of GDP. GDP per capita dropped ~5% during the GFC, and didn't rebound until 2014 (real terms).
Now, on paper, Govt made up the shortfall - Govt spending increased to ~46% of GDP. But that wasn't Govt keeping spending up - it was initially bailing out banks and financial institutions. The bank rescue package alone was £500bn (28% of GDP!). To pay for that, Govt cut back public spending. Being generous, they were pursuing a fringe theory of "expansionary fiscal contraction" - the notion that (in some circumstances) cuts in public spending can promote economic expansion. It is not a well-supported idea.
Instead, austerity undermined improving public finances and suppressed tax revenues; in 2019 (pre-Covid, etc) cumulative government borrowing up to 2023/24 was forecast to be double (i.e. +£450bn) the original plan to get it down to zero in just 5 years.
That amount of fiscal contraction cut off recovery at the knees. A weak economy means weak tax receipts, mean tax rises, means further weakening of economic activity, and so on.
Post-2010, real wages shrank - by 2014, that fall was almost 10% compared to pre-crisis (and remember, pre-GFC we had the fastest-growing wages in the G-7).
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
skwdenyer said:
What I think you're missing is the extent to which Govt action *caused* the fiscal contraction that tanked the economy / held it down.
Pre-GFC, Govt spending was ~40% of GDP. GDP per capita dropped ~5% during the GFC, and didn't rebound until 2014 (real terms).
Now, on paper, Govt made up the shortfall - Govt spending increased to ~46% of GDP. But that wasn't Govt keeping spending up - it was initially bailing out banks and financial institutions. The bank rescue package alone was £500bn (28% of GDP!). To pay for that, Govt cut back public spending. Being generous, they were pursuing a fringe theory of "expansionary fiscal contraction" - the notion that (in some circumstances) cuts in public spending can promote economic expansion. It is not a well-supported idea.
Instead, austerity undermined improving public finances and suppressed tax revenues; in 2019 (pre-Covid, etc) cumulative government borrowing up to 2023/24 was forecast to be double (i.e. +£450bn) the original plan to get it down to zero in just 5 years.
That amount of fiscal contraction cut off recovery at the knees. A weak economy means weak tax receipts, mean tax rises, means further weakening of economic activity, and so on.
Post-2010, real wages shrank - by 2014, that fall was almost 10% compared to pre-crisis (and remember, pre-GFC we had the fastest-growing wages in the G-7).
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
Way too many people were persueded that the Governments budget was anywhere near as simplistic as a household budget. Pre-GFC, Govt spending was ~40% of GDP. GDP per capita dropped ~5% during the GFC, and didn't rebound until 2014 (real terms).
Now, on paper, Govt made up the shortfall - Govt spending increased to ~46% of GDP. But that wasn't Govt keeping spending up - it was initially bailing out banks and financial institutions. The bank rescue package alone was £500bn (28% of GDP!). To pay for that, Govt cut back public spending. Being generous, they were pursuing a fringe theory of "expansionary fiscal contraction" - the notion that (in some circumstances) cuts in public spending can promote economic expansion. It is not a well-supported idea.
Instead, austerity undermined improving public finances and suppressed tax revenues; in 2019 (pre-Covid, etc) cumulative government borrowing up to 2023/24 was forecast to be double (i.e. +£450bn) the original plan to get it down to zero in just 5 years.
That amount of fiscal contraction cut off recovery at the knees. A weak economy means weak tax receipts, mean tax rises, means further weakening of economic activity, and so on.
Post-2010, real wages shrank - by 2014, that fall was almost 10% compared to pre-crisis (and remember, pre-GFC we had the fastest-growing wages in the G-7).
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
skwdenyer said:
What I think you're missing is the extent to which Govt action *caused* the fiscal contraction that tanked the economy / held it down.
Pre-GFC, Govt spending was ~40% of GDP. GDP per capita dropped ~5% during the GFC, and didn't rebound until 2014 (real terms).
Now, on paper, Govt made up the shortfall - Govt spending increased to ~46% of GDP. But that wasn't Govt keeping spending up - it was initially bailing out banks and financial institutions. The bank rescue package alone was £500bn (28% of GDP!). To pay for that, Govt cut back public spending. Being generous, they were pursuing a fringe theory of "expansionary fiscal contraction" - the notion that (in some circumstances) cuts in public spending can promote economic expansion. It is not a well-supported idea.
Instead, austerity undermined improving public finances and suppressed tax revenues; in 2019 (pre-Covid, etc) cumulative government borrowing up to 2023/24 was forecast to be double (i.e. +£450bn) the original plan to get it down to zero in just 5 years.
That amount of fiscal contraction cut off recovery at the knees. A weak economy means weak tax receipts, mean tax rises, means further weakening of economic activity, and so on.
Post-2010, real wages shrank - by 2014, that fall was almost 10% compared to pre-crisis (and remember, pre-GFC we had the fastest-growing wages in the G-7).
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
All great in theory but for some reason you've chosen to ignore that you were running a structural deficit of 5.2% of GDP before the GFC! To put that in perspective IIRC Greece was running less than 4%.Pre-GFC, Govt spending was ~40% of GDP. GDP per capita dropped ~5% during the GFC, and didn't rebound until 2014 (real terms).
Now, on paper, Govt made up the shortfall - Govt spending increased to ~46% of GDP. But that wasn't Govt keeping spending up - it was initially bailing out banks and financial institutions. The bank rescue package alone was £500bn (28% of GDP!). To pay for that, Govt cut back public spending. Being generous, they were pursuing a fringe theory of "expansionary fiscal contraction" - the notion that (in some circumstances) cuts in public spending can promote economic expansion. It is not a well-supported idea.
Instead, austerity undermined improving public finances and suppressed tax revenues; in 2019 (pre-Covid, etc) cumulative government borrowing up to 2023/24 was forecast to be double (i.e. +£450bn) the original plan to get it down to zero in just 5 years.
That amount of fiscal contraction cut off recovery at the knees. A weak economy means weak tax receipts, mean tax rises, means further weakening of economic activity, and so on.
Post-2010, real wages shrank - by 2014, that fall was almost 10% compared to pre-crisis (and remember, pre-GFC we had the fastest-growing wages in the G-7).
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
skwdenyer said:
.....
Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
On the first point, I agree in part. But it was the parties' job to make those cases to the electorate and see what people wanted. And then let the GE decide.Sometimes, the right answer is to say "we must borrow more, keep public spending up, and invest in productivity-enhancing and economically-productive outcomes, so we emerge stronger." That's what many other countries did.
The easiest way to cut a spending deficit is to increase revenues. The best way to increase revenues is to help your economy do better. You cannot cut your way to long-term success - once you take money out of the economy, you destroy the ability of the economy to grow (leverage effects).
There are several ways to cut a deficit, and I suggest that the easiest one is not what you suggest. It seems to be the hardest as nobody in govt/likely to be in govt here has credible plans for doing it. Maybe Truss will surprise us all.
I agree that over an extended period you cannot cut to success. But you also can't keep staring at a massive deficit and shrugging at it either.
The best approach will, of course, fall in the middle. It's not realistic for public services to be infinitely expandable to cater for what every one of us might want. So costs need to be kept in check at the same time as trying to increase GDP.
Again, manifestos should be stronger in terms of what parties are offering, and there should be more teeth in them implementing them (or rather when they do not). Whilst you and I differ on much politically we both agree that our system needs serious change. And I think this is another area that needs it
fblm said:
All great in theory but for some reason you've chosen to ignore that you were running a structural deficit of 5.2% of GDP before the GFC! To put that in perspective IIRC Greece was running less than 4%.
I haven't chosen to ignore it at all. I don't have a problem with occasional structural deficits. Under Major, we ran a serious structural surplus - easy to do if you don't fund stuff properly But that creates other sorts of deficits - for instance, NHS waiting lists were at catastrophic levels.To fix a period of under-investment / under-spending, it is OK to run a structural deficit to catch up, especially if borrowing conditions are benign and projected growth is good. It is best, if you can, to use some of that deficit to fund improvements in productivity, so that the economy you get in return for that spending has grown strongly and can allow you to clear the deficit whilst maintaining services.
Greece's SD had been running for rather a long time; the UK's SD was (with the benefit of backward-looking analysis not available at the time) evident only around 2006-7.
It is also important to recall that we were fighting a war - whilst I don't have to agree with the war itself, it is common in such periods for Governments to run structural deficits to cope with the excess costs of fighting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff