The Labour Government

Manc in London said:
Never known the exact details of the negotiations. I would expect 35% may have been the starting point rather than minimum. Does anyone know if it was 35% with immediate effect or something like 6-7% over five years?

There are other options available to the Govt but the Tories probably never explored these as they adopted a childish approach to negotiations.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67876164

They actually had a 2% pay rise in 22/23 and 8.8% in 23/24 but appear to want another 35% to correct for lower than average pay growth.
 
HelloCity said:
Where does all the train fare money go?

They go up every year but the service gets worse and the trains become less and less frequent. It’s cheaper to get flights abroad than it is to travel within our own country now.
Click to expand...


I can get a week in Turkey, 5 star hotel , all inclusive (with drinks) Flights and transfers for less than a day return Manchester to London.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Think they wanted it straight away, basically last year they were 26% behind were they should’ve been due to austerity and then when inflation skyrocketed they wanted the extra 9% of that.
Click to expand...
Just curious, but which hourly wage jobs HAVE kept pace with inflation over the past 20-30 years? How about 50 yrs?
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Just curious, but which hourly wage jobs HAVE kept pace with inflation over the past 20-30 years? How about 50 yrs?
Click to expand...
It’s mainly the 26% they lost due to austerity, most people got a decent pay rise last year, fire service got 7% in 2022 plus a further 5% last year. Yet from 2008 until 2019 absolute nothing. I was around £4-5k worse off.
 
Blue Maverick said:
It’s mainly the 26% they lost due to austerity, most people got a decent pay rise last year, fire service got 7% in 2022 plus a further 5% last year. Yet from 2008 until 2019 absolute nothing. I was around £4-5k worse off.
Click to expand...
Not really true that they got absolutely nothing (see attached table below).

Interestingly it also misses off last year and this year which were 2% and 8.8%.

The argument seems to be that their wage is not keeping up with RPI but virtually every private sector employee and their pension funds only use CPI. RPI is significantly higher as mortgage payments increased due to interest rates increasing, CPI does not take this into account.

Thats not to say they dont deserve more, particularly those early in their career, but wanting 35% on top does seem excessive relative to the rest of the population. You could argue that everyone deserves a big leg up but its just not feasible.
 

Attachments

  • 1000005764.png
    1000005764.png
    439.6 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Kompany Car said:
Not really true that they got absolutely nothing (see attached table below).

Interestingly it also misses off last year and this year which were 2% and 8.8%.

The argument seems to be that their wage is not keeping up with RPI but virtually every private sector employee and their pension funds only use CPI. RPI is significantly higher as mortgage payments increased due to interest rates increasing, CPI does not take this into account.

Thats not to say they dont deserve more, particularly those early in their career, but wanting 35% on top does seem excessive relative to the rest of the population. You could argue that everyone deserves a big leg up but its just not feasible.
Click to expand...
It really would be very poor if they go on strike on the basis of wanting their wages uplifted by RPI rather than CPI.
 
Kompany Car said:
Not really true that they got absolutely nothing (see attached table below).

Interestingly it also misses off last year and this year which were 2% and 8.8%.

The argument seems to be that their wage is not keeping up with RPI but virtually every private sector employee and their pension funds only use CPI. RPI is significantly higher as mortgage payments increased due to interest rates increasing, CPI does not take this into account.

Thats not to say they dont deserve more, particularly those early in their career, but wanting 35% on top does seem excessive relative to the rest of the population. You could argue that everyone deserves a big leg up but its just not feasible.
Click to expand...
The change to CPI was done in 2010 in response to austerity, mainly to save on public sector pensions funny that, yet RPI is still used in private sector defined pensions. Their argument may well be if it had stayed at RPI they are 26% better worse off. Mortgage rates have only increased in the last few years, Christ they were virtually zero for 10-12 years, in real terms they are 26% down, so basically whatever you were getting in 2008 by last year your money wouldn’t go as far, like I said I was in real terms £4k worse off all to pay those private sector wanker bankers mistakes.
 
Blue Maverick said:
The change to CPI was done in 2010 in response to austerity, mainly to save on public sector pensions funny that, yet RPI is still used in private sector defined pensions. Their argument may well be if it had stayed at RPI they are 26% better worse off. Mortgage rates have only increased in the last few years, Christ they were virtually zero for 10-12 years, in real terms they are 26% down, so basically whatever you were getting in 2008 by last year your money wouldn’t go as far, like I said I was in real terms £4k worse off all to pay those private sector wanker bankers mistakes.
Click to expand...

Isn't it fairly immaterial as to whether it's 26% or 35%? They're clearly well down, and want it significantly closer to what it might be. They have to make a starting pitch somewhere, and have done. Fixating on the % claim is pointless.

I don't believe for one second that they expect to get a one-step 26% increase. What they will be looking for is a multi-year increase to bring it more in line.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Isn't it fairly immaterial as to whether it's 26% or 35%? They're clearly well down, and want it significantly closer to what it might be. They have to make a starting pitch somewhere, and have done. Fixating on the % claim is pointless.

I don't believe for one second that they expect to get a one-step 26% increase. What they will be looking for is a multi-year increase to bring it more in line.
Click to expand...
Absolutely mate I agree, I think the fact the tories just wouldn’t talk showed how much they truly value thed them, no wonder there’s a shortage in the nhs if your employer doesn’t value you,you go elsewhere. Hopefully Labour can sort the shit show out.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Absolutely mate I agree, I think the fact the tories just wouldn’t talk showed how much they truly value thed them, no wonder there’s a shortage in the nhs if your employer doesn’t value you,you go elsewhere. Hopefully Labour can sort the shit show out.
Click to expand...

It's certainly easy to draw a dotted line from running down NHS to encouraging private healthcare. Perception of how far it went that way is going to depend on the individual. Some will think it was significantly the plan.

I don't think anyone thinks that Barclay (and whoever else has been Health secretaries) were not engaging properly.

I don't especially like Streeting (too much gobby barrowboy!) and private facilities are already embedded to some degree, but like you I hope they have planned for what they will do.
 
threespires said:
Was this Streeting, Smyth or Kinnock then?
Click to expand...

I think he's paraphrasing- and that's a generous interpretation.

If you want an alternate 'paraphrasing', I assume he's referring to Streeting saying that lack of investment, and the failures in the NHS, is costing the country money.

If people can't work because they're ill, waiting for an operation, or can't get support with their mental health, then that's not good for them, and not good for the country as a whole. Getting the NHS working, and improving the nation's health, will mean more people are able to work.
 
bluenova said:
I think he's paraphrasing- and that's a generous interpretation.

If you want an alternate 'paraphrasing', I assume he's referring to Streeting saying that lack of investment, and the failures in the NHS, is costing the country money.

If people can't work because they're ill, waiting for an operation, or can't get support with their mental health, then that's not good for them, and not good for the country as a whole. Getting the NHS working, and improving the nation's health, will mean more people are able to work.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, that's quite a different interpretation from WW's ! Nothing particularly controversial in that albeit recognising and fixing a problem are two very different things.

Have got used to pretty much everything everyone says being reported instantly during the election campaign but I assume we're heading back to some sort of normality in the news cycle now.
 
Last edited:
Blue Maverick said:
The change to CPI was done in 2010 in response to austerity, mainly to save on public sector pensions funny that, yet RPI is still used in private sector defined pensions. Their argument may well be if it had stayed at RPI they are 26% better worse off. Mortgage rates have only increased in the last few years, Christ they were virtually zero for 10-12 years, in real terms they are 26% down, so basically whatever you were getting in 2008 by last year your money wouldn’t go as far, like I said I was in real terms £4k worse off all to pay those private sector wanker bankers mistakes.
Click to expand...
RPI is certainly not used for pay awards in the private sector, everything is referenced to CPI and what the market can tolerate, based upon an acceptable level of staff turnover and shareholder expectations.

There are a small subset of private sector pensions that are linked to RPI as there are virtually no private sector companies that offer final salary pensions. The vast majority, certainly those since the early 2000s where the last few companies were offering final salary schemes, are all capped at the lesser of RPI or 2.5%, there are a number of much older pensions with limited price indexation to a maximum of 5%.

Mortgage rates for RPI are only part of the list, its a very home owner focussed "basket of goods" they use by comparison to CPI all of which have increased above other goods and services.

As I said I have no issue with junior doctors or anyone for that matter getting decent pay rises but it needs to be tempered with realism.

If you were someone on minimum wage or just above, seeing a junior doctor 5 years out of Uni on 65k demanding a 35% pay rise its a bit galling. Across most sectors peoples pay has stagnated, many companies have had a policy of those earning higher wages getting much smaller pay increases which are well below the cost of living and trying to give a bit more to those on lower salaries who are disproportionately affected due to their lower levels of disposable income.
 
Kompany Car said:
RPI is certainly not used for pay awards in the private sector, everything is referenced to CPI and what the market can tolerate, based upon an acceptable level of staff turnover and shareholder expectations.

There are a small subset of private sector pensions that are linked to RPI as there are virtually no private sector companies that offer final salary pensions. The vast majority, certainly those since the early 2000s where the last few companies were offering final salary schemes, are all capped at the lesser of RPI or 2.5%, there are a number of much older pensions with limited price indexation to a maximum of 5%.

Mortgage rates for RPI are only part of the list, its a very home owner focussed "basket of goods" they use by comparison to CPI all of which have increased above other goods and services.

As I said I have no issue with junior doctors or anyone for that matter getting decent pay rises but it needs to be tempered with realism.

If you were someone on minimum wage or just above, seeing a junior doctor 5 years out of Uni on 65k demanding a 35% pay rise its a bit galling. Across most sectors peoples pay has stagnated, many companies have had a policy of those earning higher wages getting much smaller pay increases which are well below the cost of living and trying to give a bit more to those on lower salaries who are disproportionately affected due to their lower levels of disposable income.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with what you say, it needs to be recognised that many newly qualified doctors emigrate to Australia or Canada due to higher pay and better working conditions, and any pay rise needs to address this retention issue. Although I haven’t seen any stats on this, all three of my children knew several medics at uni and many have emigrated within a year or two of qualifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top