New teachers strike wtf

[bobbylondonuk]

fandango_c said:

No, I meant government debt.

you are correct...that too must be included... I said international borrowing to show uk govt borrowing as a whole which can be held by domestic or international holders.

[ukwill]

Laurel Green said:

Talking about this on Question Time right now.

Just thought I'd mention that I'd really like to punch Diane Abbott in the .

[ukwill]

The Graun did some fact checking re: pensions yesterday.

I almost fell over when I actually read some real facts...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-w...

The most startling thing I took from the article (most startling, as it was a Graun article) was this, as part of the articles conclusion, in bold:

Costs as a proportion of GDP appear sustainable but already assume that public sector workers will work longer and pay more into them - the thing the unions are opposing. The unions should acknowledge Hutton's clarification on this.

Typically, it's the bit the Unions don't want people to know about. But Brendon Barber thinks the public will be on the Unions side. A sign of just how utterly deluded Union mouthpieces are. Interestingly the TUC employees own pensions are being reformed, as at 25%, they're proving too costly... laugh or cry?

[Babu 01]

bobbylondonuk said:

I am the tax generator and you are the govt cost. I cannot generate enough to spend on you as you want. How do you propose to resolve it?

Lest we forget that public sector employees pay tax and NI at the same rates as everybody else.

Also, to describe teachers, Police, Firemen, Doctors & Nurses etc as "govt cost" is a little trite IMO.

As Deeva Link has pointed out this whole question is of priority, not of affordability.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Babu 01 said:

Lest we forget that public sector employees pay tax and NI at the same rates as everybody else.

Yeah, but they pay it out of tax I've already paid!

[turbobloke]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Babu 01 said:

Lest we forget that public sector employees pay tax and NI at the same rates as everybody else.

Yeah, but they pay it out of tax I've already paid!

At least it's half decent to hand some private sector tax back to the government, the public sector has always been keen on recycling

[Countdown]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Babu 01 said:

Lest we forget that public sector employees pay tax and NI at the same rates as everybody else.

Yeah, but they pay it out of tax I've already paid!

Imagine if you had to purchase all the services currently provided by the Public Sector from private sources instead. It wouldn't be seen as "your" tax being recycled to pay their tax.

The public sector provides services that the private sector can't provide (or can't be trusted to provide). Its not a charity.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

The public sector provides services that the private sector can't provide (or can't be trusted to provide).

Those are two rather large assumptions, not facts. The ability of the private sector to deliver such services is mostly hampered by a certain political ideology frothing itself into a spasm over profit. That'll be the same profit thingy that pays the taxes that pays the public sector to deliver services, inefficiently.

[Johnnytheboy]

Y282 said:

We arent all going to strike and we dont all earn forty thousand. Quite a lot uf us put in a far greater number of unpaid hours than anyone outside the profession realises and will continue to do so just so we can keep the jobs we've got.

We're not all whiney selfish c**ts, please don't tar us with the same brush just because a right of centre stance is the new fking black.

Do your profession a favour and make your voice heard by voting in all union ballots.

The impression I - perhaps mistakenly - get is that the union ballots get quite a low turnout and those that do vote are more likely to be voting for industrial action.

If the silent majority of non-c**t workers in each union voted against action, this might all sort itself out nicely.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Those are two rather large assumptions, not facts. The ability of the private sector to deliver such services is mostly hampered by a certain political ideology frothing itself into a spasm over profit. That'll be the same profit thingy that pays the taxes that pays the public sector to deliver services, inefficiently.

Personally I have no issues over profit. However I don't think you can have guaranteed essential universal services delivered both better than the current system and at a profit. The private system works well when you can pick and choose your customers, less well when you have to provide the same service for everybody at the same price. And the Public Sector has to provide the service within a fixed budget, it cannot raise or lower its prices to suit.

Don't get me wrong, there are LOTS of flaws in the Public Sector model but to suggest (as some PHers do) that the private sector would be able to do the same job much better is wrong.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Those are two rather large assumptions, not facts. The ability of the private sector to deliver such services is mostly hampered by a certain political ideology frothing itself into a spasm over profit. That'll be the same profit thingy that pays the taxes that pays the public sector to deliver services, inefficiently.

Personally I have no issues over profit. However I don't think you can have guaranteed essential universal services delivered both better than the current system and at a profit. The private system works well when you can pick and choose your customers, less well when you have to provide the same service for everybody at the same price. And the Public Sector has to provide the service within a fixed budget, it cannot raise or lower its prices to suit.

Don't get me wrong, there are LOTS of flaws in the Public Sector model but to suggest (as some PHers do) that the private sector would be able to do the same job much better is wrong.

Again there are several assumptions and glitches in there...currently the 'same service' is not provided to everybody at the same price, Council Tax payments supposedly paying for bin collections ho ho (etc) are tiered on a redistribution of wealth basis. Other services are totally 'free'.

The bottom line - and I'm not referring to profit here - is what people understand to mean 'better'. Employing as many people as poosible to do what fewer numbers can do quite easily seems to be 'better' to those of a certain political persuasion. As does uniform mediocrity, when compared to a somewhat more variable but generally far superior position.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

The bottom line - and Im not referring to profit here - is what people understand to mean 'better'. Employing as many people as poosible to do what fewer numbers can do quite easily seems to be 'better' to those of a certain political persuasion. As does uniform mediocrity, when compared to a somewhat more variable but generally far superior position.

Not all Councils have the same "political persuasion". Indeed many councils will have been Conservative/Labour for many many years. Logically they would provide the same level of services much more efficiently?

Wrt to your point about a "variable but generally far superior position" please can you give me an example of where a Public Sector service in the UK is provided privately elsewhere at a generally far better level, regardless of ability to pay.

[Johnnytheboy]

Countdown said:

And the Public Sector has to provide the service within a fixed budget, it cannot raise or lower its prices to suit.

My council tax has gone up a lot more than my company's maintenance contract prices have in the last decade.

We've solved the problem of our overheads increasing by being ruthless on costs.

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

My council tax has gone up a lot more than my company's maintenance contract prices have in the last decade.

We've solved the problem of our overheads increasing by being ruthless on costs.

So either your company has reduced service quality or previously it was inefficent and overcharging its customers?

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

So either your company has reduced service quality or previously it was inefficent and overcharging its customers?

Or the private compay doesn't have excessive pension costs adding to the 'price'.....

[Deva Link]

Johnnytheboy said:

We've solved the problem of our overheads increasing by being ruthless on costs.

If you do that with lower paid staff (which is where the majority of public servants are) wages it ends up that your (private) business is being subsidised by other tax-payers anyway.

[Deva Link]

sidicks said:

Or the private compay doesn't have excessive pension costs adding to the 'price'.....

See above. Who do think covers the cost of these pensioners when they retire, need care homes etc?

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The bottom line - and Im not referring to profit here - is what people understand to mean 'better'. Employing as many people as poosible to do what fewer numbers can do quite easily seems to be 'better' to those of a certain political persuasion. As does uniform mediocrity, when compared to a somewhat more variable but generally far superior position.

Not all Councils have the same "political persuasion". Indeed many councils will have been Conservative/Labour for many many years. Logically they would provide the same level of services much more efficiently?

Councillors don't operate services. It always seemed that their role was to be elected and then ignored by LA staff who will do what they always did anyway and LA staff are not aka Young Conservatives At Work.

Countdown said:

Wrt to your point about a "variable but generally far superior position" please can you give me an example of where a Public Sector service in the UK is provided privately elsewhere at a generally far better level, regardless of ability to pay.

Seeking examples is pointless when discussing a new or innovative position, and it's generally pointless anyway, read some Deming to get the gist of this as overly long posts don't help.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 16th September 13:01

[turbobloke]

Deva Link said:

sidicks said:

Or the private compay doesn't have excessive pension costs adding to the 'price'.....

See above. Who do think covers the cost of these pensioners when they retire, need care homes etc?

Private sector taxpayers, all down the line. They pay for their own pensions, care costs, and public sector pensions as well.

[Johnnytheboy]

turbobloke said:

Deva Link said:

sidicks said:

Or the private compay doesn't have excessive pension costs adding to the 'price'.....

See above. Who do think covers the cost of these pensioners when they retire, need care homes etc?

Private sector taxpayers, all down the line. They pay for their own pensions, care costs, and public sector pensions as well.

Like he said.