I'm not even going to debate this tonight Carnelian...I just get consumed with rage at what they are doing to the NHS 

I bet they wouldn't consider paying MPs less for representing poorer areas!

I am not in the least politicly minded, but that hints of going back in time instead of moving forward and hoping that depressed areas pick up.

Landsley to me is the most atrocious of Tory MPs.

I bet they would, as most of them would be Labour MPs!

I can't vote being a bleedin kraut, but I do feel that people in this country who bothered to turn up (not too many), cut off their noses to spite their faces. Tories will always be Tories. I lived in Britain for 33 years and I've seen the different parties. I have to say that nothing has changed in the whole time I've lived in this country. Tories, Labour or any other party are just self serving, despite Call me Dave's plea that we're all in it together.

I can't disagree overall, but Dave's lot take self serving to a whole new level, IMO at least!

I can't but not agree because I'm a dye in the wool socialist and I agree that this cabinet is the worst I've known since living here, but I do think that Labour is not doing itself any favours. So it seems to be a no win situation right now.

here here

 

(for Ditty )

Oh, I agree. Labour's current approach seems to be to rubbish everything the government does, which is to be expected I suppose as there's a lot of rubbish to criticise but even on the very rare occasions when the gov't do something right, Labour still criticise. Like limiting tax breaks for 'charitable' donations.

 

I consider myself a socialist too cologne - although probably a relatively right wing one.  I like Ed and think (with certain reservations considering his brother) he is the best man for the job. Ed's biggest problem is that every rubbish policy of this government they object to, they have to check that they didn't consider it when in office.

 

But it works the other way too. TBH, I'm not sure what's wrong or right but if they all got their knives out of each others backs and tried to get on maybe the country would be in a better position 

it's a mean pernickety idea of a policy.

 

which is about par for the course with this lot, no one seems to have a clue, about anything.

I think that is the most sensible point to come from. They wont, of course, because they still believe in the public leaning. If Gov.org. took a survey about how people feel, they would be surprise, IMO.

I am reminded of the time I went to one of my mate's parent's birthday celebrations in Hannover. A coffee and cake event. A see how many pieces of cake you can eat contest, if you will. At some point one of her friends said, in German, "is it true that the English call us all krauts?" We used all of our diplomatic skills. I think we got away with it.

I've always wondered what your link to Germany is (or the Fatherland as you call it) Joe.

A mixture of school exchanges, my Dad's war service, left wing politics, football, and music. The Fatherland is our joke name for the country. I'm taking my mum in a couple of weeks so she can visit the grave of one of her classmates.

What a stupid idea. If you are going to have an unequal pay system in a nationalised industry (which is a non starter anyway) then it would make sense to compensate the workers who stay in the most deprived areas when they could be working in more affluent regions.

 

There are reforms I would do with the health provision in this country but I don't think Call Me Dave and the Bullingdon (sp) barstewards would approve much.

 

Btw I can't believe that people think that this shower are worse than the Thatcher governments particularly the early ones. They might be if the Libs weren't exerting a tiny bit of restraint on them but they are nowhere as high on the scale of evil as Hilda and her bunch

And he's up against some pretty stiff competition, too!

There are already some geographical differences in NHS pay through Recruitment and Retention premia and High Cost Area Supplement Payments, e.g. London staff get around 15% more and those in the East of England and the South get around 1.5% more than those in the North, Yorkshire and Humber and the Midlands.

From my ltd understanding, the argument is that the private sector factor in greater geographical pay differentials than the above and in those areas where, comparatively, this is low, the NHS have higher turnover, more staff vacancies and a higher spend on expensive agency staff and, where it is 'high' this is not the case, however there is potential for the private sector to be 'crowded out' and economic growth hampered.

So, it does seem, on the face of it, that this should be looked at ,but will this mean that some will get paid more to reflect their higher cost of living and/or that those in the North will experience pay cuts? Well, we will see!

Interesting that this proposal only applies to 'Agenda for Change' staff i.e. nursing, ambulance, some managers and ancillary staff and therefore does not apply to the most senior managers and doctors, make of that what you will!

Yes, super, that is the pitch of the argument.  Like the poll tax, there was a justifying sympathetic rationale put that only examined it from one narrow angle. 

 

It really doesn't wash.  It's self serving divide and rule claptrap of the highest order.  How can the private sector be 'crowded out' in areas of low average salaries?   It's nonsense.  The reason why wages are low and not high is because there isn't very much private sector employment, there isn't much money in the local economy because there isn't much private sector employment.  So the Tory class war 'solution' is to take money out of those local economies, so the private sector will have even less of a local market. 

 

The Tory ideal seems to be that everyone should live in London, Kent, Essex and Herts in some vast commuter belt where they will spend a minimum of £200,000 for a one room flat.

 

The reason why wages are high and not low in London and the south east, is because there's more private sector employment and more private sector income. 

 

It's the standard Tory spin to persist in claiming jobs are going begging when all the stats show the opposite.  It makes their supporters feel justified about their selfishness if they can dismiss the unemployed and low waged as just scroungers.

 

This is about screwing down salaries to make it easier to hive off the NHS to the private sector and allow the private sector to make inroads into former NHS territory.  The Tories WANT the NHS to fail and to be seen as failing and if people leave, strike or go to work the private sector, that suits their aims down to the ground.

 

 

 

I don't know about worse Veggie, but I wouldn't say better either. 

 

In my view, Thatcher was a free market zealot who hated the collective cooperative working classes as she saw it as an obstacle to individual aspiration.  So we're told, she didn't think that much of the old school tie elite, as some were too liberal for her tastes.  Whereas Cameron is just an smooth talking plutocrat and pathological liar.  Cameron's lot are far more media savvy than to rant about 'the socialists' in that Daily Mail way of Thatcher and her pack but we're getting more or less the same thing, regardless.

 

Thatcher did have a healthy majority and parliamentary mandate to implement her awful policies whereas Cameron doesn't.

 

Carnelian, I'm assuming that these two points are linked i.e. when they are talking about the 'private sector' they are specifically referring to private health rather than the private sector more generally? So, private health initiatives do worse where the pay differentials are favourable to NHS staff? 

 

I can't help but notice that most of the jobs that this will apply to are those traditionally undertaken by women and/or non 'professional' roles. I am also interested that it won't apply to more senior managers or doctors.

As an example: my ex and I moved 'up North' from Norfolk in 1992, he was a  consultant and took up a post in a hospital in one of the most socially deprived parts of the North East, on exactly the same salary he had been on in Norwich. A few years later, the hospital in the next town was having difficulty recruiting and 'headhunted' him with an offer of a much higher salary. By the time the two hospitals had finished battling it out, he stayed where he was on nearly 3x the salary!!!  

Yes, private health care and the private sector getting involved in the NHS.  Not Marks & Sparks or Ladbrokes, although Tory logic seems to be implying that maybe wealth creators Marks & Sparks or Ladbrokes can't hire enough assistants because people would rather be hospital porters or drive ambulances.

 

I think you're right, there are so many things that disproportionately effect women that no average woman in her right mind should vote Tory, IMO anyway.  I'm sure it won't apply to professional roles because that's 'the market'.  The market is skewed as governments regard it as their duty to push down the salaries of those at the bottom while giving free rein to those at the top to play the market.

 

I don't get the Tory universe where someone can be a non- wealth creating drain if they work in the public sector, but as soon as shareholders become involved, the same workers doing the same jobs suddenly become wealth creators.

 

I've had two flyers in for the local elections and the postal voting papers.

 

Tory

Lab  times 3

SNP Times 2

Sorry lib.

 

The labour flyer instructed us how to vote 1-2-3

 

Class.

 

 

No reply  

Joke party.

Yep.