Have you read the wording to the amendment? It was drafted poorly and doomed to failure. (The poor wording may well have been deliberate, so that Labour could play to the ignorant upon its failure.)
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
Have you read the wording to the amendment? It was drafted poorly and doomed to failure. (The poor wording may well have been deliberate, so that Labour could play to the ignorant upon its failure.)
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
Have you read the wording to the amendment? It was drafted poorly and doomed to failure. (The poor wording may well have been deliberate, so that Labour could play to the ignorant upon its failure.)
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
So we start by talking about the lifting of the pay cap but you would rather focus on the "ambiguity" of wanting to recruit more public sector workers. Besides, I'd have thought that the Government would absolutely love that supposed ambiguity - it gives them the opportunity to fulfil a wonderful sounding promise while actually doing little or nothing about it if they truly wanted to.
No, that simply can't be the reason for rejecting it.
This Conservative PM would rather give away £1b to prop up their failing minority government, than dare to give a slight pay increase to public sector workers. Not sure you can get any less patriotic than that.
Have you read the wording to the amendment? It was drafted poorly and doomed to failure. (The poor wording may well have been deliberate, so that Labour could play to the ignorant upon its failure.)
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
So we start by talking about the lifting of the pay cap but you would rather focus on the "ambiguity" of wanting to recruit more public sector workers. Besides, I'd have thought that the Government would absolutely love that supposed ambiguity - it gives them the opportunity to fulfil a wonderful sounding promise while actually doing little or nothing about it if they truly wanted to.
No, that simply can't be the reason for rejecting it.
This Conservative PM would rather give away £1b to prop up their failing minority government, than dare to give a slight pay increase to public sector workers. Not sure you can get any less patriotic than that.
Have you read the wording to the amendment? It was drafted poorly and doomed to failure. (The poor wording may well have been deliberate, so that Labour could play to the ignorant upon its failure.)
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
So we start by talking about the lifting of the pay cap but you would rather focus on the "ambiguity" of wanting to recruit more public sector workers. Besides, I'd have thought that the Government would absolutely love that supposed ambiguity - it gives them the opportunity to fulfil a wonderful sounding promise while actually doing little or nothing about it if they truly wanted to.
No, that simply can't be the reason for rejecting it.
This Conservative PM would rather give away £1b to prop up their failing minority government, than dare to give a slight pay increase to public sector workers. Not sure you can get any less patriotic than that.
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
To be honest, I think @cafcfan makes some good points there.
Those of us who are anti- Tory, for very good reasons, shouldn't give Corbyn and his useless cohorts a free ride.
I said to myself after my outburst the day after the election that I would try and lay off the anti Tory rhetoric - but they make it so hard. I just can't stand them
So they rejected it either because it started with "respectfully regret" or because the request for more public sector workers didn't have a number attached to it.
Not sure I believe you on that one.
If they really wanted to up the pay of public sector workers, that very opportunity was sitting in their laps. They decided not to.
So they rejected it either because it started with "respectfully regret" or because the request for more public sector workers didn't have a number attached to it.
Not sure I believe you on that one.
If they really wanted to up the pay of public sector workers, that very opportunity was sitting in their laps. They decided not to.
It's all a bit of a moot point. The Tories would never have voted for the amendment even though it looks like it was written by an imbecile. I'm surprised it didn't include the phrase "a nobber says no".
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
So they rejected it either because it started with "respectfully regret" or because the request for more public sector workers didn't have a number attached to it.
Not sure I believe you on that one.
If they really wanted to up the pay of public sector workers, that very opportunity was sitting in their laps. They decided not to.
What would you have done?
Voted for it? There isn't any other option. These people haven't had a proper pay rise in years and even Tory MPs are coming out and saying it's not good enough. Apparently they don't care enough to vote for the motion, though.
Perhaps Labour could've been less petty with the wording and perhaps Tories could've been less petty about rejecting it. That's given that that was the reason for voting against it was because it had the words "respectfully regret" in it in the first place.
Shame on Labour for putting forward a much needed amendment and voting for that amendment.
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
Flag removed
Thank you. (How do you vote for moderator of the year and is there a trophy? )
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
Flag removed
Thank you. (How do you vote for moderator of the year and is there a trophy? )
Just round on any of them you see misappropriating my username
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
Flag removed
Thank you. (How do you vote for moderator of the year and is there a trophy? )
Big Rob has won it for the last three years so keeps it!!
Justice for Cobbles - maybe that should be my campaign slogan.
The country was buggered because of the financial crash. One way of dealing with it was to get the public sector to pay, by way of cutting wages over an extended period. So not only can politicians say that our vital public services are wonderful, but they represent a significant financial tool to help bail out the banks. Win win.
Well, there you are then. How could any Govt. support an amendment that starts "respectfully regret" regarding the drafting of an element of their own Queen's Speech? You tell me. It's bonkers wording which, as a I said was doomed to failure; as it did. It was a deliberate, tacky political ploy and the signatories would have known that.
Flag removed
Thank you. (How do you vote for moderator of the year and is there a trophy? )
Big Rob has won it for the last three years so keeps it!!
Justice for Cobbles - maybe that should be my campaign slogan.
@cafcfan here's a good example. Any of this, you have my permission to flag them
Why did the amendment have to mention Grenfell and recent terror attacks. This vote was all about Labour trying to get one up on Tory's and the Tory's not letting Labour get one up on them. Lose Lose for the country and politics in general.
The Tory's downfall (on this subject, there are many others to come no doubt) will be when the independent report comes out with it's recommendations. My understanding is despite the pay freeze the report will recommend a level regardless. If the Tory's don't take heed of that then they are even bigger fools than I think right now.
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
I've never been so engaged in politics but also never been so saddened as to what a complete joke they all are. The quicker we get rid of both May & Corbyn the better.
Chop chop @bobmunro with @cobbles running your campaign you've my vote, i'll even register in your constituency so that I can vote for you even if I have to buy a flat there (we can rent it to @cabbles sorry cobbles, to run the campaign from).
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle Rob. The focus on the public sector pay freeze is about recruitment and retention of the staff that we need to keep our essential public services running. We have massive staff shortages in many areas that mean they can't provide a good service or even a safe one in some cases, and the wage freeze is one of several factors making it increasingly difficult to keep the staff they do have. If it's not addressed, more staff will jump ship to less stressful / better paying jobs, and when you need the service you may find it can't cope any more and you suffer as a result. Trying to make sure that our public services don't collapse is why some of us are arguing for improved public sector pay.
The Labour policy to improve the lot of the lower paid was the tenner an hour minimum wage thing :-)
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle Rob. The focus on the public sector pay freeze is about recruitment and retention of the staff that we need to keep our essential public services running. We have massive staff shortages in many areas that mean they can't provide a good service or even a safe one in some cases, and the wage freeze is one of several factors making it increasingly difficult to keep the staff they do have. If it's not addressed, more staff will jump ship to less stressful / better paying jobs, and when you need the service you may find it can't cope any more and you suffer as a result. Trying to make sure that our public services don't collapse is why some of us are arguing for improved public sector pay.
The Labour policy to improve the lot of the lower paid was the tenner an hour minimum wage thing :-)
Not sure I entirely agree @aliwibble - the public sector is made up of a vast array of job roles from a nurse to CEO. As I said yesterday, if there is a problem with recruitment and retention in a particular sector/s or roles then deal with that, it's really not that difficult and a benchmark of how to do that is set with teaching in the late 90's (in respect of salary and training more at least). The what to me is party political 'end austerity' etc is not a cohesive plan or an answer put simply point scoring.
There are many important jobs to the public that aren't public sector. Appreciate though health & safety is paramount.
Theres a body that independently looks at pay and the government should follow that as far as possible.
As for the 10 minimum wage, not sure it's the total answer. If people like Nurses, police etc are going to food banks as we are told, they are on a lot more than 10 an hour, £10 an hour is what, £18k are we saying that's enough? For everyone?
It really can't be that hard to look at how many staff we need, make sure they are paid correctly, enough are being trained etc. Not like teaching in the late 90's where we ended up training far too many so we ended up with far more looking for work than there were jobs which creates its own problems.
The government need a plan, I don't believe Labours is a cohesive one and neither is the governments.
In all work you look at what you need and submit a plan, it's not always approved for many reasons but at least have a proper plan.
Comments
A few days after giving away £1bn of tax money to cling onto power.
That's why it included the phrase "recruit more police officers and fire-fighters". A completely ambiguous request - how many - two more or two hundred thousand more? The truth of the matter, even including the recent Grenfell tragedy, is that we don't actually need more fire-fighters. Call-outs are down massively over the last decade. (And despite the spike we now have there will be regression to mean.) No sensible Govt. can afford to have vast numbers of highly trained individuals sitting around doing nothing since we have all got so much better at fire prevention. If Jeremy and his friends had been more careful, rather than trying to make a political point, they might have come up with a form of words that was acceptable to the Govt. and public sector pay would actually have benefited. But, of course, that's not what Corbyn actually cares about.
No, that simply can't be the reason for rejecting it.
This Conservative PM would rather give away £1b to prop up their failing minority government, than dare to give a slight pay increase to public sector workers. Not sure you can get any less patriotic than that.
Those of us who are anti- Tory, for very good reasons, shouldn't give Corbyn and his useless cohorts a free ride.
Not sure I believe you on that one.
If they really wanted to up the pay of public sector workers, that very opportunity was sitting in their laps. They decided not to.
Perhaps Labour could've been less petty with the wording and perhaps Tories could've been less petty about rejecting it. That's given that that was the reason for voting against it was because it had the words "respectfully regret" in it in the first place.
Shame on Labour for putting forward a much needed amendment and voting for that amendment.
I'm sure the nurses and teachers will be glad to know that's the case.
Justice for Cobbles - maybe that should be my campaign slogan.
So not only can politicians say that our vital public services are wonderful, but they represent a significant financial tool to help bail out the banks. Win win.
Why did the amendment have to mention Grenfell and recent terror attacks. This vote was all about Labour trying to get one up on Tory's and the Tory's not letting Labour get one up on them. Lose Lose for the country and politics in general.
The Tory's downfall (on this subject, there are many others to come no doubt) will be when the independent report comes out with it's recommendations. My understanding is despite the pay freeze the report will recommend a level regardless. If the Tory's don't take heed of that then they are even bigger fools than I think right now.
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
I've never been so engaged in politics but also never been so saddened as to what a complete joke they all are. The quicker we get rid of both May & Corbyn the better.
Chop chop @bobmunro with @cobbles running your campaign you've my vote, i'll even register in your constituency so that I can vote for you even if I have to buy a flat there (we can rent it to @cabbles sorry cobbles, to run the campaign from).
The Labour policy to improve the lot of the lower paid was the tenner an hour minimum wage thing :-)
There are many important jobs to the public that aren't public sector. Appreciate though health & safety is paramount.
Theres a body that independently looks at pay and the government should follow that as far as possible.
As for the 10 minimum wage, not sure it's the total answer. If people like Nurses, police etc are going to food banks as we are told, they are on a lot more than 10 an hour, £10 an hour is what, £18k are we saying that's enough? For everyone?
It really can't be that hard to look at how many staff we need, make sure they are paid correctly, enough are being trained etc. Not like teaching in the late 90's where we ended up training far too many so we ended up with far more looking for work than there were jobs which creates its own problems.
The government need a plan, I don't believe Labours is a cohesive one and neither is the governments.
In all work you look at what you need and submit a plan, it's not always approved for many reasons but at least have a proper plan.