Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Yew]

That looks to me suspiciously like you're trying to argue that the Government should just spend money with abandon on the (rather dubious) basis that it all helps the economy. A couple of months ago, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng provided us with ample demonstration of how well that approach doesn't work

They didn't spend money though, did they, they gave massive tax cuts to the richest in society - those who have the lowest propensity to consume. A tax break to a rich person languishes in a bank account, to a normal person that money is spent in the economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2022 ==

The reality is that when the Government spends money, it usually gets some of that spending back in the form of increased tax receipts, but it doesn't get it all back. It still leaves a hole in public finances which ultimately causes economic harm. The Government cannot, on the whole, just spend money without trying to balance the books.

Yes, but we can balance the books by growing the economy and increasing total tax receipts.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Are you really suggesting that everybody currently arguing for a pay rise, is intending to spend every penny of that pay rise immediately?

I'd argue far more people are concerned that they need to increase / start their savings, and the effect of inflation / interest rate hikes on their normal spending. None of those people will be putting any increased wages back into the economy any time soon.

Data from the Money & Pensions Service (which is itself Government funded) from last month suggests 17% of UK adults have no savings at all, and a further 9% have less than £100 in savings. I think you underestimate the level of financial hardship in this country at the moment

 

[DustyBin]

In Q2 of 22/23 there were 133,000 job vacancies in the NHS (9.7% of total NHS jobs), this compares with Q2 of 18/19 where it was 105,000 (8.9% of total NHS jobs), however it reached a low of 6.9% of total NHS jobs between the two in Q2 of 20/21 (there were lower rates, but I've only compared Q2 data).

Are there not more “new” vacancies now, which rather skews the data? That’s not to downplay the scale of the problem incidentally; 133,000 vacancies is still 133,000 vacancies!

With talk of nurses needing to use foodbanks, long hours, low moral, etc. it's hardly going to be an attractive proposition to many young people as a career of choice. Making it harder to keep staffing levels high enough to offer a good service.

Is there actually evidence of qualified nurses using food-banks? The basic starting salary for a qualified nurse (Band 5) is £27k, in line with the median UK salary which makes the claim questionable (I’m not saying it’s never happened, but is raises questions as to why).

Regardless of the above, it’s indisputable that nursing isn’t an appealing choice of career (or vocation) for many. One of the areas often overlooked in this regard is the path to actually becoming a qualified nurse. We know someone who has just qualified, and it’s been a complete nightmare for them for various reasons. The main problem though was that they’ve effectively been a student for the last four years, which with a house, family etc. is difficult. It’s fine if you’re recruiting young people who are following a traditional higher education pathway, but not if you’re expecting people in say their late 20s or 30s to change career.

This publication supports my assertion:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmeduemp/124/124ap33.htm

Letter to the Committee Specialist from the Parliamentary Officer, Royal College of Nursing (HE 132)

The Royal College of Nursing is the UK's largest professional association and trade union for nurses, with a membership of over 330,000 registered nurses and nursing students. The RCN is a major contributor to health and nursing policy, developments in nursing practice, and standards of care. Approximately three-quarters of the RCN's members work in the NHS.

The RCN has recently commissioned an independent survey of its student members, which will be published on 31 January. The main findings of the survey show:

— 58 per cent of nursing students have considered leaving their course. Of these, 76 per cent cite financial hardship as a contributing factor. This is high compared with the wider student body—only ten per cent of full-time students across all subjects have considered leaving for financial reasons.
— Nursing and midwifery students have a much older age profile than other students. The average age of nursing students surveyed in 29, with a half of all nursing students aged over 25. A third of nursing students starting degree courses are aged over 25, compared with just 16 per cent starting other health degrees and one in ten across all degree subjects.
— Over a third (35 per cent) of nursing students have children living with them and 14 per cent have other caring responsibilities. Just under a third of students in the survey with children are lone parents.
— The average level of debt for all nursing students surveyed is £2,510. Three out of four student nurses surveyed are in debt. The average level of debt for only those with debt is £3,400. Nearly a third of all respondents have a debt of more than £3,000. The average level for final year students with debt is £3,745.
—Students who have considered leaving the course have significantly higher levels of debt than those who have not considered leaving.
Taking these findings into consideration, the RCN is calling for a substantially increased, non-means tested bursary for all nursing and midwifery students, with increased allowances for mature students and for those with dependents. The RCN would like to see parity between degree and diploma students in type and level of bursary, and access to student loans and hardship funds for all nursing students.

I am sending you a copy of the survey findings, along with a copy of Ending student hardship, a lobbying pack for RCN student members which contains further points for consideration in connection with student hardship[58], and which I hope will be of interest to the Committee.

In my opinion nurses are underpaid, and deserve a reasonable increase. However, I can’t see how this will address the recruitment problem.

 

[Yew]

Are you really suggesting that everybody currently arguing for a pay rise, is intending to spend every penny of that pay rise immediately?

I'd argue far more people are concerned that they need to increase / start their savings, and the effect of inflation / interest rate hikes on their normal spending. None of those people will be putting any increased wages back into the economy any time soon.

For most "normal" people, what they consider as saving is actually "delayed consumption" - they're saving money to spend it later. Perhaps on a car, or a house, or small contingency fund.

Whereas with the very wealthy, their savings go into banks and are either not used, or into investments.

For example, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica states:

The average propensity to consume out of current income is usually thought to be higher for low-income families than for high-income families.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The basic starting salary for a qualified nurse (Band 5) is £27k, in line with the median UK salary which makes the claim questionable

Median UK pay in April 2022 was £640 per week according to the ONS, which is £33,280 a year. From memory the mean is about £37k

 

[Yew]

In my opinion nurses are underpaid, and deserve a reasonable increase. However, I can’t see how this will address the recruitment problem.

Isn't that how employment works in a capitalist society, if you want to make a job more attractive, you can offer more compensation?

 

[najaB]

Are you really suggesting that everybody currently arguing for a pay rise, is intending to spend every penny of that pay rise immediately?

Intending to, probably not. But given that most people are, thanks to inflation, earning significantly less in real terms than they were this time last year they will likely spend the majority of it immediately just to tread water.

 

[DustyBin]

Median UK pay in April 2022 was £640 per week according to the ONS, which is £33,280 a year. From memory the mean is about £37k

You’re right, that’s what it says. I’d used the ONS real time information for PAYE employees. It wasn’t an attempt to mislead, just to be clear!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2022 ==

Isn't that how employment works in a capitalist society, if you want to make a job more attractive, you can offer more compensation?

Indeed it is, however you need to actually get the job first, in this instance by completing the necessary qualification. This appears to be the main barrier, and offering (for sake of argument) a 10-15% increase in starting salary is unlikely to materially change things.

 

[nw1]

For our economy to grow, especially with Brexit doing everything to stifle things, people not only need enough money to live but also to have some disposable income to support pubs, restaurants, hotels, theatres, cinemas, leisure and retail facilities. If they don't, they'll go out of business and unemployment will rocket.

Surely anyone with a brain can work that out, especially as most working class and middle class people are going to put that money back into the economy, not sit on it.

All these Tory MPs suggesting that a nurse can cut out luxuries and afford to live seem to forget that. The classic tropes about not going to Costa, or subscribing to Netflix, or buying smashed avocado, all ignore the fact that these businesses need our money. Okay, so maybe Netflix isn't a great example (but it often gets cited) but replace that with any other UK based business.

Are the Tories saying nobody should have any money to spend besides giving money to their landlord/bank, and paying as little as possible on essentials food, to live?

That is, to me, what the Tories are all about. We all have to live austere lives due to their penny-pinching politics, while they, and their friends in the finance and privatised utility industries (and just don't get me started on Southern Water, who are making thousands of people's lives a misery right now due to their incompetence and/or greed) live the life of Riley. That has been my opinion of the Conservative Party since 1989, and it's not going to change now.

People like Sunak, Hunt, Barclay and Zahawi will never understand the concerns of ordinary people. They can just live in their lives of luxury, and never have to be exposed to the difficulties the rest of us face.

 

[JamesT]

That’s a big risk for “normal” businesses, where they have to increase selling prices to offset increased costs, but for something essentially Government funded like the NHS that isn’t really the case, surely? Or am I being stupid again and/or overly simplifying it?

If Government is pumping more money into the economy through higher pay to the public sector then others may raise their prices to capture some of the extra money.

 

[nw1]

I see a real, actual lawyer has used the word "libel" against Barclay on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1605609459887136770

 

[Yew]

If Government is pumping more money into the economy through higher pay to the public sector then others may raise their prices to capture some of the extra money.

Fortunately the principles of competition still apply.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That is, to me, what the Tories are all about. We all have to live austere lives due to their penny-pinching politics, while they, and their friends in the finance and privatised utility industries (and just don't get me started on Southern Water, who are making thousands of people's lives a misery right now due to their incompetence and/or greed) live the life of Riley. That has been my opinion of the Conservative Party since 1989, and it's not going to change now.

And meanwhile, some of us actually live in the real World, rather than this make-believe, Tories=evil, not-Tories=good one that you seem to like living in. In the real World, most Tories are - you may be surprised to learn - human beings, facing much the same problems as anyone else. No matter what you might imagine, the Tories - on the whole, really are not evil rich gits deliberately trying to make life a misery for other people [*]. You see, in the real World, it's not possible for the Government to magically create utopia on Earth by handing out unlimited free money to everyone: What you see as unreasonable penny pinching is nothing more than the reality that resources are finite and the Government has to make choices about where to direct those finite resources. In the real World, there is no route to a higher standard of living and to solving the cost of living crisis that does not involve the country producing more - because it's physically impossible for us to consume stuff if we don't produce that stuff first! And yes, in the real World, some people are going to have higher standards of living than other people - that's not a sign of anything evil - rather, it's an inevitable consequence of people having different abilities and making different life choices and basically of allowing people to be free to choose how to run their lives.

(Of course that's not to say there aren't things that couldn't be improved. The cost of living crisis is a huge issue, which affects - I would guess, almost all of us. And it is awful and devastating for many people. But you have to be realistic about what solutions are available - it's no good just throwing out implied claims of corruption/greed because the Government hasn't been able to achieve the impossible! Having said that, personally I do think the quality of Government the last few years has been pretty mediocre, but that's more a question of competence and the difficulties of governing than to do with any bad intentions.).

[*] While recognising that any large group is going to have some bad apples in it, and I'm sure we can all think of examples from Westminster over the last year.

 

[nw1]

And meanwhile, some of us actually live in the real World, rather than this make-believe, Tories=evil, not-Tories=good one that you seem to like living in. In the real World, most Tories are - you may be surprised to learn - human beings, facing much the same problems as anyone else. No matter what you might imagine, the Tories - on the whole, really are not evil rich gits deliberately trying to make life a misery for other people [*].

I wouldn't use the word "evil" - such a word should be reserved for the likes of Putin and Xi - but I am afraid that my beliefs are based on how I have seen the Tories behave in the past 30-35 years, and based on what what I have read about their actions in the early-mid 80s which was a time when I was too young to be interested in politics, but was vaguely aware of what was going on.

Remember a potential politician makes a conscious decision to stand as a Conservative, rather than a Labour politician or Liberal Democrat. That must say something about their own personal moral values, and, to me personally (while recognising that others might think differently) something which does not accord well.

 

[najaB]

And meanwhile, some of us actually live in the real World, rather than this make-believe, Tories=evil, not-Tories=good one that you seem to like living in. In the real World, most Tories are - you may be surprised to learn - human beings, facing much the same problems as anyone else. No matter what you might imagine, the Tories - on the whole, really are not evil rich gits deliberately trying to make life a misery for other people [*].

Totally true. The majority of Tory party members are middle/lower class. Because the majority of people in the UK are middle/lower class. However the majority of upper class, and virtually all of the ultra-wealthy are either Tory party members or significant donors to the Tory party. I'm sure that's because they expect a Tory government to champion policies which are to their detriment in the favour of the working classes...

 

[nw1]

Totally true. The majority of Tory party members are middle/lower class.

To be fair, my annoyance and most of my comments are largely directed at Tory MPs rather than Tory members.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be fair, my annoyance and most of my comments are largely directed at Tory MPs rather than Tory members.

That’s very charitable of you, seeing as the membership loved Johnson and also elected Truss.

 

[DustyBin]

I wouldn't use the word "evil" - such a word should be reserved for the likes of Putin and Xi - but I am afraid that my beliefs are based on how I have seen the Tories behave in the past 30-35 years, and based on what what I have read about their actions in the early-mid 80s which was a time when I was too young to be interested in politics, but was vaguely aware of what was going on.

Remember a potential politician makes a conscious decision to stand as a Conservative, rather than a Labour politician or Liberal Democrat. That must say something about their own personal moral values, and, to me personally (while recognising that others might think differently) something which does not accord well.

In my adult life we've had a New Labour government, which whilst on paper had appealing centrist policies, in practice caused untold damage to the UK and dragged us into an illegal war. Then we had a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, where the Liberal Democrats broke all kinds of election promises when they found themselves in a position they never thought they'd be in (i.e. in power). We've also had a Labour "opposition" (I use the term loosely) led by a political extremist, who's economic ideas make Truss and Kwarteng look positively competent.... Who in their right mind would want to join any of that lot?!

I don't see why choosing to be a Tory MP makes somebody a bad person with questionable values. It's the core values of the party that have appealed to me ever since I became eligible to vote. I don't like the current government, but I don't actually see them as representing core Conservative values. They do indeed seem happy to screw everybody outside of a tiny elite, which is no benefit to you, me or 99.9% of the population. It's wrong though to claim "that's the Tories for you" as it isn't. Ultimately I'd like to see a fairer, better society as I believe would you; we simply disagree about the best way to get there.

 

[Thirteen]

In my adult life we've had a New Labour government, which whilst on paper had appealing centrist policies, in practice caused untold damage to the UK and dragged us into an illegal war. Then we had a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, where the Liberal Democrats broke all kinds of election promises when they found themselves in a position they never thought they'd be in (i.e. in power). We've also had a Labour "opposition" (I use the term loosely) led by a political extremist, who's economic ideas make Truss and Kwarteng look positively competent.... Who in their right mind would want to join any of that lot?!

I don't see why choosing to be a Tory MP makes somebody a bad person with questionable values. It's the core values of the party that have appealed to me ever since I became eligible to vote. I don't like the current government, but I don't actually see them as representing core Conservative values. They do indeed seem happy to screw everybody outside of a tiny elite, which is no benefit to you, me or 99.9% of the population. It's wrong though to claim "that's the Tories for you" as it isn't. Ultimately I'd like to see a fairer, better society as I believe would you; we simply disagree about the best way to get there.

Not all Tory MPs are the same, my local MP for many years was Justine Greening and she did a lot of good and clearly was well liked as she was there for 14 years.

 

[The Ham]

That looks to me suspiciously like you're trying to argue that the Government should just spend money with abandon on the (rather dubious) basis that it all helps the economy. A couple of months ago, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng provided us with ample demonstration of how well that approach doesn't work

The reality is that when the Government spends money, it usually gets some of that spending back in the form of increased tax receipts, but it doesn't get it all back. It still leaves a hole in public finances which ultimately causes economic harm. The Government cannot, on the whole, just spend money without trying to balance the books.

Please read the paragraph below from the post you quoted:

Whilst there's always a risk paying someone more may increase inflation, currently the big driver of inflation is fuel costs from external factors. As such ensuring that pay isn't eroding in real terms or is only increasing a small amount above that point isn't likely to cause those issues.

As such I'm not suggesting paying staff whatever they demand, rather that as long as it's not much higher than not a reduction the risk is likely to be limited.

Whilst nurses are requesting an above inflation pay rise in this year, when averaged over the last 12 years (where they've seen a fall in pay in real terms) it falls within the only small increases.

Are there not more “new” vacancies now, which rather skews the data? That’s not to downplay the scale of the problem incidentally; 133,000 vacancies is still 133,000 vacancies!

Which is why I also included the percentage of vacancies vs total staff which also shows an increase.

Is there actually evidence of qualified nurses using food-banks? The basic starting salary for a qualified nurse (Band 5) is £27k, in line with the median UK salary which makes the claim questionable (I’m not saying it’s never happened, but is raises questions as to why).

Which is why I said there's talk of...

Regardless of the above, it’s indisputable that nursing isn’t an appealing choice of career (or vocation) for many. One of the areas often overlooked in this regard is the path to actually becoming a qualified nurse. We know someone who has just qualified, and it’s been a complete nightmare for them for various reasons. The main problem though was that they’ve effectively been a student for the last four years, which with a house, family etc. is difficult. It’s fine if you’re recruiting young people who are following a traditional higher education pathway, but not if you’re expecting people in say their late 20s or 30s to change career.

This publication supports my assertion:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmeduemp/124/124ap33.htm

In my opinion nurses are underpaid, and deserve a reasonable increase. However, I can’t see how this will address the recruitment problem.

Recruitment isn't only about getting new people but retaining those you already have. Often a criticism of organisations is that they don't try to retain staff, which can sometimes be easier than trying to get people to join (especially when there's a fall in the number of people in employment, at least in percentage terms of the overall population).

It can also be cheaper, with the costs of advertising, interviewing, training, etc. soon adding up quite quickly.

 

[DustyBin]

Which is why I also included the percentage of vacancies vs total staff which also shows an increase.

Fair enough; it was the headline figure that stood out to me.

Which is why I said there's talk of...

It's a great story for the likes of the BBC and Daily Mail. Unfortunately it then becomes widely believed and adds to the problem, whether it's accurate or not....

Recruitment isn't only about getting new people but retaining those you already have. Often a criticism of organisations is that they don't try to retain staff, which can sometimes be easier than trying to get people to join (especially when there's a fall in the number of people in employment, at least in percentage terms of the overall population).

It can also be cheaper, with the costs of advertising, interviewing, training, etc. soon adding up quite quickly.

I completely agree that retaining people who already have the right skills and experience should be a no-brainer. The reasons for them leaving are varied and go well beyond pay, however. Again, I can't see how the kind of pay increase likely to be agreed will make much difference. To deal with the real underlying issues will require a much more strategic approach, as well as confronting some uncomfortable truths.

 

[Gloster]

And meanwhile, some of us actually live in the real World, rather than this make-believe, Tories=evil, not-Tories=good one that you seem to like living in. In the real World, most Tories are - you may be surprised to learn - human beings, facing much the same problems as anyone else. No matter what you might imagine, the Tories - on the whole, really are not evil rich gits deliberately trying to make life a misery for other people [*]. You see, in the real World, it's not possible for the Government to magically create utopia on Earth by handing out unlimited free money to everyone: What you see as unreasonable penny pinching is nothing more than the reality that resources are finite and the Government has to make choices about where to direct those finite resources. In the real World, there is no route to a higher standard of living and to solving the cost of living crisis that does not involve the country producing more - because it's physically impossible for us to consume stuff if we don't produce that stuff first! And yes, in the real World, some people are going to have higher standards of living than other people - that's not a sign of anything evil - rather, it's an inevitable consequence of people having different abilities and making different life choices and basically of allowing people to be free to choose how to run their lives.

(Of course that's not to say there aren't things that couldn't be improved. The cost of living crisis is a huge issue, which affects - I would guess, almost all of us. And it is awful and devastating for many people. But you have to be realistic about what solutions are available - it's no good just throwing out implied claims of corruption/greed because the Government hasn't been able to achieve the impossible! Having said that, personally I do think the quality of Government the last few years has been pretty mediocre, but that's more a question of competence and the difficulties of governing than to do with any bad intentions.).

[*] While recognising that any large group is going to have some bad apples in it, and I'm sure we can all think of examples from Westminster over the last year.

Quite true, but the problem is that the Conservative government and leadership is in thrall to a group at the extreme end of the political spectrum and prioritises doing what it wants in order to keep in power, rather than considering the common weal. Note: I am not suggesting the group is just some secret cabal that meets in hollowed-out volcanos to plot, just a number of people who have broadly similar ideals and will cooperate when it is in their interests.

 

[JamesT]

As such I'm not suggesting paying staff whatever they demand, rather that as long as it's not much higher than not a reduction the risk is likely to be limited.

Whilst nurses are requesting an above inflation pay rise in this year, when averaged over the last 12 years (where they've seen a fall in pay in real terms) it falls within the only small increases.

This does depend on how you count. I can’t find the article now, but I did see one saying that the average nurse has had above inflation pay rises over the last decade. The number the union presents is adding up all the cost of living increases, which hasn’t kept up. However nurses, like many other workers, also have their pay progress up the pay scales.

 

[Yew]

We've also had a Labour "opposition" (I use the term loosely) led by a political extremist, who's economic ideas make Truss and Kwarteng look positively competent.... Who in their right mind would want to join any of that lot?!

Is this the same political opposition that was so ineffective that they led the party to the second largest increase in vote-share in it's history?

 

[JamesT]

Is this the same political opposition that was so ineffective that they led the party to the second largest increase in vote-share in it's history?

Did this large increase in vote share lead to a period in government where their ideas could be put into practice? That’s the only real measure of effectiveness.

 

[DustyBin]

Is this the same political opposition that was so ineffective that they led the party to the second largest increase in vote-share in it's history?

They lost though, against a not particularly popular Tory government!

It's arguably this sustained period of ineffective opposition that led us to where we are now. There were plenty of Tory voters who rejoiced at Labours self-destruction under Corbyn, but I didn't. It was bad for politics and democracy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They lost though, against a not particularly popular Tory government!

It's arguably this sustained period of ineffective opposition that led us to where we are now. There were plenty of Tory voters who rejoiced at Labours self-destruction under Corbyn, but I didn't. It was bad for politics and democracy.

Agreed. Whoever is in power, you need a strong, capable, opposition that looks able to competently take over - in order to keep the Government on its toes. Otherwise its very easy for the Government to become lazy and slip into incompetence itself, knowing that there is no real competition for power - and you could argue that's to some extent what has happened over the last 10-ish years. The principles of the market and competition apply to politics just as much as to business That's one reason why I think we should all hope the Tories don't end up self-destructing after what looks to me like their inevitable defeat in about 18 months' time...

 

[najaB]

Recruitment isn't only about getting new people but retaining those you already have. Often a criticism of organisations is that they don't try to retain staff, which can sometimes be easier than trying to get people to join (especially when there's a fall in the number of people in employment, at least in percentage terms of the overall population).

It can also be cheaper, with the costs of advertising, interviewing, training, etc. soon adding up quite quickly.

It used to be the case in my last job that it cost something like an additional eight month's salary to recruit a new person versus keeping someone we already had.

 

[Gloster]

I see that a new government ethics advisor has been appointed. He is Sir Laurie Magnus: Eton, Oxford and The City. He may prove to be an excellent and fearless advisor, but it has a slight whiff of jobs for the boys and choosing someone who, to use a Sir Humphrey-like description, will be a sound judge and take the broader view (and not upset the apple cart). It has taken six months to fill the post, not that anyone seemed hurried, and one problem seems to have been that other possible candidates wanted the right to start their own investigations. Sir Laurie has accepted that he can only carry out investigations authorised by the PM.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Sir Laurie has accepted that he can only carry out investigations authorised by the PM

Which is only the second worst thing about it - the worst is that (again) the PM isn't obliged to accept his findings.

An utter waste of time