J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

[ymu]

Tbf Labour did make some horrendous fuck-ups. Agricola is quite right to point out that a lot of the money Labour did spend, it spent badly. Tipping huge amounts of money into the privatised railway rather than grasping the nettle and renationalising the lot (for British Rail in its later years was a lot more efficient and required far less of a subsidy than the railway does now) is one good example. Another is the PFI, which even the Major government had realised was a bad idea since, although it kept the initial outlay on schools and hospitals (which was much needed after eighteen years of Tory neglect!) off the government's books, it tied the Treasury into very long-term commitments of money for no benefit. One could also point to the way Labour unquestioningly accepted the Tory idea that the NHS (and much of the rest of the public sector) should ape the private sector, with a split between clients and providers and an internal market, leading to endless bureaucracy and all kinds of unnecessary costs.

Seems to me, in fact, that where Labour did fuck up, it usually did so by trying to be Tory. Which is why the Tory critique of Labour's record in office is just hypocrisy, given that a) as you point out, Osborne was pledging to match Labour's spending plans, and b) it's extremely difficult to argue that a Tory government over the last decade would have done much better than Labour at cooling down the overheated housing market or regulate the over-powerful and irresponsible financial services sector any more tightly, both of which left us badly exposed to the recession.

I agree. But that wording - and it could have been better - refers to the specific question of the size of the debt relative to GDP. It just wasn't a problem. It was at a very low level, lower than most of the preceding century. Spending was not too high. It may have been relatively high, but that boosts GDP - that's why we spend. It was being spent badly in many ways, I agree, but it was doing the job of boosting GDP, albeit on a very short-termist outlook (inevitable if the polity has a short-term electoral cycle).

 

[Roadkill]

it wasn't obvious at all at the time, many, if not most, mainstream economists went basically along with what Brown was doing

True ... and all along it was the much maligned ol' left warning that none of this was sustainable. I remember arguing with someone in 2003 or thereabouts who described me as an outdated left-wing dinosaur who didn't understand the modern economy, simply because I pointed out that personal debt (to cover for dstagnant real wages in many cases) was getting out of hand, and that in trying to introduce trendy market mechanisms to public sevrices Labour was making them less efficient and more costly than if they were simply run as old-fashioned hierarchical organisations.

 

[Blagsta]

No, but then judging the success of an economic policy on one criteria alone is doomed to failure. Clarke massively cut the annual deficit, cut taxes, reduced unemployment, oversaw a fall in inflation and even set the course for the % of GDP fall that you are so keen to give Brown the credit for.

Indeed. Which is why all the current focus on "the deficit" is nonsense.

 

[Blagsta]

Thats the thing though - Labour did spend recklessly, as even a brief look at what they actually spent the money on shows. If they had, for example, renationalised the railways, not relied exclusively on PFI, exercised even a modicum of control over contracts and purchasing, implemented tax credits properly, not invaded Iraq, restored the full grant for students or done many other things then they would have used their time - and our money - a lot better than they actually did.

Can't disagree with you really.

 

[Blagsta]

No .... I wondered why Spiney Norman put "her" in inverted comments when he said something about me.

No need to be rude, by the way.

You should take your own advice.

 

[ymu]

Indeed. Which is why all the current focus on "the deficit" is nonsense.

Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

The error was not re-regulating the banks, PFI, allowing wages to fall so far by using tax credits to make up the difference but not controlling runaway reward packages at the top.

There's a very good reason why all the focus is on the deficit. It's the way to make us pay for their greed. Fuck that.

 

[Fedayn]

Seems that the reality of strikes in the civil service was indeed downplayed by both the news, govt and DWP/Civil Service bigwigs.
I got an e-mail from DWP 'Office for Scotland' that showed the state of offices yesterday up here in Scotland. The used a 'traffic light' system to describe the state of the offices:-

Closed - Office closed and non-operational (NB: Closed offices are also red rated)
Red - Services severely disrupted or non operational
Amber - Services reduced or partly operational
Green - Services largely or completely unaffected

For the whole of DWP Scotland it was...

23 Green
30 Amber
44 Red
4 Black

So the vast majority of offices were affected, contrary to media reports. My office was classed as 'Amber' ie 'Services reduced or partly operational' However an HEO in here told me there was 90 staff (including managers) out of over 1300 in work yesterday. So, less than 10% staff in, is not severely disrupted? It's also worth noting that ALL the offices classified as 'Red' were open, but incapable of providing a service. Gives a little bit of background to the claims on the TV yesterday....

 

[past caring]

My office was classed as 'Amber' ie 'Services reduced or partly operational' However an HEO in here told me there was 90 staff (including managers) out of over 1300 in work yesterday. So, less than 10% staff in, is not severely disrupted?

You'd almost think they were trying to provide the evidence that further reductions in staffing can be sustained without affecting service.....

 

[Roadkill]

I agree. But that wording - and it could have been better - refers to the specific question of the size of the debt relative to GDP. It just wasn't a problem. It was at a very low level, lower than most of the preceding century. Spending was not too high. It may have been relatively high, but that boosts GDP - that's why we spend. It was being spent badly in many ways, I agree, but it was doing the job of boosting GDP, albeit on a very short-termist outlook (inevitable if the polity has a short-term electoral cycle).

This is true, although I'd modify it slightly. Spending wasn't too high (although as already rehearsed not all of it was money well spent) but because Labour were desperate not to be seen to be sticking up taxes (again, they were trying to be Tory!), not enough tax was being raised to back it. As a result they were running a budget deficit before the recession, which wasn't sensible since it was only likely to grow when the economy contracted.

Not, of course, that that legitimises the Tories' strategy now. It's no coincidence that the economy is flatlining as the spending cuts, and their knock-on effect on demand, kick in...

There's a very good reason why all the focus is on the deficit. It's the way to make us pay for their greed. Fuck that.

Quite.

 

[Fedayn]

You'd almost think they were trying to provide the evidence that further reductions in staffing can be sustained without affecting service.....

Perish the thought, but I wouldn't put it past them.... Mind you there was virtually zero work done it was barely affected.... Hehehehe

 

[ymu]

Yes, I agree with all of that. They were too scared of the propaganda myths about the economy.

It's all very Ramsey McDonald, really. Like Labour were on a borrowed majority as long as they didn't scare the horses. But this time, self-inflicted.

 

[Roadkill]

It's all very Ramsey McDonald, really. Like Labour were on a borrowed majority as long as they didn't scare the horses. But this time, self-inflicted.

Yup. That massive majority in 1997 was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change things decisively for the better, and Labour squandered most of it. It's sickening.

Arguably worse is the fact that supposedly centre-left parties presided over all of this neoliberal nonsense all across Europe, and it's their political credibility that's been wrecked by the recession. Much as many of those centre-left parties were and are rubbish, the conservative parties who've been able to exploit the situation are in most cases worse...

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Yup. That massive majority in 1997 was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change things decisively for the better, and Labour squandered most of it. It's sickening.

But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.

 

[Roadkill]

But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.

That pledge not to raise taxes is pretty much what I mean when I say Labour were trying to be Tory. They shouldn't have made it.

I don't for a minute believe that they wouldn't have secured a thumping majority at the 1997 election either way, given the discredited Tory government they were up against and the fact that they were way ahead in the opinion polls well before John Smith died and Blair started pulling the party much more overtly to the right.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

That pledge not to raise taxes is pretty much what I mean when I say Labour were trying to be Tory. They shouldn't have made it.

I don't for a minute believe that they wouldn't have secured a thumping majority at the 1997 election either way, given the discredited Tory government they were up against and the fact that they were way ahead in the opinion polls well before John Smith died and Blair started pulling the party much more overtly to the right.

I wouldn't be too sure, Labour were getting good at being ahead in the polls mid term and then losing when it mattered. John Smith may well have won in 97 and that would have been brilliant, but my guess is that he wouldn't have had anywhere near the majority that Blair got. He just didn't have the Blair's charisma, not to mention the promise not to raise taxes.

 

[ymu]

But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.

They lowered taxes.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I wouldn't be too sure, Labour were getting good at being ahead in the polls mid term and then losing when it mattered. John Smith may well have won in 97 and that would have been brilliant, but my guess is that he wouldn't have had anywhere near the majority that Blair got. He just didn't have the Blair's charisma, not to mention the promise not to raise taxes.

No, it was Blair creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.

 

[audiotech]

'People are not excepting the idea of "shared sacrifice", because it's clear the idea of "shared sacrifice" is not shared by others.' Quite and Greece?

[video]http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/1/hundreds_of_thousands_of_greek_and[/video]

 

[audiotech]

No, it was Blair creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.

In reality it was that "radical lefty", Kinnock, who led the way. Benn's comments sums up Kinnock's trajectory to crass, political opportunism. Catch the end of this (better still watch the whole if you have the urge?).

 

[PaulAtherton]

Many, I would say most, people value security rather more highly than money. That's not to say they want to be poor, but a secure job and reasonable pay would be more attractive to most than a more risky occupation and a bigger house.

Which is why you don't fuck with pensions when they have been part of pay negotiation. Pay is considerably lower in the public sector, and that has been agreed to in return for more flexible working conditions, fairer sick pay and a secure pension. You cannot take those things away without also renegotiating pay and backdating the pay award for any elements that have been reneged on.

Do that, and I'll be happy. I could do with a nice fat cheque right now.

Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre) And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.

The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.

There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent. Well sadly, that's not true either. Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all. It's very nature is anti-talent. Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.

Take a look the documentary, BBC Two's "Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS?" get a real understanding of that problem:

"What just didn't seem to be possible was for them to be able to do that... I've never come across it to quite such an extent before, that sense that you simply couldn't change it. That needs to change."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6250441.stm

Or ask the Teachers who are so keen to set up "free schools" so they can really show off their talents. I'm making a documentary on the subject and the one thing, time and time again, that these teachers said, is they were too constrained by the regulations imposed on them to let their talents shine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13839827

We need to see a return of respecting our Public Servants as people who are only in their roles for the betterment of society. Make Councillors volunteers again, avoid worrying about money, unless it drops below a livable wage and let's see a lot more sacrifices for those the Public Sector is paid to serve and then you'll get UK wide support from all sectors.

 

[Blagsta]

How's the prostitution business Paul?

 

[agricola]

One of Gerry Robinson's solutions to "fixing" the NHS:

Sir Gerry, one of the UK's most successful businessmen, was given the task of cutting waiting lists at one hospital within six months - with no extra cash - in BBC Two's Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS?

One of his solutions was to treble the salaries of NHS managers.

He told Newsnight: "What other organisation that employs a million people would not genuinely go out and pay the money that it takes to get the very, very best people to run it?

 

[ymu]

Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre) And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.

The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.

The worst paid jobs are in the private sector, yes. Because most unskilled jobs have been outsourced, and private employers get away with exploitative practices more easily.

But it is an absolute nonsense to claim that public sector workers are paid more if you compare like-for-like. That is why we have better pensions, and why we have trouble hanging onto people once they're trained.

No more of this nonsense without some credible evidence please.

Let's start with some facts. Steve Tatton of Incomes Data Services (IDS), the pay monitor, finds virtually every category of public sector worker would be better paid if they worked in the same job in the private sector. Cabinet Office figures for senior civil servants show a grade 5 deputy director gets 22% less than their equivalent manager in the private sector. A grade 2 director general, one step below permanent secretary, gets 64% less than their private sector opposite number.

Even when you look at some of the most notorious public sector salaries, the director general of the BBC's show-stopping £816,000 is less than the pay of the head of near-bankrupt ITV on £900,000, and a lot less than the head of Sky on £2m. That is not a good enough reason for the BBC top brass taking such walloping sums, but it shows how public pay is several steps behind private pay in most occupations and grades. Local government chief executives are another outlier, paid exorbitantly because mostly Tory-run councils insist on poaching them from each other on ever inflating pay rates.

The exception is the lowest paid. Most public sector manual work has been outsourced to private companies and agencies: the few cleaners and security guards who stayed public are paid better – and a good thing too. Most people in the public sector are considerably more skilled than the average private sector employee, which is what makes nonsense of any crude figures that add up the pay of each sector and divide the total by the number of employees, regardless of what jobs people do. The TaxPayers' Alliance came up with the rubbish statistic that "state workers now earn an average of £62 a week more than their private sector counterparts," adding in the comment: "We cannot pay these enormous bills for people who are not creating wealth."

But there are five times more unskilled workers in the private than the public sector. The Office of National Statistics' labour force survey shows that only 8.6% of people in the private sector are in professional grades, compared with the 24.5% of public employees who are professionals. All the way up the scale, managers, professionals and skilled trades are taking a 70p an hour pay cut by working for the state.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/06/public-sector-private-pay

 

[Looby]

Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre) And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.

The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.

There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent. Well sadly, that's not true either. Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all. It's very nature is anti-talent. Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.

What the fuck are you on about? You don't have a bloody clue. For a start, many of the people I joined my department with are graduates. Not so much the older ones as many have been in the CS from school but certainly many of those under 45.

Secondly, we are paid well below the going rate in the private sector for the equivalent job and this is the case for most public sector workers that aren't in senior grades.

The obscene wages of ex-com and our CEOs wildly skews the average wage figures.

I chose to join the civil service in the main because I didn't want to spend my working life making money for private sector fatcats. Doesn't mean I should have to earn considerably less than my counterparts in the private sector.

Believe me, times have changed a lot since you worked for the DSS.

 

[ymu]

Hang on, double the minimum wage as a starting salary? Junior doctors, yes. Teenage police constables fresh out of training, yes. Anyone else, no. Fuck's sake, it took me twenty years to get paid that much.

The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary?

 

[dennisr]

The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary?

*anti-strike rhetoric based on lies shocker!*

 

[The39thStep]

This is quite a useful report on caution when comparing average wages in provate and public sectors

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/areas-of-expertise/pay-reward/private-public-sector-earnings.pdf

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm not of the opinion that the public sector is bad. You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

I can only conclude that you have no answer.

1. I don't think so.
2. Like I said, you wouldn't want to hear the answer.

How do you think structural deficits are caused? We're talking structural deficit here, not national debt.

 

[ymu]

This is quite a useful report on caution when comparing average wages in provate and public sectors

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/areas-of-expertise/pay-reward/private-public-sector-earnings.pdf

Ah, that's a great find. Thanks.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

No, it was Blair creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.

Yes, the Murdoch deal was a factor too, one of many factors that resulted in such a massive majority. But would John Smith have made the same deal?