Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Day off for Royal Wedding / strike, what's the difference to economy?

33 replies

BridgetJonesPants · 29/11/2011 17:03

When the ruling classes decided we can have a day off for a royal wedding it didn't damage the economy, but when the workers decide to strike it costs millions!

HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS!

OP posts:
midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:09

Indeed. Likewise the Queen's Jubilee next year, for which we will all be given another day off in order that we might wave our Union Jacks and tug our forelocks.

Vive la revolution!

sfxmum · 29/11/2011 17:12

yes but one is patriotic the other is just unreasonable greedy people wanting unreasonable things in a time of crisis Hmm
oh dear!

HarrietJones · 29/11/2011 17:13

And when there's s strike the public sector wage bill goes down and for the wedding/jubilee it was a paid bank holiday. So surely it saves money?

Iggly · 29/11/2011 17:15

Ah but it did apparently Hmm- Osborne used it as an excuse. He'll use the jubilee again too next year. I'm willing to bet on it.

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:15

And childcare providers will be positively raking it in. Not to mention all the folk providing free childcare as par tof the Big Society. Cameron should be all for it.

Perhaps it's the way forward.

MoreBeta · 29/11/2011 17:17

Assuming people work a 225 day year (ie after holidays and sickness) and that only 50% of workers will not be working as a result of being on strike or being forced to take the day off then the impact of the strike will be to reduce annual GDP by about 0.2%.

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:21

Where do you get your figure of 50%, MoreBeta?

tethersend · 29/11/2011 17:23

"yes but one is patriotic the other is just unreasonable greedy people wanting unreasonable things in a time of crisis"

Can you clarify which is which please, sfxmum?

sfxmum · 29/11/2011 17:25

it is not a serious statement, do I need an appropriate emoticon?

JuliaScurr · 29/11/2011 17:30

But one is lovely and not at all sexist in its stereotyping and buttock lechery, while the other is sheer frothing bolshehvism! (I hope)

MoreBeta · 29/11/2011 17:31

midnightexpress - just a rough guess based on previous strikes.

How many people do you think will not be at work?

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 18:54

I have no idea. I suppose lots of people have childcare of one sort or another, or will have found it, lots of people don't actually have children, and there are also quite a lot of jobs which don't contribute directly to GDP. I think about 20% of the working population work in the public sector, but have no idea what proportion of them will be striking.

MoreBeta · 29/11/2011 19:28

I have a feeling you are right. The actual number on strike might be surprisingly low and a lot of people will work from home while looking after children. Not every minute at work is very productive so people might well catch up most of it the following week by working a bit harder and a few less coffee breaks and chatting by the water cooler.

claig · 29/11/2011 19:34

Very good point

claig · 29/11/2011 19:34

to the OP

LemonDifficult · 29/11/2011 19:47

OP, you can't really have failed to notice how much shite people bought in the run up to the RW can you?! And how much they boosted the economy through having parties and drawing attention to how great the UK is to any potential tourists?!

Is this really a serious OP? And there are people agreeing?

The Royal Wedding was a mmaaaaahhhhhooosive boost to the economy. Tomorrows strikes will not be.

claig · 29/11/2011 19:52

But, LemonDifficult, the government came up with a figure of something like a £500 million loss for tomorrow's strike. Do you think the sale of Chinese made flags etc. made more than that for the economy?

Also, for the RW most people had the day off, tomorrow lots of people will still be working.

niceguy2 · 29/11/2011 21:10

Sometimes i really shake my head with disbelief at some of the blinkered/ignorant views here.

I'm no royalist but it's obvious to me that the wedding was a great boost for the UK. Firstly outside of our country, our royal family is much loved. No idea why but the Japanese, American's and many other nations lap it all up and coming over to the UK to see a real queen in a real palace seems to be something they like to do.

So the fact that our heir to the throne was getting married filled up our hotels and thousands of plane tickets were sold on the back of it. Now once all these tourists arrived, presumably they eat, visit other places and generally spend hard cash in good old UK.

On top of all this, all that crap memorabilia which filled our shelves I assume were bought by some people.

And of course don't forget all the overtime all the security, police etc. all got paid. All I assume spent in the UK boosting the economy again.

In fact I remember reading at the time the net effect on the economy was expected to be positive to the tune of nearly £600 million. I know at the time some people moaned about the cost of security which was a few million (I forget how much exactly now) but that seems a pretty sweet deal to me.

Oh and don't forget this showcases the UK internationally in a positive light.

Compare this to tomorrow's strikes. Twelve hour queues predicted at Heathrow. Schools on strike. Many parents forced to take a day off to look after their kids. Extra costs on childcare. It doesn't show us as a country you'd want to come & visit does it? All that lost pay, all the inconvenience. That's a cost to our economy. I doubt it will really cost the £500 million quoted but it will be a fair bit.

Wormshuffler · 29/11/2011 21:27

And I got pg over the extra bank holiday so the money I've spent on baby stuff will boost the economy Grin

CogitoErgoSometimes · 30/11/2011 08:39

Big difference. Advanced warning. Schools shut that day for example but, because it was flagged up in advance, and because it was a bank holiday, fewer people were in the position of having to take unpaid leave or lose a day of their statutory entitlement. Operations etc. weren't cancelled at short notice, wasting time and money, because they weren't booked in the first place. It wasn't just entire organisations closing down wholesale in April, there was the ability to put in place the usual or extra holiday cover... so Heathrow would have put on extra border personnel for the holiday, not tell carriers to arrive half-full. Those on holiday that day didn't pressurise colleagues not to turn up to work in the way that will happen today. And the prospect of getting caught up in a protest march means many will stay home today, not good for business more generally.

niceguy2 · 30/11/2011 09:22

Well Claig, those two links you posted are so far apart that it doesn't instil confidence does it. Which is it? £50 billion or £5 billion?

And have they simply calculated the loss of productivity of all workers for one day without thinking about all those who did continue to work. And what about all those people like myself who spent the day doing some shopping followed by sitting in a pub with a meal? In other words, those of us who spent money that day?

claig · 30/11/2011 09:29

They did factor sales of alcohol in pubs etc. in to the figures.

The figures are far apart. Which one do you believe?
Who gains by telling us the good news?
Who gains by waking the slumbering public up to the real cost in a time of universal austerity?

PostBellumBugsy · 30/11/2011 09:33

Strike - pain in the backside for everyone affected
Public holiday - enjoyable for everyone
Can't even believe that a comparison is being attempted here.

Swipe left for the next trending thread