What is the point of labour ?

[Jedi2]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Simple arithmetic, obviously.

Are you totally incapable of doing your own research?

Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs)

Number of Planners 300

Timescale  - all in place by March 2026

Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years

Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year 

Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year

Population of Scotland 5.454 million

583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 

As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff.

So no comment on what the increased spend on the NHS or Education is yet, which of course also goes to Scotland as a percentage....reason being we don't yet know what it will be 

[Granny Danger]

45 minutes ago, Cheese said:

It really shows how bad the last government was (and the overall state of politics and the media in this country) that these rather tepid, underwhelming reforms are being hailed as some sort of FDR's New Deal.

'You repealed a planning law this morning. Truly magnificent, sir.'

In fairness the Labour campaign slogan of “We are a little bit less shit than the Tories” should have been a portent.

 

[lichtgilphead]

23 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

So no comment on what the increased spend on the NHS or Education is yet, which of course also goes to Scotland as a percentage....reason being we don't yet know what it will be 

You've answered your own question.

Given that there has been no announcement (that I am aware of) as to exactly how long it will take to recruit the 6500 teachers, it's not possible to work out the Barnett consequentials. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. At this exact moment, the consequentials to be zero, as no new teachers have been appointed.

Similarly, starting an audit of NHS finances doesn't really equate to new money for Scotland.

In reality, Labour have done the square root of f*ck all (so far) toward fulfilling their manifesto promises toward the NHS & education.

[Cheese]

Clearly hiring more teachers is a good thing, some of them might make all the difference in some young people's lives. There is around 24,000 schools in England and Wales though, so it's working out at just over a quarter of a teacher per school.

[GNU_Linux]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

quarter of a teacher per school.

Simple solution is to cut all teachers in four thus more teachers for more schools

Edited July 11 by GNU_Linux

[Granny Danger]

It looks like the new government is going to come under increasing pressure to abolish the two child benefits cap.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

 

[Cheese]

Clive is a psy op.

[Cheese]

51 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

Simple solution is to cut all teachers in four thus more teachers for more schools

As long as they send the right bits to the right department.

No point having the brain teaching PE and sending the legs up to the Maths classroom.

[dirty dingus]

5 minutes ago, Cheese said:

As long as they send the right bits to the right department.

No point having the brain teaching PE and sending the legs up to the Maths classroom.

You could send the arse and the elbow to the remedial class and see if they can identify which is which.

[GTee]

5 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Simple arithmetic, obviously.

Are you totally incapable of doing your own research?

Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs)

Number of Planners 300

Timescale  - all in place by March 2026

Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years

Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year 

Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year

Population of Scotland 5.454 million

583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 

As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff.

So if the Westminster decide to spend some more money on the English NHS, the Scottish Government gets a population percentage to spend on the Scottish NHS. Great to have extra funds but must be pretty difficult plan for this. I guess the starting point is to assume no extra funds, and then be grateful if Westminster decides to spend some. Maybe this is not how it works.

[DA Baracus]

Re getting more teachers, what are they going to do about the ludicrous tuition fees that are a large barrier to a lot of folk going to university?

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, GTee said:

So if the Westminster decide to spend some more money on the English NHS, the Scottish Government gets a population percentage to spend on the Scottish NHS. Great to have extra funds but must be pretty difficult plan for this. I guess the starting point is to assume no extra funds, and then be grateful if Westminster decides to spend some. Maybe this is not how it works.

As Jedi has helpfully pointed out, Barnett consequentials are not ringfenced. If Westminster chooses to spend an extra sum on the English NHS,  Scotland, Wales & NI will get a consequential sum (roughly based on population) to spend on wharever they want to spend it on. 

Similarly, if Westminster cuts NHS funding (perhaps by outsourcing NHS work to the private sector?), the Scottish, Welsh & NI funding will also be cut. Again, the devolved assemblies/governments can choose where to implement these cuts.

Personally, I would rather that the Scottish Government set their own budget and made their own dexisions as an independent country.

You would be better asking a supporter of devolution (like Jedi?) to explain why devolution is so wonderful.

[Jedi2]

3 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

You've answered your own question.

Given that there has been no announcement (that I am aware of) as to exactly how long it will take to recruit the 6500 teachers, it's not possible to work out the Barnett consequentials. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. At this exact moment, the consequentials to be zero, as no new teachers have been appointed.

Similarly, starting an audit of NHS finances doesn't really equate to new money for Scotland.

In reality, Labour have done the square root of f*ck all (so far) toward fulfilling their manifesto promises toward the NHS & education.

I know...a whole 7 days in power and they haven't cut waiting lists or hired 6500 new teachers yet...absolutely chancers. 

Meanwhile I see that Kate Forbes is trumpeting Scotland having the 2nd highest foreign direct (private) investment.outside London..which is while being part of the UK of course.

[MazzyStar]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

When Corbyn stepped down I remember saying Lewis would be the best option to replace him.  Certain posters on here cited his military service as an argument against it.

Serving in the British military isn’t exactly the mark of someone that believes in socialism is it?

[lichtgilphead]

11 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

I know...a whole 7 days in power and they haven't cut waiting lists or hired 6500 new teachers yet...absolutely chancers. 

Uh, Jedi

My original response was to your claim that Labour were "less than a week in and already delivering"

You specifically stated "6500 Teachers: Recruitment boost underway with an expansion of adverts, vacancies and online targeting for recruitment"

I think it's fair for everyone to point out that no teachers have been recruited yet, and that when they are (or should that be if??, they will be recruited in England only.

[Jedi2]

41 minutes ago, GTee said:

So if the Westminster decide to spend some more money on the English NHS, the Scottish Government gets a population percentage to spend on the Scottish NHS. Great to have extra funds but must be pretty difficult plan for this. I guess the starting point is to assume no extra funds, and then be grateful if Westminster decides to spend some. Maybe this is not how it works.

It works out at around 10% of UK govt spend at WM..(despite Scotland having 8.2% of the UK population the spend is 'higher' to account for Scotland having around 50% of its budget devoted to public services, so if WM spent an extra say £10 billion on Health, Scotland gets an extra £1 billion.

The Barnett payment in the last year was £41 billion. Barnett is funded by taxes gathered across the whole of the UK, and of course the Scottish govt keeps and spends all tax raised in Scotland as well, with most tax powers aside from NI, fully devolved.

It means that for every £100 per person benefit of spend in England, the spend is worth £126 per person in Scotland.

Obviously during the Pandemic and the recent Cost of Living situation, there were increased payments by the UK govt to Scotland to cover these...Scotland would have struggled to cover furlough etc if say we had become recently Independent following the 2014 vote.

Under Devolution the vast majority of services are under the control of the Scottish govt aside from NI, pensions, foreign affairs, defence and broadcasting. Of course how money is allocated and spent in Scotland, has been entirely decided by the SNP for the past 17 years.

 

[lichtgilphead]

19 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Meanwhile I see that Kate Forbes is trumpeting Scotland having the 2nd highest foreign direct (private) investment.outside London..which is while being part of the UK of course.

What point are you trying to make here?

1. Is foreign investment bad?
2. Would this investment not be made in an independent Scotland?
3. You hate Kate Forbes, so anything she says is bad?
4. All 3 of the above?

[Jedi2]

8 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Uh, Jedi

My original response was to your claim that Labour were "less than a week in and already delivering"

You specifically stated "6500 Teachers: Recruitment boost underway with an expansion of adverts, vacancies and online targeting for recruitment"

I think it's fair for everyone to point out that no teachers have been recruited yet, and that when they are (or should that be if??, they will be recruited in England only.

Have never disputed that Teacher Recruitment, 'solutions' to the NHS, etc only apply to England. The point still stands that starts have been made. As they have with the National Wealth Fund and Immigration.

We do know of course that the SNP are currently aiming to cut over 400 teachers in Glasgow alone.

[Jedi2]

9 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

What point are you trying to make here?

1. Is foreign investment bad?
2. Would this investment not be made in an independent Scotland?
3. You hate Kate Forbes, so anything she says is bad?
4. All 3 of the above?

Foreign investment is not 'bad', no, as long as it doesn't involve a firesale of assets.

Would it fall initially under Independence? Yes, as Scotland at the start wouldn't have a Central Bank, would still be using sterling, amd wouldn't have had the opportunity to build up reserves of foreign capital. Therefore foreign investors would see Scotland as a 'riskier' prospect as it would take time for Scottish businesses to find a level in International money markets, as these had decoupled from the UK At the moment as 'part' of the UK, Scotland is clearly doing pretty well in terms of FDI.

I don't like Kate Forbes in the sense that she is a neoliberal with very Tory tendencies on public services.I do however think she is generally a person of 'principle' as she won't back down on her views when challenged on them. Her saying that FDI is 'doing well' in Scotland, isn't 'bad', no...see the point about this being while Scotland is part of the UK above. Therefore Scotland appears to be an attractive enough place to do business in...again while 'part' of the UK.

 

Edited July 11 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

9 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Have never disputed that Teacher Recruitment, 'solutions' to the NHS, etc only apply to England. The point still stands that starts have been made.

So. Labour "delivering" involves putting a couple of advertisements in the Times Educational Supplement. Amazing.