490,000 jobs

[Matt1959]

I remember the election slogan of the tories in 1997, 'Britain is booming, dont let labour ruin it', if only people had listened

to think that the reason the Tories lost then was due to sleaze - stuff like cecils love child and david mellor in a chelsea shirt - those were the days

 

[Esk247]

i hope this isn't going to become a 'We Love You Maggie' thread.

All parties are the same, thats why i didn't vote at the last election. They're mates, chums, buddies. You don't honestly think that Gordon Brown and IDS were enemies did you? PAH! they probably went for a round of golf at lunchtime on Friday.

The amount of dodgy dealings virtually EVERY MP is in to is truly shocking. They profit from ruining the country by the way..I cant see any other reason for the ludicrous decisions they make.

 

[Dawg]

i hope this isn't going to become a 'We Love You Maggie' thread.

All parties are the same, thats why i didn't vote at the last election. They're mates, chums, buddies. You don't honestly think that Gordon Brown and IDS were enemies did you? PAH! they probably went for a round of golf at lunchtime on Friday.

The amount of dodgy dealings virtually EVERY MP is in to is truly shocking. They profit from ruining the country by the way..I cant see any other reason for the ludicrous decisions they make.

Why do you think it's turning into a 'We Love You Maggie' thread?

And if it did, what is your problem? Still frit of a very old lady?

 

[Esk247]

Why do you think it's turning into a 'We Love You Maggie' thread?

And if it did, what is your problem? Still frit of a very old lady?

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers
I remember the election slogan of the tories in 1997, 'Britain is booming, dont let labour ruin it', if only people had listened



still frit? or do you mean fit? if you get aroused by Maggie I'd hate to see your internet history

 

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers
I remember the election slogan of the tories in 1997, 'Britain is booming, dont let labour ruin it', if only people had listened



still frit? or do you mean fit? if you get aroused by Maggie I'd hate to see your internet history

"The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? Right now inflation is lower than it has been for thirteen years, a record the right hon. Gentleman couldn't begin to touch!"
-Margaret Thatcher.
Prime Minister's Question Time, House of Commons (19 April, 1983). The use of 'frit', an unusual Lincolnshire dialect abbreviation of 'frightened' which Mrs Thatcher evidently recalled from childhood, was missed by MPs in a noisy chamber but heard very distinctly on the audio feed from the chamber.

Anyway, why not answer the question? Why do you think it is turning into a 'We Love You Maggie' thread?And why have you got a problem with that?

And you can call me a W-anchor if you want: your choice. Better than being a whinger.

 

[Esk247]

If it turns in to a we love Maggie thread it's off topic

Plus Maggie is being fondly remembered for one small period in her political history, the Falklands, which was a shockingly close run affair due to decades of military cuts...in fact...there have been military cuts on many occassions shortly before the outbreak of war. The period running up to the second world war saw the British Navy shrink and the Conservatives (before the Falklands) had already signed off HMS Intrepid and Fearless (amphibious assault..perfect for Island invasions/protection :|) for scrap..luckily they were reprieved from the scrapyard and put to good use in the South Atlantic.

Now do you see why I think this will go off topic?

 

"The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? Right now inflation is lower than it has been for thirteen years, a record the right hon. Gentleman couldn't begin to touch!"
-Margaret Thatcher.
Prime Minister's Question Time, House of Commons (19 April, 1983). The use of 'frit', an unusual Lincolnshire dialect abbreviation of 'frightened' which Mrs Thatcher evidently recalled from childhood, was missed by MPs in a noisy chamber but heard very distinctly on the audio feed from the chamber.

Anyway, why not answer the question? Why do you think it is turning into a 'We Love You Maggie' thread?And why have you got a problem with that?

And you can call me a W-anchor if you want: your choice. Better than being a whinger.

Frit you is making it up.

I suspect the old bat misread the actual definition "A vitreous substance" and thought it said "a virtuous susbstance "

Public enemy No1 is our Maggie along with every fruit cake of a prime minister we have ever had.

Why do we insist on voting for the insane to rule us.?

I can see the attraction for you Dawg.Bit partial to the old cigar smoke meself.

Earl

 

[Dawg]

Plus Maggie is being fondly remembered for one small period in her political history, the Falklands,

What rot. Are you actually saying that she is not remembered for taking on the unions, especially the miners?
And it's not OT: she got rid of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers (aka workers in nationalized industry), just as a cull of public sector workers is what is happening today, and what this thread is about.

@earl: that picture is of Kinnock in a wig. Now, not a lot of people know about the Welsh Windbag and cross dressing, but.....if it works better for you than the little blue pills, go there big boy!

 

[Esk247]

What rot. Are you actually saying that she is not remembered for taking on the unions, especially the miners?
And it's not OT: she got rid of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers (aka workers in nationalized industry), just as a cull of public sector workers is what is happening today, and what this thread is about.

@earl: that picture is of Kinnock in a wig. Now, not a lot of people know about the Welsh Windbag and cross dressing, but.....if it works better for you than the little blue pills, go there big boy!

I'm trying to work out which side of the fence you're sitting on. Pro Maggie or Anti Maggie.

It depends on how you view these job cuts. Some (like Old Holborn) are saying this is what we've needed, cut deep, cut fast and rid us of the burden of paying all of these salaries.

But, there is always Cause and Consequence as everybody already knows, i just don't think the Consequences of these cuts has been thought through. The job cuts affect EVERYONE! the people losing the jobs, the shops they buy from, the taxes they pay.

I'm not saying keep the jobs, i'm saying lets look at what services really are not needed, the quangos, the euro budgets, the overseas aid budgets, the carrier project could have been modified, they don't have to build the aircraft carriers now, they can slow production if they wish, whats the point of building them and then having them used as helicopter carriers! they're ruined! what a waste of money that project was.

 

she got rid of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers (aka workers in nationalized industry), just as a cull of public sector workers is what is happening today, and what this thread is about.

Got to agree with you there boyo.

Masterstroke getting rid of the people who actually produced something ( coal,ships,steel ) e.t.c and replacing them with bright young things that could spend all there days thinking up new forms for us all to fill in.

Bleeding brilliant .IMHO.

Insane ,stupid ,greed,corrupt I just can't find the words to describe Mystic mags reasoning.

well not on this planet.

Earl

 

[Esk247]

It's the gravy train. Do ANYTHING to get elected and once you're on the panel there aint nothing anyone can do to throw you off. You can fiddle your taxes, you can make people redundant, you can drink gallons of wine (subsidised by taxpayers)...it's partayyy time when you're an MP

 

[Lewy_T]

How many of these job loses do you think will be picked up by private companies subcontracting to the public sector?

Oops meant 490,000 jobs but can't edit thetitl!

I agree that across the whole country and on the timescale suggested these job losses should be covered by the private sector all things being equal etc...but the likelihood of all things remaining equal seems to be somewhat in doubt.

I must say though that it has hard to imagine many of these public sector bods that one comes across (when dealing with local planning departments as an example) fitting in easily and thriving in the private sector. What are some of the more heavy-handed career 'public servants' actually going to do in the private sector ? Who wants them ?

The question raised by Christine Hough is a difficult one and I think that the post made by captaincloser is one of the most important points out of all the guff that I've read.

I might be new around here but I see when 'off subject' is rife within a thread. Maggie Thatcher.... ?

Anyway, to try and answer the question, I believe that the private sector cannot take many of the public sector workers simply because of the 'clocking in and out' culture of the public sector. The private sector over recent years has had to learn to become very resilliant due to the downturn and yet public sector workers are still trying to negotiate their pensions and possibly come out with a redundancy pay out, I've seen this first hand. Maybe some would agree with this but I don't (an argument for another thread)

On top of this, my business deals with Housing Associations and Utilities, all of which used to be completely public and now mostly private - and still mostly useless! It's a completely different world for these guys and that's why we are able to provide our services, not because we're totally amazing but because we have a certain spirit to deliver and sadly that will not come from the public sector.

I hope to be proved wrong but theory will not do that, someone could show me and I'd believe it...

 

[VeraJ]

Yes Matt, I am. What's your point?

are you a home owner?

 

[VeraJ]

You are drawing conclusions without all the facts and since you will never be in a position to see all the relevent information your idea is a non starter.


The coalition government has considered what to do and, unlike the previous government (that was elected on 38% of the popular vote), this one, even now, has over 50% of the electorate supporting it. So let's see what happens.


As for the public sector jobs, in my view they should be cut regardless. Labour added over 800,000 public sector jobs over the last 13 years. I think they were working on the basis that the more people they employ in the public sector, the more Labour supporters they would have to vote in elections. The problem for them was they couldn't employ enough to get a majority so they got booted out. What a shame.

I'm not saying keep the jobs, i'm saying lets look at what services really are not needed, the quangos, the euro budgets, the overseas aid budgets, the carrier project could have been modified, they don't have to build the aircraft carriers now, they can slow production if they wish, whats the point of building them and then having them used as helicopter carriers! they're ruined! what a waste of money that project was.

 

The coalition government has considered what to do and, unlike the previous government (that was elected on 38% of the popular vote), this one, even now, has over 50% of the electorate supporting it. So let's see what happens.

Oh come on twisting the facts here a bit ain't we Nice but dim only got 36% of the vote.


The other crowd were so desperate for a bit of power they would have sold there kids and grandmother.

Earl

 

[VeraJ]

You can twist if you want to, I'm not for twisting.

Current opinion polls still have the coalition with 50% plus support in the polls and that is after all that has gone on since the election. That's fact, no twisting required.

Doing the twist is probably more your thing than mine.

Oh come on twisting the facts here a bit ain't we Nice but dim only got 36% of the vote. The other crowd were so desperate for a bit of power they would have sold there kids and grandmother.

Earl

 

You can twist if you want to, I'm not for twisting.

Current opinion polls still have the coalition with 50% plus support in the polls and that is after all that has gone on since the election. That's fact, no twisting required.

Doing the twist is probably more your thing than mine.

see thats the thing my poll which is far superior to yourn says the commies have it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/icm-poll-data-labour-conservatives

Earl

 

[directmarketingadvice]

see thats the thing my poll which is far superior to yourn says the commies have it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/icm-poll-data-labour-conservatives

Earl

Doesn't that poll say that the coalition parties have 53% support?

Steve

 

Doesn't that poll say that the coalition parties have 53% support?

Steve

You do mean marriage of convenience.

Political whoring is not that uncommon.

Anything for a seat on the board of BP.

Earl

 

[VeraJ]

I think it's time for Earl to move on to another topic - which is what he seems to do when his points lose traction.

Doesn't that poll say that the coalition parties have 53% support?

Steve

 

[VeraJ]

Just admit you got it wrong instead of trying to slide off into side tracks. You would get more respect.

You do mean marriage of convenience.

Political whoring is not that uncommon.

Anything for a seat on the board of BP.

Earl

 

[RedEvo]

You do mean marriage of convenience.

Political whoring is not that uncommon.

Anything for a seat on the board of BP.

Earl

That's a very immature attitude for someone so senior. What should the Liberals have done? Watched the Tories struggle on with a minority government then when it all went Pete Tong go back to the country in November? Meantime let the UK PLC got to hell in a hand cart - which arguably it is anyway?

I'm soaking up all the political debate just now be it Question Time, Any Questons, the Politics Show etc etc. In normal times there's a counter argument to every argument and this is more so the case when the country is all but bankrupt.

If Labour had won, their tough choices would now be under the spotlight and open to criticism, as it happens it's the con-libs. People are bound to be critical of any decision that hurts them, turkeys seldom vote for Christmas. However we find ourselves in unprecedented times, in no small part of our own making, and someone has to make decisions.

I'm not a supporter of the Conservatives but as a business owner I understand a poor decision on Monday is better than no decision until Friday and frankly if we wait till Friday there will be no decision needed.

The nice thing about the coalition is it presents an opportunity for politics in the UK to grow up and work together and I believe that could happen.

d

 

[boggi]

Very few surely.

The private sector is about to get punched in the face by higher VAT and the fact that a proportion of its customers have just lost their jobs.

The government don't seem to understand how an economy works. You need people in employment to pay taxes to pay off national debt. You don't make everyone redundant and then pay them jobseekers allowance.

paying 40+ billion in interest alone each year and taxing the private sector for it surely won't be too helpful either?

 

Just admit you got it wrong instead of trying to slide off into side tracks. You would get more respect.

well the one thing I am not in need of is respect,far more important things in this life.

So presenting facts is not good enough for you.?:|

Earl

 

[directmarketingadvice]

You do mean marriage of convenience.

Vera made the point that the coalition has a majority in the polls. You posted a link to disprove that... but the link proved that Vera was right.

Anyway, leaving that aside, isn't all politics a "marriage of convenience"?

Look at the Labour party: they have people on the centre right and people on the far left.

Q: What are they all doing in the same party?

A: A lot better than they'd be doing if they broke up into smaller groups based on ideology.

And that's the reality of the British voting system.

Steve

 

The nice thing about the coalition is it presents an opportunity for politics in the UK to grow up and work together and I believe that could happen.

d

The fairies at the bottom of my garden are rolling about laughing.

After watching UK politics for over 50 years a certain degree of immaturity is essential in order to understand what the bozo's are on about.

Same old same old.Untill we choose our politicians from a better class of people not a lot has or will change.IMHO

Earl

 

[Dawg]

The fairies at the bottom of my garden are rolling about laughing.

After watching UK politics for over 50 years a certain degree of immaturity is essential in order to understand what the bozo's are on about.

Same old same old.Untill we choose our politicians from a better class of people not a lot has or will change.IMHO

Earl

"A better class of people" ?
Your screen name is Earl, and your political solution is having an elite rule?
What next? Only votes for those, (only men, natch), with a net worth of over £500k?
Jolly good. Sterling chap. Carry on.

 

[VeraJ]

Still on your silly side-tracks.

I bet your Mum used to send you to your room a lot for being a naughty boy.

The fairies at the bottom of my garden are rolling about laughing.

After watching UK politics for over 50 years a certain degree of immaturity is essential in order to understand what the bozo's are on about.

Same old same old.Untill we choose our politicians from a better class of people not a lot has or will change.IMHO

Earl

 

"A better class of people" ?
Your screen name is Earl, and your political solution is having an elite rule?
What next? Only votes for those, (only men, natch), with a net worth of over £500k?
Jolly good. Sterling chap. Carry on.

You see jumping to conclusions about the meaning of the word class.:|

Earl

 

And that's the reality of the British voting system.

Steve

I think you may find this is the reality of the British voting system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Newspaper_endorsements

Earl

 

[Esk247]

They haven't got 50% of the support of the electorate. They've got a majority out of those who voted/those who have filled out a questionnaire. This is not 50% of the population, this is something like 50% of 60% (or whatever the figures are I haven't looked).

So you could say they have 30% of the national support.

The coalition have very little support in areas where there will be major cuts to front line services.

and all this talk of 'tough decisions' is a bit soft, these aren't tough decisions at all, they've wanted to make cuts for ages and now they've got an excuse. This is why the front line jobs are going, police officers, nurses etc (and yes, there will be nursing cuts, they've said there will be an increase in the budget for the NHS but they haven't said what happened to the 4 billion pound savings the NHS made up until the election, that money has conveniently disappeared in to some other department).

should there be cuts? yes
do frontline services need to be affected? no

cut the execs, cut the managers, cut the admin staff. let teachers teach and all that.

i want to see the figures for how many high paid jobs are going e.g. 50k upwards???? if they're getting rid of the execs and the directors i'll shove my argument in the toilet and agree they're doing the right thing.

 

[RedEvo]

They haven't got 50% of the support of the electorate. They've got a majority out of those who voted/those who have filled out a questionnaire. This is not 50% of the population, this is something like 50% of 60% (or whatever the figures are I haven't looked).

IMHO those who didn't vote have no say, they decided that when they didn't vote. If only a small percentage of the non voters had voted we may have had a clear winner.

So you could say they have 30% of the national support.

Yup but so what?

The coalition have very little support in areas where there will be major cuts to front line services.

Where's your proof of that? It wasn't just the 'elite' who voted tory/lib, there are plenty of working class people who don't vote labour and that's supported by the stats from the election.

and all this talk of 'tough decisions' is a bit soft, these aren't tough decisions at all, they've wanted to make cuts for ages and now they've got an excuse.

Really? So there's no need to make cuts? Everything will be just fine if we do nothing? The con-libs are simply being nasty to people?

should there be cuts? yes
do frontline services need to be affected? no

cut the execs, cut the managers, cut the admin staff. let teachers teach and all that.

So a degree in medicine makes someone a good manager? A calling to caring for the sick makes nurses a whizz with finances? Teachers are well suited to running organisations? I have to say I disagree. All this tosh about getting rid of managers is naive in the extreme. I was ill recently and it took 5 GP's to figure out what was wrong with me, they've got their work cut keeping their medical skills up to date never mind studying for an MBA.

i want to see the figures for how many high paid jobs are going e.g. 50k upwards???? if they're getting rid of the execs and the directors i'll shove my argument in the toilet and agree they're doing the right thing.

You could cut all the high paid public sector jobs ans it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. For every person on £100k there will be thousands on £20k and that's where you can make the savings. I'm not supporting the indefensible salaries some public sector jobs command but collectively they won't make the shortfall in the public finances.

d

 

[Esk247]

Where's your proof of that? It wasn't just the 'elite' who voted tory/lib, there are plenty of working class people who don't vote labour and that's supported by the stats from the election.

The stats can be altered to suit whichever way you want to look at it. Surely you already know that! Who's to say that those who voted con/lib werent simply choosing an alternative to Gordo Brown?



Really? So there's no need to make cuts? Everything will be just fine if we do nothing? The con-libs are simply being nasty to people?

where did i say there didn't need to be cuts..oh wait..i've said there does need to be cuts..i said it here look:

Originally Posted by Esk247
should there be cuts? yes
do frontline services need to be affected? no


So a degree in medicine makes someone a good manager? A calling to caring for the sick makes nurses a whizz with finances? Teachers are well suited to running organisations? I have to say I disagree. All this tosh about getting rid of managers is naive in the extreme. I was ill recently and it took 5 GP's to figure out what was wrong with me, they've got their work cut keeping their medical skills up to date never mind studying for an MBA.

You had a bad experience of the NHS, ours locally are incredibly good, highly commended. i'm confused with what you mean by suggesting that the nurse becomes a manager???? no im saying there are too many admin staff but will they be cut? no. there are too many managers, will they be cut to save nurses positions? no.

You're missing my point, GPs are not the aim of my argument, i'm talking about the shop floor staff, the Staff Nurses and such, not Mr GP who swans in at 10am in his jaguar and parks next to the hospital exec who drives a bentley and he in turn is parked next to mr staff nurse in his knackered skoda.


You could cut all the high paid public sector jobs ans it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. For every person on £100k there will be thousands on £20k and that's where you can make the savings. I'm not supporting the indefensible salaries some public sector jobs command but collectively they won't make the shortfall in the public finances.

How does that work? 5 nurses cut at 100k or one exec cut at 100k? who does the hardest amount of work, who is needed more than the other? the execs are on 3/4 day weeks, the nurses are on 6 day weeks.

 

[RedEvo]

The stats can be altered to suit whichever way you want to look at it. Surely you already know that! Who's to say that those who voted con/lib werent simply choosing an alternative to Gordo Brown?

Of course they were, because Labour had let them down.

where did i say there didn't need to be cuts..oh wait..i've said there does need to be cuts..i said it here look:

Originally Posted by Esk247
should there be cuts? yes
do frontline services need to be affected? no

You said the con-libs had a hidden agenda and were using the state of the country to make cuts. The cuts are being made because we are living beyond our means spending more on our country than we can afford.

You had a bad experience of the NHS, ours locally are incredibly good, highly commended. i'm confused with what you mean by suggesting that the nurse becomes a manager???? no im saying there are too many admin staff but will they be cut? no. there are too many managers, will they be cut to save nurses positions? no.

I'm not concerning the NHS, I'm pointing out medical staff need to concentrate on medical matters. Furthermore if your local services are good why would you want to break them by getting rid of the managers that are helping the service work so well for you?

You're missing my point, GPs are not the aim of my argument, i'm talking about the shop floor staff, the Staff Nurses and such, not Mr GP who swans in at 10am in his jaguar and parks next to the hospital exec who drives a bentley and he in turn is parked next to mr staff nurse in his knackered skoda.

I don't even know what this means.

How does that work? 5 nurses cut at 100k or one exec cut at 100k? who does the hardest amount of work, who is needed more than the other? the execs are on 3/4 day weeks, the nurses are on 6 day weeks.

You are missing the point. There are many more worker bees than queen bees. You can get rid of queen bees all you like but the biggest saving, assuming you need to make savings, will come from getting rid of the worker bees however unpalatable that may seem. Anyway, the NHS isn't a good example, it's ring fenced anyway.

d

 

[Esk247]

but it's not ring fenced. They've pretended it's ring fenced but the NHS made nearly 4 billion of cuts and savings running up to the last election, the coalition has said it will reinvest a certain % and this is being seen as 'ring fenced' or 'good' when in fact, they need to explain where the rest of the 4 billion savings went.

I know where you're coming from on the other points, but coming from a family that have worked in the NHS and other front line services it has the appearance of a 'them and us' situation e.g. the managers dictate which jobs go as long as it's not their own job on the line.

 

[VeraJ]

Oh No, Master Twister is at it again. Are you sure it's not past your bed-time you naughty boy.

I think you may find this is the reality of the British voting system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Newspaper_endorsements

Earl

 

[gordano]

This thread seems to have got very political. I think most agree that cuts are needed and that we all in varying degrees will see the pain from these cuts.

Going back to the original post/thread start, I think the 490000 job losses will have a mixed impact.

1 - There will be businesses directly affected where associated contracts are lost. There will also be local businesses that suffer in any areas that see a higher proportion of public sector job losses ... I doubt the 490000 will be evenly distributed across the UK.

2 - On the plus side I think there will be more private sector opportunities for some over the coming years ... based on what I think will be strategic shift from public sector employment to private sector.

Time will tell

 

[VeraJ]

You are mixing up cuts within a ring fenced budget (which is what is happening) and making cuts to the overall level of NHS spending (which is not happening but would have happened under Labour's proposals).

The total NHS budget is protected but cuts in some areas of the budget are needed to make available funding in other parts of the NHS where demand is growing eg the needs of an ageing population and the ever increasing need for medicines.

but it's not ring fenced. They've pretended it's ring fenced but the NHS made nearly 4 billion of cuts and savings running up to the last election, the coalition has said it will reinvest a certain % and this is being seen as 'ring fenced' or 'good' when in fact, they need to explain where the rest of the 4 billion savings went.

I know where you're coming from on the other points, but coming from a family that have worked in the NHS and other front line services it has the appearance of a 'them and us' situation e.g. the managers dictate which jobs go as long as it's not their own job on the line.

 

Oh No, Master Twister is at it again. Are you sure it's not past your bed-time you naughty boy.

You must be very young to live in cloud cuckoo land laddie.?

Look back at the history of who won the elections and which papers supported them.

Blimey the kids today.I blame the parents.

Still believe in fairy tales.

Earl

 

Really? So there's no need to make cuts? Everything will be just fine if we do nothing? The con-libs are simply being nasty to people?




d

Not at all politicians pick subjects that they percieve will be most popular with the public and will win them most votes.

I thought all grown ups knew that.?:|

Earl