Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikeDundee]

they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse 

Totally agree with the comment

We don't have, sadly, a conservative government, but at least this lot - whoever they may be - still see the sense of reducing the bloated public sector, many parts of which (though not all) are parasitical: living off the sweat and tears of the workers in the private sector.

Bloated public sector, mmm.....yes mainly in top heavy management structures, and high costs in employing external consultants, when the knowledge already exists within.

I have worked in the public sector for almost 18 years, and have wnet rhough re-structures 3 times in the past 4 years, always resulting in staff being lost or made redundant. Local government's were always tasked (at least in england and Wales) with making 5% cuts year on year (for at least the past 5 yrs).

Now 27% cuts, and me having to pay an extra 3% pension contrubution, which equates roughly to around £30 a month.
The result of the current cuts for the section I work in will mean, reduction in improving homes for existing residents on a programme that was always under funded from the start even seven years ago (eg Decent Homes)

And will never meet the target set by labour of 2012, result vastly reduced scope of works, which is still unachievable even if the target was extebded to 2014.

[Shackeng]

There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?

you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:

Never
Trust
A
Tory.

well what do you know? - it still fits  8-)



i trust this clears up the matter? 

Obviously it does- in your opinion.

its the only opinion i trust 

It must be wonderful being right ALL the time. What age do I have to reach when that happens? :-?

[Banjax]

There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?

you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:

Never
Trust
A
Tory.

well what do you know? - it still fits  8-)



i trust this clears up the matter? 

Obviously it does- in your opinion.

its the only opinion i trust 

It must be wonderful being right ALL the time. What age do I have to reach when that happens? :-?

actually I find it a burden 

[HolyCount]

Lets get a few things straight ....

The Government has no money of its own .. it merely redistributes what it takes from us ... so those who say "The goverment should pay" actually mean - "you should pay for me"

All the bleating about loss of jobs reducing the "tax take" and costing money is absolute rubbish .. reality ... a government employee on £30,000 a year will pay about £10,000 a year in tax ... so costing the taxpayer a net £20,000 a year. If that person is unemployed they will cost around £10,000 in benefits. A net saving to the taxpayer (you and me) of £10,000. It is also likely that many of those will actually find work, so not drawing that £10,000 and still paying some tax ... so making even more savings for the taxpayer (you and me)

75% of government employees earn less than £15,000. So, after tax, cost in take home wage about £10k.  If they lose their jobs and sign on, getting around £10 in benefits (probably more ... in my case, roughly £6k housing, 1k council tax, 3.5 k job seekers, plus the freebies. I would actually be better off unemployed!).  But we'll say no net loss or gain financially. But we no longer have the benefit of the services that person did in the public services.  Therefore the country as a whole is worse off.

[scimmy_man]

Half the problem is the govenment keep telling the local authorities they need gay out reach workers, and equalities co ordinators, do you blame the councils for doing what they are told and employing them?

[albitz]

I agree with some of what has been said by HC and Mike Dundee and others,and fully sympathise with individuals who are going to lose their jobs, but the fact is that Liebore created between 750,000 and 1,000,000 extra jobs in the public sector during their reign. This imo was undoubtedly due to political ideology - the bigger the state the better, if the government employs their electors they have a better chance of being re-elected etc. etc. Standard left wing thinking.
This simply is not sustainable in the long term. We dont have to look back very far into history to see what happens to countries which are run on this basis.
It is not good for the country as a whole and would inevitably store up huge problems for the longer term. We would leave an enormous pile of unpaid bills and a very inefficient country for the next generation.The sad thing is that it is almost inevitable that in many cases, many people who should have kept their jobs wont and vice versa. It always seems to be the case.

Its difficult imo to see an argument against reducing the size of the state - by a very considerable amount, and steering the country generally in the direction of creating an atmosphere where business can flourish, entrepenuers are encouraged, children are educated properly and hopefully find a way of becoming once again a nation which manufactures goods which are sought after in the wider world. This in the long term would hopefully allow the economy to reach a point where it isnt completely reliable on the financial sector, as is currently the case.
Had we continued on the trajectory which we had been on for the last 13 or so years, we would eventually have become something resembling a third world country. The only thing which could have prevented that would have been the boom in the city continuing indefinitely and that was never going to happen. Brown told people who were too young and inexperienced that it would happen, but he was lying and he knew it. These young people took him at his word and mortaged themselves to the hilt, and imo the lies he told those people were very very cruel indeed.
It is an undeniable fact that every time Labour get hold of the reins of the economy they wreck it. They spend money the country hasnt got, and when they eventually get caught out, there is pain to come afterwards to repair the damage.
Brown got away with it for longer than his predecessors, because the city had an unprecedented boom which allowed him to cover his tracks for several years. But when it caught up with him and his colleagues their actions showed how much they genuinely care about this counrty. They had a scorched earth mentality. They continued to write cheques for enormous sums of money in the full knowledge that the money wasnt available to honour them. Apparently Ed Balls even gave a large grant to Norwich City football club, just because he was a fan.
The only purpose of this kind of behaviour was to try to leave behind utter chaos for the incoming government, leaving little choice but to cut even faster and deeper in the hope that they would become unpopular very quickly.
Responsible governance ? love their country?..... I would lock them all up and throw away the key.

[HolyCount]

Can't argue at all there, Albs. But would say that the "state" has been bloated by basically useless "non-jobs" and manager's of managers ad infinitum, created to either bean count, hit pointless targets or govern the "PC-ness" of the state, as mentioned previously, and to comply with pointless over governing.

However, you can be pretty certain that it won't be these non-jobs that end up on the scrap heap. And the reduced public services will still be top heavy. After all, it will be those at the top implimenting the cuts (or am I being cynical).

[Banjax]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

[Shackeng]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

Which the rest of us pay for.

[Banjax]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

Which the rest of us pay for.

so its an argument about where our taxes go that worries you? and seriously, public sector workers are the worst thing a government could pay for? 

which public sector workers exactly? nurses? firemen? police? bin men? social workers? tax inspectors? librarians? housing officers? benefit officers? counselling services? or the thousands of voluntary workers who couldnt do their job without government help?

the tories have neatly spun this into the public sectors fault for the failure of bankers - i applaud them - absolute genius 


sweet jesus.

[Nickbat]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996

I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). 

Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion.

Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector.

[Vamps]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

Privatisation of Government facilities costs more, children's homes, foster care, social workers, who were once directly employed by local government are now employed by agencies who pay more money to the workers but at greater expense the the LA and therefore the taxpayer...

[Banjax]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996

I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). 

Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion.

Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector.

read that blog Nick - very good, but he seems to assume if an enterprise doesnt make money, then its not worth doing? 

thats it? the bottom line? so no trains, no schools, no arms industry - none of them make any money? 

why dont we privatise everything and see where we stand after 10 years - surely it'll save us a bundle 

oh, and you can forget using the internet - it doesnt make money remember? 

[Nickbat]

good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?

Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? 

You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs 

By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996

I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). 

Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion.

Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector.

read that blog Nick - very good, but he seems to assume if an enterprise doesnt make money, then its not worth doing? 

thats it? the bottom line? so no trains, no schools, no arms industry - none of them make any money? 

why dont we privatise everything and see where we stand after 10 years - surely it'll save us a bundle 

oh, and you can forget using the internet - it doesnt make money remember? 

No, I didn't get impression at all. The private sector is the engine of our economy. Without it, any government would sink.

As for privatisation, it is merely one item in the economic toolbox. There are some things that benefit from privatisation, others that do not. Each situation requires careful thought and I am not one of those who believes that privatisation is a miracle cure. There are certain infrastructure services which could never yield a profit, yet are vital to the well-being of the country and are therefore not candidates for privatisation. On the other hand, there are others that may flourish when operated by the private sector. Horses for courses, but at the end of the day, the government is wholly reliant on the private sector for its income.    

[albitz]

Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime  problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown.