Are the Tories being more divisive on purpose?

pb21

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

pb21 wrote:

I can’t believe people fell for the PR guff Cameron threw out before the last election.

I believed Brown in 1997 when he said he was going to pursue counter-cyclical policies, not let the housing market get out of control, and take a generally prudent approach to public finances. I ended up voting Red Team on the basis of those promises. I won't bother to fill in the rest because we all know what actually happened. Chuck in the Second Gulf War, and I think it's safe to say the current crap... crap... CROP, I mean crop, of Tories aren't even fit to lick Labour's boots when it comes to being brimming over with bullsh!t.

I no expert on this but didn't Brown have ‘golden rules’ or something when it came to borrowing and these made fiscal sense and could have been considered prudent at the time?

jonomc4

pb21 wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

pb21 wrote:

.

I no expert on this but didn't Brown have ‘golden rules’ or something when it came to borrowing and these made fiscal sense and could have been considered prudent at the time?

Yes - just a shame they weren't followed - and this doesn't even take into account PPI (this has made many new millionaires for this country and abroad - shame our kids kids are going to be paying off the wonga type interest rates. These and many other tricks will come out in the open eventually - let alone the fact that if he was a banker he would have been sacked for selling all the gold at an all time low price, when every muppet and his wife knew which direction the price was headed!

fast as fupp

jonomc4 wrote:

How about looking at this from another angle?

Why should someone not working have a house but a person working two jobs not be able to save enough to buy one? We end up with a crazy situation where if you want a house you are better off not working.

Why should unemployments benefits continue to rise at a higher rate than that of wages?

You can only fix society by creating an environment in which it pays to contribute to it - not just take from it. That way the welfare system can properly look after the people who really need that help.

People seem to be obsessed with the genuine cases - I tell you from personal and professional experience the amount of fraudulent claims on a welfare is endemic - why instead of attacking people who are trying to change this - don't you attack the people abusing the system - they are the people who are ruining it for all the people who genuinely need help. Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

i think youve got your angles wrong there. if working people cant afford to buy a house surely that indicates that house prices are way too high and/or wages are too low. its got nowt to do with out of work people being 'given' houses- housing benefits are paid directly to landlords who thus have an incentive to keep rents high. your gross exaggeration about benefit fraud and your claim that fraudsters should be targeted isnt borne out by your government which has systematically reduced the number of DWP fraud inspectors.

how about collecting all the fiddled taxes? no chance of that all the big tax avoiders are lining the tories pockets so HMRC are also having staff reductions.

you dont make working people better off by scapegoating attacking the poorest and disabled.

its a race to the bottom-will you join in?

jonomc4

fast as fupp wrote:

jonomc4 wrote:

How about looking at this from another angle?

Why should someone not working have a house but a person working two jobs not be able to save enough to buy one? We end up with a crazy situation where if you want a house you are better off not working.

Why should unemployments benefits continue to rise at a higher rate than that of wages?

You can only fix society by creating an environment in which it pays to contribute to it - not just take from it. That way the welfare system can properly look after the people who really need that help.

People seem to be obsessed with the genuine cases - I tell you from personal and professional experience the amount of fraudulent claims on a welfare is endemic - why instead of attacking people who are trying to change this - don't you attack the people abusing the system - they are the people who are ruining it for all the people who genuinely need help. Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

i think youve got your angles wrong there. if working people cant afford to buy a house surely that indicates that house prices are way too high and/or wages are too low. its got nowt to do with out of work people being 'given' houses- housing benefits are paid directly to landlords who thus have an incentive to keep rents high. your gross exaggeration about benefit fraud and your claim that fraudsters should be targeted isnt borne out by your government which has systematically reduced the number of DWP fraud inspectors.

how about collecting all the fiddled taxes? no chance of that all the big tax avoiders are lining the tories pockets so HMRC are also having staff reductions.

you dont make working people better off by scapegoating attacking the poorest and disabled.

its a race to the bottom-will you join in?

With regards to house prices - you have actually answered your own question - the reason why "buy to let" people buy houses is they can then rent them out to the DHS - this creates a false maket price and keeps prices artificially high. Additionally because the rent is being paid from the public purse (od a AAA rated country) rents do not reflect economic conditions - this means that rental prices are artificially high as a base price is established and therefore the private rental market costs more than it should. House prices in this country are so over inflated it is ridiculous, it has become a vicious spiral and now those that own houses are afraid if they do drop they will go into negative equity.

The question about people who don't pay taxes (and I wonder how many people here have paid cash to save VAT) is not linked to what we are talking about here, and is a smoke screen - yes financially they are linked but in terms of the question they are not - when peoples arguments are weak they often take them off at a tangent.

Personally I would rather have a rich person not paying tax here - at least they buy goods and services and often have business that create wealthand jobs - better that than someone who just takes off the system. And no my comments about welfare fraud are not exagerated.

I am 100% behind welfare and that is why I pay taxes to support it - I believe in living in a country that helps people who need help and offering free education and health - although I don't use them myself - I have been a net contributer all my life and will continue to do so - but I want to help people in need not those who have the chance to help themselves but refuse to do so because the other options are so easy.

A welfare system only works if people buy into the concept and play by the rules and still try to support themselves - we are changing as a society where it no longer matters about your neighbour and society in general - now it is everyone for themselves.

Frank the tank

verylonglegs wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

The politics of the right has always been the politics of greed and self delusion.

What really gets me is that in our parliament we have a millionaire in red arguing with a millionaire in blue backed up by a millionaire in yellow on how those on 50 pound should shoulder the blame for a crisis of capital.

And yet people tolerate it, so are things really that bad? The younger generation are more enthused by x-factor votes than political ones, until that tide turns I suspect it will continue as is.

Heard on the radio yesterday in a survey Jessica Ennis came out as the top role model. Bottom and next bottom respectively were POLITIANS AND REALITY TV STARS.

That doesn't really say anything unless you know who was asked though. For example, if it was a survey of kids at a local athletics club it indicates nothing significant.

I didn't hear who was surveyed unfortunately.

Laird_Attwood

Jez mon wrote:

It would be nice to see a proper in detail financial breakdown of families living on benefits like the one in the above example.

Does sound like quite a nice life though!

I was unemployed for a year (over 2,500 jobs applied for in that time) I've never been out of work other than during that time (joined army before leaving school, was in a job within weeks of leaving army then victim of the recession. Company changed core business leaving me and team out of a job)

I have no idea how the woman mentioned above did it, but I suggest it was due to ex's in put.
During that year, me, my partner and daughter (son is with ex so although have him 50% of time, no financial help for him) did get most of rent and council tax paid for. We then lived off £205 per fortnight in benefit to live on. Thats for food/electric/water/gas etc. we couldn't scrape a weekend away within the year let alone 2x 2 weeks in Egypt.

Some people must just know how to fiddle the system. I also think the benefit my son's mother, like many single mothers and fathers is to excessive.

Managed to get a part time job, so gone from £20k - £7k pa jobs as there just isn't work around here. previously been mentioned of 100 applications for 1 job. I've seen on some jobs sites over 500 for 1 job, that job was listed on several websites. probably close to 1k applicants I bet.

There just isn't the work out there to say that people choose to be on benefits. Some have no where else to go while trying to find work.
I hope a lot of the people who just think that they're on benefits, they must be work shy ****s get made redundant and have to rely on it for awhile. You will soon see things differently. I am not silly I know there are scroungers who take what they can and fraudsters who take in excess. They need to sort the system out first before swinging the axe.

fast as fupp

'A welfare system only works if people buy into the concept and play by the rules and still try to support themselves - we are changing as a society where it no longer matters about your neighbour and society in general - now it is everyone for themselves.'

couldnt agree more- however this country is corrupt from the top down-look at the m.p.'s expenses scandal- how many of those shysters went to jail? we have a tax system where its generally considered fair game to get away with paying what youre due. we need leadership and example from the top down not attacks on those least able to defend themselves.

bigmat

Couple of points:

1. If it is financially better to be on benefits than to work, it is at least as much due to inadequate pay for large parts of working society as it is to do with over-generous benefits;

2. Most of the examples of people "living the high life" on benefits seem to actually be due to payments from ex-partners, or benefit fraud. The latter needs to be dealt with (along with tax evasion) but that isn't the same as saying benefits need to be cut across the board.

I'd like to see a significantly higher minimum wage that people can afford to live on. The benefits systm is in need of a shake up, butnot of the "race to the bottom" sort that Osborne & co appear to be moving towards. More means testing would probably help, so that the existing budget can be distributed more fairly. There also needs to be more affordable childcare so that women can get back to work more easily.

All of this needs to be underpinned by some fecking jobs for people to do. Not sure how all these drastic cuts in public spending help on that score. Did nobody point out to the government that a large part of the private sector is employed by the public sector, so slashing the public sector has a knock on effect on the private sector?

Frank the tank

They won't bring in proper means testing it's a slow, expensive process. Unless of course you have something along the lines of the hideous as the atos fitness for work test which are totally unfit for purpose.

Peddle Up!

Tory policy in a nutshell...

I want to see them starving, the so-called working class
Their wages yearly halving, their women stewing grass
When I go out each morning in one of my new suits
I want to see them fawning to clean my car and boots

(Larkin)

Actually, Government policy as we'd had the same one for the past thirty years.

MaxwellBygraves

Andrew Mitchell (pleb-gate) resignation imminent, apparently.

jawooga

BigMat wrote:

Not sure how all these drastic cuts in public spending help on that score. Did nobody point out to the government that a large part of the private sector is employed by the public sector, so slashing the public sector has a knock on effect on the private sector?

Tories are ideologically desperate to cut the public sector where they don't make money form it, and to drive down the wages within the sector where they do make money, to make more money at the expense of the employees.

For instance, privatise the low salary end of public sector employees if it is a non profitable part of the public sector. This raises the average wage of the public sector. Because public sector wages are disproportionately low for equiv. skills in the private sector, the percentage increase of remaining average public sector employees is comparatively large (wages haven't increased, low paid people have been sacked or jobs privatised). Disruption and/or small salary inflation in the private sector means the wage hikes are smaller, but only as a percentage. Regardless of the real situation, government can hang the public sector out to dry, turn public opinion against public servants, and drive down their wages.

Divide and rule baby! WOOO hooo! Spring Break, yeeeeeahh! U.S.A. 'get in the hole

[sorry, had a drink]

random man

jawooga wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Not sure how all these drastic cuts in public spending help on that score. Did nobody point out to the government that a large part of the private sector is employed by the public sector, so slashing the public sector has a knock on effect on the private sector?

Tories are ideologically desperate to cut the public sector where they don't make money form it, and to drive down the wages within the sector where they do make money, to make more money at the expense of the employees.

For instance, privatise the low salary end of public sector employees if it is a non profitable part of the public sector. This raises the average wage of the public sector. Because public sector wages are disproportionately low for equiv. skills in the private sector, the percentage increase of remaining average public sector employees is comparatively large (wages haven't increased, low paid people have been sacked or jobs privatised). Disruption and/or small salary inflation in the private sector means the wage hikes are smaller, but only as a percentage. Regardless of the real situation, government can hang the public sector out to dry, turn public opinion against public servants, and drive down their wages.

Divide and rule baby! WOOO hooo! Spring Break, yeeeeeahh! U.S.A. 'get in the hole

[sorry, had a drink]

Summed up nicely I thought Don't forget, DC wants to spread privilege, but probably only to his rich mates.

tiredofwhiners

jawooga wrote:

Tories are ideologically desperate to cut the public sector where they don't make money form it, and to drive down the wages within the sector where they do make money, to make more money at the expense of the employees.

Rubbish, typical trolling comment. The Tories believe in leaving each individual with as much money as possible and leave them to decide where to spend it. The public sector is the most inefficient, overmanned, underperforming, sickness & absence ridden part of the economy. In every possible measurement its a failure and could be massively improved but refuses to do so. Do we all want to pay £10 for a pint of milk ? No, but if we milk production in the hands of the public sector, thats the kind of thing we would end up with. Do we want cleaners with no skills, no abilities getting paid £40k a year ? No, because we would all have to be taxed much more to pay for it. This is why the public sector needs to do its bit where it is good (NHS and military) and to stop wasting taxpayers money overpaying for low skill, low wage jobs and the private sector can deliver these more efficiently and more cost effectively.

jawooga wrote:

Because public sector wages are disproportionately low for equiv. skills in the private sector, the percentage increase of remaining average public sector employees is comparatively large (wages haven't increased, low paid people have been sacked or jobs privatised).

Rubbish - any job in the public sector for which there is a private sector equivalent is paid significantly higher. Thats a legacy of Gordon Brown where it paid to be non-productive in the public sector and be a net consumer of taxes rather than be in the private sector and earn money to pay for the rest of the public sector.

jawooga wrote:

Regardless of the real situation, government can hang the public sector out to dry, turn public opinion against public servants, and drive down their wages.

This because its an economic truth that the pensions and entitlements of much of the public sector are 'unearned' i.e. the public sector worker pays X towards their pension over time but they take out 3 or 4 times X in benefits. Guess who pays for that - the private sector worker who pays higher taxes to subsidise the unearned position of the public sector worker. Combine this with higher salaries for low skill jobs and no wonder people have no time for public sector workers. Private sector workers cannot afford to pay for their own pensions as the money they should be paying in, gets taken in higher taxes to pay for the public sector workers pensions instead.

The government doesn't have to hang public sector workers out to dry at all - their position is unaffordable and its pretty clear to the 80% of us that are not in the public sector that our hard earned taxes are subsidising the laziest, least effective, highest sick rate, over-holidayed, over-pensioned, least productive part of the economy. Apart from Nurses and the military who I think should get more, but at the expense of all the pen pushers.

MaxwellBygraves

Speaking of Tories, this is the best I've read so far on Camerons Tory party conference keynote speech: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/polit ... gy-paddler

fast as fupp

tiredofwhiners wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tories are ideologically desperate to cut the public sector where they don't make money form it, and to drive down the wages within the sector where they do make money, to make more money at the expense of the employees.

Rubbish, typical trolling comment. The Tories believe in leaving each individual with as much money as possible and leave them to decide where to spend it. The public sector is the most inefficient, overmanned, underperforming, sickness & absence ridden part of the economy. In every possible measurement its a failure and could be massively improved but refuses to do so. Do we all want to pay £10 for a pint of milk ? No, but if we milk production in the hands of the public sector, thats the kind of thing we would end up with. Do we want cleaners with no skills, no abilities getting paid £40k a year ? No, because we would all have to be taxed much more to pay for it. This is why the public sector needs to do its bit where it is good (NHS and military) and to stop wasting taxpayers money overpaying for low skill, low wage jobs and the private sector can deliver these more efficiently and more cost effectively.

jawooga wrote:

Because public sector wages are disproportionately low for equiv. skills in the private sector, the percentage increase of remaining average public sector employees is comparatively large (wages haven't increased, low paid people have been sacked or jobs privatised).

Rubbish - any job in the public sector for which there is a private sector equivalent is paid significantly higher. Thats a legacy of Gordon Brown where it paid to be non-productive in the public sector and be a net consumer of taxes rather than be in the private sector and earn money to pay for the rest of the public sector.

jawooga wrote:

Regardless of the real situation, government can hang the public sector out to dry, turn public opinion against public servants, and drive down their wages.

This because its an economic truth that the pensions and entitlements of much of the public sector are 'unearned' i.e. the public sector worker pays X towards their pension over time but they take out 3 or 4 times X in benefits. Guess who pays for that - the private sector worker who pays higher taxes to subsidise the unearned position of the public sector worker. Combine this with higher salaries for low skill jobs and no wonder people have no time for public sector workers. Private sector workers cannot afford to pay for their own pensions as the money they should be paying in, gets taken in higher taxes to pay for the public sector workers pensions instead.

The government doesn't have to hang public sector workers out to dry at all - their position is unaffordable and its pretty clear to the 80% of us that are not in the public sector that our hard earned taxes are subsidising the laziest, least effective, highest sick rate, over-holidayed, over-pensioned, least productive part of the economy. Apart from Nurses and the military who I think should get more, but at the expense of all the pen pushers.

copyright the daily mail

if private sector workers are getting less pay and cannot afford pensions then maybe its them that arent being paid enough (while their bosses cream off the profits of their labour).

the average civil service pension is £5000 p.a. thats hardly a kings ransom for 20-30 years of service.

tory gobshite

Frank the tank

tiredofwhiners wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tories are ideologically desperate to cut the public sector where they don't make money form it, and to drive down the wages within the sector where they do make money, to make more money at the expense of the employees.

Rubbish, typical trolling comment. The Tories believe in leaving each individual with as much money as possible and leave them to decide where to spend it. The public sector is the most inefficient, overmanned, underperforming, sickness & absence ridden part of the economy. In every possible measurement its a failure and could be massively improved but refuses to do so. Do we all want to pay £10 for a pint of milk ? No, but if we milk production in the hands of the public sector, thats the kind of thing we would end up with. Do we want cleaners with no skills, no abilities getting paid £40k a year ? No, because we would all have to be taxed much more to pay for it. This is why the public sector needs to do its bit where it is good (NHS and military) and to stop wasting taxpayers money overpaying for low skill, low wage jobs and the private sector can deliver these more efficiently and more cost effectively.

Yes, the torys are renowned for trying to put money into peoples pockets so they have more to spend, that's why trade unions were formed to fight off all the great pay and benefits t's & c's that the tory mill and mine owners were wanting thrust upon the workforce. Believe you me they'll have it the same again if they can.

I'll work for 50p a day in order to be competitive, I'd have a job for life.

Now go find your shine box.

jawooga wrote:

Because public sector wages are disproportionately low for equiv. skills in the private sector, the percentage increase of remaining average public sector employees is comparatively large (wages haven't increased, low paid people have been sacked or jobs privatised).

Rubbish - any job in the public sector for which there is a private sector equivalent is paid significantly higher. Thats a legacy of Gordon Brown where it paid to be non-productive in the public sector and be a net consumer of taxes rather than be in the private sector and earn money to pay for the rest of the public sector.

jawooga wrote:

Regardless of the real situation, government can hang the public sector out to dry, turn public opinion against public servants, and drive down their wages.

This because its an economic truth that the pensions and entitlements of much of the public sector are 'unearned' i.e. the public sector worker pays X towards their pension over time but they take out 3 or 4 times X in benefits. Guess who pays for that - the private sector worker who pays higher taxes to subsidise the unearned position of the public sector worker. Combine this with higher salaries for low skill jobs and no wonder people have no time for public sector workers. Private sector workers cannot afford to pay for their own pensions as the money they should be paying in, gets taken in higher taxes to pay for the public sector workers pensions instead.

The government doesn't have to hang public sector workers out to dry at all - their position is unaffordable and its pretty clear to the 80% of us that are not in the public sector that our hard earned taxes are subsidising the laziest, least effective, highest sick rate, over-holidayed, over-pensioned, least productive part of the economy. Apart from Nurses and the military who I think should get more, but at the expense of all the pen pushers.

tiredofwhiners

fast as fupp wrote:

copyright the daily mail
if private sector workers are getting less pay and cannot afford pensions then maybe its them that arent being paid enough (while their bosses cream off the profits of their labour).

Spot the parasitic public sector employee - I won't call you a worker as you probably haven't done much.

Unlike the public sector, the private companies have to compete and win their livelihood against international competition. Pay their staff too much , or have too expensive a product, and you go out of business. So only the true moron says that 'pay your people more' without understanding that it isn't that simple. Companies pay what they can afford - not what they like. On the other hand, the public sector just keeps sucking on the tax burden and we pay for its gross incompetence, its negligence and have no alternative but to pay. If we did, the majority of the public sector would be out of a job overnight. You only get paid that much because we are not allowed an alternative.

Make less money in a company, means less dividends which means lower pensions for those that have to pay for their own. The overwhelming majority of 'bosses' in this country have created jobs, and earned their money - unlike the public sector. Just imagine what a country would be like where people'chose their own salary' - but we don't have to - it was like that in the 70's where the unions and public sector managed industries drove the country into the ground.

fast as fupp wrote:

the average civil service pension is £5000 p.a. thats hardly a kings ransom for 20-30 years of service.

It is way too much if you've only paid enough money towards it to actually fund £1000 a year leaving other low paid workers to be overtaxed to pay for the rest of your pension. If you 'only' get £5,000 a year pension and have not paid enough to fund it, where do you imagine the money comes from ? The magic money tree ? No, other taxpayers having to pay more to keep you in a style to which you are not entitled. Why don't you go and steal from babies next ?.

tory gobshite

That says more about your parasitic approach to life. Back to sponging off the rest of you go.

fast as fupp

i'd love to see you do a shift in a JC+

if you're as arrogant in real life as you are on here i imagine most of your day would be spent in a+e getting your jaw rewired.

Cleat Eastwood

fast as fupp wrote:

i'd love to see you do a shift in a JC+

if you're as ignorant in real life as you are on here i imagine most of your day would be spent in a+e getting your jaw rewired - and complaining about the nurses aren't as qualified as you

Fixed that for you fupp - word of advice it's pointless arguing with tory arseholes like that. Have a look at CiB's post - comes across as a tory but always has a perspective on things that isnt pure daily mail cobblers.

Sunny day - i'm off hilling it.

finchy

tow - do you realise how much the private sector depends on "parasitic" public sector workers?

How else do you get an educated workforce, with their health cared for, a transport system, health and safety legislation, customs, a legal system, nationwide communications, research and development (particularly all that expensive university research) and a million other things?

If your house is ever burning down, will you tell the fire brigade that they're parasite?

steve6690

The tory vision for the future of public services is really simple to understand. They're pissed off because the rich don't make any money off it. Privatise it, drive down costs (sack people and pay the remainder less money), cream off the profit. G4S anyone ?
Some things shouldn't be only about the money..

tiredofwhiners

johnfinch wrote:

tow - do you realise how much the private sector depends on "parasitic" public sector workers?

Of course - we pay for it. Some of its good, but a lot of its pretty dreadful, or do you think its all perfect ?

johnfinch wrote:

How else do you get an educated workforce, with their health cared for, a transport system, health and safety legislation, customs, a legal system, nationwide communications, research and development (particularly all that expensive university research) and a million other things?

You mean a failing education system producing rubbish students, a second rate massively inefficient healthcare system, a collapsing Network rail infrastructure and failing border controls letting millions in who should not be in ? Yeah, its all so good, we're the envy of the world. Give me a German public sector, a French healthcare system and a US border control system over the lot we have here.

There is significantly more R&D done by the private sector than by government, university research is half funded by the private sector and every penny of the public sector funding comes from the private sector tax take. Increasing the cost base of the UK economy by paying the public sector workers more, will not create a single productive job nor will it rescue the economy. Only the private sector will achieve that and its somewhat difficult with the porr public sector we have these days.

johnfinch wrote:

If your house is ever burning down, will you tell the fire brigade that they're parasite?

No, but when they go on strike to be allowed to retire at aged 52, on 60% salary, for the next 40 years, having only paid enough money to pay for 10 years, as taxpayer I think I have a right to ask them to pay more - a lot more, and if they refuse, call them parasites then. Please don't tell me its a dangerous job - more Highways Agency workers have died than firemen in the last 20 years.

Lots of folks here spending money they haven't got on people who haven't earned it. You've heard the adage about socialists running out of other folks money ? We've reached that point and your solialist dream just came to an end.

Its why the 80% of the working population who make up the the private sector in the UK fully support a pay freeze for the public sector for at least the next three yaers, and why 65% of the UK population fully agree with capping welfare at £26k maximum.

Time to pay what things are worth and to stop feeding the unproductive elements of the public sector.

People are pissed of with the public sector, not because they cannot make any money out of it, but because they are crap, staffed by people who are unable to do the job and they get paid far more than the productive in society. If all people were paid what they are actually worth, then most of the admin staff in the public sector would starve, doctors would get less, nurses a lot more and those in HMRC and councils would owe us all a lot of money.

MaxwellBygraves

For someone who's name is tiredofwhiners, you do an awful lot...ah never mind

Peddle Up!

"Where do you imagine the money comes from?"

An excellent question and a good place to start. You'll be amazed where it leads you.

Not where you think. 8)

Frank the tank

If currently you work in the public sector, lose your job then get one in the private sector.

Do you instantly metamorphosise from a knuckle dragging, slavering,bone idle, leadswingging lump of sh1t into an all singing all dancing grafting superhero?

The best thing that can be done with the public sector in TOW's eyes would be to exterminate the idle b@st@rds. I suggest he start with tory polititians being as they're paid out of the public purse. And I know who I would sooner give my tax pound to Policeman v Andrew Mitchell tough one that, Fireman v David Cameron oooh another tough one, Nurse v Jeremy Hunt hmmmmm! such tough choices, just who should be burned at the stake first.

YOU DECIDE.

finchy

tiredofwhiners wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

tow - do you realise how much the private sector depends on "parasitic" public sector workers?

Of course - we pay for it. Some of its good, but a lot of its pretty dreadful, or do you think its all perfect ?

No, I don't think it's all perfect. That doesn't mean that everyone working in it is a parasite.

tiredofwhiners wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

How else do you get an educated workforce, with their health cared for, a transport system, health and safety legislation, customs, a legal system, nationwide communications, research and development (particularly all that expensive university research) and a million other things?

You mean a failing education system producing rubbish students, a second rate massively inefficient healthcare system, a collapsing Network rail infrastructure and failing border controls letting millions in who should not be in ? Yeah, its all so good, we're the envy of the world. Give me a German public sector, a French healthcare system and a US border control system over the lot we have here.

There is significantly more R&D done by the private sector than by government, university research is half funded by the private sector and every penny of the public sector funding comes from the private sector tax take. Increasing the cost base of the UK economy by paying the public sector workers more, will not create a single productive job nor will it rescue the economy. Only the private sector will achieve that and its somewhat difficult with the porr public sector we have these days.

Failing education system - that might be something to do with the pupils and parents. What are teachers expected to do when parents come from backgrounds which are actively anti-education, or just completely apathetic about it?
Collapsing rail infrastructure - agreed. Loads of money spunked away on the privatised rail companies, though. Re-nationalise them.
Millions who should not be in? And you think that's not something that goes on in the USA? Ever heard of a nationality called the Mexicans?
A lot of research would not be funded by the private sector because the results are uncertain.

tiredofwhiners wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

If your house is ever burning down, will you tell the fire brigade that they're parasite?

No, but when they go on strike to be allowed to retire at aged 52, on 60% salary, for the next 40 years, having only paid enough money to pay for 10 years, as taxpayer I think I have a right to ask them to pay more - a lot more, and if they refuse, call them parasites then. Please don't tell me its a dangerous job - more Highways Agency workers have died than firemen in the last 20 years.

Lots of folks here spending money they haven't got on people who haven't earned it. You've heard the adage about socialists running out of other folks money ? We've reached that point and your solialist dream just came to an end.

Its why the 80% of the working population who make up the the private sector in the UK fully support a pay freeze for the public sector for at least the next three yaers, and why 65% of the UK population fully agree with capping welfare at £26k maximum.

Time to pay what things are worth and to stop feeding the unproductive elements of the public sector.

People are pissed of with the public sector, not because they cannot make any money out of it, but because they are crap, staffed by people who are unable to do the job and they get paid far more than the productive in society. If all people were paid what they are actually worth, then most of the admin staff in the public sector would starve, doctors would get less, nurses a lot more and those in HMRC and councils would owe us all a lot of money.

[/quote]

You're speaking absolute crap. You're probably one of these types who think that admin workers make the rules. And yes, I have worked in administration in the public sector. There were a couple of bad workers in our department, but the vast majority of us did the best that we could, despite being constantly under-manned.

steve6690

Paying someone a good wage to deliver a crap service is not the fault of the employee. The public sector "areas of business" in the UK have been destroyed by the interference of politicians who only want to make themselves look good. Failing schools ? - make the exams easier, in fact make it impossible to fail. That's just one example.
I'm sure anyone who works in any area of public sector employment can give you countless examples of figure fiddling.
I know I can..

finchy

steve6690 wrote:

Paying someone a good wage to deliver a crap service is not the fault of the employee. The public sector "areas of business" in the UK have been destroyed by the interference of politicians who only want to make themselves look good. Failing schools ? - make the exams easier, in fact make it impossible to fail. That's just one example.
I'm sure anyone who works in any area of public sector employment can give you countless examples of figure fiddling.
I know I can..

steve6690 - when I used to work in school admissions, government/local council policy made it very, very difficult to do our best for parents - I remember a case in which we couldn't get one particular boy into a secondary school for 2 months, not through a lack of trying, but because we just didn't have the powers to get him into any of the schools in town.

Of course, we got the blame for something we couldn't change. :roll: