Mr Hawkes Just ensuring some balance in the discussions:-)#1 Without reasonable pay levels there won't be adequate staff to service the NHS. Obviously, some would like to see the NHS fail in favour of a US style insurance system'What determines a reasonable pay level in a monopolistic state service such as the NHS unless of course it uses as a benchmark the Train Drivers £69K pa for a 4 day week with any weekend work being paid as overtime ?Did you know trainee train drivers and trainee doctors have pretty much the same starting salary ?!⟩ That raises an interesting philosophical debate. Train drivers can be responsible for the lives of hundreds at any one time, doctors usually just one at a time. One could, however, doctors need a much greater amount of knowledge and training; so how does one judge? Is that why there are pay review bodies? And I guess there's still supply and demand, even for monopolies within a market economy? Doctors can opt to work in the private sector, and given an apparent shortage of train drivers perhaps not many are attracted to the job?And please no more of that hoary old chestnut that some are determined to introduce a US health care system where everyone has to pay individually.If some think the NHS should be replaced they usually refer to the quality of many systems in the EU such as that in France, which I believe is partly funded by the individual having to take out an insurance policy.⟩ That may be the case, but in the past some politicians seem very close to US health companies. It's worth a reminder from time to time; my observations are that even for those with good insurance there are inefficiencies and lack of coordination in the US system that aren't in the patient interest and show good the NHS when it's working correctly - the main problem is the access times to NHS treatments for non life threatening treatment.'#2 failure to resolve strikes costs the economy money and causes services to deteriorate. That's why waiting lists get longer and more people are sick, unable to work, and contribute to tge economy'So should all strikes be 'resolved' by acceding to the strikers claims ?⟩ I never suggested that. But talking and negotiating is a good thing; which the previous government seemed reluctant to do so things just dragged on and on …#3 no, taxpayers don't pay the bonuses, don't think I suggested they were, but money from income is invested on a global basis - if only to spread risks - and the HMRC seems to put a lot of effort into tracing foreign accounts of UK taxpayers, and leaving the EU seemed to be to avoid some EU financial services legislation ... interesting how many overseas territories have banking and investment services ...Bankers might earn large bonuses and salaries but that is because they can demand them of their employers who in turn are running highly profitable financial services businesses in the private sector.An example of the truism that a competitive free market provides the only true way of determining salaries and hence why it is so difficult to assess NHS salaries.The Financial Services sector of our economy is one of our most successful and delivers tax revenues that go to amongst other things, fund the NHS.That's why the EU wanted to impose restrictions upon it - supported by the bankers in Paris and Frankfurt who doubtless looked on its success and its employers remuneration with great envy !I doubt if more than a few bankers are paid offshore for HMRC is pretty tight on such matters.⟩ Having worked in financial services I would question whether some really deserve them (but we'd better not go down that route!) - for some I'm sure it was just fortuitous that they were in the right place at the right time, etc to get those jobs but I guess that's life. Of course, one might say that London was a success because US financial services saw it as a good global base: deregulated by Thatcher and Lawson, midway between the US and far east (sort of), a buzzing metropolis, English speaking and - when decisions were first made - in the EU ... I really hope it remains a success …#4 yes, I said withdrawing the general WFA will probably turn out to be a mistake????⟩ Just saying I disagree with limiting the Winter Fuel Allowance and it's one thing I think will likely rebound and hurt the government #5 so on that basis you think the poor rather than the rich should be taxed?Who has claimed this ?The top 1% of earners paid 28% of the UK's total Income Tax revenue; the top 10% paid 60%; 43% paid NONE !⟩ Just a question: is this the conclusion to be drawn based on the Tory (and now Labour) decision not to raise the lowest tax threshold. Interesting that 43% don't have sufficient income to pay tax.#6 oh, yes, bad edit! Meant union donors Influencing Labour to fund the NHS adequately rather than, say, for example, property owner doners influencing Tories to abandon Mr Goves leasehold reform. If business leaders can influence Tory policies it's perfectly reasonable that unions can also influence Labour, although a number of business leaders seemed to also have more confidence in Labour ...Slight difference in bargaining power here surely.Not sure what changes property owners won from Gove by lobbying, but their effect on the country as a whole is infinitesimal compared with strikes threatened by unions that 'influenced' the Labour Chancellor Reeves to up their salaries and deepen the 'black hole'.'Sir Keir Starmer’s top team (including the Chancellor) have accepted a total of £480,030 in cash and donations in kind from the party’s union backers since 2019'.Hence the public sector pay rises⟩ But I think business donations to the Tory party were greater than unions gave to Labour? Mr Goves's failure was just one example. I suppose one should expect organisations and individuals to donate to those who they think will look after their interests?
Michael Ixer ● 304d