Life after the end of "lockdown" 2.0

[yorksrob]

It is inevitable after the lockdowns (who would bet against lockdown v3.0, v4.0) that we will have to start paying for all the epxenditure. This is just the start - you wait until the budget in March next year.

No doubt there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats of strikes by those affected, but it is high time that the costs of all these lockdowns and restrictions were brought to the attention of the general public.

Once the public is more aware of the costs of COVID-19 restrictions, perhaps they won't be quite so keen on imposing restrictions in the first place.

Unfortunately, the powers that be, and those that advise them are oblivious to such considerations.

Lockdown is the only "go-to" policy that will be considered.

 

[duncanp]

Unfortunately, the powers that be, and those that advise them are oblivious to such considerations.

Lockdown is the only "go-to" policy that will be considered.

As Network Rail and Transport for London are public sector organisations, presumably the pay freeze will apply to them.

No doubt the RMT will threaten a series of strikes over the Christmas & New Year period and beyond.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is inevitable after the lockdowns (who would bet against lockdown v3.0, v4.0) that we will have to start paying for all the epxenditure. This is just the start - you wait until the budget in March next year.

No doubt there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats of strikes by those affected, but it is high time that the costs of all these lockdowns and restrictions were brought to the attention of the general public.

Once the public is more aware of the costs of COVID-19 restrictions, perhaps they won't be quite so keen on imposing restrictions in the first place.

It was noticeable in the article, and indeed on the TV broadcast that they were keen to highlight that public sector workers receive an average of 7% more than those in the private sector. Its a classic government method to "justify" pay freezes / cuts in the public sector. Of course the numbers are carefully worked to ensure that the management top heavy parts of the public sector are included to help skew the numbers in their favour.

 

[duncanp]

It was noticeable in the article, and indeed on the TV broadcast that they were keen to highlight that public sector workers receive an average of 7% more than those in the private sector. Its a classic government method to "justify" pay freezes / cuts in the public sector. Of course the numbers are carefully worked to ensure that the management top heavy parts of the public sector are included to help skew the numbers in their favour.

I don't doubt that many public sector workers do deserve a pay rise.

However just because they deserve one doesn't mean they should get one.

The economy has been trashed and many people have lost their jobs, with more to come in the new year.

So those public sector workers affected by the pay freeze should consider themselves relatively fortunate to still have a job, and a pension.

We are all going to have to pay for the costs of COVID-19, and as someone who is approaching retirement age I fully accept that it will be necessary to abandon the triple lock on the state pension in the interests of fairness. I also would have no problem in paying a reasonable amount (say £200 per year) for my disabled person's bus pass, and could even stomach an increase in income tax of 1p or 2p in the pound.

My only concern is that any increase in tax revenue is spent wisely and not frittered away buying votes from various interest groups.

 

[HSTEd]

They can have a public sector pay freeze if they freeze the state pension.

But we all know they won't.

Pensioners benefit from the eternal lockdown, the young and poor are ground under to pay for it.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't doubt that many public sector workers do deserve a pay rise.

However just because they deserve one doesn't mean they should get one.

The economy has been trashed and many people have lost their jobs, with more to come in the new year.

So those public sector workers affected by the pay freeze should consider themselves relatively fortunate to still have a job, and a pension.

We are all going to have to pay for the costs of COVID-19, and as someone who is approaching retirement age I fully accept that it will be necessary to abandon the triple lock on the state pension in the interests of fairness. I also would have no problem in paying a reasonable amount (say £200 per year) for my disabled person's bus pass, and could even stomach an increase in income tax of 1p or 2p in the pound.

My only concern is that any increase in tax revenue is spent wisely and not frittered away buying votes from various interest groups.

I must admit, pay freezes are never good - not least because it means that there is less money for people to put back into the economy.

The key thing though has to be getting the wider economy up and running again. The end of lockdowns has to be the main priority for the economy and will have vastly more impact than such pay freezes.

 

[brad465]

The quoted article/news about the public sector pay freeze idea is high on the BBC landing page and somewhere on the front pages of multiple newspapers: if the reality of lockdown costs is going to wake people up then this particular story, followed by the planned spending review next week, is having good exposure.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't doubt that many public sector workers do deserve a pay rise.

However just because they deserve one doesn't mean they should get one.

The economy has been trashed and many people have lost their jobs, with more to come in the new year.

Yes many people have lost their jobs, but that doesn't mean those still in them should pay for that. This is for the government to solve, not the many people in the public sector on low wages to suffer from.

So those public sector workers affected by the pay freeze should consider themselves relatively fortunate to still have a job, and a pension.

Ah that old chestnut again. We should be lucky that we get thrown a bone, now we should throw some of the bone back?

We are all going to have to pay for the costs of COVID-19, and as someone who is approaching retirement age I fully accept that it will be necessary to abandon the triple lock on the state pension in the interests of fairness. I also would have no problem in paying a reasonable amount (say £200 per year) for my disabled person's bus pass, and could even stomach an increase in income tax of 1p or 2p in the pound.

My only concern is that any increase in tax revenue is spent wisely and not frittered away buying votes from various interest groups.

Not everyone could even stomach a 1/2p per pound tax increase. A lot of people in the public sector also find themselves claiming other benefits just to be able to afford the cost of living. The government should be looking elsewhere to fund their lockdowns, perhaps those most keen on them might be asked if they'd like to pay higher taxes for their extended, paid-for holidays? (I'm not being entirely serious here BTW, but it would make people sit up and think)

 

[bramling]

It is inevitable after the lockdowns (who would bet against lockdown v3.0, v4.0) that we will have to start paying for all the epxenditure. This is just the start - you wait until the budget in March next year.

No doubt there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats of strikes by those affected, but it is high time that the costs of all these lockdowns and restrictions were brought to the attention of the general public.

Once the public is more aware of the costs of COVID-19 restrictions, perhaps they won't be quite so keen on imposing restrictions in the first place.

Quite so. It’s going to be a particularly hard sell imposing things like pay freezes on people who haven’t missed a single day of work this year.

As Network Rail and Transport for London are public sector organisations, presumably the pay freeze will apply to them.

No doubt the RMT will threaten a series of strikes over the Christmas & New Year period and beyond.

I don’t think it applies to TFL, and in any event LU at least agreed to a multi-year pay deal just as this was all kicking off.

 

[Mag_seven]

I hope all those public sector unions that were calling for lockdowns now realise the situation they have got their members into.

 

[duncanp]

Yes many people have lost their jobs, but that doesn't mean those still in them should pay for that. This is for the government to solve, not the many people in the public sector on low wages to suffer from.



Ah that old chestnut again. We should be lucky that we get thrown a bone, now we should throw some of the bone back?


Not everyone could even stomach a 1/2p per pound tax increase. A lot of people in the public sector also find themselves claiming other benefits just to be able to afford the cost of living. The government should be looking elsewhere to fund their lockdowns, perhaps those most keen on them might be asked if they'd like to pay higher taxes for their extended, paid-for holidays? (I'm not being entirely serious here BTW, but it would make people sit up and think)

We have all got to pay for the costs associated with COVID-19. If some groups of people are excluded from paying some of these costs, then that means that the burden is shared disproportionately on everyone else. If people who are still in work are not expected to pay for the costs of COVID-19, then who should be paying?

I am not belittling public sector workers or the jobs that they do. But people who are self employed or work in the private sector do not have guaranteed pay rises, and they also have to contend with much less job security. In the 11 years before I was finally made redundant last year, I only had two pay rises totalling about 2%, and survived several rounds of redunancies at the company I worked for.

I realise that not everyone can stomach a rise in income tax, and I do agree that the burden of tax increases should fall most heavily on those who can afford it. That is why there have been rumours of changes to Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax and changes to tax relief on pensions. Benefits such as free bus passes, free prescriptions and the winter fuel allowance should be means tested, so that people who can afford to pay something towards these benefits should do so.

And I do agree that the furlough scheme should not have been extended, or perhaps converted into something like the Student Loans Scheme. It does annoy me that those most in favour of lockdowns are the ones who least have to suffer the consequences.

 

[DustyBin]

I think there is a widely held belief that public sector workers enjoy relative job security, generous pensions, more holidays etc. compared to private sector workers. Whilst no doubt true in some instances, I'm sure this isn't universally the case. Some people would also have you believe that public sector workers are lazy and have easy jobs which is definitely not true! I've always been in the private sector and at professional/management level it works for me as the pay and benefits exceed what the public sector can offer. Where I do think private sector workers get a raw deal is at the bottom end (if you'll excuse the expression) of the labour market i.e. those in low paid, unskilled roles. That's not to say their public sector equivalents have it particularly great, but I do think they're often better off overall.

I do hope this isn't another divide and conquer attempt by the government!

 

[bramling]

We have all got to pay for the costs associated with COVID-19. If some groups of people are excluded from paying some of these costs, then that means that the burden is shared disproportionately on everyone else. If people who are still in work are not expected to pay for the costs of COVID-19, then who should be paying?

I am not belittling public sector workers or the jobs that they do. But people who are self employed or work in the private sector do not have guaranteed pay rises, and they also have to contend with much less job security. In the 11 years before I was finally made redundant last year, I only had two pay rises totalling about 2%, and survived several rounds of redunancies at the company I worked for.

I realise that not everyone can stomach a rise in income tax, and I do agree that the burden of tax increases should fall most heavily on those who can afford it. That is why there have been rumours of changes to Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax and changes to tax relief on pensions. Benefits such as free bus passes, free prescriptions and the winter fuel allowance should be means tested, so that people who can afford to pay something towards these benefits should do so.

And I do agree that the furlough scheme should not have been extended, or perhaps converted into something like the Student Loans Scheme. It does annoy me that those most in favour of lockdowns are the ones who least have to suffer the consequences.

Extending the furlough scheme was a particularly stupid measure, as it seems increasingly stupid for shops and restaurants to have been forced to close in the first place.

They will need to be very careful targeting things like inheritance tax as well. Raising the IHT-free allowance to £1m was a key part of the 2015 election manifesto, and going back on this now would prove extremely unpopular. Remember how TM lost an election at least partly due to the proposed social care reforms.

They may sit happily in the comfort blanket of no election til 2024, however people tend to have long memories for these sorts of things.

 

[Yew]

If people who are still in work are not expected to pay for the costs of COVID-19, then who should be paying?

Those who benefitted from the lockdown perhaps?


Or maybe we could do some proper investment-based economics to stimulate growth and demand, and pay off the bill from the additional tax revenue; never mind, the tories are in, aren't they?

 

[yorksrob]

I notice that when the various experts proclaim on a relaxtion of rules over Xmas, there seems to be a blurring of the line between the current lockdown and whatever follows between the start of December and then.

 

[Scotrail12]

The people who should pay for the COVID-19 response are the 516 MP's who voted for the deadly lockdown in England. Every penny should come from these cowardly human beings who are happy to watch the public suffer while they are in their ivory tower and will never be affected.

How long will they support the measures then?

 

[bramling]

The people who should pay for the COVID-19 response are the 516 MP's who voted for the deadly lockdown in England. Every penny should come from these cowardly human beings who are happy to watch the public suffer while they are in their ivory tower and will never be affected.

How long will they support the measures then?

It’s certainly a cautionary tale in our democracy. Indeed it’s surprising just how little debate and scrutiny there has been. First time round this was one thing as at the time it was a genuine emergency when we didn’t really know what we were dealing with, but second time round is completely unforgivable.

It was summed up by Theresa May of all people making a fairly impassioned speech in the commons, to which BJ simply walked out, and Hancock sat there looking like a bored schoolboy. Shameful.

I notice that when the various experts proclaim on a relaxtion of rules over Xmas, there seems to be a blurring of the line between the current lockdown and whatever follows between the start of December and then.

I wonder if anyone has actually decided what’s going to happen in December yet.

Given the way the news has been going, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see things extended right through to Christmas, perhaps with some “special pre-Christmas exemption” for shops to re-open. A relaxation for Christmas, then back to November’s arrangements for January. The clue is perhaps in the dates for the furlough extension, namely that we’d then see hospitality closures at least right through to April.

One thing, based on past experience we can pretty much be assured whatever they do will be a shambles.

 

[Mag_seven]

Given the way the news has been going, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see things extended right through to Christmas, perhaps with some “special pre-Christmas exemption” for shops to re-open. A relaxation for Christmas, then back to November’s arrangements for January. The clue is perhaps in the dates for the furlough extension, namely that we’d then see hospitality closures at least right through to April.

I suspect your right. I'm fed up with my liberties being used as some sort of bargaining chip in return for a "normal" Christmas. The government should be planning for a return to permanent normality now not still trying to pretend that lockdowns actually work when its clear they don't.

 

[Bantamzen]

We have all got to pay for the costs associated with COVID-19. If some groups of people are excluded from paying some of these costs, then that means that the burden is shared disproportionately on everyone else. If people who are still in work are not expected to pay for the costs of COVID-19, then who should be paying?

I am not belittling public sector workers or the jobs that they do. But people who are self employed or work in the private sector do not have guaranteed pay rises, and they also have to contend with much less job security. In the 11 years before I was finally made redundant last year, I only had two pay rises totalling about 2%, and survived several rounds of redunancies at the company I worked for.

I realise that not everyone can stomach a rise in income tax, and I do agree that the burden of tax increases should fall most heavily on those who can afford it. That is why there have been rumours of changes to Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax and changes to tax relief on pensions. Benefits such as free bus passes, free prescriptions and the winter fuel allowance should be means tested, so that people who can afford to pay something towards these benefits should do so.

And I do agree that the furlough scheme should not have been extended, or perhaps converted into something like the Student Loans Scheme. It does annoy me that those most in favour of lockdowns are the ones who least have to suffer the consequences.

I think there is a widely held belief that public sector workers enjoy relative job security, generous pensions, more holidays etc. compared to private sector workers. Whilst no doubt true in some instances, I'm sure this isn't universally the case. Some people would also have you believe that public sector workers are lazy and have easy jobs which is definitely not true! I've always been in the private sector and at professional/management level it works for me as the pay and benefits exceed what the public sector can offer. Where I do think private sector workers get a raw deal is at the bottom end (if you'll excuse the expression) of the labour market i.e. those in low paid, unskilled roles. That's not to say their public sector equivalents have it particularly great, but I do think they're often better off overall.

I do hope this isn't another divide and conquer attempt by the government!

Exactly this, the public sector is far from a guaranteed job these days, and pay rates for most often don't even reach that of market facing jobs. Yes in many areas pension schemes do still exist, but these are being steadily chipped away at and it is probably not too long before many go the same way as the private sector pensions. As @DustyBin rightly says the private sector is becoming way more attractive to workers than the public sector, as my department found out this year when they struggled to fill vacancies that opened up due to massive additional demand due to the crisis. In the end much of the work was farmed out to private sector contractors, which ought to speak for itself.

And @duncanp I appreciate you are not belittling public sector workers but it is far from the cushy number it is often portrayed as. Many low paid public sector workers have watched as over the last decade their wages stagnate & be caught up by minimum wage and overtaken by the private sector.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if anyone has actually decided what’s going to happen in December yet.

Given the way the news has been going, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see things extended right through to Christmas, perhaps with some “special pre-Christmas exemption” for shops to re-open. A relaxation for Christmas, then back to November’s arrangements for January. The clue is perhaps in the dates for the furlough extension, namely that we’d then see hospitality closures at least right through to April.

One thing, based on past experience we can pretty much be assured whatever they do will be a shambles.

That's what I fear.

Whilst the supine media are twittering on about five days of Xmas, the far more damaging policy of near continuing lockdown is being established by stealth.

 

[bramling]

I suspect your right. I'm fed up with my liberties being used as some sort of bargaining chip in return for a "normal" Christmas. The government should be planning for a return to permanent normality now not still trying to pretend that lockdowns actually work when its clear they don't.

Same. I’m sick of Christmas being a blackmail tool, especially as my “Christmas” this year seems to consist of being at work pretty much every day except Christmas Day itself, right through til and including new year.

Yes there’s an issue that people are going to do what they desire over Christmas, no matter what Johnson or Hancock decree. Perhaps they should take note of that? There’s hypocrisy floating around like confetti at the moment - actions speak louder than words, and if people were as supportive of lockdown as is being made out then we wouldn’t be expecting to see so many people do their own thing at Christmas.

For starters I bet the Cummings family will all be in Durham, perhaps with an afternoon few hours out for a little visit to Barnard Castle?

The trouble is there’s still a subset of people who are irrationally terrified, and nothing is being done to try and address this. I read a twitter post of someone who had to spend two minutes on a train, moaning that people had their masks on below their nose. I mean, for goodness sake, it’s dangerous for people to even breathe now, right?! I despair.

Meanwhile a poll in my local paper. Apart from the interesting stat that 51% aren’t comfortable with taking the vaccine, 67% of people claim to feel the current restrictions don’t go far enough. This is simply madness, clearly at least some of these 67% are very much out and about at the moment.

 

[Mojo]

As Network Rail and Transport for London are public sector organisations, presumably the pay freeze will apply to them.

No doubt the RMT will threaten a series of strikes over the Christmas & New Year period and beyond.

I don’t think it applies to TFL, and in any event LU at least agreed to a multi-year pay deal just as this was all kicking off.

You're right - it doesn't apply to TfL / London Underground and nor would it apply to any state run Tocs.

Much of the early 2010s the public sector was subject to a "pay freeze" (in reality this only applied to the salaries themselves as in many professions such as teaching, junior staff move up pay bands dependent on their performance and time in service) and it never applied then.

 

[duncanp]

The people who should pay for the COVID-19 response are the 516 MP's who voted for the deadly lockdown in England. Every penny should come from these cowardly human beings who are happy to watch the public suffer while they are in their ivory tower and will never be affected.

How long will they support the measures then?

Plus all the "SAGE scientists" who publish misleading and dodgy data intended to bounce the government into increasing the level of restrictions.

 

[Scotrail12]

Plus all the "SAGE scientists" who publish misleading and dodgy data intended to bounce the government into increasing the level of restrictions.

I don't think that they should pay a dime, they should be serving time behind bars when all of this is done with. Manipulating a government through dodgy science and ruining the country is beyond criminal.

 

[bramling]

Plus all the "SAGE scientists" who publish misleading and dodgy data intended to bounce the government into increasing the level of restrictions.

It wasn’t SAGE who ultimately made the decisions though. The buck stops with Boris Johnson at the end of the day.

His response to this has been utterly dire. Twice he’s done the worst-of-all-worlds thing of not doing a lockdown but then deciding to do it much further down the line. Likewise a chronic lack of attention to detail.

2021 is going to be a dire year, the writing is well and truly on the wall, and this will all be down the the Covid response rather than the virus itself.

 

[duncanp]

I don't think that they should pay a dime, they should be serving time behind bars when all of this is done with. Manipulating a government through dodgy science and ruining the country is beyond criminal.

This wouldn't be an issue if the Prime Minister, or at least someone in the government, had the balls to challenge the data presented to them, and ask searching and difficult questions.

Take the latest "five days of extra restrictions for every day of freedom at Christmas" scare story issued by Public Health England yesterday.

• Firstly, the initial advice was for two days of extra restrictions, which was later "clarified" to five days. This in itself is dodgy, especially as you cannot calculate how many days of extra restrictions are required when the government hasn't said what it is proposing to do after Christmas.
• Secondly - there is no published scientific paper with accompanying data to to back up the figure of five days.
• Thirdly - and perhaps most seriously - Public Health England leaked the information to the press before they shared it with the government. This is a sure sign that they are trying to bounce the government into taking a particular course of action, rather than advising the government of potential consequences of any action.

If I was the Prime Minister I would be spitting feathers at the people in Public Health England, and telling them in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable, and that any repeat of such action would result in heads rolling.

Same for Professor Twitty, who thought he could scare MPs into voting for a second lockdown by presenting them with dodgy data which later proved to be incorrect.

 

[bramling]

This wouldn't be an issue if the Prime Minister, or at least someone in the government, had the balls to challenge the data presented to them, and ask searching and difficult questions.

Take the latest "five days of extra restrictions for every day of freedom at Christmas" scare story issued by Public Health England yesterday.

• Firstly, the initial advice was for two days of extra restrictions, which was later "clarified" to five days. This in itself is dodgy, especially as you cannot calculate how many days of extra restrictions are required when the government hasn't said what it is proposing to do after Christmas.
• Secondly - there is no published scientific paper with accompanying data to to back up the figure of five days.
• Thirdly - and perhaps most seriously - Public Health England leaked the information to the press before they shared it with the government. This is a sure sign that they are trying to bounce the government into taking a particular course of action, rather than advising the government of potential consequences of any action.

If I was the Prime Minister I would be spitting feathers at the people in Public Health England, and telling them in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable, and that any repeat of such action would result in heads rolling.

Same for Professor Twitty, who thought he could scare MPs into voting for a second lockdown by presenting them with dodgy data which later proved to be incorrect.

There certainly seems to be a serious lack of accountability within SAGE. For what are such monumental decisions there seems to be very little evidence to back it all up.

Likewise we have a government who don’t seem able to challenge. BJ doesn’t seem to have the attention span, Hancock with the best will in the world doesn’t seem to have the intelligence, and as for Sunak who knows really.

The trouble is we just haven’t had a strategy beyond “let’s beat the virus”, whatever that meant.

 

[brad465]

Those who benefitted from the lockdown perhaps?


Or maybe we could do some proper investment-based economics to stimulate growth and demand, and pay off the bill from the additional tax revenue; never mind, the tories are in, aren't they?

The people who should pay for the COVID-19 response are the 516 MP's who voted for the deadly lockdown in England. Every penny should come from these cowardly human beings who are happy to watch the public suffer while they are in their ivory tower and will never be affected.

How long will they support the measures then?

That's what I fear.

Whilst the supine media are twittering on about five days of Xmas, the far more damaging policy of near continuing lockdown is being established by stealth.

These together makes me thing (maybe jokingly) we could super tax the media outlets as punishment for scaremongering the Government and population into action?

 

[bramling]

These together makes me thing (maybe jokingly) we could super tax the media outlets as punishment for scaremongering the Government and population into action?

The *constant* media frenzy certainly hasn’t been helpful.

 

[packermac]

You're right - it doesn't apply to TfL / London Underground and nor would it apply to any state run Tocs.

Much of the early 2010s the public sector was subject to a "pay freeze" (in reality this only applied to the salaries themselves as in many professions such as teaching, junior staff move up pay bands dependent on their performance and time in service) and it never applied then.

Not sure where TFL sits, but back in the early 2010's the TOC's were still classed as private companies. No idea if they are now classed now as still private or as public sector now has the government had effectively nationalised them all, but I suspect the Treasury would argue they are public sector.