Page 19 of 20

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:44 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
I don't know how it works. Sounds like a lot of people they want to move, more than are going to stick their hands up without a sweetener.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:15 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
In the mid 90s, the government tried to move the Prison Service HQ to Derby, but it fell through. It's still in London now, even though I'd have thought it had been one of the easier things to move. It exists to support prisons which are all over the country. To me that works better than the Treasury, which exists to support other parts of government, which are mainly in London.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:06 am
by mattomac
You must work in an office, doesn’t actually matter where that office is as long as it’s not your home, wasn’t Sunak moaning about people being in the office in central London.

Remember back to the office being promoted at the exact time that cases started to rise, they haven’t dropped since.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:11 am
by Watchman
Also, moving jobs elsewhere doesn’t automatically create new jobs for the new area. Most organisations would use such a move as a bit of a cost cutting exercise, and any vacancies that do materialise, there may not be the relevant expertise easily available, so training required

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:11 am
by Andy McDandy
Civil servants move into town, push property prices up, displace locals, locals move to outlying estates, resent incomers, town gets gentrified, locals feel marginalised, back to square one.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:19 am
by Cyclist
Actually, Andy, civil servants are paid between 10k and 15k pa *less* than people doing comparable jobs in the private sector. So take your "fat cats push up house prices* gibe and stick it up your arse.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:35 am
by Andy McDandy
Happy to be corrected, not happy for you to be a cunt about it.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:07 am
by Cyclist
It has been well-known for decades that Civil Service pay isn't particularly good, but was offset by having a better pension. With 10 years of pay rises ranging between 0% and 1.25% pay which was already low has fallen further behind, and with Gideon taking the ideological axe to the pension there is only poverty to look forward to.

It's only the cunts who read the Mail and Express who believe the "fat cat civil servant with the gold-plated pension" lie. Which is why it's so infuriating to see someone like you come out with that shit.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:32 am
by Andy McDandy
OK, my (second hand it must be said) experience of this is from the town my mum grew up in, Aberaeron in Dyfed.

Down at heel fishing port, bit of tourism, market for local farmers. That was until about 20 years ago when in a generally very good scheme to move some Welsh government out of the M4 corridor, a good chunk of the Welsh civil service was relocated there. In that case you did get locals priced out and forced onto concrete and piss council estates. Similar in Monmouth (but not the civil service this time), due to it being a commuter town for Cardiff/Newport, and retirement home for ageing Express readers.

Lancaster saw similar when the university opened, although it can be argued that the economic shot in the arm there is what's holding the place up. Quite often the new blood is what the area needs, but people resent it if they can't afford or feel excluded from it.

Anyway, sorry for earlier. You're not a cunt. :)

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:18 pm
by Cyclist
Assuming the Welsh government civil service is the same as the British civil service, when forced relocations take place the employer (gov dept) pays a not-ungenerous array of relocation expenses, up to, and including, bridging loans to cover the cost of getting a mortgage on a new house before you've managed to sell the old one. If local house prices start going up it's generally not the incomers offering more money, but the local estate agents* in persuading sellers the incomers are richer than locals, and wilfully overpricing the properties for sale.



*I could give you my opinion of estate agents in general, but I fear your computer may burst into flames :evil:

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 pm
by mr angry manchester
Plus Manchester being invaded by media wankers

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:59 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Manchester could have had a load more if Channel 4 had been relocated there instead of Leeds, which would have made more sense in terms of creating a "cluster". Still, I'm sure you'll manage without them.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:04 pm
by Boiler
mr angry manchester wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 pm
Plus Manchester being invaded by media wankers
How's it got worse since the days of Oxford Road and Quay Street? Apart from BBC Sport/Children's/Daytime migrating up there, that is?

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:01 pm
by mr angry manchester
Property developers are as much of the problem. Peel Holdings are another, those fuckers now seem to control the whole North West. I always get visions of Poulson/T Dan Smith etc with local authorities in the pockets of shady property companies.

Re: Rishi Sunak

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:59 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Population of London might be falling fast anyway. Is it a good idea to be transfering a load of jobs out? Or is the whole point "take that, London"!