Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Brexit


alibongo
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

There is one line which proves the point i've been making, (the line bolded)

you and your 8 colleagues are (now) working damn hard, yet, when there was 20 of you, what where you doing? coasting. It now sounds like your more efficient and earning your corn. Sounds like the tax payer is getting value for the money. keep up the good work. :tu:

There were several questions posed in my response and yet you choose to ignore everything that I said and focus on one line that somehow proves your point?

I touched on it earlier, but perhaps I should have elaborated in light of your apparent ignorance.  My service is statutory, the Children's act 1989 states that it must exist, by law.  It was not a case of letting it collapse, we simply had no choice.  And as I pointed out, staff hours are way above contracted levels, the children we see, vulnerable children in need, now get seen for 30 minutes instead of one hour at a time.  And you think that is good, an efficiency? 

But the question was about entitlement to a pay rise in line with inflation, not how hard my service was cut.  Something I assume you agree with now given your praise in that last post.

I will ensure my Union Rep sees your message :tsu: 

Edited by Grey Area
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grey Area said:

There were several questions posed in my response and yet you choose to ignore everything that I said and focus on one line that somehow proves your point?

I touched on it earlier, but perhaps I should have elaborated in light of your apparent ignorance.  My service is statutory, the Children's act 1989 states that it must exist, by law.  It was not a case of letting it collapse, we simply had no choice.  And as I pointed out, staff hours are way above contracted levels, the children we see, vulnerable children in need, now get seen for 30 minutes instead of one hour at a time.  And you think that is good, an efficiency? 

But the question was about entitlement to a pay rise in line with inflation, not how hard my service was cut.  Something I assume you agree with now given your praise in that last post.

I will ensure my Union Rep sees your message :tsu: 

I read your post,  seen the questions, but felt it never needed replying to as we would be getting into the semantics, and moving away from the point. the point being, more than half had a wage increase above the 1% cap. which needed highlighting. 

You've already proved my point, and have done yet again in your latest reply. they have cut your numbers from 20 to 8, the service is still being provided and you and your colleagues are working harder. the public service should always be looking at ways to increase efficiency delivering great value for the tax payer. anyone can see if your numbers of staff have fallen by 60% and the required service (by law) is still being provided then your department was over staffed. the waste has been cut. why go back to 20 employees when 8 employees are doing the same job. 

As for you showing my post to your Union Rep, its an open forum. But my god, when it comes to people who are a complete and utter waste of time. as you know full well, The Union stewards, senior stewards, conveners and regional  take some beating. these are people who had it cushy in the first place and wanted it even cushier so become a union rep to do even less work, from top to bottom, banking hours/days, days in lieu, company cars. yes, good old socialists.  

 

 

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

I read your post,  seen the questions, but felt it never needed replying to as we would be getting into the semantics, and moving away from the point. the point being, more than half had a wage increase above the 1% cap. which needed highlighting. 

You've already proved my point, and have done yet again in your latest reply. they have cut your numbers from 20 to 8, the service is still being provided and you and your colleagues are working harder. the public service should always be looking at ways to increase efficiency delivering great value for the tax payer. anyone can see if your numbers of staff have fallen by 60% and the required service (by law) is still being provided then your department was over staffed. the waste has been cut. why go back to 20 employees when 8 employees are doing the same job. 

As for you showing my post to your Union Rep, its an open forum. But my god, when it comes to people who are a complete and utter waste of time. as you know full well, The Union stewards, senior stewards, conveners and regional  take some beating. these are people who had it cushy in the first place and wanted it even cushier so become a union rep to do even less work, from top to bottom, banking hours/days, days in lieu, company cars. yes, good old socialists.  

 

 

Well this is going in circles, you are either deliberately attempting to get a rise out of me (pun intended) or you have just completely glossed over the content of my points, and the original challenge has been lost in the smoke of your apparent ire for the public sector.

you talk about value for money, but have no idea what that would look like when it comes to this area.  But that's fine, you are an adult and have likely survived childhood intact, so these things will not affect you, save to raise an eyebrow at some statistics you can quote to support your next point.

So essentially your point was that public sector workers do not deserve a pay rise, and to support this you state that many of them have already had a pay rise above 1%.

you have been challenged on this point, that where pay increases have been seen in the public sector above 1% but these are due to promotion or progression, but have failed to comment.  We are talking about a standard annual increase in line with inflation, which is totally different, even if you do progress or get promoted within the public sector the role you move into is still capped.  No job in the public sector will receive a rise above 1%, and other rises are internal staff movements and failure or inability to recruit into the vacant positions left behind by staff, or which is more likely the case, positions being filled by agencies.

Far from me proving your point Steve, which is almost irrelevant, the issue being pay and not service cuts, you have proven my point, after almost ten years of capped pay, and several at 0%, public sector workers doing a good job delivering stator services, deserve a pay rise at or near the rate of inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Well this is going in circles, you are either deliberately attempting to get a rise out of me (pun intended) or you have just completely glossed over the content of my points, and the original challenge has been lost in the smoke of your apparent ire for the public sector.

you talk about value for money, but have no idea what that would look like when it comes to this area.  But that's fine, you are an adult and have likely survived childhood intact, so these things will not affect you, save to raise an eyebrow at some statistics you can quote to support your next point.

So essentially your point was that public sector workers do not deserve a pay rise, and to support this you state that many of them have already had a pay rise above 1%.

you have been challenged on this point, that where pay increases have been seen in the public sector above 1% but these are due to promotion or progression, but have failed to comment.  We are talking about a standard annual increase in line with inflation, which is totally different, even if you do progress or get promoted within the public sector the role you move into is still capped.  No job in the public sector will receive a rise above 1%, and other rises are internal staff movements and failure or inability to recruit into the vacant positions left behind by staff, or which is more likely the case, positions being filled by agencies.

Far from me proving your point Steve, which is almost irrelevant, the issue being pay and not service cuts, you have proven my point, after almost ten years of capped pay, and several at 0%, public sector workers doing a good job delivering stator services, deserve a pay rise at or near the rate of inflation.

far from going in circles I've kept it on a line which, a few times i've had to bring yourself and @eugeneonegin back as you've wandered.

and in answering your post im yet again repeating myself. To recap. What i have said throughout is, more than half have had above 1% pay rise. so not exactly the painted picture painted that ALL Public sector workers have had no pay rise. with pay rise being the key word.

you yourself due to the Government increasing the personal allowance over the last seven years. you are now keeping £6,500 over that time. (as a basic rate tax payer) you'll have to do the math to see what % increase you've had over that period. on promotion or increments these are still increases in pay.

no doubt you all deserve a pay rise, trouble is your wages are paid for by the tax payer, when the country is running at £1.7Trillion debt and a budget deficit of £50Billion im sorry but your out of luck for the time being. for the record I'd allocate money from elsewhere in the budget for a Public sector pay rise. but not a return to 20 people doing the job of 8. 

If my employer was saddled with debt i couldn't expect a pay rise, and that's the trouble with the public sector because their employer is the Government they think they work for the house of plenty. hence the reputation the Public sector as built up over the years for being wasteful. every couple of decades this is readjusted like what your experiencing now. no doubt your boom times will return and we can look forward to having this conversation in 20 odd years time. you very might well be retired by then on your guaranteed public backed pension.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with those on the Left is that they want free healthcare, free education, subsidized housing, subsidized income, corporations to sell at low prices, the wealthy to hand over their money... And somehow all this is going to be paid for by the government? This is craziness. There is no way you can redistribute the wealth from corporations and the wealthy, and expect taxes to increase. There comes a point of diminishing returns. This thinking leads to Communism friends... It didn't ever work, and it surely isn't going to work in the future. Not without a major societal crash and re-boot.

The fact is that doctors in a controlled healthcare system are going to make less. We can say it isn't fair, and that austerity isn't fair. But when it comes down to it, you really can't keep spending at 110% of your income and expect it to run on into the future with no issues ever showing up. That is pure fantasy. It actually speeds up the societal crash so it gets here even faster. And there's no guarantee what will come after.

By invoking Austerity, the conservatives preserve the society that exists. That the Left doesn't want that makes me think of the old phrase... You never know what you have till it is gone. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

far from going in circles I've kept it on a line which, a few times i've had to bring yourself and @eugeneonegin back as you've wandered.

and in answering your post im yet again repeating myself. To recap. What i have said throughout is, more than half have had above 1% pay rise. so not exactly the painted picture painted that ALL Public sector workers have had no pay rise. with pay rise being the key word.

you yourself due to the Government increasing the personal allowance over the last seven years. you are now keeping £6,500 over that time. (as a basic rate tax payer) you'll have to do the math to see what % increase you've had over that period. on promotion or increments these are still increases in pay.

no doubt you all deserve a pay rise, trouble is your wages are paid for by the tax payer, when the country is running at £1.7Trillion debt and a budget deficit of £50Billion im sorry but your out of luck for the time being. for the record I'd allocate money from elsewhere in the budget for a Public sector pay rise. but not a return to 20 people doing the job of 8. 

If my employer was saddled with debt i couldn't expect a pay rise, and that's the trouble with the public sector because their employer is the Government they think they work for the house of plenty. hence the reputation the Public sector as built up over the years for being wasteful. every couple of decades this is readjusted like what your experiencing now. no doubt your boom times will return and we can look forward to having this conversation in 20 odd years time. you very might well be retired by then on your guaranteed public backed pension.  

 

 

Well the slight condescending tone aside thank you.  The fact that we won't be getting any sort of pay rise in line with inflation aside, that you have finally admitted we should, which was the crux of this particular debate is nice, as you seemed to get sidelined with the state of my particular service.

And I think we will have to agree to disagree about the promotion side of things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The problem with those on the Left is that they want free healthcare, free education, subsidized housing, subsidized income, corporations to sell at low prices, the wealthy to hand over their money... And somehow all this is going to be paid for by the government? This is craziness. There is no way you can redistribute the wealth from corporations and the wealthy, and expect taxes to increase. There comes a point of diminishing returns. This thinking leads to Communism friends... It didn't ever work, and it surely isn't going to work in the future. Not without a major societal crash and re-boot.

The fact is that doctors in a controlled healthcare system are going to make less. We can say it isn't fair, and that austerity isn't fair. But when it comes down to it, you really can't keep spending at 110% of your income and expect it to run on into the future with no issues ever showing up. That is pure fantasy. It actually speeds up the societal crash so it gets here even faster. And there's no guarantee what will come after.

By invoking Austerity, the conservatives preserve the society that exists. That the Left doesn't want that makes me think of the old phrase... You never know what you have till it is gone. 

Unless the UK invests more in the NHS it will be gone. And the poorer people will suffer the most.

Office for National Statistecs  figures, the UK is second from last in GDP spending on healthcare in the G7:

The UK is ranked 6th out of the seven countries that form the G7 (a group of large developed economies) for healthcare expenditure as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

 

"ONS’s new internationally-comparable “health accounts1 show that the UK’s total healthcare spending in 2014 was £179 billion, or 9.9% of GDP.

As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%.

Out of the G7 group of countries, only Italy spent a smaller percentage of GDP on healthcare (9.1%) than the UK in 2014."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got onto the subject of brexit briefly for a moment back there, but soon went off it again. On the subject o Brexist,  according to would-be lid Dem leader  Vince Cable, 'Immigrant-obsessed old people in Dorset church halls are behind the Brexit Vote'. Something I'm sure Steve would agree with. :unsure2: 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

We got onto the subject of brexit briefly for a moment back there, but soon went off it again. On the subject o Brexist,  according to would-be lid Dem leader  Vince Cable, 'Immigrant-obsessed old people in Dorset church halls are behind the Brexit Vote'. Something I'm sure Steve would agree with. :unsure2: 

Cable is just another remoaner that is unable to accept the result and move forward...

Considering that Dorset has a smaller exposure to immigration and all of its "benefits" then wouldnt you say that the good citizens therein MUST have voted "Out" for other reasons? Also, the vote wasnt regional it was national and we have covered the actual voting demographics many times in this thread...no to to re-hash that strawman again is there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2017 at 0:48 PM, DieChecker said:

Wow. I have a big extended family on my wife's side that is mostly nurses, and I can tell you that with payrates like that, it is a wonder you get anyone working these jobs at all. Doctors in the US probably make four or five times what is listed. It is just the cost of socialized medicine I think. That pay will of necessity be low for government works in order to make the whole system work at all.

An average US nurse makes about $60,000 a year which would be about 22 pounds an hour. And that is for the lower education positions. My mother in law makes over 120,000 due to seniority.

If it is unfair depends on if it is true across all government workers, if so, then it is fair, as everyone is being treated the same. 

Something that is resource driven, such as these salaries can't be unfair just because the pay is less then it was. That is like saying it is unfair that the stock market ever goes down. Or unfair that your car looses value. Or unfair that people just need to pay more taxes....

Compared to the US, I suppose it isn't fair, as we don't have such austerity measures. BUT, I think if we did nationalize our healthcare, we'd see austerity coming pretty quick.

To add a bit of clarity to the NHS debate (before moving on swiftly to Brexit):

Quote

 

The NHS has been ranked the number one health system in a comparison of 11 countries.

The UK health service was praised for its safety, affordability and efficiency, but fared less well on outcomes such as preventing early death and cancer survival.

The research by the Commonwealth Fund, a US think tank, looked at countries across the world, including the US, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. The US came bottom.

It is the second time in a row that the UK has finished top.

Three years ago, when the survey was last done, the UK was also number one.

It comes despite the NHS being in the grip of the tightest financial squeeze in its history with lengthening waiting times.

The ranking

1 UK

2 Australia

3 Netherlands

4 = New Zealand

4 = Norway

6 = Sweden

6 = Switzerland

8 Germany

9 Canada

10 France

11 US

 

You see, it is not all about money, it is about "value-for-money" which, for all of its management-heavy failings, the NHS offers a better health service than any other developed nation

Source BBC:

Edited by keithisco
Forgot to add my source...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Unless the UK invests more in the NHS it will be gone. And the poorer people will suffer the most.

Office for National Statistecs  figures, the UK is second from last in GDP spending on healthcare in the G7:

The UK is ranked 6th out of the seven countries that form the G7 (a group of large developed economies) for healthcare expenditure as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

 

"ONS’s new internationally-comparable “health accounts1 show that the UK’s total healthcare spending in 2014 was £179 billion, or 9.9% of GDP.

As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%.

Out of the G7 group of countries, only Italy spent a smaller percentage of GDP on healthcare (9.1%) than the UK in 2014."

 

I'm not sure that is a really good indicator of healthcare system success. Seeing as the US is the number one spender.

Different nations collect different percentages of taxes, and pay different amounts to various things. The UK does housing subsidies, which the US doesn't do, so... does that allow the US to spend more (as % of GDP) then the UK? I really couldn't say, and I suspect neither could you.

There would have to be at least a dozen columns and correlation factors of various things to allow such cross nation comparisons. Straight comparisons are almost always flawed.

Canada, with an equally low spending on healthcare and education to the UK, is often cited as a worldwide example of how to do healthcare.

Sometimes throwing money at the problem fixes nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/14/chance-second-brexit-referendum-people-rethink

Quote

The difficulties are legion, but the most important is the one raised by my colleague John Harris. He rightly wrote that simply to ignore the referendum result of June 2016 would be to inflame the very rage at an unlistening establishment that drove the leave vote in the first place. It would fuel a resurgent Faragism even worse than the original.

So Brexit must not be thwarted by a clubby political class conspiring to bury last year’s verdict. There is only one way it can be done, and that is by the people themselves. A democratic choice can be voided only by another democratic choice, expressed either in a general election – or a second referendum.

The first option is all but impossible to envisage. It would require the two main parties to divide on clear, binary lines: the Tories for Brexit, Labour against. The bald, if circular, logic is that Labour would never dare make such an offer to the electorate, for fear it would be accused of defying the will of the people as expressed in June 2016, as well as its own leave voters. Which leaves a referendum.

For now, next to no one will talk of such a thing publicly. Privately, it’s a different story. “I’ve never said I want a second referendum, even though I desperately do,” is how one remainer Labour MP puts it.

So there is the possibility of a second Brexit Referendum, which probably would go to the Remainers (judging off the last election results). But, none of the Remainer (Labor) leadership has the guts do call for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/15/brexit-followed-by-corbyn-put-uk-flat-on-back-tony-blair

Quote

Tony Blair has warned that the combination of Brexit followed by a Jeremy Corbyn government would soon leave Britain “flat on our back”, arguing that a deeply divided country needs a fundamental rethink of its political ideas.

In another demonstration of his partial return to domestic politics, the former prime minister praised Corbyn’s performance in the general election, but argued that greater scrutiny of the Labour leader’s policies could derail the next campaign. In a lengthy article released by his own political institute, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, Blair said an “unchanged Corbyn programme” introduced at the same time as Brexit would prove disastrous for the country.

“If a rightwing populist punch in the form of Brexit was followed by a leftwing populist punch in the form of unreconstructed hard-left economics, Britain would hit the canvas, flat on our back and be out for a long count,” he wrote.

Why are people still publishing the opinions of Tony Blair? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Well the slight condescending tone aside thank you.  The fact that we won't be getting any sort of pay rise in line with inflation aside, that you have finally admitted we should, which was the crux of this particular debate is nice, as you seemed to get sidelined with the state of my particular service.

And I think we will have to agree to disagree about the promotion side of things.

 

I've said numerous times when it can be afforded pay rises can be given, but also rises in pay in the public sector have been happening.

and as for me getting side tracked by your particular service, I must remind you it was you who came steaming in like Ivan the engine blurting out what you did for a living, (and i must add you do like to throw it in at any given opportunity on these forums) once you done that you was fair game to use as an example. the conclusion to all this was stated many posts ago but you and @eugeneonegin kept posting, getting side tracked. Like if i'd have answered your "seven" questions like you wanted me to we'd be further off track. 

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

We got onto the subject of brexit briefly for a moment back there, but soon went off it again. On the subject o Brexist,  according to would-be lid Dem leader  Vince Cable, 'Immigrant-obsessed old people in Dorset church halls are behind the Brexit Vote'. Something I'm sure Steve would agree with. :unsure2: 

If you have anything serious to post about Brexit, then i'd suggest you post in the thread titled 'Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations; But as it turns out your post above is in the right place - in here. with all the other brexit tripe ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

If you have anything serious to post about Brexit, then i'd suggest you post in the thread titled 'Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations; But as it turns out your post above is in the right place - in here. with all the other brexit tripe ;)

What's the matter with you? You seem to have lose all trace of a sense of humour. This is the brexit thread, it says so at the top. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Old Cleggie saying the EU referendum should be held again and that all under-30s' votes should be counted twice?

Those Remainers, eh? If democracy doesn't go your way just ignore it and come up with all sorts of bizarre, undemocratic innovations in your sheer panicky desperation to have the result overturned.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Brexit is going to be the best thing this country has done since abolishing slavery. Cheap migratory Labour is the new slavery and destroys the job prospects of the local population.

expect cheap migrant labour to continue for sometime after we leave, our economy will need to adjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seanjo said:

Brexit is going to be the best thing this country has done since abolishing slavery. Cheap migratory Labour is the new slavery and destroys the job prospects of the local population.

The local population is going to love filling the jobs left by the migrant workers, aren't they? Haha.

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

The local population is going to love filling the jobs left by the migrant workers, aren't they? Haha.

They will in certain job sectors and not in others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

They will in certain job sectors and not in others.

Which ones will they be glad to fill, do you think, stevew? I would have thought our indigenous population, with the advantages of perfect English,and our education system and training, and local contacts, are already doing the jobs they want to do.

I am really puzzled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Which ones will they be glad to fill, do you think, stevew? I would have thought our indigenous population, with the advantages of perfect English,and our education system and training, and local contacts, are already doing the jobs they want to do.

I am really puzzled.

As one example, Labouring jobs, such as House developments and other infrastructure projects. which if you listen to workers from this part of the labour market would tell you. the jobs are sub contracted and then sub, sub contracted again to the point native British workers cannot compete on the wages offered and are priced out the market. Its hard for a British family man to maintain a family and compete with migrant workers living 8 to a room and not sustaining any long term interests here in the UK. 

Like me you must have friends in the trade highlighting what's been happening over the years.

You should not be puzzled and already be fully aware of what's been happening out there on the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

As one example, Labouring jobs, such as House developments and other infrastructure projects. which if you listen to workers from this part of the labour market would tell you. the jobs are sub contracted and then sub, sub contracted again to the point native British workers cannot compete on the wages offered and are priced out the market. Its hard for a British family man to maintain a family and compete with migrant workers living 8 to a room and not sustaining any long term interests here in the UK. 

Like me you must have friends in the trade highlighting what's been happening over the years.

You should not be puzzled and already be fully aware of what's been happening out there on the street.

So how are British workers going to be "priced in"?

Are employers suddenly going to offer more money post-Brexit, or are British workers going to be coerced into accepting lower wages?

What will happen to the economy if employers have to pay higher wages (they are already calling the Living Wage, (which is pitiful, really), extortionate, and that it will put small businesses out of business).

And how will the working man feel if he has to accept lower wages if employers say they can't offer more? I'm guessing, not happy.

I am genuinely puzzled as to how it is expected to work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Which ones will they be glad to fill, do you think, stevew?

Put me down for Mayor of London! :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, seanjo said:

Very Racist to say Brits are too lazy to do the lower skilled jobs.

I didn't say that, did I? And I didn't mean that.

You should read my next two posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.