National News ....the public gets what the public wants?

Essexyellows said:
Why should MP`s of any party get bogged down with a media circus of visiting a flooded area? Those very area`s folk are told to stay away from?
A more practical use of resources is to examine why houses are built on flood plains. Take a look at the new houses in the images on this report..........
www.bbc.co.uk

Yorkshire flood damage 'will take a lot of recovery'

Kevin Lorryman's home was completely engulfed by floodwater with only the solar-panelled roof visible.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
..... and which party is it who tramples over local democracy to grant planning permission for new builds, seemingly purely to reach their own targets, - & without properly considering whether or not their box-ticking does or doesnt come with, err, undercurrents? .... Hmmmm, wonder which one that'll be? ;)


_109673121_mediaitem109673120.jpg
 
Essexyellows said:
Why should MP`s of any party get bogged down with a media circus of visiting a flooded area? Those very area`s folk are told to stay away from?
A more practical use of resources is to examine why houses are built on flood plains. Take a look at the new houses in the images on this report..........
www.bbc.co.uk

Yorkshire flood damage 'will take a lot of recovery'

Kevin Lorryman's home was completely engulfed by floodwater with only the solar-panelled roof visible.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Well Johnson managed to visit flood affected areas before the election, but not after....
 
Sarge said:
or to paraphrase the bard of Woking ...the public gets what the public voted for

perhaps the official Cummings Government response, to the recent devestating floods (thankfully few here in the 'shire) and their impact, should be 'suck it up snowflakes, we're busy Getting Brexit Done'

Our 'caring' Tory Government at its best , and showing its utter contempt for the electorate

View attachment 3047
Click to expand...
I assume Labour created that bill/etc in order to use it against the Govt, rather than genuinely wanting to thank the responders. Cheap politics over genuine altruism?

And the content so is vague and waffly (looks like the Magic Grandpa wrote it), that the chances of creating valuable and timely output, is minimal, as EY as pointed out.

As an aside, it gives the left another thing to get angry about! Yorkshire Tea, Carex, Feminism vs Transgenderism and now flooding. Quite a mix! :D
 
meanwhile, breaking news from HoC , the 80 seat majority Tory government have just voted a 3.1% pay rise for MPs ..... funded by,..... us taxpayers :rolleyes:
 
Sarge said:
meanwhile, breaking news from HoC , the 80 seat majority Tory government have just voted a 3.1% pay rise for MPs ..... funded by,..... us taxpayers :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Only following the Lords precedent on their expenses! ?
 
That`ll be the salaries governed by IPSA and the Parliamentary Standards Act since 2009 then?
Lets have the whole picture...... since 1996..... doesn`t matter what colour party eh?
MPs.PNG
 
You're right. It doesn't matter what colour, but would suggest that

a) most businesses that employed an independent pay commission would have similar recommendations presented to them (based in inflation, cost of living etc). What matters is whether they chose to follow through on those recommendations or not. In this case MPs don't actually have to worry about whether it is affordable to the business or not.

b) It particularly sticks in the craw during a decade of austerity when public sector pay has stagnated and many have had close on a 20% effective pay cut over that period.

Don't forget we were told that we were all in this together and we all had to tighten our belts. MPs had a choice, they chose to feather their own nests and hide behind the rather flimsy excuse of an independent pay commission, rather than showing some guts, empathy and leadership.

It goes without saying that there was only one colour of government throughout the whole austerity period. Perhaps some solidarity with the electorate and other public servants might have been well advised....if they gave two sh1ts that is.
 
Last edited:
Essexyellows said:
That`ll be the salaries governed by IPSA and the Parliamentary Standards Act since 2009 then?
Lets have the whole picture...... since 1996..... doesn`t matter what colour party eh?
View attachment 3064
Click to expand...

On that basis, other public sector wages should go up based on independent pay reviews rather than being limited to 1% each year (so below inflation) as they were under austerity.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
You're right. It doesn't matter what colour, but would suggest that

a) most businesses that employed an independent pay commission would have similar recommendations presented to them (based in inflation, cost of living etc). What matters is whether they chose to follow through on those recommendations or not. In this case MPs don't actually have to worry about whether it is affordable to the business or not.

b) It particularly sticks in the craw during a decade of austerity when public sector pay has stagnated and many have had close on a 20% effective pay cut over that period.

Don't forget we were told that we were all in this together and we all had to tighten our belts. MPs had a choice, they chose to feather their own nests and hide behind the rather flimsy excuse of an independent pay commission, rather than showing some guts, empathy and leadership.

It goes without saying that there was only one colour of government throughout the whole austerity period. Perhaps some solidarity with the electorate and other public servants might have been well advised....if they gave two sh1ts that is.
Click to expand...

Really? Try our local Labour City Mayor and his councillors.........not the workforce....

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Mayor and councillors set for pay and allowance rise

People have a chance to comment on proposed increases before they are voted on
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk

"It has said Sir Peter, who has been the city's elected mayor since 2011, should have his current pay of £72,015 elevated to £75,000. "....... elected Mayor is a bit of stretch, he was "shoed in" before the public were given a referendum on having a Mayor or not.

They won`t turn it down.
 
Marked Ox said:
On that basis, other public sector wages should go up based on independent pay reviews rather than being limited to 1% each year (so below inflation) as they were under austerity.
Click to expand...

Really? NHS get Annual increments PLUS 1% until you reach the top of your pay band, by which time you should be progressing anyway. ;) :)
 
Essexyellows said:
Really? NHS get Annual increments PLUS 1% until you reach the top of your pay band, by which time you should be progressing anyway. ;) :)
Click to expand...

Is that anywhere close to the MPs rise in wages? Certainly the pay scales in local Govt weren't much even with the increments and on those scales you soon reached the top anyway. And it isn't easy for the somebody entering data (invoices etc), working in the Shopmobility Service, Libraries, Museums, Home Care etc just to get promoted after a few years as the roles just aren't there unless the odd management position becomes available.

That doesn't change the principle that if Independent pay reviews are good for MPs then they should be good for everybody else in the Public Sector.
 
Last edited:
What are nhs pensions like these days? Are they index linked final salary?
 
But I don’t get what this society wants [emoji2371]
 
Essexyellows said:
That`ll be the salaries governed by IPSA and the Parliamentary Standards Act since 2009 then?
Lets have the whole picture...... since 1996..... doesn`t matter what colour party eh?
View attachment 3064
Click to expand...
So since Blair got in, it has averaged ~$1.6k p.a. regardless of party. The 1996 (Tory govt) increase is bigger though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom