Strike Action

[RollingJ]

15 minutes ago, L00b said:

Which dates back to 1888, in its original incantation, according to that link. 

 

I’m struggling to understand your counterpoint, in the context of the discussion. All the tax money goes into a central pot in the UK; the Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish nations got devolved powers in1979 to run some of their domestic affairs with a little more independence from Westminster, and that still required money relative to pre-1979, and still does now.

 

You are making it sound like the extra % or 2 that they get for their regional budget under the Barnett formula is a largesse, hackey is even worse by suggesting that they owe England a living, as if they didn’t contribute owt to the pot.

Paragraph #1: and has no doubt been revised/renegotiated since?

 

Paragraph #2 : Agreed - all taxes from UK area go into a central 'pot', the three (of four) constituent parts got the devolved powers for running their 'domestic' affairs,  and yes it requires money (what doesn't?), but what EXTRA money to pre-1979?

 

Paragraph #3: Why do  they need this EXTRA money?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Paragraph #1: and has no doubt been revised/renegotiated since?

 

Paragraph #2 : Agreed - all taxes from UK area go into a central 'pot', the three (of four) constituent parts got the devolved powers for running their 'domestic' affairs,  and yes it requires money (what doesn't?), but what EXTRA money to pre-1979?

 

Paragraph #3: Why do  they need this EXTRA money?

Who knows and who cares except for the Tory fans on here who are the only ones complaining about it.

All they need to do is ask their current Prime Minister (I said current because it may be a different one if they don't ask quickly - they change so fast now).

 

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Who knows and who cares except for the Tory fans on here who are the only ones complaining about it.

All they need to do is ask their current Prime Minister (I said current because it may be a different one if they don't ask quickly - they change so fast now).

 

More a question for the Scots - their current leader is always banging on about them being 'self-sufficient'.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

More a question for the Scots - their current leader is always banging on about them being 'self-sufficient'.

She means, if they were free of us.

Can't blame the Scots if our Government gives it to them so it's a case of pay them or cut them free.

[RollingJ]

Just now, Organgrinder said:

She means, if they were free of us.

Can't blame the Scots if our Government gives it to them so it's a case of pay them or cut them free.

I know what she 'means', but is she being truthful. Lets see what happens if we tear up the Barnett Agreement.

[L00b]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Paragraph #1: and has no doubt been revised/renegotiated since?

 

Paragraph #2 : Agreed - all taxes from UK area go into a central 'pot', the three (of four) constituent parts got the devolved powers for running their 'domestic' affairs,  and yes it requires money (what doesn't?), but what EXTRA money to pre-1979?

 

Paragraph #3: Why do  they need this EXTRA money?

#1 in 1978 as the ‘Barnett formula’, per the Wiki link.

 

#2 explained at the Wiki link.

 

#3 your question isn’t a reply to my paragraph (if anything, your question reinforces it).

 

Look, the British government, duly elected as it was then, consented (I) a degree of devolution to nations of the Union and (II) a calculation basis, the Barnett formula, perceived as fairer at the time relative to the original 1888 formula, to fund the performance of devolved powers in those nations.

 

If you have an issue with it (it seems that you have), campaign or support either (a) an end to devolution altogether or (b) an end to the Union: either of these solutions solves the issue of England giving money, any and whether ‘extra’ or not, to other nations of the Union so they can run their affairs (education, health, police, etc, etc.). Under (a), England runs it all again. Under (b), each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland tax, fund and run it all (but then, nowt goes to the English pot).

 

Take your pick 😉

[L00b]

5 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I know what she 'means', but is she being truthful. Lets see what happens if we tear up the Barnett Agreement.

Current polling is 56% for independence. It fluctuates around the margin of error.

 

Tear up the Barnett formula, and I’d venture an extra 5-10% easy.

 

Wrong thread for this aside about Scotland, tbh. There is already another thread for it.

 

Now then, back to strikes. Coming over at Xmas, since we were forbidden last year. What are M’ways and A1 traffic going to be like, in the days before the 24th, with who’s planned to strike then?

Edited December 8, 2022 by L00b

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

I know what she 'means', but is she being truthful. Lets see what happens if we tear up the Barnett Agreement.

That's all she would need to get the rest of the Scots behind her and demand another referendum.

I think we've got problems enough.

Quite honestly, I think she would have been a better leader for us than the long line of idiots who have entered, and left, 10 Downing street whilst she has held down her job.

[Mister M]

I'm sure someone will have already posted this on this thread, but I was a little baffled a couple of days ago when the Health Secretary Steve Barclay complained on the radio news that if ambulance staff go on strike then people like "the elderly who fall" will have to wait longer for help.

Has he been hiding all these years? People are already having to wait unfeasibly long for ambulances....

In fact some health service staff were on the radio saying that if they do go on strike, then the Government will have to impose minimum service guarantees, which will probably mean that during strikes, people will receive a better service as there will be more staff mandated on shifts.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Mister M

[harvey19]

16 hours ago, Mister M said:

I'm sure someone will have already posted this on this thread, but I was a little baffled a couple of days ago when the Health Secretary Steve Barclay complained on the radio news that if ambulance staff go on strike then people like "the elderly who fall" will have to wait longer for help.

Has he been hiding all these years? People are already having to wait unfeasibly long for ambulances....

In fact some health service staff were on the radio saying that if they do go on strike, then the Government will have to impose minimum service guarantees, which will probably mean that during strikes, people will receive a better service as there will be more staff mandated on shifts.

Serious questions need to be asked of those whose duty it is to plan for the future and how money has been spent.

Insufficient doctors, nurses and ambulance staff being trained,  Working hours and practices of some GPs. Use or lack of use of facilities on a weekend.

It seems to me that short term measures like using immigrant and agency staff who have kept the service going  for several years now instead of getting a grip of the situation.

For years we have heard the government say they would sort out social care but we are still waiting.

The usual cry of lack of funding is not the only cause of the problems, maybe the management should be held to account also