Labour concedes abject defeat on regional benefits/public sector pay

[longfingernails]

Red Ed has flailed around in utter despair at his poll numbers, and how untrusted Labour is on immigration - and has in great haste actually come up with what seems to be a policy! It's a great one, too - one I wholeheartedly endorse - Labour believe that benefit caps should be different in different parts of the country.

Well, if benefit caps are different, that basically means that benefits themselves will be different in practice - so the logical step is to make benefits conditional on median local salary.

And if benefits should be regional, then clearly public sector pay should be too - after all, public sector workers in Hull are vastly overpaid compared to the private sector, whereas in London they may be slightly underpaid.

All this, of course, means an end to national pay bargaining - and with it, further destruction of that most malign of influences on British society, the trade union bosses. I don't believe in collective bargaining whatsoever - but the step from national to regional deals is definitely in the right direction.

And Labour themselves have not only conceded the principle, but put forward with the idea! George Osborne should seize the opportunity in the budget.

It reduces the unfair distortion of the public sector on private enterprise, it is fairer to those public sector workers who work in expensive parts of the country, and it destroys trade union power. What's not to like?

Sorry, immigration in the first sentence should say welfare - though of course Labour are untrusted on immigration too.

And as the lack of interest in this thread shows, it is boring and technical enough that legislation can be passed without much fuss - whilst saving tens of billions of pounds, which can be used to cut the structural deficit, and fund income tax cuts.

Only the unions and the Labour party would kick up a fuss - and who cares about them?

You might care on 1 March, the proposed date for public sector strikes. 'Red' (HA!) Ed is, as you say, almost entirely useless, but this may well bring about the formation of a better left organisation.

Where is it announced that next strike day is 1/3?

lfn - why do your posts always have to be so sneery?

The last lot of public sector strikes were a complete non-event. They failed completely.

And in any case, no-one is striking over regional policy (yet) as far as I know - after all, only the Labour party has proposed regionalisation at this stage!

Julia ?

This week's Socialist Worker has it on front page. So far it's a vote in favour by the UCU (see that, LFN? A majority vote? The thing the current PM didn't get) They'll be approaching others to coordinate action on pensions

Didn't fail completely. Might not get the rock up the mountain the first time, but it builds the muscles for the next attempt

Thanks

How many public posts have a national pay scale ?

I thought it was just NHS/teachers. And they have London weighting.

I know it's a bone of contention with the Social workers at work that if they go into nearby counties they get paid more .

Most L.A. jobs, universities etc
Harriett, I thought social workers did; probation officers do

Social workers aren't. Ours have just been part of the pay reviews . Everyone was apart from teachers afaik though that's just county council. Probation & university wouldn't come under that.

But, LFN, costs aren't different for food, utilities and fuel in different parts of the country. Waitrose/Sainsburys/Tesco/M&S don't charge different prices for food. The water bills in the SW are the most expensive in the UK, and that is one of the poorest areas; fuel costs more down there because of transportation costs, and many people live in areas where there is no mains gas, so have oil or bottled gas for heating which is really expensive.

Add to this a dearth of public transport, so many rely on cars, and you are advocating even more poverty. I think that in some cases benefits are too high, but if benefits are going to be cut, then we have to look long and hard at putting infrastructure into place to deal with this. This would include available housing which people can afford; making sure place are available in schools; who pays for a move if people have to move? Who pays for the deposit for the rent? I entirely agree that living on benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, but I wouldn't want to be jobhunting in the UK at the moment. We are looking to stay abroad when dh leaves the Forces because we can't see that there is anything in the SW for us, and he has more chance of using his experience, and getting a good job here.

Actually, dh is a (London-based) public sector worker and is strongly in favour of local pay bargaining - national pay bargaining means public sector workers in the SE are relatively v poorly paid compared to what they'd get get in the private sector.

So LFN, I think you're wrong to assume that this move would be unpopular with most public sector workers or Labour voters. Far from 'conceding defeat' abject or otherwise, it's a sensible, rational policy, supported by many on the left and right.

It would be bloody unpopular with many public sector workers in the SW. The only reason to do this is divide and rule.

If the public sector workers in the SE are so unhappy and could get more in the private sector, then why aren't they doing so?

You will also get those public sector workers who are very mobile, and for whom this would not work, like HM Forces. Go figure.

George Osborne looks like he will take the political space opened by Labour when they suggested regionalising benefits, and now Red Ed's union paymasters will have to lump it! It looks like national pay bargaining in the public sector is coming to an end - what fantastic news!

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16190693

Great stuff. George Osborne is a superb political strategist.

I have nothing against this as a policy as long as it's a way of upping the pay of public sector workers in the SE not lowering it in Hull.

scaryteacher - the reason public sector workers in the SE don't all choose to get more in the private sector is because many of them choose actively to work in the public sector as a vocation and are very proud of their role in serving the public - money is not the only factor when choosing employment. Not everyone would choose to sell their grandmother...

The pay will be lowered in places like Hull and increased in places like London.

It isn't fair:
There are huge regional variations in house prices WITHIN regions (a semi-d in our town costs anywhere between £200 and £350, depending on schools/demographics etc) .

Fuel costs are usually more expensive in out-lying areas.
Supermarket costs are the same.
Clothing costs are the same.

What are they going to base their pay differentials on? The price of beer?