ken_ichikawa Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 jeezus! http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/burynews/3576565.Council_workers_facing_massive_wage_cuts/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/burynews/3576565.Council_workers_facing_massive_wage_cuts/ That article is from 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 aneros? a1plus maybe. Just an aside note really... they had a depot near us but think they've moved on now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That article is from 2008. Yes and? It's only 2 years thus some big cuts already happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 A friend sent me a bit of news video from 1990 with Graham Stringer then leader of the council moaning about job cuts. Massive job cuts of 1000+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiCasaSuCasa Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 ..Of course, the outrageous salaries paid to public sector top bosses are small fry compared to the sums paid to top bankers and bosses of other PLC's, to top footballers, Formula 1 drivers and showbiz celebrities. And as for the former boss of LLoyds, ehich is 41% owned by the state, getting £2 million bonus - reminiscent of Russian oligarchs. Why do people always make this comparison with highly paid private sector employees? Do people not understand what the public sector is or how it is funded? The reason David Beckham is paid a lot is because he is an entertainer that people choose to pay to see. If I don't like him, I don't contribute to his salary. I am not coerced into contributing to his salary and threatened with prison. I, for one, welcome the bonfire of the non-jobs and it's toasty warm glow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Part of his remuneration this year included a £19,250 bonus as returning officer for the May elections – despite the chaotic scenes in the Withington constituency when hundreds of voters were disenfranchised due to IT system failure and inadequate staffing. Christ. I'm trying to eat my dinner while reading this! Edited January 13, 2011 by UK Debt Slave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The outrageously high salaries paid to top public sector bosses might be scandalous, but most people in the public sector aren't particularly well-paid, and the only real advantage they had over private sector workers was better job security and pension arrangements. Now those two advantages are being taken away too. Of course, the outrageous salaries paid to public sector top bosses are small fry compared to the sums paid to top bankers and bosses of other PLC's, to top footballers, Formula 1 drivers and showbiz celebrities. And as for the former boss of LLoyds, ehich is 41% owned by the state, getting £2 million bonus - reminiscent of Russian oligarchs. Are you dumb? all of those with the exception of banks are private companies. If I disagree with them I can simply choose not to use them and patronise somebody else. British gas? Hate them I can go over to Npower. Or ultimately I can use a wood burner or even go to Coal. There are few consequences to saying no to private companies. You have NO choice with council and government. If you say no a bunch of thugs will come round and break your legs or equivilent. You cannot say NO to government services and you cannot say no to paying them there is no choice therefore it is incomparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chest Rockwell Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 As mentioned previously, I heard on 5 Live that Grant Shapps had mentioned the Twitter Czar at Manchester Council who is on 40k a year? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 As mentioned previously, I heard on 5 Live that Grant Shapps had mentioned the Twitter Czar at Manchester Council who is on 40k a year? LOL Fake, the council had a press conference (to waste more money) and stringently denied it... Oh wait that means it is true isn't it? Or is it? Damn these contrarian indicators worse than Realistbear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixle Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why do people always make this comparison with highly paid private sector employees? Do people not understand what the public sector is or how it is funded? The reason David Beckham is paid a lot is because he is an entertainer that people choose to pay to see. If I don't like him, I don't contribute to his salary. I am not coerced into contributing to his salary and threatened with prison. Are you sure about that? Did you check the debt level at his club? Did you check which bank(s) holds that debt? Did you check which government(s) own those bank(s)? How sure are you now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inca Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 nasty threatening bully How is explaining the impact of cuts being a 'nasty threatening bully'? You think there will be no impact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 How is explaining the impact of cuts being a 'nasty threatening bully'? You think there will be no impact? you want to use the poor as a human shield - if we cut then, apparently, the poor will get it in the head, somehow, shot by a tory landowner or some such thing the impact, overall, will be positive for these poeple as they won't have to spend all their lives paying excessive taxes to pay off the debts of the rich champagne socialists Indeed there will be a short term impact,and a bad one, it is not only caring sharing lefties that realise this, surprising that this thought may be to you. And the tories have keynsian lessons to learn from the 1980s, too true. That that is not sufficient to justify not cutting, as otherwise the poor will pay even more thru future interest payments on the national debt. A point that will be lost on you as we conservatives implicitly must hate the poor otherwise they wouldn't be conservative heh. back to the magic beanstalk you go to supp champagne.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I want to know where the Twitter Tsar job was advertised - Grundian probably - and what decision process was involved in deciding that they needed such a person in the first place? Also, who got the job and what their skillset/expertise was to get this? That would be quite interesting would it not? Feck, looking on jobserve there are loads of similar such 'social media' roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inca Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) you want to use the poor as a human shield - if we cut then, apparently, the poor will get it in the head, somehow, shot by a tory landowner or some such thingthe impact, overall, will be positive for these poeple as they won't have to spend all their lives paying excessive taxes to pay off the debts of the rich champagne socialists Indeed there will be a short term impact,and a bad one, it is not only caring sharing lefties that realise this, surprising that this thought may be to you. And the tories have keynsian lessons to learn from the 1980s, too true. That that is not sufficient to justify not cutting, as otherwise the poor will pay even more thru future interest payments on the national debt. A point that will be lost on you as we conservatives implicitly must hate the poor otherwise they wouldn't be conservative heh. back to the magic beanstalk you go to supp champagne.... What a load of nonsense. No one has said anything about conservatives being evil etc - that is a strawman that you have created. you want to use the poor as a human shield - if we cut then, apparently, the poor will get it in the head it is a simple fact that the poorest are going to be hit hard. Example - if you live in residential care (i.e. advanced MS) you will lose your thirty pounds a week mobility component of your DLA. This means that you will have to give up your mobility scooter and that would have a massive impact on your quality of life. Pointing out that this is what is going to happen is not bullying. It is your cowardice that means you are not able to face the consequences of the action you support. Edited January 14, 2011 by Inca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Boy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Example - if you live in residential care (i.e. advanced MS) you will lose your thirty pounds a week mobility component of your DLA. This means that you will have to give up your mobility scooter and that would have a massive impact on your quality of life. . Are you saying that this will be a direct result of shedding 2000 council posts in manchester ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) What a load of nonsense. No one has said anything about conservatives being evil etc - that is a strawman that you have created. no it's my honest opinion about your attitude, you continually doubt that anyone but someone with your mindset can understand that the cuts will cause short term pain. I have repeated that I realise this, and you have again pretended I must be ignorant or something and repeated about the short term pain. Yes, I knew before you pointed this ouit. This does not give you a moral imperative. it is a simple fact that the poorest are going to be hit hard. Example - if you live in residential care (i.e. advanced MS) you will lose your thirty pounds a week mobility component of your DLA. This means that you will have to give up your mobility scooter and that would have a massive impact on your quality of life. Pointing out that this is what is going to happen is not bullying. It is your cowardice that means you are not able to face the consequences of the action you support. now let's see really? The forum mainly seems to be people circle jerking each other whilst frothing at the mouth with excitment as public sector workers are thrown out of work. Fingers crossed that families are kicked out of their homes so I can buy it cheap! I haven't seen anyone actually articulate what a 'bit saner, fairer, more stable' would look like. so basically you don't want to lose your job and your lifestyle and you are quite happy for FUTURE MS sufferers to have no chance of getting better treatment in future due to an out of control national debt, because protection of your own lifestyle is paramount you make me sick Edited January 14, 2011 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inca Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) no it's my honest opinion about your attitude, you continually doubt that anyone but someone with your mindset can understand that the cuts will cause short term pain. I have repeated that I realise this, and you have again pretended I must be ignorant or something and repeated about the short term pain. Yes, I knew before you pointed this ouit. This does not give you a moral imperative. Not based on anything I have actually said then. Explain to me how it is bullying to simply point out what is really happening to people as a direct result of these cuts? so basically you don't want to lose your job and your lifestyle and you are quite happy for FUTURE MS sufferers to have no chance of getting better treatment in future due to an out of control national debt, because protection of your own lifestyle is paramount eh? You must be standing up because there is no way you could be pulling this much nonsense out of your **** if you were sitting down. What has any of this got to do with my employment status? There are alternatives to the current cuts - why not raise taxation, close the offshore tax loopholes? Cut differently i.e. overseas aid? You are a coward. Tapping away at your keyboard, desperate to see people suffer so you can take advantage of them. Edited January 14, 2011 by Inca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 What has any of this got to do with my employment status? VI. So I was right about you then. People like you are the reason public services need revision. There are alternatives to the current cuts - why not raise taxation, close the offshore tax loopholes? Cut differently i.e. overseas aid? you just want tyo carry on shopping at waitrose paid for by taxpayer largesse. You are a coward. Tapping away at your keyboard, desperate to see people suffer so you can take advantage of them. hopeless projection. I can sign off by quoting someone that sussed you out before me: I'd prefer to think of you as a troll though I genuinely think you are too stupid to grasp the concept that the cost of housing has been artificially inflated whilst the average wage has long since lagged behind. This is why (bar anomolies such as yourself) a generation has found their net wages have been devalued to the point that only personal integrity prevents them from taking the easier option of subsisting off the State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Why do people always make this comparison with highly paid private sector employees? Do people not understand what the public sector is or how it is funded? The reason David Beckham is paid a lot is because he is an entertainer that people choose to pay to see. If I don't like him, I don't contribute to his salary. I am not coerced into contributing to his salary and threatened with prison. I, for one, welcome the bonfire of the non-jobs and it's toasty warm glow. Exactly. I don't like football, I find it boring but I don't give a damn how much footballers get paid as no one forces me to pay them. I do object to being forced to pay for civil servants who do nothing useful for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.