Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He's absolutely right about it.

Run it down, sell it cheap, remove all regulation so your mates can make a quick buck, blame it all on the poor/Labour/migrants.

That's pretty much how it goes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
From my perspective, you left out "the EU" on the list of people who get blamed for the Tories' political issues. I've said it before, but it's going to be interesting to see who's going to get blamed for all the woes in the world when you can't blame the EU anymore.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He's absolutely right about it.

Run it down, sell it cheap, remove all regulation so your mates can make a quick buck, blame it all on the poor/Labour/migrants.

That's pretty much how it goes.

I'm not blaming you or other dakka members, but in my experience, most people know this, and yet, we continue to elect Conservative governments.

Doesn't say much about the British public.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Even if you do get your compensation money, you're likely to lose it to criminal activity on Britain's streets...

Between 2007 and 2015, the UK was the only big advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. In most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown.

Italy and Portugal are yet to reach their pre-crisis levels on both measures, while in Finland and Spain real wages grew in periods of economic contraction.

The UK sits on its own as a rich economy that experienced a strong economic performance while the real wages of its workers dropped.

Britain’s GDP went back to pre-crisis levels in the third quarter of 2013 and it is now nearly 10 per cent larger than in the second quarter of 2008. Yet in 2014 wages were almost 10 per cent lower than seven years before. During the same period, salaries in France and Germany grew 7 per cent.

The contraction of UK real wages was reversed in 2015, but it is not going to last. “We expect a squeeze on income growth over the next few years,” writes Jonathan Loynes, chief economist at Capital Economics in a note, “but it should be limited by past standards.”

There are various reasons for the exceptional case of the UK, not least a shift towards lower-paid jobs, low productivity levels and growth, a strong rise in employment and higher inflation.

More people in work but with lower pay

Only the US and Canada have greater flexibility in labour market regulation than the UK, according to the OECD. Thanks to a more flexible job market, people were able to find jobs quicker than in other countries. Employment expanded by 2.4 per cent in the six years to 2013, while in France there was no job expansion and the EU as a whole experienced job losses.






After the crisis, labour supply increased, but these “unusual increases in labour supply” were absorbed by the market, writes the OECD in its latest country survey. Pension reform and other policies contributed to the increase in supply with a rising number of older workers and incentives to work rather than live off benefits. Meanwhile “sustained inflows of well-educated immigrants have boosted the working-age population”, says the OECD.

Such employment expansion coincided with the loss of labour bargaining power due to the risk of unemployment and “slack” remaining higher than pre-crisis levels. Unemployment, underemployment and involuntary part-time working, for example, were far above their levels in 2008. Coupled with low and falling levels of unionisation, employment growth came at the expense of a fall in real wages.






The expansion has begun to slow, not just because of the Brexit vote, but also because the economy is close to full employment, reducing downward pressure on wages.

Wages have not kept up with inflation

Inflation is likely to squeeze real wages in the next couple of years just as it did after the crisis.

Between 2007 and 2015 the UK had one of the highest inflation rates among big advanced economies, largely because of high energy prices and the depreciation of the pound. Consumer prices expanded at an annual rate of over 5 per cent at their peak in September 2011, well above the rate of expansion of nominal earnings.





30

Now inflation is rising rapidly once again.

It is expected to exceed 2.5 per cent this year because of the pound falling further. But in a tight labour market, high inflation “may make it harder for firms to award small pay increases”, says Capital Economics.

When employment was expanding, it was in lower-paid jobs

Employment growth was driven largely by self-employment and part-timers, while the number of full-time jobs shrank. “The rapid rises in employment over the past few years have been made up by a larger than usual share of low-skilled jobs which tend to be lower paid,” says Capital Economics.






The number of managers fell more than 24 per cent in the eight years to the third quarter 2015, while the number of sales and service workers expanded by a similar amount.

So as manufacturing and financial services lost workers, the workforce in accommodation and food services expanded.

The trend is now reversing, and the number of managers, professionals and technicians grew in the last year, while the number of elementary occupations contracted. Which means that the composition of jobs should stop pushing the average real wages level down.

Companies hired people rather than invested in capital

UK employment expanded at the expense of capital stock, which contributed to low (and falling) levels of productivity. In turn, lack of investment growth hampered productivity with negative effects on wages. “Whether pay drives productivity, or productivity drives pay, they go hand in hand,” as Sarah O’Connor, our labour correspondent, puts it.

Inflation and the dynamics of the labour market are pulling real wages in opposing directions. Ultimately further progress in living standards rests on boosting productivity growth, a challenge for the coming years.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The govt. is deluding itself to think they can improve the state of the NHS by systematically pissing off experienced doctors, GPs, junior doctors, medical students and prospective medical students.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Though as noted above, once we're out of the EU, and have applied whatever arbitrary, draconian immigration limits Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre demand - they'll be left with no more scapegoats.

Who cops the blame then is anyone's guess.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
The Tories don't want to improve the state of the NHS. They want it run down so they can make it "more efficient" by privatising it, i.e. selling it off to their mates like in every other privatisation they've presided over.

I don't buy this. Seriously, I know it's a favourite slogan of every anti-Tory group out there, but it just doesn't hang together as a concept when you scrutinise it closely.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do have a look at their party donors.

Do have a look at their refusal to increase funding.

Do have a look at Jeremy Hunt.

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah follow the money.

Donald Trump visit ‘will shift to Scotland to deter protests’


Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is to be delayed until October and will take place mostly in Scotland, according to reports. The Daily Mail has reported that planners want to shift much of the US president’s trip - originally pencilled in for the first week in June - to the Queen’s residence at Balmoral, Aberdeenshire, in a bid to deter protesters. The president could spend as little as one day in London before heading to Scotland. A senior Whitehall source told the paper: “The Americans have asked to push it back. “They don’t want what will be one of his first big foreign trips to be overshadowed.” Mr Trump’s mother, Mary, was born in Stornoway on the isle of Lewis. There is also speculation that Mr Trump may wish to visit the area during his stay. He has substantial business interests in Scotland, including the Trump International Golf Course in Aberdeenshire.

However, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was among those calling for his state visit to be cancelled in retaliation for his “deeply wrong” travel ban. The reported delay also means that Parliament will be in recess, making it impossible for MPs to “snub” the President by refusing him the honour of making an address. Officials believe the delay could also allow tempers to cool over Mr Trump’s controversial policies, and that the autumn weather may make mass protests less likely.

He has substantial business interests in Scotland

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't buy this. Seriously, I know it's a favourite slogan of every anti-Tory group out there, but it just doesn't hang together as a concept when you scrutinise it closely.

George Osborne's mate made £35 million when Royal Mail was flogged to the city spivs.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Setting the sale price too low? Osborne.

This is the same Conservative party we're talking about, yes? Privatise everything being their main mantra? The one with significant donations from those who want the NHS to follow suit, owners of private medical companies, yes?

It requires us to believe that:-

-All extraneous factors that might contribute towards a degradation of NHS services, such as a lack of liquidity generally within public funding, health scandals, an aging population placing greater strain on the system, and so forth, are all either directly the result of Tory actions, or things that could easily be fixed but a Tory Government refuses to do so deliberately.

- That there is a well thought out and entrenched plan that pervades the entire upper branch of the Conservative political hierarchy. What's more, that this plan has been discussed and is being enacted with no substantial leaks or dissension.

-That top ranking Tories are all motivated by and expect to benefit financially from the privatisation that will occur, because they are all extremely wealthy buggers who hold large shares specifically in the private (usually American) healthcare companies expected to fill the gap, or occupy senior positions within them after government.

-That not one of the buggers has considered the obvious gaping flaw that they could be voted out before they've succeeded in 'running it down', and a new government could turn around and undo everything they've done.

-That all senior Tories are complete and utter selfish grasping bastards determined to do what is best for them and not the country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, that may well be, but as I've said to you before, I was around back in the 1990s when we had cash for questions, the Black Wednesday fiasco, and before that, arms to Iraq, amongst other things.

And then you read those papers released under the 30 year rule, and you see what was really happening in the Thatcher government

I admit my default position is anti-Tory party, but that is borne from witnessing too many scandals involving Conservative corruption and incompetence.

It is very difficult for me to give them the benefit of the doubt on the NHS and privatisation of Trains and Royal Mail.

Jeremy Hunt co-authored book calling for NHS to be replaced with private insurance
'Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party' called for the 'denationalisation' of the NHS

Jeremy Hunt co-authored a policy pamphlet that called for the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system.

The 2005 policy book, called Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party, was a collection of writings authored by a group of Tory MPs.

Amongst other ideas, the book contained a blueprint for replacing the NHS with an insurance market system – and called for the private sector to be brought in.

The Health Secretary is listed as one of the authors, though he has previously denied that he wrote the chapter on the NHS and says it does not reflect his views.

The book was presented as a whole and chapters are not marked with individual authors, however.

“We should fund patients, either through the tax system or by way of universal insurance, to purchase health care from the provider of their choice,” the book says on page 74.

It adds on page 78: “Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain.”

Put together by Douglas Carswell, the book’s authors also included Tory MPs Michael Gove, Daniel Hannan, Greg Clark, David Gauke, and Kwasi Kwarteng.

The pamphlet briefly shot to fame in 2012, when Mr Hunt’s appointment as Health Secretary prompted Labour to highlight the book’s contents.

Then Shadow Health Secretary wrote a letter to Mr Hunt.

“Patients and staff will have serious concerns about these remarks and have a right to know whether you remain of this view,” he asked at the time.

Mr Hunt has since repeatedly said he believes in the principles of the NHS. He says the Conservatives are “the party of the NHS”.

 reds8n wrote:

He has substantial business interests in Scotland

Real reason IMO.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I have.

Why are the Tories refusing to provide the necessary funding increase to the NHS?

Why are the Tories insistent on giving Junior Doctors terrible contracts?

Why are they ignoring widespread comment from experts in the field who say it needs to be properly funded?

Defund. Destroy. Self off. PROFIT.
.

 Ketara wrote:

Thing is, I don't have a problem with someone asserting 'Tories are detached bastards', or 'Tories generally have an ideological belief that things should be privatised', or even 'Some Tories are corrupt'. These are all perfectly valid things to say, with plenty of evidence.

It's when it gets linked together into this huge collective conspiracy to 'Privatise the NHS for financial benefit of them and their Tory mates' that I go "Really?!"

It's just such lazy thinking. And lazy thinking gets my goat.

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I have.

Why are the Tories refusing to provide the necessary funding increase to the NHS?

Because there's no money. You seen our operational deficit recently?

Nonono. No. You've proven nothing yet that a simpler, 100% more obvious conclusion doesn't explain. And even if you did somehow prove this one point, you'd still need to cast that umbrella across all the other points mentioned. You're the one asserting the moon landings didn't happen. You need better proof than this.