What Rachel Reeves does next? Surprised no thread on this yet. It's all over Twitter

There are lots of economists who will tell you the debt would be lower, because austerity contracted the economy whereas borrowing and spending on infrastructure etc would have boosted it.

Not strictly true. In the run up to the election Blair took the Tories (John Major government) to task, saying that they would inherit a national debt that had doubled under Majors’ watch.

Gordon Brown accused them of leaving a black hole in the economy when Labour came to power in 1997. As a result they brought forward work on the Welfare Reform and Pensions bill intended to save approximately £750 million per year from state benefits paid on housing, income support, council tax receipts, disability benefits and incapacity benefit. The bill was responsible for the introduction of private assessment companies to assess for disability and sickness benefits and replacing sickness and invalidity benefits with ESA, with considerably tightened restrictions for both. So as with successive governments recently, the most vulnerable were in the firing line. Maybe not to the same extent, but it was there.

Because it's not like the national debt levels are very high now is it ?

What would the national debt levels be like now if austerity hadn't happened ?

I would say a lot higher. Assuming people were willing to lend us the money of course. In reality the markets would have called time on it long before. Exactly like they did with Liz Truss.

How do pensions work for NHS doctors? Just wondering as they all seem to retire at 60?

I get that they have stressful jobs it’s just that so do many people.

Blair in 97. No public spending cuts, no accusations of financial mess.

Could you work out how to tell whether a teacher is productive? Which bits of the improve,ent in performance of pupils can be assigned to which teachers? If a child I teach English starts to score more highly 8n their history essay papers, is that my productivity or his/her history teacher’s? If someone with behaviour issues starts to do better and behave better, is that result of my strong teaching, or their form tutor doing some pastoral work, or a mental health professional, or their parents laying down the law?
They aren’t widgets in a machine. Any improvement is a product of ream work.
Though you may be unaware that, even so, teachers’ pay has had an element of payment by results for quite a while now (UPSand progression up the scale are based on targets around pupil attainment).

I can’t remember any government of recent years who didn’t cut public spending using the excuse that the previous incumbents had left a financial mess. David Cameron used the previous Labour government as an excuse for years of ideological and totally unnecessary austerity that we still haven’t recovered from. They’re all the bloody same.

Looking at some of the opinions you’ve expressed here, that’s fairly obvious.

Just a couple of small points. GP’s are not part of the NHS. They are private businesses contracted in to provide services.

And your tax money may not have gone to public sector Christmas piss ups but it almost certainly contributes to those of private sector staff piss ups by way of the UC funded by the tax payer and used to top up the shite wages paid to grass roots workers.

We can measure the productivity of the latest Tory governments: around -50 billion pounds, take or leave a few billion here and there.
First thing we should do is never ever pay them a penny again, for peerages (remove them all), the yearly allowance that they get or any other extras. They do actually own us money, quite a bit.
Even their pensions as MPs should be looked into. I bet you they do not need them. And we do. That could actually get the message across that you do not play with a whole nations bread and butter and just walk away into the sunset.

@Noras most public sector pensions are not as high as that

I’m not saying that public sector package would be any less it just would not comprise of so much pension. To fund £4500 costs £100,000 in the private sector. Someone on say £25,000 has an asset of £500,000. That’s the reality of the value.

I think that is public sector workers were paid more upfront and the pension was instead just a normal employer pension it would attract more people into the public sector. The headline salary would be significantly more and eye catching.

Sometimes I work in a place where I’m lucky if I get half an hour’s break all day. Other times I work somewhere I’m lucky if two people come in all day.
Should I be paid less according to where my manager chooses to place me?
Oh… and how do you measure “productivity” in the public sector? Or any workplace where you don’t produce quantifiable output?

Nice rebuttal, but the last place I go to for information is any kind of "news" site.

I don’t know many people that get a company car these days. That ended in the 1990s. But yes, it sounds GREAT to give the public sector workers medical and dental insurance (although dental isn’t standard many places). But employers funding employees medical insurance is JUST what is needed here. It’s basically funding the NHS more money in return for them providing a quick and guaranteed medical care! Perfect!

@MauveCrow lazy public sector workers? You sound like you read the Daily Mail.

I want lazy unproductive public sector workers to fuck off, and productive ones to be paid much more.

@MauveCrow you want schools to close?

Excellent. When can we start?

@MauveCrow it is already hard to recruit staff. If they are told they will get less salary if they are deemed unproductive lots will go fuck that.

It would be harder to recruit unproductive workers, yes.

Linking public sector pay to productivity? There are problems filling lots of jobs from teachers to care workers. Good way to make it even harder.

There’s a nice little bar chart in the article you posted.

You based your entire argument on that? It wouldn’t even get you a GCSE.