2022 Conservative Leadership Election - Liz Truss chosen as party leader (and subsequent reshuffle)

[jfollows]

I was a civil servant 2008-2015, and the entire method of calculating people's salaries needs to be blown up completely, in my opinion.
Essentially, everyone is paid at a band in a particular salary scale. Promotion means you move to a new salary scale, but promotions only happened at the same time, once a year. I can't say whether or not this applies everywhere, but it applied to everyone in my part of the civil service.
As long as you weren't some kind of "underperformer", you progressed up the bands in the salary scale each year.
The salary bands were increased every year, sometimes only by a little. But the lie that went out was that this increase was the figure quoted publicly whereas most peoples' salaries went up by more than this because of automatic progression up the bands in the pay scale.
So in a particular year you might go from "band 6" to "band 5" in your salary scale, and your new salary would be determined accordingly.
At some point (as I did) you reach the top of your salary scale so you get an annual up-rating but you don't progress any higher. In my case I applied for a job at the next salary scale up, but worked out that I wouldn't get much more money because of 40% tax, however the new scale would have given me annual moves up the bands again (I didn't really want the job because it would have involved about 100% more work for about 10% more pay, so I wasn't unhappy not to get it).
But it strikes me as completely removed from a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid, it's all "negotiated with the unions" and "the way it has always been" etc.
A serious reform would get my support, but that's probably going to be hard to do. And has nothing to do with "regional pay boards".

 

[Dent]

I was a civil servant 2008-2015, and the entire method of calculating people's salaries needs to be blown up completely, in my opinion.
Essentially, everyone is paid at a band in a particular salary scale. Promotion means you move to a new salary scale, but promotions only happened at the same time, once a year. I can't say whether or not this applies everywhere, but it applied to everyone in my part of the civil service.
As long as you weren't some kind of "underperformer", you progressed up the bands in the salary scale each year.
The salary bands were increased every year, sometimes only by a little. But the lie that went out was that this increase was the figure quoted publicly whereas most peoples' salaries went up by more than this because of automatic progression up the bands in the pay scale.
So in a particular year you might go from "band 6" to "band 5" in your salary scale, and your new salary would be determined accordingly.
At some point (as I did) you reach the top of your salary scale so you get an annual up-rating but you don't progress any higher. In my case I applied for a job at the next salary scale up, but worked out that I wouldn't get much more money because of 40% tax, however the new scale would have given me annual moves up the bands again (I didn't really want the job because it would have involved about 100% more work for about 10% more pay, so I wasn't unhappy not to get it).
But it strikes me as completely removed from a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid, it's all "negotiated with the unions" and "the way it has always been" etc.
A serious reform would get my support, but that's probably going to be hard to do. And has nothing to do with "regional pay boards".

That sounds much the same as it is in most of the higher education sector. The problem with "a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid" is that it is what someone "deserves" is fundamentally subjective, so there is no way of implementing it fairly and consistently.

 

[jfollows]

That sounds much the same as it is in most of the higher education sector. The problem with "a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid" is that it is what someone "deserves" is fundamentally subjective, so there is no way of implementing it fairly and consistently.

Well, there is, it's called good management, but that also appears to be missing in a lot of these places. Ho hum, I'm no longer working in the environment, so it's just a weird episode from my past! And we're getting off-topic, sorry!

 

[Typhoon]

Ann Widdecombe (who?!) announced her backing. Miss W has an impeccable record over decades of always backing a loser: Liam Fox (twice), Eric Pickles ( would they be allowed to share a lift?) and Andrea Leadsom are just three of them. The old bat's endorsement came just hours before Leadsom threw in the towel, but I felt it had became inevitable and said so on this forum with, it has to be said, disbelief from all around.

Backing a loser. She certainly did at the last election, where she stood for the Brexit Party coming third (only 17,000 odd votes behind second place). Unfortunately, her support is worth nothing as she doesn't even have a vote.

When you write that she gave Truss her support, it wasn't the GB news interview you were referring to? The Express' take is quoted below:

Ann Widdecombe has branded Liz Truss as "starchy as a victorian governess" in a brutal slap down of the Conservative Party hopeful's bid to replace Boris Johnson in Downing Street.
Ms Widdecombe told GB News: "I like Liz Truss's policies, I admire her record of the trade deals and normally I would say yeah, I think that's probably the best person. But the fact that she's had a charisma bypass! She doesn't have any oomph and that does matter these days there was a time when it didn't but now it does matter because of media exposure.
I hope she gets through to the last two but if she does, then, when she's out on that campaign trail, she has got to develop some oomph...."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...iddecombe-Conservative-leadership-election-vn

 

[Dent]

Well, there is, it's called good management, but that also appears to be missing in a lot of these places. Ho hum, I'm no longer working in the environment, so it's just a weird episode from my past! And we're getting off-topic, sorry!

How does "good management" calculate what someone "deserves" objectively, fairly and consistently? I don't believe that is even possible given that the whole concept of what someone "deserves" is not even a well-defined objective concept let alone an objectively calculable quantity.

 

[birchesgreen]

Liz Truss' hopes of becoming leader have just been crushed, Andy Street has endorsed her. He endorsed Hunt previously, hours before Jeremy's campaign collapsed.

 

[jfollows]

Liz Truss (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):

She told the BBC in Dorset:

I’m afraid that my policy on this has been misrepresented. I never had any intention of changing the terms and conditions of teachers and nurses.
But what I want to be clear about is I will not be going ahead with the regional pay boards, that is no longer my policy.

She added:

I’m being absolutely honest, I’m concerned that people were worried, unnecessarily worried about my policies and therefore I’m being clear that the regional pay boards will not be going ahead.

Compare with her press release which I dug out in post #808 "introduce regional pay boards" so this is absolutely a complete U-turn from her.

 

[brad465]

Truss' odds have now lenghtened to 1/4 (from 1/14), with Sunak's shortening from 8/1 to 3/1 over the last 2 days. While still clear favourite, the current trend should worry her.

 

[Bayum]

I was a civil servant 2008-2015, and the entire method of calculating people's salaries needs to be blown up completely, in my opinion.
Essentially, everyone is paid at a band in a particular salary scale. Promotion means you move to a new salary scale, but promotions only happened at the same time, once a year. I can't say whether or not this applies everywhere, but it applied to everyone in my part of the civil service.
As long as you weren't some kind of "underperformer", you progressed up the bands in the salary scale each year.
The salary bands were increased every year, sometimes only by a little. But the lie that went out was that this increase was the figure quoted publicly whereas most peoples' salaries went up by more than this because of automatic progression up the bands in the pay scale.
So in a particular year you might go from "band 6" to "band 5" in your salary scale, and your new salary would be determined accordingly.
At some point (as I did) you reach the top of your salary scale so you get an annual up-rating but you don't progress any higher. In my case I applied for a job at the next salary scale up, but worked out that I wouldn't get much more money because of 40% tax, however the new scale would have given me annual moves up the bands again (I didn't really want the job because it would have involved about 100% more work for about 10% more pay, so I wasn't unhappy not to get it).
But it strikes me as completely removed from a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid, it's all "negotiated with the unions" and "the way it has always been" etc.
A serious reform would get my support, but that's probably going to be hard to do. And has nothing to do with "regional pay boards".

All it will do is filter those with ambitions for more money into certain areas of the country. In education, we have golden hellos for certain areas of the country and certain subjects. Hasn’t helped; government are still far far behind the numbers needed. That’s before you get into inner city schools and coasts where talent is drawn away from. I think it would work in some respects but cause very big problems down the line when we see where the talent is centred.

 

[Typhoon]

Liz Truss (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):

Compare with her press release which I dug out in post #808 "introduce regional pay boards" so this is absolutely a complete U-turn from her.

Just what we want, a (potential) PM whose policy is sunk in hours. We've just seen off one who makes it up as he goes along!

From Mark Harper's twitter feed:

Stop blaming journalists - reporting what a press release says isn’t “wilful misrepresentation”

So this u-turn has wiped out £8.8bn in savings. Where are these going to come from now?

An economic policy that can’t be paid for isn’t very Conservative. Mrs Thatcher would be livid

Harper for PM?

 

[Busaholic]

Backing a loser. She certainly did at the last election, where she stood for the Brexit Party coming third (only 17,000 odd votes behind second place). Unfortunately, her support is worth nothing as she doesn't even have a vote.

When you write that she gave Truss her support, it wasn't the GB news interview you were referring to? The Express' take is quoted below:


Not exactly a ringing endorsement. https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...iddecombe-Conservative-leadership-election-vn

No, it was after Truss had made it onto the ballot paper. I should have immediately gone to Corals and put £100 on Sunak to win (or Truss to lose, as I prefer to see it.) I'm so allergic to 'The Express' that I won't even look at it online without a thorough disinfecting of the computer afterwards

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Labour would love Liz Truss as she would surround herself with sycophants like BoJo did with even boring Starmer being able to exploit her at the despatch box. Sunak will have a grown up conversation and the despatch box and we will have two equally boring leaders.

This is closer to call than commentators believe and i forecast a 52/48 split of the membership.

 

[Busaholic]

This is closer to call than commentators believe and i forecast a 52/48 split of the membership.

Sexit v Trexit?

 

[jfollows]

One headline (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...c-sector-pay-cuts_uk_62e902bee4b00fd8d842efa0):

Liz Truss Performs Screeching U-Turn Amid Tory Fury Over Public Sector Pay Cuts​

Her plan spectacularly backfired with one minister describing it as “austerity on steroids”.

and I expect more of the same in tomorrow's newspapers.
The article I quote the headline from is pretty predictable; it also features the point by Mark Harper which Typhoon has already noted - reporting what her press release says isn't "wilful misrepresentation" which her team tried to make it out to be.

 

[Gloster]

One headline (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...c-sector-pay-cuts_uk_62e902bee4b00fd8d842efa0):

and I expect more of the same in tomorrow's newspapers

Except in those papers that support Truss, who will either ignore it or report it as a decision of stateswomanlike vision.

 

[jfollows]

Except in those papers that support Truss, who will either ignore it or report it as a decision of stateswomanlike vision.

I just looked and even The Express is reporting this fairly factually (https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-truss-rishi-sunak-latest#live-1649193-qv7wdk) although it's a story a bit hidden away, it's not as prominent as most other papers have it as you might expect:

Liz Truss U-turns on plan to cut public sector pay outside London​

Tory leadership finalist Liz Truss has been forced to U-turn on her plan to cut civil service pay outside London following pressure from Conservative MPs and the Tees Valley mayor.
A spokesperson for Team Truss said there had been a "willful misrepresentation of our campaign" but confirmed she would be abandoning the plans for regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers.
Rishi Sunak’s campaign said the £8.8billion in savings on pay outside London touted in a release by Team Truss last night could only be made with cuts across the whole public sector, including teachers, nurses and the armed forces.

 

[Busaholic]

One headline (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...c-sector-pay-cuts_uk_62e902bee4b00fd8d842efa0):

and I expect more of the same in tomorrow's newspapers.
The article I quote the headline from is pretty predictable; it also features the point by Mark Harper which Typhoon has already noted - reporting what her press release says isn't "wilful misrepresentation" which her team tried to make it out to be.

It's actually 'wilful representation'. or even 'gross representation'. She'll be promising a new Humber Bridge next!

 

[jfollows]

I'm still baffled by her original press release (see post #808). I don't claim to be anything more than an interested observer with the wisdom of hindsight, but surely someone ought to have spotted how dreadful it was and its immediate implications, which I can't see have been misrepresented as saying that civil servants working outside London are going to lose out in future pay increases, which then isn't much of a step to conclude that they will get their pay cut in order to save £8 billion or whatever. And then to accuse people of making this story up is just insulting on top.
I just take it as confirming that any Conservative MP in a "red wall" seat needs to find another job if Liz Truss becomes PM. And Labour just sits back and doesn't have to say or do anything.

 

[Acfb]

Labour would love Liz Truss as she would surround herself with sycophants like BoJo did with even boring Starmer being able to exploit her at the despatch box. Sunak will have a grown up conversation and the despatch box and we will have two equally boring leaders.

This is closer to call than commentators believe and i forecast a 52/48 split of the membership.

I still think the most likely outcome is 60-40 to Truss although 55-45 wouldn't surprise me. An outright Sunak win would still be a big shock however given the way senior careerist Tories have jumped.

A yougov poll conducted in the past 3 days also has 69-31 to Truss.

I don't quite see Sunak winning as he has also made a fool of himself in recent days as well even though I can still see him getting most undecided members who sit on their votes for the time being (as opposed to the enthusiastic Truss supporters who will vote straight away).

 

[Mikw]

Liz Truss (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):



Compare with her press release which I dug out in post #808 "introduce regional pay boards" so this is absolutely a complete U-turn from her.

ERG policy dream, once you've done the civil service you can then extend the policy to the working class. Something which would risk losing that "red wall". No surprise Truss has u-turned so quickly. Lose that "red wall" and you lose the General Election.

But who were the people in 2019 that thought he could be trusted, was honest, hard-working and a beacon of morality? Pretty much everyone in the country must have been aware of Johnson's character issues back then, they weren't exactly secret.

It seems a bit much to then act repulsed or shocked when he carries on doing what pretty much everyone expected him to anyway, and voted for a government led by him nevertheless.

Politics is not about targetting the "persuadables".

It's entirely possible that this section of the populace weren't aware of Boris's character, just saw him as fun figure who dangles from zipwires and says how brilliant things were going to be.

For a short time Mogg pulled the wool over people's eyes as well. If you're in anyway clued up about politics then you could see right through that, but the "persuadables" aren't neccessarily clued up. That's one of the reasons why they're targetted.

 

[Sheepy1209]

I was a civil servant 2008-2015, and the entire method of calculating people's salaries needs to be blown up completely, in my opinion.
Essentially, everyone is paid at a band in a particular salary scale. Promotion means you move to a new salary scale, but promotions only happened at the same time, once a year. I can't say whether or not this applies everywhere, but it applied to everyone in my part of the civil service.
As long as you weren't some kind of "underperformer", you progressed up the bands in the salary scale each year.
The salary bands were increased every year, sometimes only by a little. But the lie that went out was that this increase was the figure quoted publicly whereas most peoples' salaries went up by more than this because of automatic progression up the bands in the pay scale.
So in a particular year you might go from "band 6" to "band 5" in your salary scale, and your new salary would be determined accordingly.
At some point (as I did) you reach the top of your salary scale so you get an annual up-rating but you don't progress any higher. In my case I applied for a job at the next salary scale up, but worked out that I wouldn't get much more money because of 40% tax, however the new scale would have given me annual moves up the bands again (I didn't really want the job because it would have involved about 100% more work for about 10% more pay, so I wasn't unhappy not to get it).
But it strikes me as completely removed from a system of paying people what they deserve to be paid, it's all "negotiated with the unions" and "the way it has always been" etc.
A serious reform would get my support, but that's probably going to be hard to do. And has nothing to do with "regional pay boards".

That stopped at DWP many years ago, which combined with the bizarre and outdated approach of ‘promotion boards’ means there are thousands of good staff who have seen their pay eroded by below-inflation pay rises and freezes over many years.

You might ask why they don’t just get another job? Well many do, but it’s worth bearing in mind that much of DWP is located in areas with historically poor opportunities (such as Blackpool, where I’m based). Civil Service jobs are still often still the best career option, but we’ve been undermined for so long that even here we struggle to recruit. All Truss and JRM are doing is sticking the knife in, and it’s very disheartening to hear they only backed down because someone said ‘what about the nurses and teachers?’. I’m sick of it but I’m at an age where I have to stick with it for a few more years - you’d think DWP didn’t exist, yet after MoD it’s the largest department with the lowest pay.

 

[jfollows]

That stopped at DWP many years ago, which combined with the bizarre and outdated approach of ‘promotion boards’ means there are thousands of good staff who have seen their pay eroded by below-inflation pay rises and freezes over many years.

You might ask why they don’t just get another job? Well many do, but it’s worth bearing in mind that much of DWP is located in areas with historically poor opportunities (such as Blackpool, where I’m based). Civil Service jobs are still often still the best career option, but we’ve been undermined for so long that even here we struggle to recruit. All Truss and JRM are doing is sticking the knife in, and it’s very disheartening to hear they only backed down because someone said ‘what about the nurses and teachers?’. I’m sick of it but I’m at an age where I have to stick with it for a few more years - you’d think DWP didn’t exist, yet after MoD it’s the largest department with the lowest pay.

Promotion boards are a dreadful idea, they just give the relatively incompetent management an excuse not to promote people. I knew two people who clearly deserved promotion, everyone knew that they did, but their promotion boards decided otherwise. They both resigned.
I wouldn't try and tell you to get another job, we all have our unique circumstances and what works for us. In my case I joined the civil service after 22 years with IBM, and I never expected to get a promotion although I applied for a different job at the next salary scale up mainly to "show interest". So I never had to go through the rigmarole of an annual promotion board myself.
I took a significant pay cut when I left IBM, but that was OK, the new job was better and it was the right thing to do. I never viewed "civil service pay" as being better than "private industry pay" although I can see that in some areas like yours it could be.
Eventually the poor management, the careless approach to wasting taxpayers' money and the lack of accountability all got to me and a serious illness made me do the calculations to enable me to retire early. It was a good job for most of the time, intellectually stimulating because of my many colleagues, but the administration and management were woeful. I lost count of the number of times I was told "that's not the way we do things here" and generally I ignored them and did what I thought was right anyway. I suspect my non-conformity caused me to be marked with a red flag against serious promotion.

 

[Sheepy1209]

Promotion boards are a dreadful idea, they just give the relatively incompetent management an excuse not to promote people. I knew two people who clearly deserved promotion, everyone knew that they did, but their promotion boards decided otherwise. They both resigned.
I wouldn't try and tell you to get another job, we all have our unique circumstances and what works for us. In my case I joined the civil service after 22 years with IBM, and I never expected to get a promotion although I applied for a different job at the next salary scale up mainly to "show interest". So I never had to go through the rigmarole of an annual promotion board myself.
I took a significant pay cut when I left IBM, but that was OK, the new job was better and it was the right thing to do. I never viewed "civil service pay" as being better than "private industry pay" although I can see that in some areas like yours it could be.
Eventually the poor management, the careless approach to wasting taxpayers' money and the lack of accountability all got to me and a serious illness made me do the calculations to enable me to retire early. It was a good job for most of the time, intellectually stimulating because of my many colleagues, but the administration and management were woeful. I lost count of the number of times I was told "that's not the way we do things here" and generally I ignored them and did what I thought was right anyway. I suspect my non-conformity caused me to be marked with a red flag against serious promotion.

Probably not for this thread but all very familiar - I'm planning to retire in 2 to 4 years and it won't come soon enough! (32 years at DWP, most of that freelance or private sector supplier so I've observed all this as an outsider).

 

[nw1]

And sadly there were people who thought that he was a laugh and funny, and so different to all those boring, competent politicians. And he did turn out to be different, only in a way that was a disaster for all but himself and a few mates.

True. Of course it seems likely he'll be replaced by someone who is boring but incompetent.

 

[nlogax]

True. Of course it seems likely he'll be placed by someone who is boring but incompetent.

The hope for competency went out of the window some time ago. Incompetency breeds drama and more incompetency. We're not going to return to boring politics for at least the best part of two years.

 

[Lost property]

As tonight's Tory Reality TV show is in Cardiff, we can only hope one, or both, will attempt to reprise John Redwood's now infamous attempt to sing one of the best National Anthems.....in Welsh.

However, as Wales has had the damned impertinence to vote Labour, then both of them will probably gain world speed records for getting back to the comfort of their London bubble..

 

[Mojo]

I'm still baffled by her original press release (see post #808). I don't claim to be anything more than an interested observer with the wisdom of hindsight, but surely someone ought to have spotted how dreadful it was and its immediate implications, which I can't see have been misrepresented as saying that civil servants working outside London are going to lose out in future pay increases, which then isn't much of a step to conclude that they will get their pay cut in order to save £8 billion or whatever. And then to accuse people of making this story up is just insulting on top.
I just take it as confirming that any Conservative MP in a "red wall" seat needs to find another job if Liz Truss becomes PM. And Labour just sits back and doesn't have to say or do anything.

Has the policy been misrepresented? It seemed to me that the policy was not pay cuts to come immediately, but implementing different pay rises in the future to take into account cost of living, difficulty of recruitment, etc. Overall this seems to be quite a sensible policy in my eyes. Take teaching for instance[1], Outer London has the biggest secondary teacher shortage in the country; there are currently 4 different pay scales for teachers in England [Inner London, Outer London, London Fringe and rest of England]. The increased cost of living in Outer London, compared with the limited extra pay (if you live in the area you might as well teach Inner London and have a similar commute but earn more money, or if you live outside the area benefit from lower cost of living). It seems quite sensible in this case to give those staff a higher pay increase than the others.

[1] Yes, I know since Academisation they aren’t obliged to use these pay scales anymore but in reality they almost all do for the classroom teachers.

Overall it seems little has been learned since the 2017 election, where Theresa May’s election bid was derailed after she proposed two very sensible policies; removing free lunch from all under 7s to replace it with free breakfast for all primary schools (whilst maintaining means tested free lunches); and of course what later became known as the “dementia tax.” Policies like these that require explaining are best put on the table after you have already won!

 

[The Ham]

Has the policy been misrepresented? It seemed to me that the policy was not pay cuts to come immediately, but implementing different pay rises in the future to take into account cost of living, difficulty of recruitment, etc. Overall this seems to be quite a sensible policy in my eyes. Take teaching for instance[1], Outer London has the biggest secondary teacher shortage in the country; there are currently 4 different pay scales for teachers in England [Inner London, Outer London, London Fringe and rest of England]. The increased cost of living in Outer London, compared with the limited extra pay (if you live in the area you might as well teach Inner London and have a similar commute but earn more money, or if you live outside the area benefit from lower cost of living). It seems quite sensible in this case to give those staff a higher pay increase than the others.

[1] Yes, I know since Academisation they aren’t obliged to use these pay scales anymore but in reality they almost all do for the classroom teachers.

Overall it seems little has been learned since the 2017 election, where Theresa May’s election bid was derailed after she proposed two very sensible policies; removing free lunch from all under 7s to replace it with free breakfast for all primary schools (whilst maintaining means tested free lunches); and of course what later became known as the “dementia tax.” Policies like these that require explaining are best put on the table after you have already won!

Part of the "upset" about the scraping of free infant school meals was due to the fact that the government had spent a lot of money ensuring that all schools which have infant aged children had a kitchens to provide said meals as there were quite a few that didn't prior to that. For example a junior school providing the free school meals to the infants school and those not eligible only having the option of a packed lunch.

One of the other factors (IIRC) was that existing staff were expected to run the breakfast clubs.

Whilst breakfast clubs would be useful to working parents (reducing the hours in childcare)

 

[Acfb]

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1554927976680198144

Interesting, Braverman would be an even worse Home Secretary than Patel.


We shouldn't completely underestimate Truss and I'm certain the Tories will be narrowly ahead in a few weeks as the Labour lead has already collapsed.

Things could still unravel for Truss by December though.

 

[Busaholic]

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1554927976680198144

Interesting, Braverman would be an even worse Home Secretary than Patel.certain


We shouldn't completely underestimate Truss and I'm certain the Tories will be narrowly ahead in a few weeks as the Labour lead has already collapsed.

Things could still unravel for Truss by December though.

I'm not at all sure Patel would be offered anything by either candidate. It's noticeable she's given neither her 'backing', for what it's worth,which is probably nothing. I also consider it risible that Sunak would agree to take Health and, like Jeremy Hunt last time, would instead choose to go to the back benches before his almost certain resignation from Parliament (cf George Osborne.)