The great TP election thread

[dejongj]

I'd agree about a flexible workforce. Indeed when I had people work for me I had several guys on zero hours. But it was a two way thing. My impression is that's not often the case.

I don't want to make a google argument on stats though. That just leads to silliness.

If it is not a two way thing then why does one party remain in it? That I find the interesting and unexplainable part.

So many jobs about. Just the other week we were recruiting. Two cancelled and didn't show up. Another was offered the position but withheld vital information which really should have been disclosed and we had to go through it again.

 

[boyfalldown]

If it is not a two way thing then why does one party remain in it? That I find the interesting and unexplainable part.

So many jobs about. Just the other week we were recruiting. Two cancelled and didn't show up. Another was offered the position but withheld vital information which really should have been disclosed and we had to go through it again.

I don't know tbh, but forcing someone to accept whatever is or isn't offered doesn't sound 2 way to me

Before I set up on my own I worked in r&d in the pharma sector. If I remember that's the same sector as you. Recruiting was always a time consuming nightmare, but even though filling jobs was difficult mainly because finding the right candidates was so hard. But I will bet, like me, non of your candidates a ever came from not having a job in their recent history other then maybe a new graduate. I never took anyone from welfare

 

[woof woof]

Very well put @woof woof

A clear indicator that things are wrong, too me, is when people capable of work rely on benefits provided by the state. A dependency gets created, a relationship not too dissimilar to that between a drug dealer and their addicts gets created. It is not a healthy, sustainable situation.

I had a long chat with someone this morning along these lines, I think that a lot of people are concerned about the economy, the welfare state and society in general.

I'll give a little example from very close to home... A lady works part time in a supermarket, her husband doesn't work and in fact he's never had a conventional full time job. They have three children. They all live happily in a rented house, they have a car, a nice little hatch back. The adults have mobile phones and so does the oldest child. The adults have at least one lap top (I can't remember if they have one each) and they have a family pc, all of the children have tablet PC's and all have some sort of games consul. There are four wide screen TV's in the house and they have all of the usual household gadgets, fridge freezer, washer etc... That's a nice setup and a nice lifestyle but of course it's not all funded by a part time job in a supermarket. I don't think that there are many countries in the world in which this could happen.

My point is that maybe it's been a little too easy to rely on the state long term. Even a socialist (and I regard myself as one) should worry about the future sustainability of a society in which large numbers of people are either not generating any wealth at all or need very long term help to sustain a good lifestyle.

To be honest I can't see a quick fix. I think that as it's now quite common to have multiple generations in one family who've grown up relying on the state we're going to have significant problems if we decide to try and have a different society, it's going to take a long time to do anything effective even if we decide to bite the bullet and do something. Of course we may be pushed into acting if at some point in the future the cost of borrowing from the international banks rises or if the IMF sail a gunboat up the Thames and take over as they did in 1976.

 

[dejongj]

I don't know tbh, but forcing someone to accept whatever is or isn't offered doesn't sound 2 way to me

Before I set up on my own I worked in r&d in the pharma sector. If I remember that's the same sector as you. Recruiting was always a time consuming nightmare, but even though filling jobs was difficult mainly because finding the right candidates was so hard. But I will bet, like me, non of your candidates a ever came from not having a job in their recent history other then maybe a new graduate. I never took anyone from welfare

If it is forced than it would be slavery, that is not right at all and I hope the fight against that continues and continues. Unfortunately there are always people who will act illegally.

I've left pharma behind a while ago. But even then we did recruit clinical research associates as first time job seekers. And in a few other areas. I mean people got to start somewhere.

Education is free so that isn't an excuse either. Heck I never benefitted from freely available credit to get me through my education and had to work for it.

Naturally there will be some employers that abuse it or even put exclusivity clauses in their contracts however it wouldn't stand up in court anyway. Not more than many of the freelance contracts try to exclude working for a competitor, of which many (in order to be ir35 compliant) actually also don't include an obligation to provide work. So could be classed as zero hours as well.

 

[dejongj]

I had a long chat with someone this morning along these lines, I think that a lot of people are concerned about the economy, the welfare state and society in general.

I'll give a little example from very close to home... A lady works part time in a supermarket, her husband doesn't work and in fact he's never had a conventional full time job. They have three children. They all live happily in a rented house, they have a car, a nice little hatch back. The adults have mobile phones and so does the oldest child. The adults have at least one lap top (I can't remember if they have one each) and they have a family pc, all of the children have tablet PC's and all have some sort of games consul. There are four wide screen TV's in the house and they have all of the usual household gadgets, fridge freezer, washer etc... That's a nice setup and a nice lifestyle but of course it's not all funded by a part time job in a supermarket. I don't think that there are many countries in the world in which this could happen.

My point is that maybe it's been a little too easy to rely on the state long term. Even a socialist (and I regard myself as one) should worry about the future sustainability of a society in which large numbers of people are either not generating any wealth at all or need very long term help to sustain a good lifestyle.

To be honest I can't see a quick fix. I think that as it's now quite common to have multiple generations in one family who've grown up relying on the state we're going to have significant problems if we decide to try and have a different society, it's going to take a long time to do anything effective even if we decide to bite the bullet and do something. Of course we may be pushed into acting if at some point in the future the cost of borrowing from the international banks rises or if the IMF sail a gunboat up the Thames and take over as they did in 1976.

I agree, there no silver bullet. However I cant help but feel that the kindest thing to do is be very tough.

If it was down to me id like to see some benefits go up like long term illness, state pension and short term (18 month) unemployment.

I would like to see disability be redefined and much more inclusive within society. In order words not part of long term illness. What I mean is that if nearly 20% of is in receipt of some sort of disability benefit than something is wrong. Be it how people are classified, be how we see that group of people able to look after themselves. The growth rate is concerning. To me there is no reason why many of that 20% cant be self sufficient.

From a unemployment benefit, I'd like to see an increase up to 70% of the average income of the previous four years for a period of no more than 18 months. That should avoid the need to be removed from ones home, and local council having to provide housing. It would also stop a race to the bottom to just grab any job. That way it would be a proper national insurance with a short term safety net.

However after such a period it will need to drop considerably. There is no reasonable argument why anyone couldn't get their act together and pick themselves up again in such a period.

Heck as a side affect it might even calm the housing market as the safety net would work well if people remain within their abilities of say no more than three times ones income.

I don't know, there is no golden ticket but we got to change something.

 

[cowboy]

 

[woof woof]

I agree, there no silver bullet. However I cant help but feel that the kindest thing to do is be very tough.

I agree with a lot you said there. There's an old saying about being cruel to be kind but if society decides to be tough people are going to need strong stomachs.

I'll give another little example from close to home. An ex GF of mine worked (maybe still does) for a local council and the stories she told would make you weep. People would ring up demanding a payment of some sort immediately "or I'll hurt the kids." To stop this we'd need a team of social workers standing by to swoop in and take the kids into protective custardy and not keep them in the system for years but get them fostered out or adopted PDQ. And then of course we're going to need a system capable of dealing with parents with no job, no ambition and no empathy for their own children until such attitudes and ways of life are replaced by better ones.

While I'm on a roll of examples close to home... I used to work out of a large government establishment and the waste I saw there wasn't just epic it was criminal, or at least it should be criminal. Towards the end of each financial year there'd be a mad scramble to spend money and they couldn't spend it fast enough or stupidly enough. The reason for this madness was that if they didn't spend all their budget next years budget would be cut and the Mandarins at the top would lose face if their departments budget fell below that of the other Mandarins.

Personally I think that we have major issues to face both Social and state. We have massive social issues including the disintegration of support structures, long term reliance on the state benefit and changing (IMVHO for the worse) social mores. And then there's the state... The state should IMVHO be run like a business with no epic and deliberate waste, instead why not do things properly and with at least half an eye on sustainability. That'd free up a shed load of money to do good with. I think that potentially one of the biggest issues we face is the current disconnect between the multitude and our ruling class. We don't trust them and we don't believe a word they say and even though we really know that they're bribing us we'll probably vote for the ones that offer us the biggest bribe.

If this wasn't good old Britain I'd say that the circumstances are pretty right for the immergence of an extremist party and indeed that's what we're seeing to one degree or another in other places.

"May you live in interesting times" has maybe not felt so chilling to me for many years.

 

[cowboy]

Why can't the government, any party, start a national building programme?

We have a housing shortage, we have a large amount of young unemployed, we have building tradesmen that can't get jobs.

Every bit of green land seems to be getting built on by developers so why can't the government build on brown land and rent the places out. We'd have income from the workers building the houses as tax and income from the rent. There would be more affordable rents so private rents would either come down or the houses sold and just maybe the housing market would sort itself out.

The next government, whatever party, needs to start bringing money into the country.

 

[boyfalldown]

I would like to see disability be redefined and much more inclusive within society. In order words not part of long term illness. What I mean is that if nearly 20% of is in receipt of some sort of disability benefit than something is wrong. Be it how people are classified, be how we see that group of people able to look after themselves. The growth rate is concerning. To me there is no reason why many of that 20% cant be self .

Do those 20% claim benefits now. Or are many classified as disabled but still integrated into the workforce? For example one of my friends recovered from cancer a few years ago. She's now classified as disabled. I believe if you do recover that's automatic. The only difference that makes to her is she can park her car closer in the office car park and gets time off for reasonable medical appointments. No benefits though. Do people like her fall into that figure or is it purely those who get benefits as a result.

 

[dejongj]

Do those 20% claim benefits now. Or are many classified as disabled but still integrated into the workforce? For example one of my friends recovered from cancer a few years ago. She's now classified as disabled. I believe if you do recover that's automatic. The only difference that makes to her is she can park her car closer in the office car park and gets time off for reasonable medical appointments. No benefits though. Do people like her fall into that figure or is it purely those who get benefits as a result.

I recall, I got the figures of data.gov.uk in relation to benefits payments. Sure not all are wholly on benefits, but that is exactly my point of needing to look differently at inclusion.

 

[Phil V]

I recall, I got the figures of data.gov.uk in relation to benefits payments. Sure not all are wholly on benefits, but that is exactly my point of needing to look differently at inclusion.

The work to reform the benefits system has been ongoing for years, it's a massive task though but I'm sure the end result will be more to your liking.

However, the media led perception is a million miles from the truth, I'll bet without a google people have no idea how much of the welfare budget goes to pensioners (if you did, I doubt you'd still be thinking of increasing pensions). And the general publics estimates of how much is claimed fraudulently are hilarious.

Most people think pensioners make up less than 20% of the welfare budget, it's heading towards 60%

Most people estimate about 25% of benefit is claimed fraudulently, it's less than 1%

 

[Cobra]

It really worries me that the party leaders are all chinless wonders or grinning idiots (or both)
I'd not buy a used car off any of them, let alone trust them to run the country!

As I have mentioned before, the only person to enter Westminster with honest intentions was the Guy Fawkes fella, some years ago, and even he was stitched up by his so called mates

 

[cambsno]

It really worries me that the party leaders are all chinless wonders or grinning idiots (or both)
I'd not buy a used car off any of them, let alone trust them to run the country!

As I have mentioned before, the only person to enter Westminster with honest intentions was the Guy Fawkes fella, some years ago, and even he was stitched up by his so called mates

Not clegg, I have been pretty impressed with him and comes across very well, seems like a decent guy. My pick of the leaders and taking away the policy bit (am anti EU and the liberals are the most pro euro) I would want him for PM.

 

[big soft moose]

Not clegg, I have been pretty impressed with him and comes across very well, seems like a decent guy. My pick of the leaders and taking away the policy bit (am anti EU and the liberals are the most pro euro) I would want him for PM.

clegg is probably the most chinless (gutless) of the lot -he went in to a coalition and got virtually nothing for it, on the morning after the last election he had the whip hand with both cameron and brown, and could have insisted on all sorts of concessions from either of them, but instead got virtually nothing of concrete benefit either for the party, for key positions for his people or for the implementation of lib dem policies.

I wouldnt want someone who is that crap at negotiation, representing Britain on negotiations for anything important.

 

[woof woof]

I wouldnt want someone who is that crap at negotiation, representing Britain on negotiations for anything important.

Yup. I agree, We need a strong negotiator or a party full of them, people who'd put Britain first. We could call it the British National Party or The National Front, or something like that, which illustrates a problem... the minute anyone says they want to put Britain First they're immediately attacked for being a Nazi by the media and our social elite who are largely the same thing of course having gone to the same schools and universities and largely sharing the same views and mores.

I keep thinking back to previous leaders of more modern times, we had Thatcher who was a product of her time and we had Blair who was very different but a product of his media aware time and now we have (mostly) a bunch of clones who all went to the same schools and who are all trained by the same media friendly spin Dr's. Maybe what we have now is a reaction to the rather extreme Thatcher / Blair? Toned down media aware sound bite artists? Maybe the next crop (if there is a next crop) will be a product of the times we seem to be entering? Selfish, underachieving short term thinkers who've never done a days work in their lives but who know how to fiddle the last penny out of a mildly corrupt system? Maybe we're there already.

Most people estimate about 25% of benefit is claimed fraudulently, it's less than 1%

I don't see fraud as too much of an issue other than that the justice system doesn't seem interested in even trying to recover the money and be seen to be doing so. I think people have a problem with that and other than that I doubt that too many people if pushed would see fraud as a major issue... not when compared to the somewhat larger percentage of claims which aren't fraudulent as such but merely the product of a system which at times is willing to allow a fairly relaxed attitude (even these days...) and let people who really could and should do more to fund their own lifestyle just live off the state for extended periods of time, maybe forever and on through the generations. It's not fraud as such, the system allows it.

 

[dejongj]

It is an interesting point raised. How come the SNP and Plaid C get away with being so nationalistic yet when it is about England it is all of a sudden a bad thing?

I'm not too concerned about a small percentage of fraud, it is part of "doing business". And the cost to retrieve may be disproportionate to the damage done. For me it is some of the ridiculous non fraud but supported cases in the first place. I mean who can think up that nonsense and actually issue it.

What was is this morning, this girl who is too fat to work, calls herself a hazard at work and blames the nhs for her being fat.

Or jihadi Dad blaming the state, police and schools for letting his daughter go to Syria yet he took her to the rallies with Chaudry and the Lee Rigby Killers. Nothing fraudulent there, but why do we cater for people like them. What is the point?

 

[woof woof]

I'm not too concerned about a small percentage of fraud, it is part of "doing business". And the cost to retrieve may be disproportionate to the damage done. For me it is some of the ridiculous non fraud but supported cases in the first place. I mean who can think up that nonsense and actually issue it.

I think that it'd be worthwhile trying to recover money from fraudsters even if the process actually costs money because justice needs not only to be done but seen to be done. If for example a fraudsters house could be raided and their Xbox sold on ebay for a few £ I'm sure lots would applaud the effort

There was something in the news a few years or so ago about a police squad who's job was to recover funds from organised crime and if my memory serves me correctly they recovered a shed load...

I think it's important that people are not seen to profit from crime and if someone (for example) defrauds the system of £20k by claiming incapacity benefit whilst playing in a Sunday football league it irks me a bit when his punishment is... a suspended sentence or something equally limp. What about the £20k? I'd much rather see his smartphone, flat screen TV, Xbox and car seized and listed on ebay

 

[big soft moose]

Yup. I agree, We need a strong negotiator or a party full of them, people who'd put Britain first. .

trouble is too many people conflate putting british interests first with blaming imigrants for our problems or being openly racist - and equally parties that stand up for britains interests seem to attract ignorant racist halfwits. Looking at ukip as an example, I doubt farage himself is actually a racist, sexist, or homophobe - but his party has attracted all three and lost credibility as a result

 

[woof woof]

trouble is too many people conflate putting british interests first with blaming imigrants for our problems or being openly racist - and equally parties that stand up for britains interests seem to attract ignorant racist halfwits. Looking at ukip as an example, I doubt farage himself is actually a racist, sexist, or homophobe - but his party has attracted all three and lost credibility as a result

Again Yup.

When I worked I got to meet pretty much every new starter an we got through a fair few. The quality of both applicants and new starters wasn't exactly the highest (and that's putting it mildly.) Some were I suspect only sat in front of me because the job centre had frog marched them there and many didn't last long at all which wasn't surprising as frankly they just didn't want to be there and it was obvious. The immigrants however were without exception very good quality and whenever they left to do other things the department managers always said the same things..."I'll miss them. They were bloody good workers and I wish they were all like them." This isn't a race thing, it's an attitude and application thing.

I'm all for stamping out racism and indeed I don't see race as the issue as most immigrants to the UK are the same race as the British (I think... anyway I'm not interested in "race".) The racism accusation is an easy and effective one to use though, you attack the man and you kill the discussion.

I'd argue that the UK should actually take in people who would bring no economic benefit but cost the UK money as on occasion that'd be the correct and honourable thing to do. We can't judge everyone simply on their economic worth and we shouldn't but equally we can't have an effectively open door forever and for the large body of immigrants I'd like to see some sort of managed immigration, maybe a points system. Other countries do it.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

The work to reform the benefits system has been ongoing for years, it's a massive task though but I'm sure the end result will be more to your liking.

However, the media led perception is a million miles from the truth, I'll bet without a google people have no idea how much of the welfare budget goes to pensioners (if you did, I doubt you'd still be thinking of increasing pensions). And the general publics estimates of how much is claimed fraudulently are hilarious.

Most people think pensioners make up less than 20% of the welfare budget, it's heading towards 60%

Most people estimate about 25% of benefit is claimed fraudulently, it's less than 1%

Yeah, it's interesting to see people's views on the figures, I suppose it proves one thing, the press have done a marvelous job of demonising benefit claimants.

JSA is only something like 2.5% of the welfare cost IIRC. And yes it can be annoying that people have found ways not to work.. But then, they don't exactly have the same living standards of someone working full time either.

Cutting corporation tax doesn't create jobs either, it just means the company makes more profit and two thirds of economists think that the recovery of our economy is in despite of the Tory austerity measures, not because of them. Trickle down economics doesn't work when the people at the top are happy to just line their pockets a bit more.

God help us if we get a Tory / UKIP alliance in.

 

[dejongj]

I think if you read what peoples views are then you also read that they don't blame the claimants. Its the system that provides it that is wrong.

I'd love to know the source of the claim that two thirds of economics think it is despite the austerity measures. I really would love to know where that comes from and I hope it is Socialist Worker or some magazine like that.

 

[woof woof]

JSA is only something like 2.5% of the welfare cost IIRC. And yes it can be annoying that people have found ways not to work.. But then, they don't exactly have the same living standards of someone working full time either.

Sadly often they have better. I used to work with quite a number of married people with families taking home less then they could if they played the system.

I'd argue that working is better for you than not working. It gives structure and purpose, possibly increases self esteem, people enjoy the social contact etc... working can be good and not just for the money.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I think if you read what peoples views are then you also read that they don't blame the claimants. Its the system that provides it that is wrong.

I'd love to know the source of the claim that two thirds of economics think it is despite the austerity measures. I really would love to know where that comes from and I hope it is Socialist Worker or some magazine like that.

The Centre for MacroEconomics... - http://www.centreformacroeconomics.ac.uk/Home.aspx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

 

[dejongj]

Thank you for the source. I think the comments on the independent say it all

Luckily we will never know whether those 18 economists who remain unnamed will ever be right or not. I say luckily as we are in a pretty decent place now, not there yet but not bad at all.

 

[woof woof]

The Centre for MacroEconomics... - http://www.centreformacroeconomics.ac.uk/Home.aspx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

Maybe they're just not very good economists?

I not too sure that what they're saying is that they against austerity as such but more the timing and they do seem to be hedging their bets with a passing nod at the risk of falling international confidence if the UK had continued on its then current path.

I'm not an economist but I used to sleep with one and she was/is rather good (as an economist ) It's an interesting field.

If you/we accept the premise that the UK can't run a deficit forever then the next thing is to come up with another way. Cutting back or trying to spend your way out of it.... Hmmmm, choices...

 

[big soft moose]

I don't have a problem with austerity cuts per se - especially when the alternative is to wind up like greece. However for me the issue is what was cut.

Mr Cameron said there'd be no cuts to front line services, cuts were suposed to fall on the bureacracy and mid level management... but that isnt what actually happened, which isnt really a suprise given that it was left to the bureaucrats to decide what to cut

Also if "we are in a pretty good place now" as a result of austerity why are the conservatives planning even more cuts if they get ellected again ?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

If you/we accept the premise that the UK can't run a deficit forever then the next thing is to come up with another way. Cutting back or trying to spend your way out of it.... Hmmmm, choices...

But if you accept that premise and you need to cut back spending on front line services and services to help low income families, then that surely means you can't afford to give tax breaks to wealthy people and companies at the same time?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Maybe they're just not very good economists?

I not too sure that what they're saying is that they against austerity as such but more the timing and they do seem to be hedging their bets with a passing nod at the risk of falling international confidence if the UK had continued on its then current path.

And obviously they're looking back, which is a lot easier than predicting. But they seem to be suggesting that the economy was growing, up until the austerity measures were started, and then growth stopped. Only re-starting when spending actually increased. Now if that is the case, it's a pretty good indicator that the austerity measures had little to do with the economic recovery, isn't it?

But, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the same people may well have said the cuts would have worked if they'd been asked about them 5 years ago.

 

[Phil V]

...Mr Cameron said there'd be no cuts to front line services, cuts were suposed to fall on the bureacracy and mid level management... but that isnt what actually happened, which isnt really a suprise given that it was left to the bureaucrats to decide what to cut

But it's more over simplified nonsense designed to appeal to the unquestioning masses.

Do bankers, engineers, architects or lawyers in large organisations buy toilet roll? Or monitor building maintenance contracts?
Of course they don't, so it makes no sense for surgeons or policemen or social workers to do it. But it's easy to point at the public sector and blame the costs on people who aren't 'front line' staff, as if they're different from other large organisations.
This govt promised to cut the number of bureaucrats in the NHS by not trying to do any reorganising of same. Of course that was simply a lie to get them elected, they've overseen more restructuring of the NHS than any previous govt. how can that be made to work without more money diverted into bureaucracy?

 

[dejongj]

I don't have a problem with austerity cuts per se - especially when the alternative is to wind up like greece. However for me the issue is what was cut.

Mr Cameron said there'd be no cuts to front line services, cuts were suposed to fall on the bureacracy and mid level management... but that isnt what actually happened, which isnt really a suprise given that it was left to the bureaucrats to decide what to cut

Also if "we are in a pretty good place now" as a result of austerity why are the conservatives planning even more cuts if they get ellected again ?

Because whilst the deficit has seen some reduction it was nowhere near enough. Being on the right path and knowing where you are doesn't mean it is a good time to change direction. There is a lot more to do in order to replenish the kitty.

 

[big soft moose]

Because whilst the deficit has seen some reduction it was nowhere near enough. Being on the right path and knowing where you are doesn't mean it is a good time to change direction. There is a lot more to do in order to replenish the kitty.

so in other words austerity didnt work so now they want to gut the essential services even further, putting more people out of work (because higher unemployment really helps the economy) apart from MPs pay obviously, and at the same time as spunking £50bn on a high speed rail link :bang:

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

so in other words austerity didnt work so now they want to gut the essential services even further, putting more people out of work (because higher unemployment really helps the economy) apart from MPs pay obviously, and at the same time as spunking £50bn on a high speed rail link :banghead:

That's because it's not about the deficit, it's about reducing the size of the state. As it always is with the conservatives.

 

[dejongj]

so in other words austerity didnt work so now they want to gut the essential services even further, putting more people out of work (because higher unemployment really helps the economy) apart from MPs pay obviously, and at the same time as spunking £50bn on a high speed rail link :bang:

???? I agree they should have cut much harder and deeper in the first instance. However somehow I doubt that is what you meant. Increasing your fixed outgoings is definitely not going to reduce the deficit. Considering it has been reducing, albeit not to zero, highlights how truly big the problem was/is. Now if during the next term they still haven't met their own targets then fair enough to suggest it works or not. At the moment it just highlights the huge pile of s*** left behind by labour.

 

[woof woof]

That's because it's not about the deficit, it's about reducing the size of the state. As it always is with the conservatives.

Political motives aside... We can't have most people working for the state if we can't afford it. We need someone to generate wealth so that we can tax them and use the dosh to amongst other things pay for the large number of state employees and pay for those who don't work for whatever reason.

Timescales need to be considered but I do worry about the national debt as to some extent it's out of our control and in the control of others. If the UK's rating gets downgraded and/or the money people lose confidence in our ability to keep up repayments it could all go wrong very quickly and as per 1976 if it all goes wrong we lose control and someone will be telling us how many state employees we can have, how much we can pay them and how much we can pay people to sit at home drinking Special Brew and smoking cannabis.

 

[dejongj]

That's because it's not about the deficit, it's about reducing the size of the state. As it always is with the conservatives.

Reducing the state should equal reducing the deficit. Surely reducing the state is a good thing?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Reducing the state should equal reducing the deficit. Surely reducing the state is a good thing?

But it's not, when at the same time they're giving the wealthiest people and companies tax breaks, that shows it's simply about reducing spend on the services the poorest rely on.

If they were raising taxes, closing avoidance loopholes *and* reducing the state, then I might believe they were doing it to reduce the deficit, but they're only done one of the three and it's the one that impacts the people with the least the most.

 

[woof woof]

But it's not, when at the same time they're giving the wealthiest people and companies tax breaks, that shows it's simply about reducing spend on the services the poorest rely on.

If they were raising taxes, closing avoidance loopholes *and* reducing the state, then I might believe they were doing it to reduce the deficit, but they're only done one of the three and it's the one that impacts the people with the least the most.

If the rich / companies get a tax break and use it to employ ex civil servants it's a win win If they use it to buy a Ferrari it's less good

 

[dejongj]

But it's not, when at the same time they're giving the wealthiest people and companies tax breaks, that shows it's simply about reducing spend on the services the poorest rely on.

If they were raising taxes, closing avoidance loopholes *and* reducing the state, then I might believe they were doing it to reduce the deficit, but they're only done one of the three and it's the one that impacts the people with the least the most.

Why is raising taxes good and necessary? I'd rather have a little of a lot opposed to a lot of next to nothing.

And what is wrong with avoidance? Don't you want to contribute to a pension? Don't you want to save?

Besides the tax burden on those that already contributed the most has gone up as I demonstrated earlier in the thread.

I would want us to be competitive and attract international business. Not turn it away. In order to do that and be compliant with international tax treaties we need to compete.

I tell you one thing. Guess what will go first when my taxation goes up to an unacceptable level. No it is not the Ferrari nor the powerboat, it will be the gardener, followed by the cleaner, and the guys washing my cars, the handy man doing the jobs around the house. Oh and also those extra members of staff that we could do with but don't dare to give then a job because labour will make it impossible to get rid or be flexible with their working patterns.

In order to create wealth for all, people should be able to strive for the best and not to fill the pockets of socialist who just want to redistribute. Go out and be in charge of your own destiny.

 

[Phil V]

It really worries me that the party leaders are all chinless wonders or grinning idiots (or both)
I'd not buy a used car off any of them, let alone trust them to run the country!

As I have mentioned before, the only person to enter Westminster with honest intentions was the Guy Fawkes fella, some years ago, and even he was stitched up by his so called mates

Did you see The West Wing?
It's a sad reflection of society, we don't like smart people, they intimidate us. Of course 'smart people' should be running the world, and they probably are*, but nobody will ever elect them, not nowadays.
That is why our politicians can get away with sound-bite politics, why simple ideas like 'anti europe', 'anti immigration' and 'anti fascist' get people hooked, why debate programs are allowed to be so 'thin' and not contain any real debate. Because people are happy to listen to simple answers and don't want to be challenged to think. We don't need to understand the real ills our behaviour is causing, or to understand the actual cause of societies problems if that means reading a 4000 word essay that barely scratches the surface. If we can point to a 'cause' in a single sentence that allows us confirmation of our prejudices, that's good enough for us.

*despite what the 'anti EU' brigade will tell you, we haven't sacrificed power to Brussels over the last 30 years - we've sacrificed it to the heads of the worlds largest corporations and financial institutions.

 

[BBR]

But it's more over simplified nonsense designed to appeal to the unquestioning masses.

Do bankers, engineers, architects or lawyers in large organisations buy toilet roll? Or monitor building maintenance contracts?
Of course they don't, so it makes no sense for surgeons or policemen or social workers to do it. But it's easy to point at the public sector and blame the costs on people who aren't 'front line' staff, as if they're different from other large organisations.
This govt promised to cut the number of bureaucrats in the NHS by not trying to do any reorganising of same. Of course that was simply a lie to get them elected, they've overseen more restructuring of the NHS than any previous govt. how can that be made to work without more money diverted into bureaucracy?

There were 1.187m people employed in NHS in Sept 2014 of which 623k were clinically qualified. That is only 52%. The largest organisation I have worked in had 6500 FTE in the UK of which less than 5% were 'head office' or 'support' staff. I know you cannot directly compare the NHS with any other business organisation but I would bet, based on those numbers, there is a huge amount of cutting that can be done without affecting the front line.