Nurses, Rail Staff and Now Driving Examiners
Discussion
PurplePangolin said:
Tobermory said:
Kermit power said:
Tobermory said:
Nurses did not vote for the COVID response (irrespective of whether you think it was the right one) and they bore a heavy burden during covid yet while pensioners are protected they should pay the price, really?
Some nurses and NHS staff bore an increased burden, but there were also many sat round twiddling their thumbs as so much routine care was cancelled because of Covid.Maybe instead of making insane pay demands that the taxpayer can't afford, there could be one off Covid bonus payments to those who actually did have that heavy burden?
Alternatively, the government could just admit that we cannot cope without widespread immigration and open the doors once more for cheaper nursing staff?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 30th November 09:13
Yes, let’s have FOM and bring in people that will work for lower wages so that big business can line its pockets - brilliant idea Einstein
And taking medically qualified people from their own countries - Christ what a plan - how about getting our own house in order?
The Tories bang on about market forces when defending the need to pay high wages in the city, well when there are shortages in medicine and nursing leading to real risk of harm to patients why doesn't the same apply? Because the so called independent pay review body is nothing of the sort. It finds a solution within the cost envelope set by the government and levels down pay to what it feels they can get away with. Quite the opposite of city remuneration committees who (filled with supposedly independent members of the same profession) offer competitive pay packages to attract the talent (their words).
The Pandora's box that the government have opened by being so intransigent is to embolden pubic sector workers, at a time when there are recruitment difficulties and a Government that have painted themselves into a corner restricting the obvious solution of more immigration, to apply the same market led principles to their wage demands. It's sauce for the gander IMO.
The best thing that the nursing and medical unions could do would be to withdraw from the pay review process and negotiate directly with Government.
Electro1980 said:
JagLover said:
valiant said:
And yet 10% was found for pensioners…
.
Despite the efforts by some to pretend it is unusual as far as I am aware the basic state pension has increased by at least the level of inflation since its creation around a hundred years ago, if it didn't then it would be useless as a means of provision for retirement, and no-one could rely upon it. .
So "finding" the funding to meet its basic obligations doesn't really say much about the level of funding available for everything else.
Kermit power said:
Electro1980 said:
JagLover said:
valiant said:
And yet 10% was found for pensioners…
.
Despite the efforts by some to pretend it is unusual as far as I am aware the basic state pension has increased by at least the level of inflation since its creation around a hundred years ago, if it didn't then it would be useless as a means of provision for retirement, and no-one could rely upon it. .
So "finding" the funding to meet its basic obligations doesn't really say much about the level of funding available for everything else.
Why not lower the starting point for the 40% tax rate for the over 65's to make the State Pension to a degree more progressively taxed and use this money to contribute to the NHS? This group of wealthy pensioners are less likely to be still working and therefore the argument about losing productive high earners to immigration would not be as relevant and as they benefit more from public services it would be justified that they pay more. After all why should someone earning over £50K in retirement be protected fully from the economic downturn?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 30th November 10:04
PurplePangolin said:
And back to being a net contributor to that circus.
Yes, let’s have FOM and bring in people that will work for lower wages so that big business can line its pockets - brilliant idea Einstein
And taking medically qualified people from their own countries - Christ what a plan - how about getting our own house in order?
To do that, we'd have to increase State retirement age to 75 or so, and that's an election loser.Yes, let’s have FOM and bring in people that will work for lower wages so that big business can line its pockets - brilliant idea Einstein
And taking medically qualified people from their own countries - Christ what a plan - how about getting our own house in order?
When the State pension came in in its current form after the war, there were 6 working adults per pensioner. By 2,000 that had dropped to 4, and today it's 3.
The only way to cope with our funked demographics in less than a generation is to bring people in in large numbers from overseas, but the Leave campaign never told people that.
Kermit power said:
To do that, we'd have to increase State retirement age to 75 or so, and that's an election loser.
When the State pension came in in its current form after the war, there were 6 working adults per pensioner. By 2,000 that had dropped to 4, and today it's 3.
The only way to cope with our funked demographics in less than a generation is to bring people in in large numbers from overseas, but the Leave campaign never told people that.
The number receiving the state pension has fallen slightly in recent years due to increases in the retirement age, particularly for women. When the State pension came in in its current form after the war, there were 6 working adults per pensioner. By 2,000 that had dropped to 4, and today it's 3.
The only way to cope with our funked demographics in less than a generation is to bring people in in large numbers from overseas, but the Leave campaign never told people that.
Total number in receipt of the state pension was just under 13 million in 2013 and is 12.4 million now.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Also immigration only benefits the public finances if the person brought in is a net contributor to said finances.
JagLover said:
Kermit power said:
To do that, we'd have to increase State retirement age to 75 or so, and that's an election loser.
When the State pension came in in its current form after the war, there were 6 working adults per pensioner. By 2,000 that had dropped to 4, and today it's 3.
The only way to cope with our funked demographics in less than a generation is to bring people in in large numbers from overseas, but the Leave campaign never told people that.
The number receiving the state pension has fallen slightly in recent years due to increases in the retirement age, particularly for women. When the State pension came in in its current form after the war, there were 6 working adults per pensioner. By 2,000 that had dropped to 4, and today it's 3.
The only way to cope with our funked demographics in less than a generation is to bring people in in large numbers from overseas, but the Leave campaign never told people that.
Total number in receipt of the state pension was just under 13 million in 2013 and is 12.4 million now.
Also immigration only benefits the public finances if the person brought in is a net contributor to said finances.
EU (A10) countries +12%
EU (other) + 64%
Non EU +3%
So immigration helps the economy and immigration from the EU especially so.
Another way in which Brexit was and continues to be counterproductive.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/f...
Tobermory said:
Well, by rejoining the single market and agreeing to FOM they could lessen the economic hit of Brexit and improve the supply of staff for the NHS in one go, a win-win (mind you the extra nurses would be needed to cope for all the ERG hardliners and little Englanders who would have strokes were this to happen.)
There's no need (and little desire!!) to rejoin the EU with all their controls over our way of life. That's why 52% voted the way they did.Edited by Tobermory on Wednesday 30th November 09:13
Now we have greater freedom, there's nothing to stop us allowing **controlled** migration - what's the problem with that ?
Tobermory said:
Immigrants from the EU contribute statistically more to the UK economy compared to what they take out in benefits than those from outside the EU, in part due to the greater tendency for immigrants from outside the EU to bring non-working family members with them. Both groups are net contributors compared to 'natives' who take out more than they contribute on average (one reason we have an economy reliant on Government debt).
EU (A10) countries +12%
EU (other) + 64%
Non EU +3%
So immigration helps the economy and immigration from the EU especially so.
Another way in which Brexit was and continues to be counterproductive.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/f...
A study from 2011 and before further expansion of the EU. In any case such figures are a net total and heavily dependent on high earners raising the average, the difference between EU other and EU (A10) rather clearly shows the difference that more highly skilled migrants make to such calculations. EU (A10) countries +12%
EU (other) + 64%
Non EU +3%
So immigration helps the economy and immigration from the EU especially so.
Another way in which Brexit was and continues to be counterproductive.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/f...
A worker VISA scheme is quite capable of delivering the workers we actually need and work VISAs are at record levels.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 30th November 10:29
Vasco said:
Tobermory said:
Well, by rejoining the single market and agreeing to FOM they could lessen the economic hit of Brexit and improve the supply of staff for the NHS in one go, a win-win (mind you the extra nurses would be needed to cope for all the ERG hardliners and little Englanders who would have strokes were this to happen.)
There's no need (and little desire!!) to rejoin the EU with all their controls over our way of life. That's why 52% voted the way they did.Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 30th November 09:13
Now we have greater freedom, there's nothing to stop us allowing **controlled** migration - what's the problem with that ?
We still have a problem with asylum and (more importantly) economic migrants, and yet have cut ourselves off from a pool of previously wiling and productive EEA workers. Madness! Not to mention the disruption to trade.
Vasco said:
As usual, there's a few people on here determined to find that Brexit is the root of every evil.
About time they moved on and dealt with life in the real world.
You could say the same of Brexit lovers who still maintain that 'taking back control' (whatever that means) is the only solution even when it patently isn't working, that's pretty dogmatic I would say.About time they moved on and dealt with life in the real world.
Tobermory said:
Vasco said:
As usual, there's a few people on here determined to find that Brexit is the root of every evil.
About time they moved on and dealt with life in the real world.
You could say the same of Brexit lovers who still maintain that 'taking back control' (whatever that means) is the only solution even when it patently isn't working, that's pretty dogmatic I would say.About time they moved on and dealt with life in the real world.
Bless.
Vasco said:
A - Driving instructors going on strike will only affect a minute % of people
B - Rail strikes only affect 10-20% of UK travellers
C - Nurses can affect any of us.
The government only needs to resolve 'C'.
Your point on C is irrelevant, as any of them "could" affect us. The nurse strike will affect an infinitesimally small percentage of the population, certainly less % than the small amount affected by the train strikes. B - Rail strikes only affect 10-20% of UK travellers
C - Nurses can affect any of us.
The government only needs to resolve 'C'.
And then, maybe the penny will drop, that whilst they may be important when they are treating specific people, there are tens of millions of us that go years and decades without ever having a single interaction with a nurse performing her duties.
In that respect, they are no more or less important that any public servant, nor come to that, millions of other people working in the private sector.
Don't me wrong, i have sympathy for nurses, the same as i do for many other working people who are facing horrific increases in costs to live. But people are trying to make out they are in some ways a special case because their job is to provide care to a small % of people in need. The same can be said of anyone in the service sector.
poo at Paul's said:
Vasco said:
A - Driving instructors going on strike will only affect a minute % of people
B - Rail strikes only affect 10-20% of UK travellers
C - Nurses can affect any of us.
The government only needs to resolve 'C'.
Your point on C is irrelevant, as any of them "could" affect us. The nurse strike will affect an infinitesimally small percentage of the population, certainly less % than the small amount affected by the train strikes. B - Rail strikes only affect 10-20% of UK travellers
C - Nurses can affect any of us.
The government only needs to resolve 'C'.
And then, maybe the penny will drop, that whilst they may be important when they are treating specific people, there are tens of millions of us that go years and decades without ever having a single interaction with a nurse performing her duties.
In that respect, they are no more or less important that any public servant, nor come to that, millions of other people working in the private sector.
Don't me wrong, i have sympathy for nurses, the same as i do for many other working people who are facing horrific increases in costs to live. But people are trying to make out they are in some ways a special case because their job is to provide care to a small % of people in need. The same can be said of anyone in the service sector.
Mrr T said:
There a reason why 10% was found for pensioners but not for nurses. Pensioners tend to vote Conservative.
Or it could be because there is a social contract to at least raise the state pension in line with inflation and the primary justification for national insurance (which raises £155bn a year) is to pay for the state pension.Furthermore polling suggests that a majority of each group supports the triple lock with support also very high in the over 50s.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-repor...
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
There a reason why 10% was found for pensioners but not for nurses. Pensioners tend to vote Conservative.
Or it could be because there is a social contract to at least raise the state pension in line with inflation and the primary justification for national insurance (which raises £155bn a year) is to pay for the state pension.Furthermore polling suggests that a majority of each group supports the triple lock with support also very high in the over 50s.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-repor...
I would suggest there is also a social contract between nurses and the government.
The fact is I am sure most would also support an inflation rise for nurses. However, the UK will struggle to meet that and the rise in pensions. Who should suffer, pensioners? Many of whom will have other income and saving, will not have a mortgage, and likely live in a house with significant equity. Or nurses who have none of those advantages.
The fact is I would rather the money go to nurses and I am a pensioner.
Mrr T said:
Any social contract between pensioners and the government is unwritten and the triple lock is relatively new. As for NIC as you know there is no direct monetary link between what is being paid now by those in work and pensioners who receive so much of it.
The triple lock may be relatively new but the state pension has alternated between being raised in line with prices or wages and it isn't that unusual to be uprated in line with earnings after a period where it fell back in relation to them. In relation to average earnings the state pension is actually still below the level it was in 1979. As for the National Insurance Fund it is clearly stated that this is for the primary purpose of providing state pension and other contributory benefits to those paying for it with any excess transferred to the NHS. Total National insurance receipts are £155bn and state pension spending is £115bn so it is not correct that there are insufficient funds to pay for the state pension as the insurance payment set up to fund it is considerably in excess of the payment required.
Mrr T said:
The fact is I am sure most would also support an inflation rise for nurses. However, the UK will struggle to meet that and the rise in pensions. Who should suffer, pensioners? Many of whom will have other income and saving, will not have a mortgage, and likely live in a house with significant equity. Or nurses who have none of those advantages.
The fact is I would rather the money go to nurses and I am a pensioner.
The state pension is set at such a low level that it can cover only basic living costs excluding housing so the fact that pensioners will not have a mortgage is rather the point. The fact is I would rather the money go to nurses and I am a pensioner.
You may rather the money went to Nurses but I suspect you are in a rather small minority based on polling.
JagLover said:
Electro1980 said:
Why is there no obligation to ensure the same level of confidence in pay? What makes pensions so special? I find it interesting you see the state pension as sacrosanct but not healthcare.
Pay is variable and automatic inflationary increases are in decline in the private sector in any case, certainly many people haven't had a pay rise for a number of years. Those still of an age where they can work usually have alternatives if their pay and conditions are not acceptable. Oh, and private sector pay has increased far faster than public sector pay for the past 10+ years.
JagLover said:
On a similar basis to the state pension benefits for the disabled have also risen in line with inflation with little controversy.
Tell me, why did you pick “state pension benefits for the disabled” rather than simply “benefits for the disabled”? Would this have anything to do with your comments on alternatives being undermined by disability benefit rate changes?Tobermory said:
Non doms
Utility company windfall profits
Maintaining a ludicrously hard line on Europe in the face of overwhelming evidence of the economic damage for fear of upsetting the ERG/ admitting you were wrong ( and while you’re at maybe tell the largely Brexit supporting older voters ‘sorry the effect of the Brexit you wanted on the economy and the supply of European recruits means we have to choose between pensions and nurses and nurses get it?)
How much would non-doms changes actually raise though? And would it be a net raise, or would it impact tax revenues elsewhere?Utility company windfall profits
Maintaining a ludicrously hard line on Europe in the face of overwhelming evidence of the economic damage for fear of upsetting the ERG/ admitting you were wrong ( and while you’re at maybe tell the largely Brexit supporting older voters ‘sorry the effect of the Brexit you wanted on the economy and the supply of European recruits means we have to choose between pensions and nurses and nurses get it?)
Edited by Tobermory on Wednesday 30th November 07:28
Which utility companies have made windfall profits of late?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff