Nurses Pay Award

[mikeymo]

[It's the UK's inadequate separation of powers that makes it work that way.

OK then. How do you propose to adequately separate those powers?

[Jdsk]

Give me a concrete proposal. Some change that could be implemented that will do what you think. "let's have greater transparency" means nothing to me. Tell me what you want to happen. An act of parliament, a change to a regulation, a constitutional change. But something.

Please read what I've already written above.

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

[It's the UK's inadequate separation of powers that makes it work that way.

OK then. How do you propose to adequately separate those powers?

I recommend Turnbull's thoughts from 2009:
https://www.ft.com/content/73f524ca-4faa-11de-a692-00144feabdc0

The big problem is the inadequate separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive, and the increasing powers of the Executive. But there is one other area outside that: the quasi judicial power of the Home Secretary over individuals, as recently illustrated. All of those powers should be transferred to the Judiciary.

But between the Legislature and the Executive my starting list would include:
* Moving away from so many individuals having dual rôles.
* Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers before appointment.
* Strengthening powers of Select Committees to examine Ministers.
* Reducing powers of secondary legislation (which have been a major problem during the outbreak).
* Reducing powers of Ministers that arise from the Crown (there shouldn't be any)
* Introducing Independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct
* Increasing the power of Parliament to control its own affairs (see the recent disgraceful illegal attempt to suspend it).

And all done with transparency way beyond anything that has ever been seen in the UK. FoI has helped, but at the moment it's only judicial review that is keeping things under any control, and that's a very weak tool and one that the Government is trying to weaken further.

Jonathan

[mikeymo]

[It's the UK's inadequate separation of powers that makes it work that way.

OK then. How do you propose to adequately separate those powers?

I recommend Turnbull's thoughts from 2009:
https://www.ft.com/content/73f524ca-4faa-11de-a692-00144feabdc0

The big problem is the inadequate separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive, and the increasing powers of the Executive. But there is one other area outside that: the quasi judicial power of the Home Secretary over individuals, as recently illustrated. All of those powers should be transferred to the Judiciary.

But between the Legislature and the Executive my starting list would include:
* Moving away from so many individuals having dual rôles.
* Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers before appointment.
* Strengthening powers of Select Committees to examine Ministers.
* Reducing powers of secondary legislation (which have been a major problem during the outbreak).
* Reducing powers of Ministers that arise from the Crown (there shouldn't be any)
* Introducing Independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct
* Increasing the power of Parliament to control its own affairs (see the recent disgraceful illegal attempt to suspend it).

And all done with transparency way beyond anything that has ever been seen in the UK. FoI has helped, but at the moment it's only judicial review that is keeping things under any control, and that's a very weak tool and one that the Government is trying to weaken further.

Jonathan

"Moving away from..."
"Parliamentary scrutiny of..."
"Strengthening powers of..."
"Reducing powers of..."

It's not concrete. If I was marking this I would send it back - "these are not specific actionable proposals, they are expressions of intention" - or some such comment.

Let me give you an example. And then maybe you will understand what I mean by a specific actionable proposal as opposed to an expression of intention or "vague aspiration".

Vague aspiration number one - I think we should have elected representatives who make laws and govern the country.

Vague aspiration number two - I think people should be free to follow any religion they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Vague aspiration number three - I think no single religion should be given special status, power or authority.

expression of intention - The House of Lords has unelected members, so doesn't line up with the vague aspiration number one above. It should be changed.

expression of intention - some of the members of the House of Lords are there because they are Bishops in the Church of England, which doesn't line up with vague aspiration number three. That should be changed.

Concrete proposal - the UK government should draft a bill which removes the automatic inclusion of Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords. They should present that bill to the House of Commons. If passed, that bill would become an Act of Parliament and the bishops would leave the House of Lords.


I hope that's clear.

[Jdsk]

OK then. How do you propose to adequately separate those powers?

I recommend Turnbull's thoughts from 2009:
https://www.ft.com/content/73f524ca-4faa-11de-a692-00144feabdc0

The big problem is the inadequate separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive, and the increasing powers of the Executive. But there is one other area outside that: the quasi judicial power of the Home Secretary over individuals, as recently illustrated. All of those powers should be transferred to the Judiciary.

But between the Legislature and the Executive my starting list would include:
* Moving away from so many individuals having dual rôles.
* Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers before appointment.
* Strengthening powers of Select Committees to examine Ministers.
* Reducing powers of secondary legislation (which have been a major problem during the outbreak).
* Reducing powers of Ministers that arise from the Crown (there shouldn't be any)
* Introducing Independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct
* Increasing the power of Parliament to control its own affairs (see the recent disgraceful illegal attempt to suspend it).

And all done with transparency way beyond anything that has ever been seen in the UK. FoI has helped, but at the moment it's only judicial review that is keeping things under any control, and that's a very weak tool and one that the Government is trying to weaken further.

"Moving away from..."
"Parliamentary scrutiny of..."
"Strengthening powers of..."
"Reducing powers of..."

It's not concrete. If I was marking this I would send it back - "these are not specific actionable proposals, they are expressions of intention" - or some such comment.

I posted the concrete proposal on the Pay Review, the subject of this thread, a long way back.

Jonathan

[mikeymo]

I recommend Turnbull's thoughts from 2009:
https://www.ft.com/content/73f524ca-4faa-11de-a692-00144feabdc0

The big problem is the inadequate separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive, and the increasing powers of the Executive. But there is one other area outside that: the quasi judicial power of the Home Secretary over individuals, as recently illustrated. All of those powers should be transferred to the Judiciary.

But between the Legislature and the Executive my starting list would include:
* Moving away from so many individuals having dual rôles.
* Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers before appointment.
* Strengthening powers of Select Committees to examine Ministers.
* Reducing powers of secondary legislation (which have been a major problem during the outbreak).
* Reducing powers of Ministers that arise from the Crown (there shouldn't be any)
* Introducing Independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct
* Increasing the power of Parliament to control its own affairs (see the recent disgraceful illegal attempt to suspend it).

And all done with transparency way beyond anything that has ever been seen in the UK. FoI has helped, but at the moment it's only judicial review that is keeping things under any control, and that's a very weak tool and one that the Government is trying to weaken further.

"Moving away from..."
"Parliamentary scrutiny of..."
"Strengthening powers of..."
"Reducing powers of..."

It's not concrete. If I was marking this I would send it back - "these are not specific actionable proposals, they are expressions of intention" - or some such comment.

I posted the concrete proposal on the Pay Review, the subject of this thread, a long way back.

Jonathan

Thanks, I'll see if I can find it.

[mikeymo]

I recommend Turnbull's thoughts from 2009:
https://www.ft.com/content/73f524ca-4faa-11de-a692-00144feabdc0

The big problem is the inadequate separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive, and the increasing powers of the Executive. But there is one other area outside that: the quasi judicial power of the Home Secretary over individuals, as recently illustrated. All of those powers should be transferred to the Judiciary.

But between the Legislature and the Executive my starting list would include:
* Moving away from so many individuals having dual rôles.
* Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers before appointment.
* Strengthening powers of Select Committees to examine Ministers.
* Reducing powers of secondary legislation (which have been a major problem during the outbreak).
* Reducing powers of Ministers that arise from the Crown (there shouldn't be any)
* Introducing Independent enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct
* Increasing the power of Parliament to control its own affairs (see the recent disgraceful illegal attempt to suspend it).

And all done with transparency way beyond anything that has ever been seen in the UK. FoI has helped, but at the moment it's only judicial review that is keeping things under any control, and that's a very weak tool and one that the Government is trying to weaken further.

"Moving away from..."
"Parliamentary scrutiny of..."
"Strengthening powers of..."
"Reducing powers of..."

It's not concrete. If I was marking this I would send it back - "these are not specific actionable proposals, they are expressions of intention" - or some such comment.

I posted the concrete proposal on the Pay Review, the subject of this thread, a long way back.

Jonathan

Was it this?

"The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency."

[Jdsk]

No.

BTW I totally disagree about the importance of detailed political proposals in a cycling forum. We're not going to deliver them by posting here. What interests me here is others' views on the broad direction of travel that we should be following.

Jonathan

[Syd]

One point of note is that the pay rise in question will run from April 1st. This is despite likely making their final decision in May, at the earliest, after the independent panel makes its own pay recommendations. If effect staff won’t see this rise in their pay packets until June of July at the earliest with back pay being given the month after.

This is very typical and, in the 29 years I’ve worked for the NHS, I cannot recall a instance, outside of multi year agreements, where a pay rise has ever been paid on time.

NHS Scotland have taken the unusual step this year of giving staff a 1% rise from the start of the year and will make the necessary adjustments when the final figure is known.

[Jdsk]

This is very typical and, in the 29 years I’ve worked for the NHS, I cannot recall a instance, outside of multi year agreements, where a pay rise has ever been paid on time.

Good point.

For those unfamiliar with PRBs I'd also add governments accepting recommendations but not funding them.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

No.

BTW I totally disagree about the importance of detailed political proposals in a cycling forum. We're not going to deliver them by posting here. What interests me here is others' views on the broad direction of travel that we should be following.

Jonathan

I think the issue is beyond the direction we should be travelling. I'd expect a large %age of the electorate would support a sensible direction of travel. I see the bigger problem is that none of the party in power would support such steps as they would impact their powers or their likelihood of re-election or increase their accountability, etc.

Ian

[Jdsk]

BTW I totally disagree about the importance of detailed political proposals in a cycling forum. We're not going to deliver them by posting here. What interests me here is others' views on the broad direction of travel that we should be following.

I think the issue is beyond the direction we should be travelling. I'd expect a large %age of the electorate would support a sensible direction of travel. I see the bigger problem is that none of the party in power would support such steps as they would impact their powers or their likelihood of re-election or increase their accountability, etc.

I'm not making any assertions about achievability or timescale, and I don't think that I'm any more optimistic than you...

... but that's not a reason not to discuss the direction that we'd like to see.

Jonathan

[Syd]

In the years before I joined the NHS, in 1992, my colleagues were on the MPT payscales. These had become outdated and a number of staff groups were merged and placed on the MTO payscale.

Then, around 12 years later, another change came about and the majority of staff moved onto AfC payscales. These have been around for 17 years now and been messed around with in recent years. During each change staff generally see a pay uplift which then slowly drops off, in real terms, due to below inflation pay rises, until such time another change occurs and the cycle begins again.

In real terms many if my colleagues are effectively on less pay than they were a decade ago but very few of them are calling for a high increase at this time.

[Stevek76]

Injecting money into an economy is a good thing up to a point but if you actually can afford to inject that cash then IMO you'd be better off handing it to those lower down the food chain aimed particularly at folk likely to lose their jobs rather than folk on middle class wages who'd be more likely to take it out of the country on a (admittedly well deserved) holiday the first chance they got.

Well there's an element of leadership from the government there, if they're not willing to up wages, why should anyone else, and I meant across the public sector not just for one group.

Must admit, I had not realised quite how low inflation was right now, had assumed 1% constituted a real terms loss (ignoring experience related gains but that's really an entirely different matter). However, over the last 10 years, I've still had considerably larger non experience related rises in my middle class private sector job, despite it being largely funded by public money.

With those lower down the food chain, the easiest way to reduce that inequality would be redistributive policies, i.e. more tax & spend.

I understand how money works - if you looked back on various political threads you'd see that.
Whether it be inflation or a devaluing of currency there are limits to how much money you can inject into an economy before things go wrong - as no shortage of countries have found out.

Which ones exactly? Specifically ones with a sovereign fiat currency? Our inflation is low, our tax burden is low, bond yields are low. There is always a limit but it's not one we appear to be anywhere near.

There is an argument that one of the real concerns about creating money is that interest is paid on it and has to be paid, even if the principal may never be repaid. Inflation is the two-edged sword and one edge is that it reduces the paper value of those debts. There's no guarantee that interest rates will not rise.

Well plenty of the newer debt is owned by the BoE so the government is effectively setting its own interest rates for that and paying itself the interest. Bonds and gilts owned by others are fixed interest for the duration and most are decades in length.

In general I think the opposite. There are too many other pressures on politicians. These operational decisions are better made by arms length bodies working with very high transparency to very clear briefs.

The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency.

Agree with this, not sure why most of these decisions end up so politicised in the first place.

[thirdcrank]

An interesting contribution from the Fifth Baron Bethell, who's a junior health minister

Nurses are well-paid for the job, says health minister

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56260038

As an example of how our democracy works, he's said to have failed twice to get elected to the HoC (once being runner-up in his party's selection process) so he stood for election amongst the hereditaries in the HoL and now feels qualified to pontificate on the pay and conditions of the hoi polloi. At least it's not the Eton old school tie. He went to Harrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bet ... on_Bethell