The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...

[fido]

Devil2575 said:

One of the reasons we have a deficit is that government income has dropped due to the failure of UK campanies due either directly or indirectly to the banking crisis/recession. If the only banks that had failed had been in the US and other countries banks had not bought into these bad debts/created their own bad debts then the situation would have been a lot better.

Wrong. We have a deficit because the government spending went through the roof from 2000 to 2007 - much of it based on huge revenue growth during the credit bubble. Problem is Brown actually believed he had aboloished boom and bust, whereas more prudent nations saved their 'excess' earnings into sovereign wealth funds, or at worst important infrastructure to increase the efficiency of their economies (unlike our useless Quangos and Development Agencies). As an analogy, my own earnings doubled between 2002 and 2007, but i didn't go spending it like it would last forever. That would be imprudent, but then i'm not Brown.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.p...

The spending figures (and breakdown) are in the link above.

[Dupont666]

Devil2575 said:

fido said:

Devil2575 said:

How then did this problem spread from country to country?

You're now confusing sovereign debt with corporate debt.

I'm not, I'm talking about the spread of the banking crisis from country to country. If the sub prime problem was in the US how come British banks needed bailing out? The answer is because these bad debts were packed up and sold by US banks to other banks in other countries including the UK. These other banks did not understand the risks there were taking by buying these debts and once the sub prime market in the US started to fail the whole house of cards collapsed.

One of the reasons we have a deficit is that government income has dropped due to the failure of UK campanies due either directly or indirectly to the banking crisis/recession. If the only banks that had failed had been in the US and other countries banks had not bought into these bad debts/created their own bad debts then the situation would have been a lot better.

You dont half talk a crock of st...

The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!

As has been time and time again the UK had a fking huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.

The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...

Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...

[Devil2575]

Dupont666 said:

You dont half talk a crock of st...

No need to resort to insults

The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!

so if the economy hadn't collapsed the deficit would have been the same as it is now?

As has been time and time again the UK had a fking huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.


The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...

Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...

And who is the instagator of all this?

[Devil2575]

fido said:

The spending figures (and breakdown) are in the link above.

Interesting link. It shows that public spending has risen buit as a proportion of GDP it isn't as bad as it has been.

On the basis of this chart, the national debt doesn't look too bad

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt...

Is there any data of the deficit over a similar time period? I couldn't find in on the website.

[F i F]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought this issue of public vs private sector salaries was cleared up in one of the old pension threads?

I've had a quick look and can't find it now, damn search engine but the essence was...

You can't compare average pay rates in private / public sectors because of different employee profiles.
Lots more skilled and educated people in public sector than in private sector skews the averages.
If you compare the pay rates for people with equal educational qualifications the two sectors are much closer.
Say someone with graduate level education, then the pay rate in public sector is a few % (ie 3-5% rings a bell) below that of a similarly qualified person in private sector, but when you factor in other issues, eg pension, accrual rate, retirement age the public sector is significantly better off. Cars etc are another issue, can't recall how taht was dealt with but many graduate level people in private sector do not get cars.

If you compare pay rates for unskilled and semi skilled then iirc public sector are about 12-16% better off.

As I say this is from memory. Will have another look for data and thread where it was all quoted.

I recall it because it might have been the thread where I first tried out formatting a table of figures. After figuring it out eventually could have been excused using the Vinnie Jones line "It's been emotional."

[Dupont666]

Devil2575 said:

Dupont666 said:

You dont half talk a crock of st...

No need to resort to insults

The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!

so if the economy hadn't collapsed the deficit would have been the same as it is now?

As has been time and time again the UK had a fking huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.


The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...

Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...

And who is the instagator of all this?

If labour hadnt spent all the money on the gravy train then it wouldnt have mattered about the banking crisis as there would have been money in the bank for just such a rainy day...

Also as you say that the spending was proportional, that means they looked to see how much money was made and thought...

GB:'bloody hell another 100 billion has come in'
GB:'damn we better spend that...'
GB:'what shall we spend it on...'
Cronie:'Not a clue we have everything'
GB'No we dont lets create some more job'
Cronie:'What jobs'
GB:'Dont know but lets use it as we have it'
Cronie:'You know what I have always fancied a fact finding mission to Moon, but it maybe expensive'
GB:'I like it, better put down for a 100 spaces on that one then!!'

Its like letting a chav loose on a credit card with no way of ever paying it back and letting someone else pick up the pieces... They will get back in eventually and be allowed the credit card again, will they have learnt by then? I doubt it and then it will happen again...

[Olivera]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The total employer and employee contributions for those on government final salary pensions does not even begin to cover the total cost. I've read various articles which have stated a government final salary pension is in effect worth another 33% on top of the base salary.

[Olivera]

FunkyGibbon said:

Olivera said:

FunkyGibbon said:

Having been involved in a number of public sector redundancies (administering them not subject to) the figure of £50K pay out is not an accurate picture of what actually happens in my experience.

The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.

In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.

Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.

But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.

Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.

You have those figures totally and completely wrong. We are talking about the public sector (government) here, not private or statutory redundancy. As I stated in an earlier post, statutory redundancy legislation does not cover public sector workers, they fall under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

Sorry I have not got the figures totally and completely wrong thank you very much for the public sector area I work in (Local Authority based).

You seem to assume that public sector only equates to Government and Civil Servants - this is not the case. I'd suggest that most public sector employees are not covered by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme as most are not Civil Servants or work in government. This is where most of the redundancies will occur the so called front line.

But other than that you are spot on.

I think your local authority must be the exception to the rule then. Most local authorities where I am offer, like civil servants, generous redundancy terms way above the statutory minimum.

[Mr Whippy]

Retarded union leaders. Greed greed greed.

They would sooner everyone lose their jobs and the whole country go down the pan like Greece, than take a small cut.

Idiots.

They will reap what they sow in the long run, so let them fight the inevitable and make themselves look idiots and lose respect in the process.


Reminds me a little of those tort litigations where they push for payouts so much that those getting the payouts lose their jobs in the end.
This will only end that way in the long run. There is no money there. It's either a pay cut or no job. Thickies!

Dave

[don4l]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

the economic collapse, which was caused by the banking sector

Gerald Warner: Capitalism didn't kill the banks – socialism did

<snip>

The same thing happened here in the UK, although it was achieved in a much more covert manner.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(John Prescott) issued targets for housing densities in various parts of the country. Here in Surrey the target density was set at 27 residences per acre. This had a few effects that pleased the left wing of the Labour party.

The first was that "upmarket" developments were forced to include some high density housing (flats or terraced homes). Lefties saw this as cocking a snoop at the middle classes by lowering the tone of what would otherwise have been desireable areas.

This also led to over supply of low cost homes. The only way that the developers could sell the homes was to make mortgages available for people who couldn't afford them. So the developers negotiated special deals with some of the lenders (who in turn "securitised" the debts).

So, in fact, Labour created our very own "sub-prime" crisis which caused the downfall of B&B, Northern Rock and HBOS.

Those people who keep blaming the banks fail to understand that the government deliberately created the conditions for the financial meltdown.

It was an act of social engineering implemented by a bunch of idiots (and a ship's steward).


Don
--

[anonymous-user]

Devil2575 said:

One of the reasons we have a deficit is that government income has dropped due to the failure of UK campanies due either directly or indirectly to the banking crisis/recession.

appology accepted from earlier, likewise appologies for being a grumpy fvck.

worth a quick read concerning the creation of subprime.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341...

us government created the subprime mkt, wall street packaged it up and sold it off to dumb, lazy 'investors' around the world, like ABN, gaming the even dumber rating agencies along the way. no doubt the collapse of uk firms like RBS caused the UK recession, which in turn made the deficit worse BUT the debt was already 500bn in 2007 and we were ALREADY running a huge annual budget deficit since 2002. brown was running a ponzi scheme with our finances, only possible by continued increases in gdp and laughably inflated gdp forecasts. as soon as we went into recession it all unravelled, predictably.

(ps the big short by michael lewis is a really good read and pretty balanced if you're interested)

Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 19th May 13:32

[OneDs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[OneDs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[OneDs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But it clearly isn't, if your paid 13%-16% less then that isn't the same, if your prepared to offset that and more against a favourable retirement plan or job security then the Public sector is for you. In like for like skilled jobs in big companies you'd do a lot better off in the private sector.

[robsti]

The public sector is just like british Airways,badly run over staffed and the employees thought the gravytrain would never stop!

[OneDs]

robsti said:

The public sector is just like british Airways,badly run over staffed and the employees thought the gravytrain would never stop!

There are slight but specific differences,

BA is now well managed, CS has always been badly governed, both are over staffed, The employees both know the gravy train has stopped and are trying to protect what they can.

Oh and the Unions fk up everything in between.

Edited by OneDs on Wednesday 19th May 13:44

[Devil2575]

don4l said:

This also led to over supply of low cost homes. The only way that the developers could sell the homes was to make mortgages available for people who couldn't afford them. So the developers negotiated special deals with some of the lenders (who in turn "securitised" the debts).

So you are saying there was at some point the the recent past an oversupply of houses in London?

Also are you saying the the only people with bad mortgages are those that were negotiated by developers?

I've never heard of developers negotiating mortgage deals on behalf of buyers before but I stand to be corrected.

[Devil2575]

fbrs said:

(ps the big short by michael lewis is a really good read and pretty balanced if you're interested)

I'll have a look.

[F i F]

OneDs said:

What is clear however is they are paid on average terms 13% - 16% less in the Public sector.

So how do you explain the figures in Nigel Stanley's blog then?

TUC blog private vs public sector pay

More about public vs private sector pay

These tell a different story than the blanket 13-16% less in public sector. It's more complicated than your single example with respect.


edited to sort link out

Edited by F i F on Wednesday 19th May 14:02

[fido]

Devil2575 said:

Interesting link. It shows that public spending has risen buit as a proportion of GDP it isn't as bad as it has been.

On the basis of this chart, the national debt doesn't look too bad

Public spending doubled from c.£300bn to £600bn over 7 years, but it's not too bad?

So if you're income doubled from 30k to 60k (for example one of those useless quango jobs in the Guardian) doing the same job would you feel okay about doubling your already large £100k mortgage to £200k - and given that you're a prudent person who is aware of dips and troughs in economic cycles?

Actaully, don't answer that.