Whilst people’s pay has been frozen and cut, where do they imagine the fruits of economic growth have gone?
A good point. Where has my hard earned money gone?! I contributed, dammit.
Do you really think that’s what he said or meant?
I did, but admit I read through it quickly and leaped to an assumption with the Ferrari comment, my apologies if I misunderstood it.
In short I'm trying to say please don't get into a public/private argument about job safety and wages. Its never black and white. I've said before - both private sector - my wife was made redundant in October from a Civil Engineering company and at best I'll earn 75% of my expected salary. And we are by no means at all the worst off in this scenario, others have been hit much harder - from both sides of the fence.
More desperate applicants for every vacancy.
And some selective balancing. Mrs K didnt get a - public sector - job she was poached for, of which the JD was written for her, because when she turned up for the interview she hadn't managed a team. It was not part of the job spec, but sounded very much that between application & interview someone had decided to roll 2 jobs into one.
Don’t think this is the year anyone, private or sector workers, should expect a pay rise.
I think that is probably about right - although some particular niche's which play into public sentimentality are getting more (NHS) - I think that's dangerous, why is an NHS worker more important than a police officer or teacher, is the person processing our tax returns or dvla paperwork less valuable than the person working the reception desk at my GP?
Politicians certainly shouldn’t get one.
This is what makes no sense to me. Obviously the actual impact on the economy is didly squat but wouldn't it have been great leadership if they had said - we'll cut £5k off every MPs salary next year. The average tory MP can afford that - after tax without noticing; none of the others could afford to be seen to be greedier than a tory and they've got a huge majority to vote it through. What a blocker to the argument from any journo etc - yes we are in it together, we aren't asking the public to take less but we are taking less ourselves. In fact they could have played a blinder there because I think the Welsh, Scottish, and NI governments might have had to follow suit and perhaps somewhat less willingly. I'd have though borris would have personally gifted each of his MPs £5k to get a win like that on Nicola!
I think that is probably about right – although some particular niche’s which play into public sentimentality are getting more (NHS) – I think that’s dangerous, why is an NHS worker more important than a police officer or teacher, is the person processing our tax returns or dvla paperwork less valuable than the person working the reception desk at my GP?
If it helps, I'm NHS and both I and quite a few colleagues have been saying we don't think it's fair we get a pay rise when the rest of the public sector doesn't.
If anyone deserves a pay rise it's care home staff - they've been utterly brutalised this year.
The NHS has done better than most other public services in recent years in all honesty (although still hammered by the Tory's idealogical austerity programme)
The private vs public argument is always clouded by pensions. Yes the NHS pension is good but the chances of it still being good when I retire are slim. In terms of take-home pay, private sector will always trump public sector, and this is what allows people to pay bills and mortgages. Which is why there are 40,000 nursing vacancies.
Politicians certainly shouldn’t get one.
Don't agree.
If we want professionals in Parliament, rather than landed gentry and idiots, we have to pay a decent wage. MPs salaries are pretty low by professional standards, so most capable people would have to take a hefty pay cut to become one.
In terms of take-home pay, private sector will always trump public sector,
Not sure that's true across the board. Yes, there are a lot of well paid professionals in the City, but there are also a hell of a lot of Amazon warehouse / McDonalds staff type jobs on minimum wage.
Historic defecit
Historic debt
National debt still looking fairly insignificant compared to post WW2.
That massive banking cock up a few years ago pushed it up.
Of late, when comparing the billions spunked on Dildo Hardings money pit of incompetence, with the across the board pay freezes for public sector, words fail.
Ahem
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/4929
https://www.wirral.gov.uk/about-council/performance-and-spending/chief-officer-pay
There's plenty to google.
Not sure that’s true across the board. Yes, there are a lot of well paid professionals in the City, but there are also a hell of a lot of Amazon warehouse / McDonalds staff type jobs on minimum wage.
Yes that's a fair point - I was thinking more about professional registrants.
Would be good if the NHS rise all went on band 5 (4?) and below staff
If we want professionals in Parliament, rather than landed gentry and idiots, we have to pay a decent wage.
Quite agree but that's a different argument, the current shower (and I include the opposition or lack of it in this) should own the mess they've made and take the pay cut.
As for your other point I think to be an MP you should have to relinquish all other employment and business interests for the duration, it should be a proper full time job and involve mandatory training. Most MPs get a 5 year tenure at least which is a decent enough length of time guaranteed in one job. Not going to happen though as it would involve turkeys voting for Christmas.
Edit: Kryton so a surprising number of rather well paid jobs on Liverpool Council then, I would expect them to be on a par with many senior private sector employees in mid sized companies.
Like the public sector many private sector workers are paid the minimum companies can get away with, without the same level of employment rights, additional benefits and pensions. Whether somewhere is a good place to work is down to the senior staff ethos and the commitment of the employees, across the board we seem to have poor management and unengaged employees, doesn't matter whether its private or public.
Quite agree but that’s a different argument, the current shower (and I include the opposition or lack of it in this) should own the mess they’ve made and take the pay cut.
It's counter productive, will make no difference to the performance of the current lot and just sends a message to everyone else that MP's pay is crap, so don't even consider it.
footflaps, I disagree, MPs have made politics all about the message over the last 20 years not what's actually achieved, if they don't get a pay freeze / cut the message to most the message will be sod you lot I'm untouchable.
You and I know that basic MP salaries are not going to attract good board level people to the roles purely for the pay but to most people an £82k basic salary plus generous expenses and a subsidised canteen is not sending out the message that MP' pay is crap.
Ahem
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/4929
https://www.wirral.gov.uk/about-council/performance-and-spending/chief-officer-pay
There’s plenty to google.
Not quite sure of your point, but if it is the £167k salary of the chief exec, just consider what the pay in the private sector (including bonuses, share options etc that aren't a thing in the public sector) would be for a job that:
*had over 300,000 customers
*needed to provide services as diverse as education, safeguarding vulnerable children and adults, social care, public health, highways, leisure, culture, waste collection and disposal, planning, housing benefits, regeneration, and community engagement. Many of these services, if done wrong, will result in criminal prosecution for senior managers and staff.
*was responsible for 3,000 staff
* managed a budget of £270m +?
If we want our public services to do well, we need to pay for excellence, as the private sector do. There aren't many senior managers who jump ship to the private sector becasue of the high pay and easy life (/s)
*
I think the framing of this is something the Tories have managed to control really well. We can see here that the thread started off taking about economic recovery and it's taken no time at all to turn into the false comparison with household spending, "I'm not getting one so why should they" and "they should just be grateful they've got a job".
The question is, do you want the economy to bounce back quickly from the COVID shock?
If you're retired with a fixed pension income you probably don't care, but if you work in the private sector (and not in repossessions/Wonga/Brighthouse) then a buoyant economy is probably good for you.
So do you want to, (1) in all likelihood, make yourself poorer as long as that means that social workers and librarians don't get a pay rise? Or (2) do you want an economy that has a better chance of recovering, that makes you better off and makes your job more secure?
Don't get into comparisons, just think about the end goal of what you actually want to happen. If you really want worse public services and poorer public sector workers then fine, but at least have the honesty to admit that you're doing it out of spite.
Others have made the points I would make about public sector pay and conditions, it has been an idealogical erosion of them over the past 10 years. We should invest in high quality staff across the board as that attracts the best and staff then perform well. Doesn't matter if private sector or public sector, the big difference is we can't go outside pay scales and spine points when trying to recruit those people so they don't come or if they do, don't hang around long as there's no pay progression at all other than if you're in one of the posts/ sectors that gets a cost of living uplift. I am paid well, in a high grade, I enjoy it, but haven't had a cost of living rise in 10yrs, and hit my grade ceiling 5 years ago. I prefer to see it though that I have a good job, that is probably more secure than most especially right now. But it's the feeling of not being valued that really grates - platitudes only go so far, trying to explain to my excellent staff I can't give them a very well deserved raise, so they leave and we go through the whole training process etc again and again. And don't get me started on pensions.. As a society we need to move away from a race to the bottom, and value everyone more, not matter which sector you work in.
but to most people an £82k basic salary plus generous expenses and a subsidised canteen is not sending out the message that MP’ pay is crap.
But I don't want 'most people' to run the country, I'd like the very best of the best, for which £82k is bugger all. If you've just got a first class degree from a top university and looking at joining one the big Consultancies etc on a fast track program; you'll out earn an MP in less than 5 years and spend most of your career earning at least twice that. Unless you're some odd ball idealist (eg Corbyn) you'd not think twice about going into Politics.
I really hope that departments continue to get handsome and handsomely paid consultants in every few years to advise/lead on changes which existing civil servants could do themselves. It's the only way to produce savings.
I think the salary of a council chief exec isn't exactly representative of the majority of public sector staff. I find it bizarre that some civil service staff get a pay rise whenever the minimum wage goes up - how can the civil service not set a standard for pay for the lowest among them?
Though when you have council execs and other top public sector roles getting paid more than the PM, I do wonder if the world's gone mad.
I'm not sure if I want people going into politics because it pays well.
I’m not sure if I want people going into politics because it pays well.
But I suspect the mediocre pay deters a lot of high achievers, so you only get to pick between die hard idealists (Corbyn etc), medocre losers (David Davies) and millionaires to whom it's just a jolly good jape and something to brag about at dinner parties (Boris, Sunak etc).
But I don’t want ‘most people’ to run the country, I’d like the very best of the best, for which £82k is bugger all. If you’ve just got a first class degree from a top university and looking at joining one the big Consultancies etc on a fast track program; you’ll out earn an MP in less than 5 years and spend most of your career earning at least twice that. Unless you’re some odd ball idealist (eg Corbyn) you’d not think twice about going into Politics.
Is that the only person you want in politics? Personally I find real world life experience is more valuable than where you got your politics degree from. Politicians should be from a diverse cross section of society. The civil servants that actually make the stuff work, on the other hand, should be qualified for the job.
I’m not sure if I want people going into politics because it pays well.
Quite.
Don't forget, we're all in this together
But I don’t want ‘most people’ to run the country, I’d like the very best of the best, for which £82k is bugger all. If you’ve just got a first class degree from a top university and looking at joining one the big Consultancies etc on a fast track program; you’ll out earn an MP in less than 5 years and spend most of your career earning at least twice that.
Those aren't the people I want running the country. We have had the oxbridge elite, and they have ****ed it up worse than anyone. I don't think that success in our current radical freemarket economy is any basis to judge intellect and ability. It is shown so manty times that all that separates most of these supposedly fantastic successful people from everyone else is a life rich in opportunity.
National debt still looking fairly insignificant compared to post WW2.
I personally am not in favour of heading back to the postwar years of hardship and austerity.
Queuing for rationed foods is not really my preference.
War caused rationing, the debt created growth and the post war economic boom.
I'm just waiting for the division re-enforcement messages to appear from the Daily Heil "Civil Service Mandarins bathe in champagne at YOUR expense" "Bureaucratic nightmare of incompetence from £150k a year council chiefs" etc.
you’ll out earn an MP in less than 5 years and spend most of your career earning at least twice that. Unless you’re some odd ball idealist (eg Corbyn) you’d not think twice about going into Politics.
Thats a depressing post to read isnt it, bloody idealists, who needs them, we just need those motivated by greed, that'll help.
Thats a depressing post to read isnt it, bloody idealists, who needs them, we just need those motivated by greed, that’ll help.
Well the people were given a straight choice between an idealist and an oxbridge Toff and voted overwelmingly for the toff!
In fact, the idealist set his party back to 1930 levels of support - so they don't seem to be very popular.
NB Being well paid and being motivated by greed aren't the same things. There are plenty of professions paid better than MPs eg Medical Consultants and I wouln't class them as motivated by Greed. I'm paid more than an MP, that's just the going rate for my profession / skill level etc.
If you’ve just got a first class degree from a top university
Do you think that's a reliable guide to competency in great offices of state?
Do you think that’s a reliable guide to competency in great offices of state?
On its own no, but given polictics is whole set of complex problems and messy compromises I'd rather have people who understood the complexities than not.
The current problem is we have independantly wealthy people going into the politics as a hobby, something for the CV and a set of good after dinner stories. They happen to also have been to top Universities. The rest of their cohort (the capable ones) probably go off to have decent careers as Consultants, lawyers, etc.
PMQs currently is a good example of hobby politician (Boris) turning up underprepared just after a laugh from the gallery and a professional (Starmer) turning up well prepared and laser focussed on the job in hand. Regardless of whether you agree with their politics their approaches are miles apart. I prefer the focussed, prepared professional approach myself and would like to see more of it in politics. Problem is, if you have those skills, you can have a better lifestyle doing just about any other profession in London - not excessive greed, just a nice house and a couple of kids at Private School etc. NB If that is excessive greed, god help you when you find out how much Elon Musk is worth.....
In my line of work (environmental and utilities) private sector pays way more than public sector. And the benefits are pretty much the same. I’ve just made the switch to private from public.
I was the most experienced in my team in my public sector job, I was fully chartered in my profession and got great results but was paid no more than someone who has just finished their training. Just got sick of getting no rewards for working at a high level when the slackers got the same as me and getting constantly ignored for promotion.
So I went private, they recognised my experience and knowledge straight away and put me in a job with less responsibility and stress with better IT and kit. And all the other benefits are there too, seem to be a caring company (I know other people who work here so got the heads up before I applied) and the pension provision looks similar too.
And I get 20% more money with the (real) possibility of that turning into 50% more after a couple of years if my performance and results are good.
I am in a lucky position where I have a relatively low mortgage compared to people who rent and don’t have kids to support but even I was feeling the pinch after a decade of 1% rises to the point where holidays were a premium nowadays. So for younger folk I have every sympathy with them when they come into the public sector workplace then move on after getting the experience. I should have done that years ago and I don’t blame them for doing it.
Worst thing I found was that the unions in the public sector ruined any chance of being paid more if you were more experienced and produced better results by lobbying to remove the different pay levels within grades. They were never automatic and you had to work hard and produce evidence against set standards to get your pay rise but they got rid of all that. Which meant that in 2 or 3 years after that happened a lot of the experienced staff left. What a wonderful result. 😳🙄🙄🙄
On its own no, but given polictics is whole set of complex problems and messy compromises I’d rather have people who understood the complexities than not.
So would I, but the rest of your post I think undermined your original argument. Leaving ideology aside, Starmer is clearly competent and motivated, seemingly able to cope with an MPs salary...
So I went private, they recognised my experience and knowledge straight away and put me in a job with less responsibility and stress with better IT and kit. And all the other benefits are there too, seem to be a caring company (I know other people who work here so got the heads up before I applied) and the pension provision looks similar too.
And I get 20% more money
Seen a lot of that in my previous agency - excellent graduate programme, put people through professional qualifications, they wait 3 years and then leave for big pay rises. Though interestingly we had a few mums who did just that and were back within a year, flexible family friendly working being an issue apparently.
Well the people were given a straight choice between an idealist and an oxbridge Toff and voted overwelmingly for the toff!
One example well done must be true, what about Tory idealists or Green idealists? Was Boris not a Brexit idealist, or at least pretending to be?
Anyway who gives a **** you keep your opinions, I couldnt care less. To busy doing a job I care about to worry about it too much, just find that sort of attitude hard to understand.
Been public sector for 20 years, apart from the first couple where I was on probie pay but the wages were increasing I’ve only ever known below inflation raises or freezes.
My role and conditions are unrecognisable from then really. Some real improvements, however mostly it’s been do more whilst having other conditions smashed including a pension scheme torn up a new one introduced and then that was proven through the courts to have been illegal. Still waiting to see how that’s redressed.
We don’t have enough firefighters to crew the vehicles, regularly having to scratch around to find the crew or take pumps off the run.
When Covid started it was inevitable that public services would end up paying, and will continue to pay in one form or another.
Still I do genuinely believe the frontline (nhs, carehome staff, police etc) who have been dealing with covid day in day out should be rewarded for their efforts. Having been in that ppe for shorter periods of time they have my utmost respect for trooping on for shift after shift.
I'm public sector and quite glad of the freeze. I'll explain why.
When I started my current role it was and still is a spine point system, which takes many years to work your way to the top. Your pay is only frozen when you reach the top. About 6 years in they decided to increase the bottom of the scale to where I was at the time, so all the new, less experienced staff were on the same as me. Not fair but nothing I could do. Now, 10 years in, I'm still 1 point from the top of my scale and lots of newly recruited staff are openly saying they are on the top spine point (they must have negotiated at the interview) and now their pay is capped. Mine will still go up next year before being capped so it doesn't bother me. It simply allows me to catch up which is only fair.
MPs salary should be linked to the minimum wage. That way, if they want more money they know what they need to do.
Of course, if we cannot afford to raise the minimum wage then we cannot afford to raise MPs wages.
mjsmke so it's a good thing to freeze pay because you'd still get a rise due to stepping up the spine? Is that what you really said?
As opposed to a rise which will see you step up and get more or stay where you are and get more.
The old Civil Service pay progression and taking it away has caused all sorts of anomalies. There really are people starting in roles being paid more than the person training them.
That said, the new contracts sometimes have fewer benefits in terms of flexible working, 5/7 shifts etc. It's not always about just money. HMRC staff are in higher pay than similar grades at my previous agency, but we are potentially signed up to 5/7, 8 till 8 shift work depending on which business area you are in.
mjsmke so it’s a good thing to freeze pay because you’d still get a rise due to stepping up the spine? Is that what you really said?
Yes, in my case anyway. I've spent 10 years working my way up and not at the top yet. Lots of people seem to be at the top with less experience and less time and wanting a rise.
So NHS/police/teachers/binmen/public sectors carers all those that have been working through the crisis, stuff them as long as you step up a spine point?
Christ, this thread is a window into the world isnt it!!
I have been working through the crisis. The point is the pay system isn't fair so you cant just give blanket pay rises that will only help those at the top. What about those not at the top?
Christ, this thread is a window into the world isnt it!![
Quite! Really interested in how many SCS (senior civil servants, i.e. G5 or above) are commenting? Anyone care to disclose?
- finbar (G7)
’m currently seeing lots of relatively young grade 6s and 7s who have progressed through their technical skills without the management skills and experience to effectively lead teams. Since 2010, training budget cuts and effective recruitment freezes has reduced the ability to upskill internally and attract enough talent that already has the skills needed from elsewhere. It’s not about the money, it’s about having the capability to lead and retain good people IME.
Shame Sunningdale closed eh? That catering... *drools*