UK Politics Thread XIII: The Brexit Ship Departs

[Vassenor]

And how is Labour engaging in point scoring? Especially because you keep popping up to complain about point scoring and disunity whenever someone actually criticises the government by looking at the wider context and effects of policy rather than just engaging with simplistic conceptions like "lower taxes = more money".

And you keep going on about how it's OK to not give them a meaningful pay rise because that would devalue the gratitude being shown. Sure as hell sounds like you consider gratitude to be an acceptable substitute for adequate payment.

You literally aren't even reading what you're replying to. In relation to your first paragraph, I've already expanded for you on what political point scoring means (the first and only time I've ever use the term on these forums, I might add). The second paragraph, I haven't said anything anywhere near remotely like that at all. If you think I'm "going on", it is only because you keep replying with stuff I haven't said, ignoring my answer and then repeating yourself again. I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "devaluing the gratitude being shown". They have been shown gratitude, rightly. The discussion on pay and government spending priorities is a separate discussion. We can hopefully both acknowledge they have received sincere appreciation from the nation. This is a fact. It does not mean they should be paid more, or less, it stands on its own.

If you want to know why I think the 1% is justified, try actually reading my initial post on the matter.

Except it's not 1%, is it? In real terms it's a 10% drop since the Conservatives came to power. Especially since it's also yet another below-inflation raise.

[Ainland]

Except it's not 1%, is it? In real terms it's a 10% drop since the Conservatives came to power. Especially since it's also yet another below-inflation raise.

This is total nonsense. There has been some serious mathematical gymnastics done to manage to come up with such a figure. If you read beyond the confirmatory headline and look into the data, you find quite a different picture. Yes, there was austerity post-2008, but the NHS are just coming to the end of a three-year pay deal, which was agreed by all but one of the NHS unions in 2018. For example, an NHS staff nurse, working outside of London, four years after qualifying, received a basic wage of £23,345 in 2010. If we increase that in line with wage growth, to 2021 (using an estimated figure of 3.1% for the year 2021), that would be £29,446.05 Or if we increase it in line with inflation rate (using an estimated figure of 1.21% for the year 2021), it would be £28, 704.68 in 2021. Whereas the actual pay in this case, assuming a 1% pay rise in 2021, will be £30,921.

Clearly this is just one example. But given the way the Agenda for Change pay scale works, you can find similar percentage increases across different examples (senior nurses, paramedics, etc.) and even higher percentage increases at the bottom of the scale (cleaners, porters, etc.)

It's always worth looking into the data. "NHS 10% Pay Cut", can be a very tempting headline for anyone with a partisan opposition to the current government, but it's simply not true.

I've made this point since you chose to divert to it. However I'd point out that the actual issue at hand, was whether a 1% NHS pay rise is justified this year. Of course I would like to see NHS workers paid more. But I've explained why I think the government have got broadly the right spending priorities for the current climate.

Annual wage growth
Annual inflation rate
NHS Pay Deal 2018

[Vassenor]

Except it's not 1%, is it? In real terms it's a 10% drop since the Conservatives came to power. Especially since it's also yet another below-inflation raise.

This is total nonsense. There has been some serious mathematical gymnastics done to manage to come up with such a figure. If you read beyond the confirmatory headline and look into the data, you find quite a different picture. Yes, there was austerity post-2008, but the NHS are just coming to the end of a three-year pay deal, which was agreed by all but one of the NHS unions in 2018. For example, an NHS staff nurse, working outside of London, four years after qualifying, received a basic wage of £23,345 in 2010. If we increase that in line with wage growth, to 2021 (using an estimated figure of 3.1% for the year 2021), that would be £29,446.05 Or if we increase it in line with inflation rate (using an estimated figure of 1.21% for the year 2021), it would be £28, 704.68 in 2021. Whereas the actual pay in this case, assuming a 1% pay rise in 2021, will be £30,921.

Clearly this is just one example. But given the way the Agenda for Change pay scale works, you can find similar percentage increases across different examples (senior nurses, paramedics, etc.) and even higher percentage increases at the bottom of the scale (cleaners, porters, etc.)

It's always worth looking into the data. "NHS 10% Pay Cut", can be a very tempting headline for anyone with a partisan opposition to the current government, but it's simply not true.

I've made this point since you chose to divert to it. However I'd point out that the actual issue at hand, was whether a 1% NHS pay rise is justified this year. Of course I would like to see NHS workers paid more. But I've explained why I think the government have got broadly the right spending priorities for the current climate.

Annual wage growth
Annual inflation rate
NHS Pay Deal 2018

Spending priorities like cutting central funding for local authorities forcing them to raise council tax, or raising MPs pay by 11% when the country can barely afford to raise NHS pay by 1%.

Other right spending priorities:

£22bn on a Test and Trace system that doesn't work
£16bn on bombs and guns
However many billions went to shell companies run by Conservative party donors to deliver PPE that was never delivered
£200bn+ on Brexit (which was meant to be saving us money)
£7K a day on consulting fees
£370K to cover up Patel's bullying

[Ainland]

This is total nonsense. There has been some serious mathematical gymnastics done to manage to come up with such a figure. If you read beyond the confirmatory headline and look into the data, you find quite a different picture. Yes, there was austerity post-2008, but the NHS are just coming to the end of a three-year pay deal, which was agreed by all but one of the NHS unions in 2018. For example, an NHS staff nurse, working outside of London, four years after qualifying, received a basic wage of £23,345 in 2010. If we increase that in line with wage growth, to 2021 (using an estimated figure of 3.1% for the year 2021), that would be £29,446.05 Or if we increase it in line with inflation rate (using an estimated figure of 1.21% for the year 2021), it would be £28, 704.68 in 2021. Whereas the actual pay in this case, assuming a 1% pay rise in 2021, will be £30,921.

Clearly this is just one example. But given the way the Agenda for Change pay scale works, you can find similar percentage increases across different examples (senior nurses, paramedics, etc.) and even higher percentage increases at the bottom of the scale (cleaners, porters, etc.)

It's always worth looking into the data. "NHS 10% Pay Cut", can be a very tempting headline for anyone with a partisan opposition to the current government, but it's simply not true.

I've made this point since you chose to divert to it. However I'd point out that the actual issue at hand, was whether a 1% NHS pay rise is justified this year. Of course I would like to see NHS workers paid more. But I've explained why I think the government have got broadly the right spending priorities for the current climate.

Annual wage growth
Annual inflation rate
NHS Pay Deal 2018

Spending priorities like cutting central funding for local authorities forcing them to raise council tax, or raising MPs pay by 11% when the country can barely afford to raise NHS pay by 1%.

MPs are not getting any pay rise in 2021. And what you describe as a cut to spending, is actually a tax increase - the money will have to be raised through local council tax. Presumably this is a good thing for you? Unless you are calling for both spending increases and tax cuts?

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Calls for unity from supporters of a government that offers none can go in the bin, right next to the morals and sense of responsibility for one's actions the government threw away months ago.

[Vassenor]

Calls for unity from supporters of a government that offers none can go in the bin, right next to the morals and sense of responsibility for one's actions the government threw away months ago.

No but you see we're supposed to unite behind and praise the government and everything. Anything else is just political points scoring.

[The Nihilistic view]

Family of man killed by dwp sanctions regime lose high court claim

My change of headline expresses my opinion on this.

I don't mean to be insensitive but this family that now have time for a court case after the bloke died.... what were they doing before to not pay him any attention?

[The Nihilistic view]

You literally aren't even reading what you're replying to. In relation to your first paragraph, I've already expanded for you on what political point scoring means (the first and only time I've ever use the term on these forums, I might add). The second paragraph, I haven't said anything anywhere near remotely like that at all. If you think I'm "going on", it is only because you keep replying with stuff I haven't said, ignoring my answer and then repeating yourself again. I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "devaluing the gratitude being shown". They have been shown gratitude, rightly. The discussion on pay and government spending priorities is a separate discussion. We can hopefully both acknowledge they have received sincere appreciation from the nation. This is a fact. It does not mean they should be paid more, or less, it stands on its own.

If you want to know why I think the 1% is justified, try actually reading my initial post on the matter.

Except it's not 1%, is it? In real terms it's a 10% drop since the Conservatives came to power. Especially since it's also yet another below-inflation raise.

That's not how it works. In real terms that pay at the start of the current financial year will be more than the pay at the start of the last financial year that's how you measure it. So whatever happens next year will be a factor in next year's pay review.

You can't say it's below something that hasn't happened yet and is just a projection so may not even happen.

Don't be that dishonest.

[Kowani]

UK Aid office discussing cuts of more than 50%

Some of the poorest and most conflict-ridden countries in the world will have their UK aid programmes cut by more than half, according to a leaked report of discussions held in the last three weeks among Foreign Office officials.
The cuts include slashing the aid programme to Somalia by 60% and to South Sudan by 59%. The planned cut for Syria is reported at 67% and for Libya it is 63%. Nigeria’s aid programme would be cut by 58%.
The bare percentages include cuts of 50% in the west Balkans, and 60% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UK funding in the Sahel is listed as falling from £340m to £23m. The numbers marked “official sensitive”, passed to the investigative website openDemocracy, are the first wider glimpse of the scale of aid cuts being contemplated after ministers’ decision to cut aid spending this year from the legal target of 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%. The UK aid programme over two years is being cut from £15bn to £10bn. The scale of the cuts to individual aid programmes seems plausible after the government this week announced it was reducing aid to war-torn and famine-threatened Yemen by 59%. The UK contribution to what is probably the UK’s most high-profile aid programme is being reduced to “at least” £87m this year, down from £164m pledged last year

[Celritannia]

Tories not raising the NHS wages is a fucking disgrace. They have failed the people and the country.

[Celritannia]

Family of man killed by dwp sanctions regime lose high court claim

My change of headline expresses my opinion on this.

I don't mean to be insensitive but this family that now have time for a court case after the bloke died.... what were they doing before to not pay him any attention?

Why does that matter?
A man has died from the harsh conditions of Universal Credit.

Don't assume people on welfare are "scroungers".

[Celritannia]

Why?

It's almost like that information was contained in the rest of the post...... wait...

Because the Labour Party is making sure everyone maintains their core beliefs, which is support the NHS?

[Vassenor]

I don't mean to be insensitive but this family that now have time for a court case after the bloke died.... what were they doing before to not pay him any attention?

Why does that matter?
A man has died from the harsh conditions of Universal Credit.

Don't assume people on welfare are "scroungers".

But Boris said...

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't mean to be insensitive but this family that now have time for a court case after the bloke died.... what were they doing before to not pay him any attention?

Why does that matter?
A man has died from the harsh conditions of Universal Credit.

Don't assume people on welfare are "scroungers".

Well when a family moans about a relative dying of neglect one wonders what they were doing at the time.

[Celritannia]

Why does that matter?
A man has died from the harsh conditions of Universal Credit.

Don't assume people on welfare are "scroungers".

Well when a family moans about a relative dying of neglect one wonders what they were doing at the time.

Not really.

[Ainland]

UK Aid office discussing cuts of more than 50%

Some of the poorest and most conflict-ridden countries in the world will have their UK aid programmes cut by more than half, according to a leaked report of discussions held in the last three weeks among Foreign Office officials.
The cuts include slashing the aid programme to Somalia by 60% and to South Sudan by 59%. The planned cut for Syria is reported at 67% and for Libya it is 63%. Nigeria’s aid programme would be cut by 58%.
The bare percentages include cuts of 50% in the west Balkans, and 60% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UK funding in the Sahel is listed as falling from £340m to £23m. The numbers marked “official sensitive”, passed to the investigative website openDemocracy, are the first wider glimpse of the scale of aid cuts being contemplated after ministers’ decision to cut aid spending this year from the legal target of 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%. The UK aid programme over two years is being cut from £15bn to £10bn. The scale of the cuts to individual aid programmes seems plausible after the government this week announced it was reducing aid to war-torn and famine-threatened Yemen by 59%. The UK contribution to what is probably the UK’s most high-profile aid programme is being reduced to “at least” £87m this year, down from £164m pledged last year

We're almost £2 trillion in debt, almost 90% of GDP, and yet even if these "talks" do become policy, we will still be donating £10 billion a year in foreign aid. As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world. We have faced an unprecedented pandemic, suffered major health and economic hardships at home, and yet still continue our tradition of helping the developing world enormously. And that's before you even consider the characteristic humble duty of the British people who, instead of looking to the government to do everything for them with someone else's money, give generously to those in need.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world.

No we don't. We take in 0.25%, which is lower than a ton of countries in the developed world ranging from Turkey and Russia to Malta, Sweden and Germany.

[Ainland]

As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world.

No we don't. We take in 0.25%, which is lower than a ton of countries in the developed world ranging from Turkey and Russia to Malta, Sweden and Germany.

Yeah, we do. Note I said one of the highest. I did not claim "the" highest. We take in a greater proportion (relative to population) than Australia, United States, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Ireland, and a ton of other developed countries.

[The Blaatschapen]

The UK is not an island nation.

It's a 1.25 island nation.

[The New California Republic]

As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world.

Source please.

And I'm not sure why you are focusing on the "island nation" thing in particular as if it has some special significance...

[The Nihilistic view]

As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world.

Source please.

And I'm not sure why you are focusing on the "island nation" thing in particular as if it has some special significance...

God was kind enough to give us the channel because whilst he created the French he felt bad that he put them next to us. That's why being an island nation is divinely ordained to be a special.

[Ainland]

As well as being an island nation which takes in one of the highest proportions of refugees in the developed world.

Source please.

And I'm not sure why you are focusing on the "island nation" thing in particular as if it has some special significance...

I just listed eight developed nations which take in fewer refugees relevant to population than we do. You can do your own Googling.

And clearly being an island nation has significance in taking in a high number of asylum seekers. It is more difficult to get to, and far less likely to be the first safe country a refugee arrives in. The fact that we take in a higher number than all those other western countries, despite this, is significant. You may think that we should be taking a share from other countries, or reject the 'first safe country' notion, and you that's certainly a position many people hold, and one which you could argue. But to just outright say you don't even understand the significance, is certainly unusual.

[The New California Republic]

Source please.

And I'm not sure why you are focusing on the "island nation" thing in particular as if it has some special significance...

I just listed eight developed nations which take in fewer refugees relevant to population than we do. You can do your own Googling.

I asked you for a source for one of your claims. Fobbing me off with "just google it" is just some really lazy argumentation. I'll ask again: can you please provide me a source for your claims? Want to have another go at it?

And clearly being an island nation has significance in taking in a high number of asylum seekers. It is more difficult to get to, and far less likely to be the first safe country a refugee arrives in.

Don't see how that is really germane to what we are discussing, since it has no impact on overseas aid whatsoever.

[Ainland]

I just listed eight developed nations which take in fewer refugees relevant to population than we do. You can do your own Googling.

I asked you for a source for one of your claims. Fobbing me off with "just google it" is just some really lazy argumentation. I'll ask again: can you please provide me a source for your claims? Want to have another go at it?

And clearly being an island nation has significance in taking in a high number of asylum seekers. It is more difficult to get to, and far less likely to be the first safe country a refugee arrives in.

Don't see how that is really germane to what we are discussing, since it has no impact on overseas aid whatsoever.

Yeah I'm not going to Google for you and find the list because you're too lazy to do it yourself. And if you read my post, clearly I was talking about the enduring generosity of the British government, and people, including overseas aid and taking in a high proportion of asylum seekers, relevant to those countries I just listed and more.

[The Huskar Social Union]

"X is Y"
"Can you give us a source to prove that?"
"Do it yourself"
"But you made the point so back it up"
"Nah you are just lazy"

wew