|
Post by davwel on Aug 27, 2022 15:02:05 GMT
But Colin has long form in imagining that the public sector is better treated in pay and pensions than the private sector.
I remember doing battle with him years back when he was cherry-picking ONS data to "prove this".
On recent pension increases, he forgets the year when the "gold-plated public-sector pension" was frozen, with no increase.
I doubt that it`s The Times newspaper that Colin reads, that affects his prejudice, but simply being part of a vocal group of Tory supporters who have long had this view, going back to wicked Thatcher. It`s a basic tenet of keeping the State small, so is simply not checked against facts like comparing against the Triple-locked pensions that most people receive.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 27, 2022 15:35:45 GMT
Just so that some people don't get too excited over single polls, I've extended my R&W data plotting support for Tories and Labour since the last two by-elections. As before, the two diablo shapes are the average of the three polls between the by-elections and Johnson's resignation, while each of the polls since then is plotted separately (blue squares for the Tories; red diamonds for Labour). It really isn't obvious that there is anything more than MoE here. Perhaps a fractional upward trend for Labour and a fractional downward tend for the Tories, but it looks like everyone on both sides has made up their mind already.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 27, 2022 15:41:34 GMT
A couple of observations on pensions: my NHS pension will go up by September's CPI next April. I would expect that to be c10%+. State pension triple-lock was dropped for this year. I forget which leg of the lock was missed out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 15:46:51 GMT
This from the OBR: "In our latest forecast, we expect unfunded public sector pensions spending in 2022-23 to total £2.5 billion (reflecting £49.7 billion of total payments less £47.2 billion of contributions). That would represent around 0.2 per cent of total public spending, and is equivalent to £89 per household and 0.1 per cent of national income.UK public sector pensions are entirely affordable. Get over it. obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/public-service-pension-payments-net/Slight change in tone there pj ! Yes-the employers contributions are -as the OBR text explains-in Departmental Spending. Around 75% ish i think , of that total "contributions" figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 15:54:05 GMT
Public sector workers are still workers who get paid and pension is part of that pay - public sector workers generate income and value both actual and nominal as part of infrastructure - the old shibboleth that Johnson and now Colin like to pretend is true is that public sector pay is paid directly out of the pockets of non public sector workers / it’s simplistic nonsense
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Aug 27, 2022 15:59:28 GMT
@ mercian:
It was the comparison with average earnings increase that was dropped for the 2022 State pensions rise. This was considered unaffordable, and likely to exacerbate UK inflation.
But it preserves the advantage of many private-sector upper-level staff in having had substantial pay increases in 2021.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 16:05:46 GMT
“ Liz Truss allowed farmers to pollute England’s rivers after ‘slashing red tape’, say campaigners” Bit confusing…. surely “slashing” red tape is always a good thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 16:07:12 GMT
Public sector workers are still workers who get paid and pension is part of that pay - public sector workers generate income and value both actual and nominal as part of infrastructure - the old shibboleth that Johnson and now Colin like to pretend is true is that public sector pay is paid directly out of the pockets of non public sector workers / it’s simplistic nonsense But their contributions are actually just “contributions” - or so the great man says.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,402
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 27, 2022 16:24:50 GMT
This from the OBR: "In our latest forecast, we expect unfunded public sector pensions spending in 2022-23 to total £2.5 billion (reflecting £49.7 billion of total payments less £47.2 billion of contributions). That would represent around 0.2 per cent of total public spending, and is equivalent to £89 per household and 0.1 per cent of national income.UK public sector pensions are entirely affordable. Get over it. obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/public-service-pension-payments-net/Slight change in tone there pj ! Yes-the employers contributions are -as the OBR text explains-in Departmental Spending. Around 75% ish i think , of that total "contributions" figure. Sorry, but I get annoyed about non-issues being talked up because they fit particular agendas but which are not supported by the facts. I have also been known to argue with left wing commentators on here when the facts don't fit the narrative (for example over the main cause of NHS backlogs being Covid rather than 'Tory cuts'). Anyway the whole FRS17 change was an unnecessary disaster in my opinion and killed private sector index-linked pensions which were in fact viable except for the daft requirement to account for the whole (theoretical) future liability while not being allowed to recognise any future fund income. It has been annoying me for years. An excessive use of the 'prudence' concept that caused real social damage.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 27, 2022 16:33:58 GMT
colin - you commented on Starmer's claim about the energy cap policy knocking potentially 4% off general inflation, expressing the view (from the IFS, I recall) that this figure was bogus. I haven't studied this in detail, and you may well be right, but BBC R4 just had an analyst from Quanta (I think) on saying that stopping the latest energy price rises would shave a whole 3% off CPI inflation, and suggesting that a universal cap on energy prices should be backed up by tax increases on higher earners to head off BoE interest rate rises and part fund the policy. So clearly some difference of view here, but perhaps there are ways to limit energy price rises while also heading off excess interest and inflationary pressures? We need a grown up government to think this through though - not the bunch of pre-school toddlers we're currently saddled with.
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Aug 27, 2022 16:34:43 GMT
Slight change in tone there pj ! Yes-the employers contributions are -as the OBR text explains-in Departmental Spending. Around 75% ish i think , of that total "contributions" figure. Sorry, but I get annoyed about non-issues being talked up because they fit particular agendas but which are not supported by the facts. I have also been known to argue with left wing commentators on here when the facts don't fit the narrative (for example over the main cause of NHS backlogs being Covid rather than 'Tory cuts'). Anyway the whole FRS17 change was an unnecessary disaster in my opinion and killed private sector index-linked pensions which were in fact viable except for the daft requirement to account for the whole (theoretical) future liability while not being allowed to recognise any future fund income. It has been annoying me for years. An excessive use of the 'prudence' concept that caused real social damage. I can't remember if it was Brown or Darling who did this, but Ed Balls certainly played a part. It was another wizard wheeze which has come back to bite ordinary people, it makes me really cross too.
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Aug 27, 2022 16:38:47 GMT
johntel - "I don't really get that statement Alec? What will the huge impact in the UK be? Personally I would prefer to live in a climate more like southern Europe." And so will a couple of billion other displaced and starving people.......doh! What evidence do you have for that bonkers statement?
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,402
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 27, 2022 16:41:44 GMT
Sorry, but I get annoyed about non-issues being talked up because they fit particular agendas but which are not supported by the facts. I have also been known to argue with left wing commentators on here when the facts don't fit the narrative (for example over the main cause of NHS backlogs being Covid rather than 'Tory cuts'). Anyway the whole FRS17 change was an unnecessary disaster in my opinion and killed private sector index-linked pensions which were in fact viable except for the daft requirement to account for the whole (theoretical) future liability while not being allowed to recognise any future fund income. It has been annoying me for years. An excessive use of the 'prudence' concept that caused real social damage. I can't remember if it was Brown or Darling who did this, but Ed Balls certainly played a part. It was another wizard wheeze which has come back to bite ordinary people, it makes me really cross too. It was 2000, so Brown would have been Chancellor, but to be fair to politicians it was driven by the accountancy industry. Actuaries have done very nicely out of it as well.
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Aug 27, 2022 16:47:28 GMT
But Colin has long form in imagining that the public sector is better treated in pay and pensions than the private sector. I remember doing battle with him years back when he was cherry-picking ONS data to "prove this". On recent pension increases, he forgets the year when the "gold-plated public-sector pension" was frozen, with no increase. I doubt that it`s The Times newspaper that Colin reads, that affects his prejudice, but simply being part of a vocal group of Tory supporters who have long had this view, going back to wicked Thatcher. It`s a basic tenet of keeping the State small, so is simply not checked against facts like comparing against the Triple-locked pensions that most people receive. Here's a recent ONS piece about the public sector premium -the amount by which public sector employees earn more than equivalent private sector employees on average. www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019- The modelled average public sector earnings premium was 7% in 2019.
The modelled average public sector earnings premium is the difference between average earnings of public sector and private sector employees after controlling for worker, job and firm characteristics; and there is greater diversity of workers in the private than public sector.
The modelled public sector earnings premium was 3 percentage points higher in 2011 than in 2019.
At a more granular level, a higher public sector earnings premium existed in 2019 among low-skilled workers.
Private sector high-skilled employees in the knowledge-intensive services had higher earnings on average than their counterparts in the public sector.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 27, 2022 17:02:55 GMT
But Colin has long form in imagining that the public sector is better treated in pay and pensions than the private sector. I remember doing battle with him years back when he was cherry-picking ONS data to "prove this". On recent pension increases, he forgets the year when the "gold-plated public-sector pension" was frozen, with no increase. I doubt that it`s The Times newspaper that Colin reads, that affects his prejudice, but simply being part of a vocal group of Tory supporters who have long had this view, going back to wicked Thatcher. It`s a basic tenet of keeping the State small, so is simply not checked against facts like comparing against the Triple-locked pensions that most people receive. Here's a recent ONS piece about the public sector premium -the amount by which public sector employees earn more than equivalent private sector employees on average. www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019- The modelled average public sector earnings premium was 7% in 2019.
The modelled average public sector earnings premium is the difference between average earnings of public sector and private sector employees after controlling for worker, job and firm characteristics; and there is greater diversity of workers in the private than public sector.
The modelled public sector earnings premium was 3 percentage points higher in 2011 than in 2019.
At a more granular level, a higher public sector earnings premium existed in 2019 among low-skilled workers.
Private sector high-skilled employees in the knowledge-intensive services had higher earnings on average than their counterparts in the public sector.
So it seems that public-sector pay is less unequal than private-sector pay; surely we should be celebrating this. Also note ONS says: Trade union membership also influences earnings, with union members earning a premium over non-union members. However, we do not consider union membership in our analysis because the ASHE does not have a unionisation variable.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 27, 2022 17:21:49 GMT
Here's a recent ONS piece about the public sector premium -the amount by which public sector employees earn more than equivalent private sector employees on average. www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019- The modelled average public sector earnings premium was 7% in 2019.
The modelled average public sector earnings premium is the difference between average earnings of public sector and private sector employees after controlling for worker, job and firm characteristics; and there is greater diversity of workers in the private than public sector.
The modelled public sector earnings premium was 3 percentage points higher in 2011 than in 2019.
At a more granular level, a higher public sector earnings premium existed in 2019 among low-skilled workers.
Private sector high-skilled employees in the knowledge-intensive services had higher earnings on average than their counterparts in the public sector.
So it seems that public-sector pay is less unequal than private-sector pay; surely we should be celebrating this. Also note ONS says: Trade union membership also influences earnings, with union members earning a premium over non-union members. However, we do not consider union membership in our analysis because the ASHE does not have a unionisation variable.Has account been taken of the situation before the explosion in zero hours contracts, gig economy jobs and contracting out of various parts of the Working Time Directive rights? It's not that a public sector premium exists per se. At the time indexed pensions were a thing, people in the public sector generally earned less than people in similarly graded jobs in the private sector. Of course after all the changes referred to above private sector pay plummeted. Howecer, public sector pay for comparable jobs still pays less than in the private sector.
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Aug 27, 2022 17:29:40 GMT
Howecer, public sector pay for comparable jobs still pays less than in the private sector. No, the ONS report says the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 27, 2022 17:38:05 GMT
It's always pleasant to get unalloyed good news & I was very glad to hear from some v old friends that their son, who has had considerable mental problems, accentuated by the lockdowns, had got v good GCSE results. The parents commended the school & the teachers who had spared no efforts to get the kids back on track, often with conflciting & unhelful information from the exam boards, including lessons in the holidays & on Saturdays. One of the parents is a v dedicated primary teacher in a poor area, who has twice caught covid at school, unfortunately with quite serious long-term effects; she has battled on but is naturally worried she will get Covid again if there is a winter surge. She fears she will will get Covid every winter until she retires. I once spent a couple of days in the primary school early in my retirement. I have never felt more tired in my life.
It is bad enough that teachers & state schools are scorned by right-wing columinists, safe and sound working at home, most of whom never go near a school, unless it's the private one attended by their children; and villified by twerps like Badenoch, a possible Minister of Education god help us, whose contribution to the debate is to withdraw all support staff: without having to put up with snotty, snide remarks about public sector pensions on this site.
Try and respect other people who do a real, tough job. One lesson I have learned is that there is often little relationship between the importance of a job, the absolute necessity that it be done, & the status accorded to it. How many Tory MPs have had prior careers in high-status jobs in consultancy, PR, political research, blah, blah, jobs which if they hadn't existed would never have been missed.
The rules of the game were known. Public sector jobs were open to all comers: if people chose not to apply for those jobs, that was their decision.
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Aug 27, 2022 17:52:18 GMT
@ Johntel
That is a wrong biased report by ONS, and does not take into account the extra perks that many private-sector staff receive, and more importantly the amount that public-sector staff contributed towards their pensions.
Just like the Tory government gained a grip on the BBC, so they influenced the ONS to make reports highly favourable to right-wing intentions. However, the ONS staff did not totally abandon their impartiality but presented certain facts more prominently to appease Tory views.
Notice in that report`s short summary is the sentence that I have pasted out:
"Private sector high-skilled employees in the knowledge-intensive services had higher earnings on average than their counterparts in the public sector".
Significantly this is given last, and we are not told the earnings penalty for the public sector.
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Aug 27, 2022 18:08:33 GMT
An example of how the Tory-minded producers at the BBC can influence public opinion came on R4 at 5.30 pm today. There was a 20 min programme about Johnson`s resignation with 3 speakers, Katy Balls, Hannah White and J. Rees-Mogg.
The format had the chair narrating the events, but the 3 speakers gave their responses unchallenged. The two ladies gave mainstream views not sharpened by left-wing bile, but Rees-Mogg was able to put in contentious farRight readings of the events without any criticism.
Three times JRM said that Johnson had not realised that the long birthday parties in No 10 were against Lockdown rules, and he made out that "most people" recognised this. Instead the narrator treated him as a balanced fair contributor, even bringing him with a nice "Well Jacob".
Doubtless the BBC backroom analysts will put down the programme as balanced. Many others will think 2 centrists v 1 farRight is unbalanced, especially with no checking.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 27, 2022 18:20:11 GMT
On the topic of the BBC, I was glad to read of this sensible proposal by Labour reported in the Observer / Guardian;
"Labour pledges to strengthen the BBC’s independence and protect funding Party would insulate broadcaster from political pressure, says shadow culture secretary, as Liz Truss prepares to wage war on it"
Sure to be a favourable policy for those who can think beyond the knee jerk.
The BBC has been slandered too long by the likes of Nadine Dorries.
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Aug 27, 2022 18:23:23 GMT
In my experience of working in a government department, there was no problem in getting new recruits straight from Uni but they would take advantage of the numerous training opportunities available in the civil service and after having gained several years' experience in the public sector and become fully productive would leave for higher paid jobs in the private sector. Having a few years public sector experience on the CV, particularly in more specialist areas such as IT, was a plus for employers who avoided much of the cost of training new entrants from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Aug 27, 2022 18:27:40 GMT
chrisaberavon “I think Truss and her team will trump Labour and win the next GE.” I’m shocked. Titter,you not 😅🤣😀
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 27, 2022 18:30:02 GMT
jib - I don't know what Labour is proposing for the BBC, but this looks like the kind of thing I was thinking about for a while: if a party decides to trash conventions, then they had better make sure they never lose power. It looks like Labour is planning ways to block future politicisation of things like the BBC, but I expect this thinking will permeate much of Labour's policy proposals. The Tories have behaved like complete arses in recent years, and they will pay the price in the end.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 27, 2022 18:50:47 GMT
jib - I don't know what Labour is proposing for the BBC, but this looks like the kind of thing I was thinking about for a while: if a party decides to trash conventions, then they had better make sure they never lose power. It looks like Labour is planning ways to block future politicisation of things like the BBC, but I expect this thinking will permeate much of Labour's policy proposals. The Tories have behaved like complete arses in recent years, and they will pay the price in the end. Link here: www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/27/labour-pledges-strengthen-bbc-independence-protect-fundingAgree - Trumpian Tories are making an arse of themselves, but they have a ample supply of pitchfork owners ready to form a rabble.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 27, 2022 18:52:28 GMT
jib - I don't know what Labour is proposing for the BBC, but this looks like the kind of thing I was thinking about for a while: if a party decides to trash conventions, then they had better make sure they never lose power. It looks like Labour is planning ways to block future politicisation of things like the BBC, but I expect this thinking will permeate much of Labour's policy proposals. The Tories have behaved like complete arses in recent years, and they will pay the price in the end. I see the Jibster beat me to it, but this is a summary of what Labour are proposing in terms of both protecting the independence of the BBC and ending the revolving door of pro-Tory political appointees we've seen in recent years. www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/27/labour-pledges-strengthen-bbc-independence-protect-fundingThis is not only highly desirable in its own right, but it's good politics too. Oppositions that get on the right side of public opinion usually fare well. Sometimes if you're very good, and very lucky too, you win over public opinion. You form opinion not follow in its wake, but I have absolutely no problem with Labour sensing the public mood and then falling in behind it when its appropriate to do so. Maybe the public is ahead of Labour on some of this but so what if the party ends up being the champion of it? I don't mean populism, and pandering to prejudices and media massaged/created grievances, but having antenna that senses the public mood on key issues. Dropping these sorts of policies into the public domain in a form of political striptease often works quite well too. Timing is everything in politics and it may well be Labour eventually tuck in behind a public mood for some limited renationalisation. There's plenty of time for that too. The key is that you don't always have to heroically lead on these types of issues. Seeing where the land lies and then moving accordingly is one of the luxuries of opposition I'm sensing the daft old party might be slowly getting its act together. And at just the right time too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 18:52:54 GMT
I remember one bad snowstorm that had blocked the A686, so Wright`s bus going from Penrith to Newcastle had to go the extra 35 miles via Brampton instead of over Hartside. Wright`s had managed to put on another coach to go North down the South Tyne valley (and then turn east to Hexham) and when the two buses met, the Newcastle-bound passengers transferred to this coach. Which left me the only passenger hoping to reach Alston. This bus struggled up the hills on the last 6 miles, and I was out shovelling grit and even pushing the 33-seater. I was actually heading South another 11 miles to reach work in Upper Teesdale, but took refuge in a colleague`s house in Alston, and walked the 11 miles plus food and mail next day. Brampton maybe little known, but Edmondson, creator of the first railway tickets lived there, and is being commemorated on the South Tyne light railway these days. The BR line up to the Alston deadend was pretty important for Alston in the 1960s, and Wright`s were a great tiny bus company. I lived in a farmhouse above the town of Alston between 76 and 86 and had some horrendous winters often snowed in at Easter. Was teaching in Northumberland schools at the time as a peripatetic music teacher and then doing the North East clubs at weekends so I had some very fraught journeys to contend with - and no mobile phones if I broke down or got stuck in snow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 18:54:30 GMT
Slight change in tone there pj ! Yes-the employers contributions are -as the OBR text explains-in Departmental Spending. Around 75% ish i think , of that total "contributions" figure. Sorry, but I get annoyed about non-issues being talked up because they fit particular agendas but which are not supported by the facts. I have also been known to argue with left wing commentators on here when the facts don't fit the narrative (for example over the main cause of NHS backlogs being Covid rather than 'Tory cuts'). Anyway the whole FRS17 change was an unnecessary disaster in my opinion and killed private sector index-linked pensions which were in fact viable except for the daft requirement to account for the whole (theoretical) future liability while not being allowed to recognise any future fund income. It has been annoying me for years. An excessive use of the 'prudence' concept that caused real social damage. SSAP24 was far too vague . And abused. FRS17 forced companies to recognise the cost of the promise to pay a future pension related to then pay-and indexed. There is a calculable present value for that as there is for the future income stream from contributions. Triennial actuarial valuations provide both and forced companies to properkly account for fund deficits-and/or do something about them. Pity Governments dont have to do the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2022 19:00:17 GMT
colin - you commented on Starmer's claim about the energy cap policy knocking potentially 4% off general inflation, expressing the view (from the IFS, I recall) that this figure was bogus. I haven't studied this in detail, and you may well be right, but BBC R4 just had an analyst from Quanta (I think) on saying that stopping the latest energy price rises would shave a whole 3% off CPI inflation, and suggesting that a universal cap on energy prices should be backed up by tax increases on higher earners to head off BoE interest rate rises and part fund the policy. So clearly some difference of view here, but perhaps there are ways to limit energy price rises while also heading off excess interest and inflationary pressures? We need a grown up government to think this through though - not the bunch of pre-school toddlers we're currently saddled with. I cant remember why the IFS guy said that claim was questionable. For me it looks too much like smoke and mirrors. The wholesale price of gas is not brought down. The inflation is still there. Its effect on consumers is just phased forward by (more) debt. Consumers/Companies/Taxpayers in whatever mix would apply still pay the inflated price in one form or other. I agree that a chunk of this cost phasing should be funded by higher rate taxpayers if the freeze is universally applied. But that wont help with much of the 2 year cost-said to be £100bn.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 27, 2022 19:22:35 GMT
crofty
The word "peripatetic" was a word the meaning of which escaped me for a while. I used to have a notion it meant someone whose habitual bad temper was caused by suffering from chronic indigestion. Its association with the word teacher didn't disabuse me of my mistaken notion either. It rather reinforced it actually.
Then I discovered the word dyspeptic.
|
|