General Election 2017: The Results and Aftermath

[berneyarms]

I agree - and the condemnation would be unequiovical.

I've said it before but this year I'm really fed up of politics and democracy, and I'm increasingly concerned that the system of democracy we have is fundamentally not a good form of governance.

And how do you think the rest of Europe manages, where hung parliaments are the norm more often than not?

I find the British reaction to having to deal with these realities somewhat laughable - in most European countries (including Ireland) this is the norm.

Most of them get on with it.

 

[Barn]

But I think the particular issue is that the Conservatives have spent years insisting that there is no money, and actually causing real hardship to many people, as well as harm to the economy because of their ideological attachment to austerity, continually backed by their claims that there is (supposedly) no money for the Government to spend. This deal has rather brutally exposed that for the falsehood that it always was, as well as highlighting the hypocrisy of the Conservative leadership. It demonstrates that clearly there is money available - and by implication, there always was the money available. Presumably, it's just that the Conservatives (apparently) didn't see paying nurses and firemen etc. properly as important enough.

If the Conservatives hadn't spent all those years using 'no money tree' as an excuse to deny so many people a reasonable life, then their actions in spending £1bn+ to bribe the DUP would not have looked so hypocritical (although it would have still looked unfair to the rest of the country).

I agree with you about the difficult and hypocritical situation the Tories find themselves in. But I wouldn't say the take home message is that there is lots of spare spending power available after all. It's that we've delved even further into borrowing to meet this new payment.

 

[berneyarms]

But I think the particular issue is that the Conservatives have spent years insisting that there is no money, and actually causing real hardship to many people, as well as harm to the economy because of their ideological attachment to austerity, continually backed by their claims that there is (supposedly) no money for the Government to spend. This deal has rather brutally exposed that for the falsehood that it always was, as well as highlighting the hypocrisy of the Conservative leadership. It demonstrates that clearly there is money available - and by implication, there always was the money available. Presumably, it's just that the Conservatives (apparently) didn't see paying nurses and firemen etc. properly as important enough.

If the Conservatives hadn't spent all those years using 'no money tree' as an excuse to deny so many people a reasonable life, then their actions in spending £1bn+ to bribe the DUP would not have looked so hypocritical (although it would have still looked unfair to the rest of the country).

From what I can see the Conservatives made a political decision to cut expenditure in an effort to balance the books. Cue austerity.

That's different from saying that there is no money. Money can be borrowed. That's ultimately a political choice that needs to be made.

 

[AlterEgo]

And how do you think the rest of Europe manages, where hung parliaments are the norm more often than not?

I find the British reaction to having to deal with these realities somewhat laughable - in most European countries (including Ireland) this is the norm.

Most of them get on with it.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of permanent coalition rather than the winner-takes-all, steamroller mentality in Westminster. The Republic of Ireland's system has many flaws but there is definitely not the democratic deficit in Ireland as there is in the UK, largely because of the STV system.

My point was narrow and limited to pointing out that many people would also condemn (British) Labour for getting SF onside (fantasy politics though).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A 1% pay rise is a real terms pay cut hence no pay rise.

Being somewhat pedantic, it does not alter the fact that a pay rise still involves an increase in wage/salary levels. Or has the mathematical logic of financial matters changed since I retired in 2010?

 

[Darandio]

Being somewhat pedantic, it does not alter the fact that a pay rise still involves an increase in wage/salary levels. Or has the mathematical logic of financial matters changed since I retired in 2010?

I'm certain you know exactly what was meant Paul, as usual.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what I can see the Conservatives made a political decision to cut expenditure in an effort to balance the books. Cue austerity.

That's different from saying that there is no money. Money can be borrowed. That's ultimately a political choice that needs to be made.

Do you attach any importance to the borrowing requirements having a need for repayment of such borrowing, with the subsequent interest added to loan repayments?

 

[berneyarms]

Do you attach any importance to the borrowing requirements having a need for repayment of such borrowing, with the subsequent interest added to loan repayments?

I'm not passing a judgement on it - I'm merely saying that it's a political decision ultimately, in much the same way as the financial package agreed with the DUP is a political decision.

There are ramifications either way.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm certain you know exactly what was meant Paul, as usual.

Of course I do, but I wish that people would be more thoughtful in what they say. Earlier in the thread, where the actual term "bribe" was being used in the usual flippant way, I asked about the terms of the Bribery Act 2010 and was then told that I knew what was meant, but such laziness in the use of the English Language, where people cannot be bothered to use the correct word infuriates me.

Speaking as one with over thirty years senior managerial experience, if you are awarded a pay rise, that is an emolumental increase by the employer to the staff. In the mind of the employer, the one who awards pay rises, that has naught to do with how those monies then are used to pay for items by the employee.

 

[DarloRich]

Paul, call it what you like. Everyone knows a bung when they see one. Even you. Put simply: Does this pass the "smell" test? I don't think it does. Do you?

On point two and with inflation running at c2.9% even you, with your 30 years senior management experience know a real terms pay cut when you see one.

 

[DaleCooper]

Speaking as one with over thirty years senior managerial experience, if you are awarded a pay rise, that is an emolumental increase by the employer to the staff. In the mind of the employer, the one who awards pay rises, that has naught to do with how those monies then are used to pay for items by the employee.

What is the difference between a pay rise and an emolumental increase? It looks like tautology but I'm sure you would not be so sloppy in your use of English.

 

[pemma]

Of course I do, but I wish that people would be more thoughtful in what they say. Earlier in the thread, where the actual term "bribe" was being used in the usual flippant way, I asked about the terms of the Bribery Act 2010 and was then told that I knew what was meant, but such laziness in the use of the English Language, where people cannot be bothered to use the correct word infuriates me.

Collins dictionary defines a bribe as "to promise, offer or give something, often illegally, to receive services or gain influence." So while the word is usually used to refer to an illegal transaction, it can also be used to refer to a legal transaction. As for why it's legal a Richard Nixon quote comes to mind.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul, call it what you like. Everyone knows a bung when they see one. Even you. Put simply: Does this pass the "smell" test? I don't think it does. Do you?

On point two and with inflation running at c2.9% even you, with your 30 years senior management experience know a real terms pay cut when you see one.

A pay cut is when an employer reduces the pay of the employees.

 

[pemma]

A pay cut is when an employer reduces the pay of the employees.

A pay cut and a real terms pay cut are not the same.

 

[DaleCooper]

A pay cut is when an employer reduces the pay of the employees.

Conveniently ignoring the qualifier "real terms".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Collins dictionary defines a bribe as "to promise, offer or give something, often illegally, to receive services or gain influence." So while the word is usually used to refer to an illegal transaction, it can also be used to refer to a legal transaction. As for why it's legal a Richard Nixon quote comes to mind.

I am not interested in the quotes of any American, living or dead, but in the actuality of the terms of reference in the Bribery Act 2010.

If as it has been stated earlier in the thread the British Prime Minister offered a bribe of the stated amount directly to the Democratic Unionist Party, that bribe would most certainly NOT be a legal transaction,

 

[DarloRich]

A pay cut is when an employer reduces the pay of the employees.

Paul, you are being obtuse now.

“Real terms” means that a value has been adjusted to take inflation into account. With inflation at 2.9% a 1% pay rise is, in real terms, a pay cut. I am sure, however, that you know this.

You seem very keen to overlook the longer term impacts of that inflation v 1% "rise" year on year. Midwives, for example, have seen their pay drop in value by over £6,000 since 2010 due to below-inflation increases, according to the Royal College of Midwives. In real terms, despite the ever generous government offering them a terrible reasonable 1% rise p/a they are 6k worse off.

In real terms they are getting shafted.

 

[DaleCooper]

I am not interested in the quotes of any American, living or dead,

H.L.Mencken was American I believe.

 

[pemma]

I am not interested in the quotes of any American, living or dead, but in the actuality of the terms of reference in the Bribery Act 2010.

If as it has been stated earlier in the thread the British Prime Minister offered a bribe of the stated amount directly to the Democratic Unionist Party, that bribe would most certainly NOT be a legal transaction,

As already stated using the word bribe does not automatically imply that anything illegal has taken place. If the Conservatives have promised, offered or given something to the DUP to gain influence then by the dictionary definition they have bribed the DUP, regardless of whether they have breached the Bribery Act 2010 or not.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Conveniently ignoring the qualifier "real terms".

Does your employer take any employee post wage/salary financial usage into account when those monies are paid to the employee.? Once the monies are in the hands of the employees, there is no other responsibility on the employer.

People go to work for an employer for an agreed amount. What the subsequent monies are then spent on by the employee is immaterial to the employer who does not have to budget for such matters when establishing the overheads of the business.

I am strictly speaking from the side of an employer, as that was the position that I held.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As already stated using the word bribe does not automatically imply that anything illegal has taken place. If the Conservatives have promised, offered or given something to the DUP to gain influence then by the dictionary definition they have bribed the DUP, regardless of whether they have breached the Bribery Act 2010 or not.

I think a bribe which was the actual stated word used earlier in the thread to the value of £1bn is not just an average sized bribe, as many of the judiciary would feel to be the case.

 

[DaleCooper]

Does your employer take any employee post wage/salary financial usage into account when those monies are paid to the employee.? Once the monies are in the hands of the employees, there is no other responsibility on the employer.

People go to work for an employer for an agreed amount. What the subsequent monies are then spent on by the employee is immaterial to the employer who does not have to budget for such matters when establishing the overheads of the business.

I am strictly speaking from the side of an employer, as that was the position that I held.

As that was completely irrelevant I assume you didn't understand my post. Would you like me to explain it?

 

[DarloRich]

Does your employer take any employee post wage/salary financial usage into account when those monies are paid to the employee.? Once the monies are in the hands of the employees, there is no other responsibility on the employer.

People go to work for an employer for an agreed amount. What the subsequent monies are then spent on by the employee is immaterial to the employer who does not have to budget for such matters when establishing the overheads of the business.

I am strictly speaking from the side of an employer, as that was the position that I held.

Your concern and empathy are noted. Luckily there is often budget for senior managers to grant themselves a rise greater than 1% including share options, company cars and pension rights etc. Phew. Trebles all round.

It is the same as the government saying there isnt money for a decent pay offer ( perhaps a real terms increase )for vital public sector workers while finding £1bn to bung the DUP

It stinks, is hypocritical and you know it. Admitting that wont see you drummed out of the local Conservative Party constituency association or blackballed at your club. It will simply show you have some connection with the real world!

 

[pemma]

Does your employer take any employee post wage/salary financial usage into account when those monies are paid to the employee.? Once the monies are in the hands of the employees, there is no other responsibility on the employer.

I'm not an expert in employment contracts but every contract I've had has always said my initial starting salary and that it will be reviewed annually, meaning the employer has a responsibility to review pay annually.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does your employer take any employee post wage/salary financial usage into account when those monies are paid to the employee.?

Mine does, because they know if my living standards drop too much I'll go work somewhere else.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

H.L.Mencken was American I believe.

I cannot recall any of his quotes that made similar references to the example quoted of Richard Nixon in reference to bribery, which was introduced by another contributor, not I.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Mine does, because they know if my living standards drop too much I'll go work somewhere else.

So how do both you and your employer deal with such a situation in actual financial terms.

 

[DaleCooper]

I cannot recall any of his quotes that made similar references to the example quoted of Richard Nixon in reference to bribery, which was introduced by another contributor, not I.

I'll remind you of your words.

I am not interested in the quotes of any American, living or dead, but in the actuality of the terms of reference in the Bribery Act 2010,

Was that just sloppily expressed? You really should say what you mean.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not an expert in employment contracts but every contract I've had has always said my initial starting salary and that it will be reviewed annually, meaning the employer has a responsibility to review pay annually.

The emphasis being only on the word "review", not automatic pay increases.

Does the word "review" by certain reference bodies to Government spring to mind recently in public sector pay and of any subsequent Government response to such reviews.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'll remind you of your words. Was that just sloppily expressed? You really should say what you mean.

I did, if you bothered to read the final part of the sentence that I had written.

Read my subsequent posting # 1376.