A public sector employee's point of view...

[don4l]

crankedup said:

Problem with UKIP is they are a one policy Party,

Nonsense. Read their manifesto.

The only "one policy" party in the UK at the moment is the LibDems. They should change their name to "The Windymill Party" because they seem to have abandoned any other principles that they once had.

Don
--

[paddyhasneeds]

Tory led scum, oh, hold on..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16021345

[Prof Beard]

johnfm said:

johnfm said:

Bloody Socialists.

And they all drink herbal tea as well!

Herbal tea!

Since none of you lots asked, socialists drink herbal tea...


..because proper tea is theft.

I'd just like to make it clear that I NEVER drink herbal tea - it's filthy muck and only fit for "greens"

[turbobloke]

Prof Beard said:

johnfm said:

johnfm said:

Bloody Socialists.

And they all drink herbal tea as well!

Herbal tea!

Since none of you lots asked, socialists drink herbal tea...


..because proper tea is theft.

I'd just like to make it clear that I NEVER drink herbal tea - it's filthy muck and only fit for "greens"

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

As posted by another PHer previously, UKIP are by no means a one policy Party.

http://www.ukip.org/media/policies/UKIPmanifesto13...

Nothing more then a wish list, a little like Lib-Dems used to be, promise the earth but no real world awareness. UKIP have some years to grow to become genuinely credible.

[crankedup]

don4l said:

Nonsense. Read their manifesto.

The only "one policy" party in the UK at the moment is the LibDems. They should change their name to "The Windymill Party" because they seem to have abandoned any other principles that they once had.

Don
--

Lib-Dems are part of our Government, once in Government Coalition we have had to compromise our Manifesto in the interests of the Country.
Any Party can draw up a wish list and call it a Manifesto in the 100% certain knowledge they will not be elected. Its what UKIP are doing.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

don4l said:

Nonsense. Read their manifesto.

The only "one policy" party in the UK at the moment is the LibDems. They should change their name to "The Windymill Party" because they seem to have abandoned any other principles that they once had.

Don
--

Lib-Dems are part of our Government, once in Government Coalition we have had to compromise our Manifesto in the interests of the Country.
Any Party can draw up a wish list and call it a Manifesto in the 100% certain knowledge they will not be elected. Its what UKIP are doing.

The libdims were certain that they wouldn't be in power, yet here we are with Clegg as DPM, admittedly out of his depth but he's there. UKIP could quite easily overtake the libdims at the next election - they're neck and neck in the polls now iirc - and take the place of the Cleggoids if needs be.

Incidentally for any poll at this stage in the life of a Conservative led Coalition, tackling the economic challenges of Labour's monumental incompetence, to show a clear Conservative lead in an opinion poll is not only surprsing but very encouraging.

"The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph gives the Tories a two-point lead over Labour in the wake of last week's autumn statement - warning of more years of austerity - and Wednesday's public sector strikes. The Conservatives are on 38 per cent, up two points from last month, with Labour down two on 36 per cent, a blow for Ed Miliband. The Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 14 per cent."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8933481/P...

[CommanderJameson]

The difference between UKIP and the Liberal Democrats is that neither the Conservatives nor Labour would want or be able to form a coalition with UKIP.

Quite honestly, they've got as much chance of being in government as I have.

Thank goodness.

[bigdog3]

CommanderJameson said:

The difference between UKIP and the Liberal Democrats is that neither the Conservatives nor Labour would want or be able to form a coalition with UKIP.

Tories less comfortable in bed with UKIP than Lib Dems? Really?

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

The libdims were certain that they wouldn't be in power, yet here we are with Clegg as DPM, admittedly out of his depth but he's there. UKIP could quite easily overtake the libdims at the next election - they're neck and neck in the polls now iirc - and take the place of the Cleggoids if needs be.

Incidentally for any poll at this stage in the life of a Conservative led Coalition, tackling the economic challenges of Labour's monumental incompetence, to show a clear Conservative lead in an opinion poll is not only surprsing but very encouraging.

"The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph gives the Tories a two-point lead over Labour in the wake of last week's autumn statement - warning of more years of austerity - and Wednesday's public sector strikes. The Conservatives are on 38 per cent, up two points from last month, with Labour down two on 36 per cent, a blow for Ed Miliband. The Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 14 per cent."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8933481/P...

One poll from a Tory loving newspaper hardly makes an emphatic point. The Labour Party are in disarray with no clear policies, hardly opposition. How desperate some must be to see some credibility in a very minor party which in reality would be a frightening prospect if they were ever elected. I would imagine that 70% (guess) have lost confidence in any political party at the moment. UKIP, Lord help us!

[don4l]

I'm surprised that the LibDems are as high as 14%. Given that they have reneged on nearly all of their manifesto promises I would have expected their support to be around 5%.

Don
--

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

The libdims were certain that they wouldn't be in power, yet here we are with Clegg as DPM, admittedly out of his depth but he's there. UKIP could quite easily overtake the libdims at the next election - they're neck and neck in the polls now iirc - and take the place of the Cleggoids if needs be.

Incidentally for any poll at this stage in the life of a Conservative led Coalition, tackling the economic challenges of Labour's monumental incompetence, to show a clear Conservative lead in an opinion poll is not only surprsing but very encouraging.

"The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph gives the Tories a two-point lead over Labour in the wake of last week's autumn statement - warning of more years of austerity - and Wednesday's public sector strikes. The Conservatives are on 38 per cent, up two points from last month, with Labour down two on 36 per cent, a blow for Ed Miliband. The Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 14 per cent."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8933481/P...

One poll from a Tory loving newspaper...

Not so. As it happens, the poll is from ICM, it says so in the snip I posted but you must have missed it in your haste to try (and fail) to smear a result you seemingly don't like.

It was published in various outlets. Shooting the messenger - desperate.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

Not so. As it happens, the poll is from ICM, it says so in the snip I posted but you must have missed it in your haste to try (and fail) to smear a result you seemingly don't like.

It was published in various outlets. Shooting the messenger - desperate.

Oh WoW its a ICM poll, its really of very minor interest at this stage of the game, still if it makes you feel good, TBH, you can take the bonus point

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

Not so. As it happens, the poll is from ICM, it says so in the snip I posted but you must have missed it in your haste to try (and fail) to smear a result you seemingly don't like.

It was published in various outlets. Shooting the messenger - desperate.

Oh WoW its a ICM poll, its really of very minor interest at this stage of the game, still if it makes you feel good, TBH, you can take the bonus point

Just pointing out the inherent and fundamental weakness of your argument, which I knew you would appreciate

And if it meant nothing to you, why go to the bother of trying (and failing) to smear the result?

[cardigankid]

Randy Winkman said:

cardigankid said:

4. The original concept of the civil servant was that this was someone who worked for less than the private sector equivalent. There was an element of public service in this. In return, his job was to be secure, and he would have a guaranteed pension. In some cases they would get a gong for their efforts. So far so good. But then came socialism, which stated that EVERYONE should be in the public sector and the private sector was bad. Then came comparability, to equate private sector and public sector pay. Of course, it only compared with the best examples. In fact, in my business, you will get at least twice what a private employer will pay if you go to work for the local council. And this is not recent - this has been the case for 20 years.

Edited by cardigankid on Friday 2nd December 18:17

Your post is written with a veneer of confidence which suggests you know what you are talking about. So can you find me something to show that Civil Servants are paid more than they were 10/20/30/40 years ago? I found this:

"Over the longer term, civil service pay seems to track changes in the wider economy reasonably well. The most junior officials are currently paid around 50% to 60% of average UK salary, compared with around 40% to 70% in 1986. The equivalent figures for Executive Officers and their equivalents are 80-90% compared with 60-110% in 1986. And Permanent Secretaries, like their private sector Board-level counterparts, have significantly improved their position, from around 6 times average salary in 1986 to 8.5-12 times average salary in 2007. (I am grateful to Neil Macaskill for providing these figures.)"

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/pay.shtml

So you can produce 'statistics' to suggest that public sector pay is moderate. I have three problems with that. One. I don't trust your statistics because I suspect that the information on which they are based has been taken very selectively. If to take one issue, you peg senior civil servants pay to FTSE100 Directors pay, you are going to get a skewed result because we are going through a serious crisis of executives pillaging companies at the expense of shareholders. Two. It is my perception that whatever they are paid, not all civil servants are actually doing a productive or necessary job. Three. It entirely ignores the controversial pension issue.

However, I welcome the opportunity to have the debate.

[cardigankid]

Sticks. said:

cardigankid said:

.....1. We have come through a period of Labour Government when the civil service has been massively expanded not because it needed to be but for political reasons. It was characteristic of Gordon Brown to wish to create an electorate who would be natural Labour voters and thus guarantee his return to power.

Have you a sound basis for this? I'd thought it was because a socialist govt believed in greater social intervention, and so logically more public sector people would be needed for the design and implementation of such a policy.

I have a sound basis for it in the sense that I have lived through it. I read the other day that 1m new public sector jobs have been created between 1997 and 2010. However, do you seriously doubt it?

As to whether New Labour were socialists, well, for sure there were plenty of greedy opportunists among them notably Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson. I would never question the sincerity of Gordon Brown's socialist ideals however. I just think he is not that intelligent, simply an effective bully. What he very nearly succeeded in doing was nationalising the entire country by increasing the size of the state and making most private businesses dependent on state patronage. I believe that he intended when the inevitable productivity crunch came to force us to reduce our living standards on the pretext of carbon reduction and a '1984' style 'war' on global warming. He did nort see the danger in borrowing, he was led on by Goldman sachs, and he did not anticipate the credit crunch.

Socialism, is however, as you have rightly identified, at the core of the problems we are experiencing. Under a socialist system, the civil service are not the servants of the people, but the commissars who tell the people what to do for their own good.

[cardigankid]

Any sensible person is going to take Clarkson's comments, like all his comments, with a pinch of salt. He is an interesting case because he is paid a fortune by an institutionally left wing public sector organisation, but they can't afford to fire him because of the amount of money Top Gear makes for the BBC.

More generally, I think that it is worthwhile having this debate, because I am sure that there are plenty of intelligent people on the public sector side of the argument with good points to make, and I believe that we should be working out some kind of consensus, because most of us are decent people, not stinking rich, trying to make a living.

The outcome of this issue is however a foregone conclusion. The country does not have the money to meet the pension commitments it has made, private or public. Tax has been ramped up as high as it can be. The IMF has far too much to do just now to rescue the UK. If the public sector accept the fairly modest reduction in their terms and conditions, there is a good chance they will receive the money they are now being offered. If they do not, then they will still receive the money they were originally offered, it just won't be worth as much. All of us will be reduced to beggars and we will have discovered what happens after prosperity.

[Zod]

crankedup said:

One poll from a Tory loving newspaper hardly makes an emphatic point.

It's a independent poll. Polling companies' entire business depends on their being seen to be independent.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

Just pointing out the inherent and fundamental weakness of your argument, which I knew you would appreciate

And if it meant nothing to you, why go to the bother of trying (and failing) to smear the result?

Oh OK, take both bonus points, its a fair cop.

[crankedup]

Zod said:

It's a independent poll. Polling companies' entire business depends on their being seen to be independent.

Stating the bloody obvious now. As I point out its one poll and at this stage of the game is not of particular importance, other then to stroke the ego's of those that enjoy this type of thing.