I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
The government is, apparently, planning to legislate for new performance standards that public sector workers must meet before they are allowed to strike. The idea makes no sense, unless the government sets standards for itself that it must meet. A thread….
This planned new legislation is clearly part of the government's planned PR campaign against public sector workers trying to maintain their pay in the face of a cost of living crisis has been in part created by the government's own planned increases in tax and interest rates.
The government's aim is to say that strikers are failing the public, and the government must crack down on the right to strike as a result. There are, however, big problems with this argument.
First, whilst the strikes are, of course, about pay they are about much more than this. They are in most cases also about working conditions. These have been massively undermined by government cuts.
They are also about preserving the public services. Right across the board people are leaving the public services because they simply cannot afford to stay when pay is so low, overwork is so high because others have already left, and the private sector pays more.
They are also a protest. No paramedic has ever gone to work to sit for many hours in an ambulance with a sick patient they know should actually be in the hospital they are outside, knowing that the person they are caring for is being harmed by the lack of resources to treat them.
The issues differ across the public sector, but the problems are the same: deliberate government-imposed cuts are making the supply of public services by already over-stretched and underpaid staff, who see their colleagues leaving by the week, nigh on impossible.
In that case there is an issue about guaranteeing levels of public service for the government to address right now. The actions required by the government (and Labour) are threefold.
First, they need to talk about how they will fund the increased spending these services need if they aren't going to fail. That means the government has to stop taking about there being no money when that is not true, and for Labour to talk about more than ending the non-dom rule.
Second, it means inflation-matching pay rises are needed. That will cost £28bn a year. In total spending exceeding £800bn this is simply not an issue, and if in the short term a bigger deficit is needed, so be it.
There is no problem with deficits in the UK right now, or our debt. What is more, by simply cutting official interest rates the government could completely cover the cost of these pay rises by reducing the payments of unnecessary interest it is now making to our commercial banks.
Third, it means a strategy to reinvigorate public services is required. When right across the sector people have had enough and are willing to strike (which is a hard decision to take) then the message that something is profoundly wrong is clearly being delivered.
In that case, blaming workers for poor delivery is going to badly backfire on the government. Workers in these services clearly care because they see the destruction being caused by the government. And people will understand that.
What people will in that case rightly demand is something quite different from the government. They will ask the government to guarantee the supply of services because it is not workers who are failing to deliver: it is the government that's failing.
No one wants to live in a strike-ridden country. But it would not be if the government actually did its job and delivered what the people of this country want and need, which are decent public services.
The buck-passing has to stop. Politicians have to deliver. They are the people who are not doing their jobs right now. It is time they did.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
A perfectly put evisceration of the current predicament!
The other thing that is needs to be hammered home is not that this is public sector “spending” (thereby framing it as a “cost” in the negative sense) and that it should be viewed as investing in the public sector to the benefit of us all!
Agreed
‘blaming workers for poor delivery is going to badly backfire on the government’ – yes it will but they seem to be too stupid or too steeped in their ‘reliving Thatcher’ ideology to change course.
Like the Nazis – they seem prepared to destroy the country as they destroy themselves.
Polly Toynbee pretty spot on yesterday
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/06/unions-tory-militants-sit-down-strikes
After years of seeing their salaries fall in real terms, millions of public sector workers have had enough. Then we hear that bonus caps for bankers have been removed. Its importance is probably more symbolic than practical but symbols talk louder.
So many groups are planning or consulting on strikes that the old ‘holding the country to ransom’ invites the response ‘they are the country’.
Insisting that real wages continue to fall is not only unfair but poor economics for all the reasons we discuss here.
Sunak’s response is to introduce new ‘tough laws’ because if Union leaders continue to be unreasonable (!!) it is my duty to take action to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British Public.’
In my opinion he has misjudged the mood of the country. People will only take so much.
I am reminded of a now unfashionable poet -Kipling- with his poem Norman and Saxon AD1100. Apologies to those offended.
A dying Norman lord gives advise to his son.
For Saxon read the working populations -and no offence to Celts or others.
” The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.”
If Sunak wants to impose fines or send people to prison, I suspect the problem will not go away but get worse. ( I assume Labour would vote against the legislation ) It might only take a spark to ignite mass action on the streets. As Richard has said when mothers can’t fed their children they won’t be fobbed off.
Ian,
I always liked that poem too. I recently read The Shortest History of England by James Hawkes.It is utterly brilliant.He explains that there is in fact always been 2 separate Englands.Basically divided into the North and the South, split by the river Trent. The Romans started it, but it was perpetuated by the Normans who moved in and took control via a French elite. Even the courts only used French,so Saxons had no access to justice unless they spoke French.This situation lasted nigh on 500 years.By which time the royal court had a firm grip from the south.It has ever been thus,the power and money stays there despite platitudes about levelling up. That would mean overturning practically 2000 years of history. If the Scots want independence,so do we in the North of England.
I am currently standing for next year’s council elections for the North East party in South Tyneside,as I did last year.The current political parties based in London won’t realistically help this region. I didn’t get elected but we are doing reasonably well in other parts of the North East
Best of luck in the election, Vincent.
I am not so convinced about a north -south divide although it has more than a bit of truth.
Much of the justice was local and why Henry 1st introduced the jury (from Normandy I think ) who would also include witnesses to the circuit judges who wrote up their principles to establish common law, supposedly based on custom. The Norman lords spoke English as they were brought up by Saxon nannies ( like Rees-Mogg ! ) and their French became out dated and seemed old fashioned to French people when they visited France. Most English lords lost their lands in France in the reign of King John-early 1200s. So the English language -much modified -saw off French for almost all purposes. Parliament -the Commons at least, used English from the 1360s-the generation after the Black Death.
If there is a split , it is more between the land owners and those without land. Inheriting land gave one unearned income. That continues and this is how.
The big change was the Industrial revolution which transformed the north. The industrialist class attained the ascendancy with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. But the desire for ‘respectability’ caused them to acquire the trappings of the landed classes.
In my humble opinion, the industrial class lost out to the City of London and when push came to shove, it took precedence over industry. Churchill and the gold standard in the 1920s, the balanced budget aim of the 1930s, the reluctance to devalue the pound in the late 50s and early 60s when it was overpriced and interest rates were high to protect the rate; Heath’s shadow banking in the early 70s, Monetarism and the effect on industry, the big Bang in the City which enabled the take over of many of our businesses, the light touch regulation of the City and the subsequent Austerity. Finally Brexit with its pitch of ‘smart deals; instead of having well designed goods and services.
Occupation and defeat meant most European states seem to have ditched the encumbrances of the past. We IMHO have a split of asset owners and the employed.
Ian,
Essentially what we have is the wealth and power established early on in the South where it has largely remained. The rest of English history is a variation on that theme, as you have shown. The banks allowed the Industrial Revolution to happen. There was a new industrial power created in the North but as you say it benefitted a few at the expense of many. The real power and wealth however stayed in the South where the money was created. We as a nation have always been divided by money and with that power.
There was an exception I can think of . The Normans created the title of “Prince Bishop” in Durham. This position in reality meant that the position was that of a “King in the North”. England effectively had two kings, though this is seldom realized because of how we are taught our history (there is a surprise……not).
Crucially the Prince Bishop had the power to raise his own army (to protect England against the Scots), raise taxes and in my opinion the ultimate Sovereign power of all, being able to mint his own coin, that is he had money creating powers.*
https://englandsnortheast.co.uk/prince-bishops-durham/
Scotland should take note*
I think that the North would not wish to take full scale “devolution” , just to more have more decisions on regional powers, like on health, transport, and education. We are not asking for the North East pound….yet : ). It is an interesting fact in Hawkes book that Churchill also saw a need for a more regional based power sharing government in his day. But he was waylaid somehow from following it up to any extent. It seems this is still now issue in the UK as we see folk less inclined to have Westminster dictate so centrally.
There was even a royal family in the north – the Percy’s
To quote from All the President’s men: Follow the Money.
Defund (or legislate that public services aren’t good enough).
Fail.
Privatise.
Increase prices and profits.
Decrease wages (more).
Decrease pension and holidays.
Remove regulations (health and safety).
Pocket the profits.
For an explanation, I can strongly recommend the following book: The Death of the Left: Why We Must Begin from the Beginning Again, by Simon Winlow and Steve Hall, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Left-Begin-Beginning-Again/dp/144735415X/
Thanks
Thank you Ian – nice to see that I’m not the only one advocating this.
The whole Neo-liberal charade we’ve been through is nothing other than the theft of public assets for private gain.
Dear Richard, a while ago you pointed out that the government gets money back in tax for every pound it pays a public sector worker. Could you tot up how much the government is likely to get back when it pays more to public sector workers or at least show us the elements? I’m assuming at least 20% straight off from income tax plus NI (12% main rate). Then if that person spends the extra money the government will take 20% of the purchase price in VAT and the merchant will pay tax on the income it receives. Then if that merchant buys something else or increases wages for its workers … I’m sure a blog and tweets on this subject would get plenty of attention in the current climate. Thanks. Sean
See this morning’s post
“the government gets back at £98 for every £100 it spends.”
Source: “We pay for it by spending the money”, by Alan Hutchison · Published 27th September 2018
Online: http://www.matchesinthedark.uk/we-pay-for-it-by-spending-the-money/