Tory lead cut in half in one week

[TVC15]

If the maths isn't hard tell me how an increase of 7% in corporation tax translates into £19 billion additional revenue.

Prior to the credit crunch the UK was very healthy economically and whilst corporation tax was at a higher rate at it's peak brought in similar revenues as now.

Where is the evidence that public sector works have only had a 1% increase in wages each year for the last 10 years?

Never said they had a 1% increase and I said the the 10 years was used to make a point. I don't know how many years it is or what the rises have been but I do know (and so do you) that most of the public sector has been subject to either pay freezes or less than inflation pay rises.
My wife is a nurse - the NHS are the biggest employer in the U.K. Are you seriously saying that you think their pay rises in the last few years have been above inflation ?

Your knowledge of the economy prior or post credit crunch is at best pretty basic - and I'm being kind.

Why don't you actually do some research on the amount of small businesses in the UK and their profit levels rather than come out with generic statements about the state of the economy pre and post 2008 ?

I don't need to prove the £19bn of corporation tax receipts because I understand the assumptions and my job for many years is to understand the small business sector - so I already knew what I was talking about.

Whereas you just "feel" it's wrong and the rest is just in your head.

So you know the numbers are based on the corporation tax rate multiplied by the forecast profits of businesses. So which one of these do you not believe ? Presumably since one is simply maths it must be the profits of small businesses ? So why do you think the profit numbers are wrong in comparison to where we stand to today ?....which I presume you must already know.

And why do you think small business profits were more pre 2008 than they have been in the last few years ? When factually this is not correct.

Right I'm going to the pub and then the match whilst you frantically Google !

[dermotdermot]

Another one who is brainwashed by the right wing media , try thinking for yourself.

More delusion(an audible sigh of despair).

[Lancasterclaret]

One thing is pretty clear, is that because of the blanket election coverage, Corbyn image is improving.

All he's got to do now is make sure all his colleagues are singing from the same hymn sheet, as the latest nuclear spat won't be helping.

[taio]

So you believe one thing and I believe the other. Time won't tell because Labour won't get the opportunity to increase corporation tax revenues by £19b. Most public sector workers haven't had a pay freeze. As my last post proves many can expect pay rises that exceed inflation. Next year loads can expect a 5% or more pay rise.

So yes I am seriously saying that. And I know because both me and my partner work in the public sector. And even better my employer contributes about 15% of my salary into my pension fund to the extent that if I work until my state pensionable age I can expect an pension of £37k a year at today's prices plus a lump sum, which will be obliterated if I need social care thanks to the stupid policy from the Tories.

[fatboy47]

I imagine....i may be wrong...that if the respective manifestos of the major parties were presented generically..with plain wrappers....as in a blind tasting...that there would be a landslide Labour win....which would demonstrate the power of the media better than anything....

..the election wont be decided hy the proles..it'll be the likes of Coonsbreath and Murdoch who tell the plebs who to vote for, and it wont be anyone who threatens Murdochs wealth.

[nil_desperandum]

The idea that public sector workers have had no pay rise or at best a 1% annual pay rise for the last decade is nonsense.

For example:

Band 5 Nurse (mid-point): £24,547 rising to £25,807 next year, which will be a 5.1% increase
Police constable (mid-point): £24,483 rising to £25,758 next year, which will be a 5.2% increase.

Teachers, social workers etc will be similar.

How about you do some research on teacher's pay and then look at recruitment and retention levels before you make a wild guess?

[taio]

How about you do some research on teacher's pay and then look at recruitment and retention levels before you make a wild guess?

Apologies if there is no similar pay progression in teaching. Is there not?

'Teacher retention has remained broadly stable since 2006. The percentage of teachers that are still in post one year after qualifying and starting a job has remained static at 87 per cent' (cross party education committee).

[nil_desperandum]

Apologies if there is no similar pay progression in teaching. Is there not?

Firstly. The discussion was about pay rises - which has nothing to do with pay progression. If you start on a very low salary but have pay progression built in, then that's a totally separate issue to having a pay rise. (A fully qualified teacher after training starts on just £22,000)
However, automatic pay progression is no longer built in, but is linked to "performance", so since schools have no money in their budget to pay for increments, unrealistic personal targets are often set which mean you can't progress.
Getting back to the issue of pay rises. These have been limited to 1% for the last 5 years, but it is estimated that 60% of teachers were not actually given this rise last year. With all the different types of schools that are funded from different sources we're now approaching a situation where schools can just pay what they want, with an obvious implication for quality. With recruitment and retention in crisis this will have to be addressed during the course of this government.

[Spijed]

Before anyone starts getting giddy, reports from the doorstep from Labour activists suggest they will lose at least 90 seat. 75% of UKIP votes are going to the Tories and 25% of Labour 2015 voters won't turnout because of the Corbyn effect.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/ne ... more-21610

That seems to be at odds with what is being said on UK polling report http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[taio]

Pay progression has everything to do with pay rise because people earn more money because of it. You've decided to focus on teachers whereas my point was of a general nature in the context of public sector earnings increases. I've worked across public bodies for over 20 years and I've never known somebody not get a pay progression increment, but I've never worked in education so accept it may be applied more rigorously. The general point still stands though.

Where did you get the 60% figure from?

[TVC15]

The idea that public sector workers have had no pay rise or at best a 1% annual pay rise for the last decade is nonsense.

For example:

Band 5 Nurse (mid-point): £24,547 rising to £25,807 next year, which will be a 5.1% increase
Police constable (mid-point): £24,483 rising to £25,758 next year, which will be a 5.2% increase.

Teachers, social workers etc will be similar.

The actual facts are

1) The slow growth in average public sector earnings since 2010 largely reflects the government’s decision to freeze the level of public sector pay scales in 2011–12.

2) In 2012–13 for all but the lowest-paid workers (those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less received a pay rise of £250 per year over the two years, which is an increase of at least 1.2% per year). In both 2013–14 and 2014–15, the average increase was then constrained to 1% per year, which was repeated in 2015–16

The only reason thee above did not happen between 2008 and 2011 was that the government were already committed to the 3 year agreements with the public sector pay.

But you carry on finding little snippets of statistics which make you believe what you want.

The fact that you haven`t got a clue what you are talking about in relation to corporation tax does not give you much credibility in anything else you say. But its still quite fun showing for what you are.

[nil_desperandum]

'Teacher retention has remained broadly stable since 2006. The percentage of teachers that are still in post one year after qualifying and starting a job has remained static at 87 per cent' (cross party education committee).

Not sure where that quote comes from, but it appears to be looking at one fairly selective statistic. (i.e. the percentage still in post after 12 months). What about beyond those 12 months?
How about this from the government Select Committee in February of this year:
Teacher shortages in England have reached a “crisis” point, with the Government failing to come up with a coherent plan to tackle a lack of staff in core subjects, MPs have warned.
Ministers need to take urgent action to address the shortage, which is set to worsen with a pupil numbers at secondary schools expected to spike by more than 500,000 to 3.3 million by 2025, an influential cross-party committee of MPs said.
Without sufficient numbers of teachers to ensure a high-quality education for young people, the country will struggle to rise to the challenges of Brexit, according to Neil Carmichael, chair of the Education Select Committee.
Government is to relax immigration restrictions due to teacher shortages
“The situation is very, very challenging, and as the population grows, efforts to recruit and retain good-quality teachers become even more critical than before,” Mr Carmichael told The Independent.

“Key subjects, including technology and sciences, are being neglected. If we are gearing towards high-skill, knowledge-based economy, how are we going to do that without enough teachers in place?”
According to official government statistics, the overall number of full-time teachers in secondary schools fell by 10,000 between 2010 and 2015, the latest year for which figures are available.

[taio]

The actual facts are

1) The slow growth in average public sector earnings since 2010 largely reflects the government’s decision to freeze the level of public sector pay scales in 2011–12.

2) In 2012–13 for all but the lowest-paid workers (those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less received a pay rise of £250 per year over the two years, which is an increase of at least 1.2% per year). In both 2013–14 and 2014–15, the average increase was then constrained to 1% per year, which was repeated in 2015–16

The only reason thee above did not happen between 2008 and 2011 was that the government were already committed to the 3 year agreements with the public sector pay.

But you carry on finding little snippets of statistics which make you believe what you want.

The fact that you haven`t got a clue what you are talking about in relation to corporation tax does not give you much credibility in anything else you say. But its still quite fun showing for what you are.

I accept that you raise some good points well. Unfortunately you have to resort to saying I haven't got a clue and saying showing me for what I'm for whatever that means. Shame because I was trying to have a sensible debate without getting personal. Are you saying that pay progression isn't widely used in the public sector because that's definitely not the experience of me and my missus who is also a nurse? Perhaps she has different NHS conditions to yours.

[taio]

Not sure where that quote comes from, but it appears to be looking at one fairly selective statistic. (i.e. the percentage still in post after 12 months). What about beyond those 12 months?
How about this from the government Select Committee in February of this year:
Teacher shortages in England have reached a “crisis” point, with the Government failing to come up with a coherent plan to tackle a lack of staff in core subjects, MPs have warned.
Ministers need to take urgent action to address the shortage, which is set to worsen with a pupil numbers at secondary schools expected to spike by more than 500,000 to 3.3 million by 2025, an influential cross-party committee of MPs said.
Without sufficient numbers of teachers to ensure a high-quality education for young people, the country will struggle to rise to the challenges of Brexit, according to Neil Carmichael, chair of the Education Select Committee.
Government is to relax immigration restrictions due to teacher shortages
“The situation is very, very challenging, and as the population grows, efforts to recruit and retain good-quality teachers become even more critical than before,” Mr Carmichael told The Independent.

“Key subjects, including technology and sciences, are being neglected. If we are gearing towards high-skill, knowledge-based economy, how are we going to do that without enough teachers in place?”
According to official government statistics, the overall number of full-time teachers in secondary schools fell by 10,000 between 2010 and 2015, the latest year for which figures are available.

My central point was about pay rises. You brought in the issue of retention. If it's a problem then it needs to be addressed because I value the job teachers and other public sector workers do. But I suspect it's far my complex than earnings (if that's the link you are trying to make by referring to retention when I was purely talking about pay increases)..

[nil_desperandum]

Pay progression has everything to do with pay rise because people earn more money because of it. You've decided to focus on teachers whereas my point was of a general nature in the context of public sector earnings increases. I've worked across public bodies for over 20 years and I've never known somebody not get a pay progression increment, but I've never worked in education so accept it may be applied more rigorously. The general point still stands though.

Where did you get the 60% figure from?

I'm sorry but if you believe that pay progression equates to a pay rise, then there's no point continuing the discussion. Teachers (as an example) start out on thousands a year less than most of their European counterparts, but they can catch up. If there wasn't progression with the prospect of a better wage, then presumably the starting rate would have to be higher. Who would go into a career in teaching on the basis that they would be earning £22,000 throughout their career (+ cost of living rises)?
The 60% figure came from a credible survey of teachers and schools undertaken by the Unions. I don't know why it should surprise you. If a school is underfunded then it won't / can't implement a recommended 1% rise.

[taio]

I'm sorry but if you believe that pay progression equates to a pay rise, then there's no point continuing the discussion. Teachers (as an example) start out on thousands a year less than most of their European counterparts, but they can catch up. If there wasn't progression with the prospect of a better wage, then presumably the starting rate would have to be higher. Who would go into a career in teaching on the basis that they would be earning £22,000 throughout their career (+ cost of living rises)?
The 60% figure came from a credible survey of teachers and schools undertaken by the Unions. I don't know why it should surprise you. If a school is underfunded then it won't / can't implement a recommended 1% rise.

For me a pay rise means earning more money than previously, so because pay progression gives a person more money it fits that definition in my mind. I factor in my pay progression when managing my personal finances but, yes, let's agree to disagree.

[nil_desperandum]

My central point was about pay rises. You brought in the issue of retention. If it's a problem then it needs to be addressed because I value the job teachers and other public sector workers do. But I suspect it's far my complex than earnings (if that's the link you are trying to make by referring to retention when I was purely talking about pay increases)..

In fairness, I only raised the retention issue in response to your post that implied that teachers would most likely be getting a 5% pay rise. I fully agree that there is far more to recruitment and retention than just pay. (Indeed, it wasn't low pay that encouraged me to leave a couple of years early. It was work/ life balance, but let's not go there on this thread).

[claretandy]

That seems to be at odds with what is being said on UK polling report http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well it's reports from labour activists on the doorsteps.

[taio]

It was more of a general point about public sector pay and I think that point largely holds true. I very briefly referred to teachers alongside other public sector workers and if I'm wrong about pay progression in that sector I accept it was a lazy reference. Judging by the need to say I haven't got a clue (not you) I think there was possibly an assumption made I was having a go at public sector workers when that simply wasn't the case. If I didn't respect the other point of view to mine I wouldn't have continued the conversation, but unfortunately others have to shut down an interesting debate by saying I'm clueless, which is pretty offensive when I've worked in the public sector for over 20 years. As an aside and just to be clear I have no doubt that teachers work more hours than they are paid for.

[nil_desperandum]

I didn't mind having the exchange with you at all, but now it's time to move on to more important matters, and end the season on a high!
Enjoy the game.

[Clarets4me]

Another one who is brainwashed by the right wing media , try thinking for yourself.

I love the idea put forward by the left, that anyone who reads the Mail, Telegraph, Sun or Times is effectively brainwashed, and has no capacity for rational thought. It's generally put forward by those who get their their news by social media, which is generally self selecting, in that people share stuff with like minded folk...

Some people need to get their head round the fact that because people see the world in a slightly different way to you, perhaps placing a higher emphasis on personal responsibility, disagree with you on the importance of Sovereignty or which services and industries should be taken under state control, that does not make them " Vermin " or " **** " !! Of course, the reverse is also true !

Chris Keane is a Community activist who does superb work in the Hargher Clough and Stoops area of Burnley. I have met him a few times through my current work, and I have every respect for him. It does not stop him and I disagreeing on who should form the next Government. Similarly, the band of fund-raising Volunteers, who bag-pack and organise events for Pendleside Hospice contains many retired professional people, whom I strongly suspect are Conservatives... are these people also to be reviled ??

Just make sure you go out and vote on June 8th, whatever your political leanings and make your voice heard....

UTC..

[ClaretMoffitt]

Love how excited all the communists/Marxists/leftists are getting over their great comrade reaching the dizzy heights of a 9 point deficit in the polls. They are still going to lose spectacularly in June and will do as they always do when that happens; throw a massive hissy fit and cause some criminal damage.

[joey13]

Love how excited all the communists/Marxists/leftists are getting over their great comrade reaching the dizzy heights of a 9 point deficit in the polls. They are still going to lose spectacularly in June and will do as they always do when that happens; throw a massive hissy fit and cause some criminal damage.

At least they won't be letting dogs rip other animals apart and calling it sport .

[ClaretMoffitt]

At least they won't be letting dogs rip other animals apart and calling it sport .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rpose.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Misplaced political correctness by Rotherham’s Labour led council combined with a staggering culture of denial allowed more than 1,400 vulnerable girls to be routinely abused by gangs of Asian men, a withering report has concluded

Labour letting dogs rip into other beings.

[joey13]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rpose.html

Misplaced political correctness by Rotherham’s Labour led council combined with a staggering culture of denial allowed more than 1,400 vulnerable girls to be routinely abused by gangs of Asian men, a withering report has concluded

Labour letting dogs rip into other beings.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[ClaretMoffitt]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

That right?

[dsr]

Labour's costings depend on the idea that they can take £23billion per year out of company profits and not affect those profits. It isn't true. That £23billion will result in a combination of less money paid out in salary and dividends, so 35-40% of the gains will be lost in tax and NIC that's no longer being paid; and the rest in lower investment, with an incalculable but definitely real effect on future income.

One of the reasons - by no means the only one, but one of them - for increased company profits and steady Corporation Tax revenues is because the companies, having kept more of their money, can reinvest it to make further profits. If you reduce their income, and compound that reduction year on year, the profits tend to reduce exponentially.

[Cirrus_Minor]

Let the bandwagon start to roll.