Starmer's vision quest

[C R]

Those who don’t care won’t care, those who care can check. If they are buying cheap ready made meals then I suspect they don’t care.
Probably not PC but I could probably categorise those in our high street on sight. Made easier if they are exiting Greggs.

Nothing wrong with Greggs' coffee and donuts.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

trouble is, bottom line, we've given away stuff (eg revenue, protections) and we are not even back to the position we were in Jan this year (ie we're still worse off than in Jan despite giving stuff away).

And some "detsails" are concerning as they can't be verified eg "No hormone fed beef" except US farmers stop feeding hormones as cattl;e get nearer slaughter so yoiu can't detect the hormones. Good job I'm vegetarian but with details still to emerge maybe we will also be getting banned pesticides in our veg.

Ian

The agreement states the following;
"The United Kingdom and the United States affirm that imported food and agricultural goods must comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards". I doubt very much we will be importing things like chlorinated chicken. Our food standards are some of the most stringent in the world, it is unlikely the low quailty stuff would be imported, it just wouldn't pass safety checks.

 

[Stevo 666]

Gregg's sausage rolls are good.

 

[Pblakeney]

Nothing wrong with Greggs' coffee and donuts.

I meant sausage rolls etc. but whatever. 😉

 

[Stevo 666]

Better that the snobs don't realise how tasty they are. Especially snobs without a lot of money 😃

 

[C R]

I meant sausage rolls etc. but whatever. 😉

I'm reliably informed by my (slim) children that there's nothing wrong with those either. I don't like sausage rolls.

 

[CXRAndy]

We already import genetically modified soya from around the world which goes to feeding our cattle

 

[Ian H]

The agreement states the following;
"The United Kingdom and the United States affirm that imported food and agricultural goods must comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards". I doubt very much we will be importing things like chlorinated chicken. Our food standards are some of the most stringent in the world, it is unlikely the low quailty stuff would be imported, it just wouldn't pass safety checks.

So does that mean the UK can reduce its standards for exports to the US?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Clearly paying them more doesn't make them work harder, based on the figures I linked to.

Do you really think that pay rises that do not in any way make up for money lost due to pay freezes or restrictions due to austerity are really going to make people “work harder”? Most pay rises are to match inflation, to keep up with market rates or to recognise past unfairness or, very occasionally, as a bonus to reward good performance in the short term.
As someone who used to be involved in negotiating pay awards I know that they are not a way to increase productivity just by getting workers to “work harder”.
Sustainable productivity improvements come from improving organisations’ systems, structures and staff relations i.e. working smarter not just by exhorting them to “work harder”.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

So does that mean the UK can reduce its standards for exports to the US?

Theoretically, but I would guess UK food producers would prefer to maintain standards and exceed US requirements from a reputational point of view.

 

[Stevo 666]

Do you really think that pay rises that do not in any way make up for money lost due to pay freezes or restrictions due to austerity are really going to make people “work harder”? Most pay rises are to match inflation, to keep up with market rates or to recognise past unfairness or, very occasionally, as a bonus to reward good performance in the short term.
As someone who used to be involved in negotiating pay awards I know that they are not a way to increase productivity just by getting workers to “work harder”.
Sustainable productivity improvements come from improving organisations’ systems, structures and staff relations i.e. working smarter not just by exhorting them to “work harder”.

That's not the point I'm making.

But how does chucking money at public sector workers improve systems, structures etc as you mention above?

 

[Rusty Nails]

That's not the point I'm making.

But how does chucking money at public sector workers improve systems, structures etc as you mention above?

What is the point, given that you introduced the phrase “make them work harder”?

“Chucking money” at workers does not improve systems etc. but it recognises the truth that austerity has made them fall further behind compared to other workers and inflation, and hopefully does not further worsen staff relations and motivation.

 

[Pblakeney]

What is the point, given that you introduced the phrase “make them work harder”?

“Chucking money” at workers does not improve systems etc. but it recognises the truth that austerity has made them fall further behind compared to other workers and inflation, and hopefully does not further worsen staff relations and motivation.

Increased salaries may not improve productivity but would undoubtably help with recruitment and most importantly, retention.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Increased salaries may not improve productivity but would undoubtably help with recruitment and most importantly, retention.

For all sorts of reasons retention of staff is much more cost effective than losing staff and recruiting new.

 

[Stevo 666]

What is the point, given that you introduced the phrase “make them work harder”?

“Chucking money” at workers does not improve systems etc. but it recognises the truth that austerity has made them fall further behind compared to other workers and inflation, and hopefully does not further worsen staff relations and motivation.

I said that paying them more has not made them work harder. Look at the productivity data and tell me if you disagree.