Labour's £1.3 Trillion Spending Spree "laid Bare"

[okaycuckoo]

edit mess

Edited June 12, 2010 by okaycuckoo

[Bloo Loo]

Well after lurking on here since 2007, this post has provoked me to register. Whilst I have read many of your posts Bloo Loo and generally agree with them, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the issue of barrister's fees.

If you think that the majority of barristers are earning £1000 an hour then you are crazy. The truth is that only QC's can warrant this type of earning power and QC's make up a very small proportion of the barrister community. At present the barrister world is ultra competitive, in terms of winning work from solicitors and also actually qualifying as a barrister.

Barristers now offer fixed fees and are prepared to work for less than the cost of a solicitor just to keep themselves busy and earning a wage. Remember, barristers are self employed - if they dont work they dont eat. I know many barristers who are literally on the bread line.

Academically, only the elite have a real chance to getting called to the bar. This means that they would have had to worked and studied hard to obtain a 1st from Oxbridge. I am not a barrister but I do work with them and see what they do.

Trust me, most earn every penny and nowadays there really arent many pennies to earn.

Much obliged Jetset. and welcome.

Why are QCs allowed to earn so much and allowed to do so by the judiciary?

I know a couple of Barristers doing low paid work as it happens.

my brush was broad and controversial.

[Si1]

People vote Labour for the same reason people go to Church, faith.

definitely agree

I know bright agreeable types who will ALWAYS vote labour, out of faith and a desire not to look at the reality of government and tax

they want some simple and frankly understandable things - to be able to enjoy work and live comfortably

the 3rd thing that goes with that is taking the intellectual leap to really engage with what is going on - otherwise those intellectual-talking cleverdicks in the tories and now the liberals will confuse them with words and stuff

and that is where the buck stops - abbrogation of responsibility that goes with the democratic vote

if you don't want to have to think - the nice man from Labour says don't worry about thinking we'll look after you

it's the easy way out and it always will be. here's to barbecues in the sun on a Wednesday afternoon while you're on benefits or paternity leave or something - surely that's gotta be right?

[Si1]

Yep.

And more than double the sum of all other items there.

people expecting to receive generous state payouts will find they buy increasingly less as the years go by and from into the 2020s and 2030s they'll be worth sod all. from plenty to poverty.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Much obliged Jetset. and welcome.

Why are QCs allowed to earn so much and allowed to do so by the judiciary?

I know a couple of Barristers doing low paid work as it happens.

my brush was broad and controversial.

The scenario Jetset illustrates is more or less the same one that applies to academics.

On one of the numerous university-bashing threads that pop up on this site from time to time, someone casually referred to 'professors who earn £100k a year and only teach a couple of hours a week'. As with QCs, such people do exist, but they are a tiny minority of the lecturer workforce. Around 80% of that workforce never make it above grade 8 (£43k), and even getting a permanent contract starting at the bottom of grade 7 (£31k) requires a bare minimum of six years' full-time study after leaving school, and in most cases seven or eight. Add to that the fact that you are likely to get to the end of that process in a lot more debt than the average graduate and now with a very low chance indeed of landing any sort of permanent post until you're in your late 30s, and I suspect that those who are braying for our pensions etc. are not making a like-for-like comparison with other equivalent professions. There is of course a debate to be held as to how much higher education (and legal proceedings) that is necessary, desirable and/or affordable, but trying to argue for a reduction simply by attacking the professions involved is generally an indication of someone who has a very poor grasp of the issues involved.

[winkie]

Public sector pensions are by far the biggest item on that list.

Why are public sector workers deemed more worthy than other workers?....they even get help with key worker loans to buy their own home, no problem with that 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'....why do they receive special status and benefits that workers in the private sector can only wish/hope for?

['Bart']

I knew that they would have to squeeze in a Diana reference somewhere down the line.

And gypsies.

[Bloo Loo]

The scenario Jetset illustrates is more or less the same one that applies to academics.

On one of the numerous university-bashing threads that pop up on this site from time to time, someone casually referred to 'professors who earn £100k a year and only teach a couple of hours a week'. As with QCs, such people do exist, but they are a tiny minority of the lecturer workforce. Around 80% of that workforce never make it above grade 8 (£43k), and even getting a permanent contract starting at the bottom of grade 7 (£31k) requires a bare minimum of six years' full-time study after leaving school, and in most cases seven or eight. Add to that the fact that you are likely to get to the end of that process in a lot more debt than the average graduate and now with a very low chance indeed of landing any sort of permanent post until you're in your late 30s, and I suspect that those who are braying for our pensions etc. are not making a like-for-like comparison with other equivalent professions. There is of course a debate to be held as to how much higher education (and legal proceedings) that is necessary, desirable and/or affordable, but trying to argue for a reduction simply by attacking the professions involved is generally an indication of someone who has a very poor grasp of the issues involved.

why are the 20% getting nearly double the average wage? Why are ANY getting 100K from the public purse.

why is there this feeling of "Entitlement". Why are payscales, which are on top of annual increases, the norm in the public sector.

why not average pay for the average academic...that puts them at over double the lowest paid and at a level that many others with experience in their work, work up to.

the money has run out. entitlement must be ridden out of the public sector.

[PropertyGuru]

definitely agree

I know bright agreeable types who will ALWAYS vote labour, out of faith

christmas. Turkeys. Vote for. Don't.

Make a sentence out of that, suckers.

Faith my ass.

People who vote NuLabia do so purely for short term self interest.

If they were rich, they'd vote Tordem.

The clever thing (but not quite clever enough) that Bullshitting Bottler Brown did, was to buy 1,000,000 extra votes by giving non-jobs to 1,000,000 labia voters. What the one-eyed willy didn't count on was that peopel are fickle, and even if you give them money, they can still sometimes turn round and piss in your pocket when you aint looking, because... the kind of people who can be 'bought', are by definition... ***holes.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

why are the 20% getting nearly double the average wage? Why are ANY getting 100K from the public purse.

why is there this feeling of "Entitlement". Why are payscales, which are on top of annual increases, the norm in the public sector.

To encourage long-term commitment, and in some cases to attract people into a job that requires a high level of qualifications and experience in the first place. In many cases, going up a point on the pay scale is not automatic and predicated on performance, just as private sector employers can award their staff inflation-busting pay rises if they choose to do so.

why not average pay for the average academic...that puts them at over double the lowest paid and at a level that many others with experience in their work, work up to.

That is exactly what happens in most cases. As I noted above, the profs earning six figures are the exception that proves the rule.

the money has run out. entitlement must be ridden out of the public sector.

If you take that position to its logical conclusion, you'd be arguing that no public sector worker should be paid more than the minimum wage, on the grounds that a bin man makes just as valuable a contribution to society as someone who teaches history to teenagers; and that the fact that the former job requires a much lower level of aptitude, skill and education than the latter is irrelevant. The Soviet Union put that theory into practice, and the result was that the only way they could prevent a large number of their prominent artists, scientists, industrialists and leading cultural figures from emigrating was by force. I do actually agree with you that the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction, especially in the case of 'upper middle' ranking public sector workers, notably GPs and middle managers in local government. The level of skills and qualifications a GP can offer relative to the personal sacrifices they had to make to qualify and the economic benefits of their job to society at large does not justify £105k as an average salary for the profession - nowhere near. When certain fat cats say that they could earn significantly more in an equivalent private sector job, they're clearly deluding themselves. When the BBC's Director of Television said just that, interviewed a few months ago, the journalist writing the story researched what comparable jobs in commercial TV pay in Europe and the US, and discovered that the answer was around 40% less. However, it's important to distinguish between the tiny proportion at the top whose salaries and benefits have become divorced from reality, and the rank and file below who have not benefited from this 'sense of entitlement' to anything like the same extent.

[Bloo Loo]

To encourage long-term commitment, and in some cases to attract people into a job that requires a high level of qualifications and experience in the first place. In many cases, going up a point on the pay scale is not automatic and predicated on performance, just as private sector employers can award their staff inflation-busting pay rises if they choose to do so.

That is exactly what happens in most cases. As I noted above, the profs earning six figures are the exception that proves the rule.

If you take that position to its logical conclusion, you'd be arguing that no public sector worker should be paid more than the minimum wage, on the grounds that a bin man makes just as valuable a contribution to society as someone who teaches history to teenagers; and that the fact that the former job requires a much lower level of aptitude, skill and education than the latter is irrelevant. The Soviet Union put that theory into practice, and the result was that the only way they could prevent a large number of their prominent artists, scientists, industrialists and leading cultural figures from emigrating was by force. I do actually agree with you that the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction, especially in the case of 'upper middle' ranking public sector workers, notably GPs and middle managers in local government. The level of skills and qualifications a GP can offer relative to the personal sacrifices they had to make to qualify and the economic benefits of their job to society at large does not justify £105k as an average salary for the profession - nowhere near. When certain fat cats say that they could earn significantly more in an equivalent private sector job, they're clearly deluding themselves. When the BBC's Director of Television said just that, interviewed a few months ago, the journalist writing the story researched what comparable jobs in commercial TV pay in Europe and the US, and discovered that the answer was around 40% less. However, it's important to distinguish between the tiny proportion at the top whose salaries and benefits have become divorced from reality, and the rank and file below who have not benefited from this 'sense of entitlement' to anything like the same extent.

All good points.

I would say that I am not against higher pay...per se..

What I am objecting to, is the large gaps in the rungs of the pay grade ladder.

the top is way way too high, and the differentials also, which lead to these higher pay scales.

OK, a doctor studies for some years and now gets into debt.

his services can be valuable. But many say that do it because they love the job...they have a vocation. sure, pay them double what most people earn...but 4 times??

50K is £1000 per week.

that is a LOT of money.

[juvenal]

stop it with the plumber analogy. its false.

Lawyers get what they get because the COURTS allow these rediculous charges. And judges think its reasonable for an EAs office clerk to be charged out at £160 per hour.

course they do...they think someone earning less than that is on the dole.

Cherie BLAIR..."earns" £400K for court work it is rumoured.

Can anyone identify an actual case she has appeared prominently , and won?

[Jetset78]

Much obliged Jetset. and welcome.

Why are QCs allowed to earn so much and allowed to do so by the judiciary?

I know a couple of Barristers doing low paid work as it happens.

my brush was broad and controversial.

QC's are instructed where the dispute is worth millions of pounds.

Bearing in mind that the case could turn significantly based on the skill of one's legal advocate £1000 per hour is quite reasonable in the grand scheme of things. Even a five day trial at court at say 4 hours a day amounts to £20k - small price where millions are argued over.

[Bloo Loo]

QC's are instructed where the dispute is worth millions of pounds.

Bearing in mind that the case could turn significantly based on the skill of one's legal advocate £1000 per hour is quite reasonable in the grand scheme of things. Even a five day trial at court at say 4 hours a day amounts to £20k - small price where millions are argued over.

Sure, they deal with big cases....but the costs are awarded to the loser.....the costs are "taxed" by the court IIRC...OK, a client may want to pay for the best, he is entitled.

but the court need not agree with the reasonableness of the claim....it could say £100 per hour is reasonable. the loser when then pay a reasonable amount...not the airy fairy amount a top QC beleives he is worth. the client could pay up.

look at the "costs" of lible cases....I couldnt start a case as the other side, say a daily rag could just hire a top QC and claim I couldnt meet the costs if I lost.

Thats not justice IMHO.

[dhpcza]

Even if this number were correct, Labour's total debt is more than £750bn.

And growing at £160bn per year.

.

Only 23% of the total debt* then. Well, that's a relief, I thought it'd be a lot. No wonder the Wail only mention it in passing, whereas ballet lessons are a much worthier target.

I'm glad the Wail see fit to put ballet lessons on the list costing 50 million (0.006% of the total debt*)

*total debt using figure you've provided

God bless those fine banking institutions making up such a small fraction of the money we owe. Ran by such selfless souls who don't benefit from having bankrupt business propped up, whatsoever. I hope Fred is getting by on that 700k a year.

[Guest absolutezero]

Why are private sector workers deemed less worthy than other workers?

Fixed that for you.

[Tired of Waiting]

Only 23% of the total debt* then. Well, that's a relief, I thought it'd be a lot. No wonder the Wail only mention it in passing, whereas ballet lessons are a much worthier target.

I'm glad the Wail see fit to put ballet lessons on the list costing 50 million (0.006% of the total debt*)

*total debt using figure you've provided

God bless those fine banking institutions making up such a small fraction of the money we owe. Ran by such selfless souls who don't benefit from having bankrupt business propped up, whatsoever. I hope Fred is getting by on that 700k a year.

Calm down dazw01842. I wrote : "Even if this number were correct..."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the bank bailout will cost the tax payers some 12 billion pounds "either way" - meaning profit or losses - depending on the share values at the time the government decides to sell them.

I am sorry if the numbers disrupt your world view that the current economic crisis was caused mainly by the banks, as opposed to mainly by the Labour government, but this is the reality.

The government was already running a deficit way before the property bubble started to burst in America and here in 2007 (leaving the banks without enough collateral, and hence in crisis).

See that spike in debt in 2008? That may be the banks bailout. The rest is public spending uncovered by revenues.

Chart: UK net debt since Labour came to power:

This and other interesting charts here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7473001/Budget-2010-the-economy-under-Labour.html

Edited June 12, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[dhpcza]

Calm down dazw01842. I wrote : "Even if this number were correct..."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the bank bailout will cost the tax payers some 12 billion pounds "either way" - meaning profit or losses - depending on the share values at the time the government decides to sell them.

I am sorry if the numbers disrupt your world view that the current economic crisis was caused mainly by the banks, as opposed to mainly by the Labour government, but this is the reality.

The government was already running a deficit way before the property bubble started to burst in America and here in 2007 (leaving the banks without enough collateral, and hence in crisis).

In the words of Walter Sobchak "I'm perfectly calm dude."

Yeah, Labour were rubbish, I get it. My point is, The Mail publish a list of ******** expenditures when, by their own numbers, bank bailouts cost a large percentage of the total spend; yet it's only mentioned in passing.

As for "depending on share values" that seems likecode for "we have no clue what it's gonna cost, but we'll pull the figure of £12billion our of our ****" haha. Still, I suppose if you're a cheerleader of banking bailouts (not saying you are) then your confirmation bias (in the case of the Instisute for Fiscal Studies) will lead you to more positive numbers.

My world view is one of rich c*nts and self serving, scumbag politicians, trying to further their own lot without regard for anybody else in the world. Start a war, kill a few hundred thousand, wreck this, wreck that, as long as they get paid. I'm a total misanthrope when it comes to people with power. Tory/Labour zzz, same old sh*t.

*edit; despite my foul mouth, I don't get angry at this stuff. Just more and more dis-interested, which is probably worse.

Edited June 12, 2010 by dazw01842

[winkie]

Fixed that for you.

Cheers........do you think you will reach that carrot that keeps you going? I suppose it depends on how old you are and whether the public jobs continue to stay jobs for life.

[erranta]

<br />stop it with the plumber analogy. its false.<br /><br />Lawyers get what they get because the COURTS allow these rediculous charges. And judges think its reasonable for an EAs office clerk to be charged out at £160 per hour.<br /><br />course they do...they think someone earning less than that is on the dole.<br /><br />Cherie BLAIR..."earns" £400K for court work it is rumoured.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

We covered this in the Icke thread yonks ago!

Do yer research.

Temple (where all the Barrasting goes on) is legally a different country/state within London>The UK

(There is a symbolically 'formed' PYRAMID (only seen by air) in this area too, by the elites!)

Just like "City of London CORPORATION" is (& why the Queen of our?? country has to ask permission to enter the separate "City state" when she wants to visit!

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Calm down dazw01842. I wrote : "Even if this number were correct..."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the bank bailout will cost the tax payers some 12 billion pounds "either way" - meaning profit or losses - depending on the share values at the time the government decides to sell them.

hahahahaha and this is reliable because? no doubt they were highlighting the imbalances all through the noughties that created this, oh my mistake they promoting further wealth/debt disparity through their regressive tax stance. I estimate the shares value will be zero, of course if the IFS are correct the govt can remove the bank gtees tomorrow? meanwhile RBS and lloyds, crock of sh!t and B&B continue to make loss qtr after qtr

I am sorry if the numbers disrupt your world view that the current economic crisis was caused mainly by the banks, as opposed to mainly by the Labour government, but this is the reality.

Yes the Labour government caused the global banking sector to collapse France to germany to New York, the entire western financial system collapsed because of the all powerful New Labour

The government was already running a deficit way before the property bubble started to burst in America and here in 2007 (leaving the banks without enough collateral, and hence in crisis).

The UK govt has been running a deficit on a yearly basis for the last 30 years+, have Labour really been in that long, thats a record stint, what left the banks in crisis was fraudulent lending that can never be paid back because the wrong people (the poor) owe the money , thanks to the sort of tax regime your mickey mouse IFS promote

Are you sure you arent Danny Blanchflower?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[Tired of Waiting]

hahahahaha and this is reliable because? no doubt they were highlighting the imbalances all through the noughties that created this, oh my mistake they promoting further wealth/debt disparity through their regressive tax stance. I estimate the shares value will be zero, of course if the IFS are correct the govt can remove the bank gtees tomorrow? meanwhile RBS and lloyds, crock of sh!t and B&B continue to make loss qtr after qtr

Yes the Labour government caused the global banking sector to collapse France to germany to New York, the entire western financial system collapsed because of the all powerful New Labour

The UK govt has been running a deficit on a yearly basis for the last 30 years+, have Labour really been in that long, thats a record stint, what left the banks in crisis was fraudulent lending that can never be paid back because the wrong people (the poor) owe the money , thanks to the sort of tax regime your mickey mouse IFS promote

Are you sure you arent Danny Blanchflower?

The UK is seriously and deeply fecked. But the world will be OKish soon-ishly. Most countries in the world have a cold. Some have a flu. But Japan and Britain have pneumonia. Look at the 2 charts below.

( EDIT: The data there is 2008's. Since then the UK gov. debt grew by about 10% of GDP per year, and it is around £750bn now. )

We are screwed for at least a decade, maybe 2, and we will never catchup with countries we thought were our "peers", such as France, Germany, and even Italy. Even Brazil will overtake us in a couple of years. We will fall to about 10th place/economy in about 5 years. Sorry.

Source: Mckinsey Institute. Link to the full report below (in PDF). The chart in question is on page 10.

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/freepass_pdfs/debt_and_deleveraging/debt_and_deleveraging_full_report.pdf

PS: Note that at the end of 2003 the total debt was almost peaking. But in Dec 2003 Chancellor Brown changed the inflation index, from RPI to CPI, despite BoE's opposition, forcing the BoE to keep interest rates too low. Yes, it was mainly Gordon Brown's fault.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

The UK is seriously and deeply fecked. But the world will be OKish soon-ishly. Most countries in the world have a cold. Some have a flu. But Japan and Britain have pneumonia. Look at the 2 charts below.

We are screwed for at least a decade, maybe 2, and we will never catchup with countries we thought were our "peers", such as France, Germany, and even Italy. Even Brazil will overtake us in a couple of years. We will fall to about 10th place/economy in about 5 years. Sorry.

Source: Mckinsey Institute. Link to the full report below (in PDF). The chart in question is on page 10.

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/freepass_pdfs/debt_and_deleveraging/debt_and_deleveraging_full_report.pdf

PS: Note that at the end of 2003 the total debt was almost peaking. But in Dec 2003 Chancellor Brown changed the inflation index, from RPI to CPI, despite BoE's opposition, forcing the BoE to keep interest rates too low. Yes, it was mainly Gordon Brown's fault.

which has very little to do with what you wrote, in fact its laughable that you can understand how fcked up the uk is and then quote that banking losses will likely be in the range of a profit to a 12 billion loss

[Tired of Waiting]

which has very little to do with what you wrote, in fact its laughable that you can understand how fcked up the uk is and then quote that banking losses will likely be in the range of a profit to a 12 billion loss

I didn't say bank "losses" nor "will be". We were talking about the past banks bailout.

You are either distorting it, or making an honest mistake. You tell me which.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I didn't say bank "losses" nor "will be". We were talking about the past banks bailout.

You are either distorting it, or making an honest mistake. You tell me which.

The past bank bailouts include future guarantees from the Govt so current and future losses are entirely relevant