Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
ralphmalph

The Coalition Strikes Back

Recommended Posts

Folk who make comments like that just reveal that they have no real understanding of how modern capitalist economies work....or don't work if you prefer.

It's all about spending money you don't have. A mortgage to buy a house would be just one of many possible examples. Borrowing in order to expand your business is another.

hmmm ... have you ever heard about Greece, Ireland and IMF ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

hmmm ... have you ever heard about Greece, Ireland and IMF ???

Nickolarge obviously believes in the "magic money tree" school of government, sadly it's pervasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Council has an expenditure of 164Mill (EDIT: net cost after all moneys are collected from the different areas. Actual expenditure is 451Mill plus Police and Fire) after Police and Fire are added on.

Appears that there are 2 Governement grants, 1 for 17Mill and another for 6Mill.

Of the 139Mill needed to cover the shortfall, 48Mill is Business Rates so the Council Tax bill works out at 95Mill after some pokery with their contingency fund.

58Mill of the budget is on "Adult Services", looks like Social Care primarily.

Edited by rich010273

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was on r4 about it before...

Had someone from liverpool saying they needed a regneration office (and a couple of other assistance-expensive-director jobs) ....

Does liverpool need a regeneration officer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was on r4 about it before...

Had someone from liverpool saying they needed a regneration office (and a couple of other assistance-expensive-director jobs) ....

Does liverpool need a regeneration officer?

Err... yes?

On account of the mess left in the city over years of neglect, the reduction in trade out of the city and the reluctance of people to invest despite it obviously being a 'pool full of talent'.

This thread shows how sad people are that they draw on headlines in the Daily M**l about Cheerleader jobs and such. If a council has 5 or 6 jobs that you don't like the title of, so what? I could name many private companies that have perfectly disagreeable job titles.

Ultimately public sector workers (and I'm not one, before you ask - I'm in the private sector) are easy targets at the minute, fed by a diatribe of bizm from the likes of tory rags like the M**l and also Murdoch funded babbage like Sky TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

This thread shows how sad people are that they draw on headlines in the Daily M**l about Cheerleader jobs and such. If a council has 5 or 6 jobs that you don't like the title of, so what? I could name many private companies that have perfectly disagreeable job titles.

Here's some more :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8334915/The-council-fat-cat-earning-570000.html

It's not very nice to see public money being abused, especially when it should be earmarked for the vulnerable, that's the whole moral basis of taxation. That's what makes these settlements so toxic.

To me there's no difference between Bob Diamond stealing via the backdoor or these little piggies looting council funds, so there's no need for the false dichotomy, one doesn't justify the other.

As for Murdoch, it would be nice if he started paying some tax in this country, along with the coterie of thieving c**ts that now seem to form the esteemed establishment.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8334915/The-council-fat-cat-earning-570000.html

It's not very nice to see public money being abused, especially when it should be earmarked for the vulnerable, that's the whole moral basis of taxation. That's what makes these settlements so toxic.

To me there's no difference between Bob Diamond stealing via the backdoor or these little piggies looting council funds, so there's no need for the false dichotomy, one doesn't justify the other.

As for Murdoch, it would be nice if he starting paying some tax in this country, along with the coterie of thieving c**ts that seem to run this country.

I take your point, but it's an order of magnitude apart.

Up until last year I did work in the public sector (private now) and, yes, I could see where there were inefficiencies. But in general people worked hard and were passionate about what they did.

I happen to agree that £157k is too much of a salary for a council leader. Saying that, what do you think *is* an acceptable amount? £99k? £50k? It becomes hard to judge.

What I would like to see is that *all* organisations - public and private - enforce the German-style maximum salary multiplier between the lowest and highest paid worker. Clearly that sort of fairness doesn't seem to be stifling Germany's economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

I take your point, but it's an order of magnitude apart.

Up until last year I did work in the public sector (private now) and, yes, I could see where there were inefficiencies. But in general people worked hard and were passionate about what they did.

I happen to agree that £157k is too much of a salary for a council leader. Saying that, what do you think *is* an acceptable amount? £99k? £50k? It becomes hard to judge.

What I would like to see is that *all* organisations - public and private - enforce the German-style maximum salary multiplier between the lowest and highest paid worker. Clearly that sort of fairness doesn't seem to be stifling Germany's economy.

If cuts are going to be made to frontline services (whether you agree with it or not) it's fair to expect those in the back office and further up the food chain to take the initial hit in order to cushion the blow. Especially when a salary haircut and abolishing a handful of useless posts could save things that people value, it could make a real difference. At the moment they're going straight for the frontline for cynical political reasons. It's toys out of the pram stuff.

I don't know what the right level is for these people, things were quite modest up until a decade ago and the country ran just fine back then. It now seems like an incestuous market that outbids itself, and many would serve regardless, simply out of duty or because they couldn't cut it elsewhere. I would say capping things at the level of the PM would be a good start, until the money starts flowing again in the inevitable feast or famine fashion.

These local authorities have shit PR, they make Eric Pickles look reasonable, which takes some doing.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err... yes?

On account of the mess left in the city over years of neglect, the reduction in trade out of the city and the reluctance of people to invest despite it obviously being a 'pool full of talent'.

This thread shows how sad people are that they draw on headlines in the Daily M**l about Cheerleader jobs and such. If a council has 5 or 6 jobs that you don't like the title of, so what? I could name many private companies that have perfectly disagreeable job titles.

Ultimately public sector workers (and I'm not one, before you ask - I'm in the private sector) are easy targets at the minute, fed by a diatribe of bizm from the likes of tory rags like the M**l and also Murdoch funded babbage like Sky TV.

Whilst some of the opprobrium poured on the public sector is unwarranted, I still cannot for the life of me understand the ideological zeal that defenders thereof seem to muster.

Private companies can have all the shit job titles they want. The cost of their product will be influenced by the amount of such dead wood they decide to carry. Purchasing decisions can then be made A. On the basis of cost and B . On a rational decision to decide to support an organisation or not.

Not so with public money. I have to pay for disagreeable jobs or go to prison. If I am forced to pay for something I expect to be able to influence the use of said money.

That said I don't believe the characterisation of public sector workers as troughing exploiters. The vast majority are decent people trying to make ends meet. That however has no bearing at all on whether employing millions upon millions of them is affordable. It isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

If a council has 5 or 6 jobs that you don't like the title of, so what? (...)

Because we are tax-payers.

I could name many private companies that have perfectly disagreeable job titles.

That is their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point, but it's an order of magnitude apart.

Up until last year I did work in the public sector (private now) and, yes, I could see where there were inefficiencies. But in general people worked hard and were passionate about what they did.

I happen to agree that £157k is too much of a salary for a council leader. Saying that, what do you think *is* an acceptable amount? £99k? £50k? It becomes hard to judge.

What I would like to see is that *all* organisations - public and private - enforce the German-style maximum salary multiplier between the lowest and highest paid worker. Clearly that sort of fairness doesn't seem to be stifling Germany's economy.

I also am a fan of the maximum salary multiplier. I'd make it something like 5 times. For people with long education requirements like surgeons I would pay them the median income while they are in their medical program - on top of having the education free.

It doesn't seem the society I want to live in where a few people make 50 times what the average person makes. While the average person sort of subsists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax breaks for business created more private sector jobs. Something we need desparately,

Assuming that business cares about jobs, more likely to use the savings and pay it as dividends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that business cares about jobs, more likely to use the savings and pay it as dividends.

No, assuming businesses care about profits. Business need (good) employees to have profits. That is how market economies work, and have done so since the industrial revolution, developing Britain, then the USA and Europe, then Japan, Asian Tigers, now BRIC countries, etc. 2 or 3 centuries of it. Look around. No more Baldricks desperate for turnips.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you are just one big chip sitting on a shoulder.....you would back Labour the people who wish to ruin the country and take you down with it...?.....not very bright..... :rolleyes:

Another reason why I can never side with right wing "thinkers" <_<

They always resort to personal rudeness when anyone with a sound point to make would have no need. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err... yes?

On account of the mess left in the city over years of neglect, the reduction in trade out of the city and the reluctance of people to invest despite it obviously being a 'pool full of talent'.

It's just been city of culture and if they failed to regenerate during that time of bringing people in to the city, it's a lost cause.

It's got one of the biggest shopping centres just opened that covers miles of the centre.

They have so far failed to make any real steps towards regeneration that will bring long term employment and prospects to the city.

Why do you think a 50k+ salary that will involve swanning around the world to look at other examples is needed?

They need a coherent policy to attract light industry and manufacturing busineses to the area - if the councillors and current staff can not think of some ways of doing this then they are so f*cked.

I do not think "regeneration officers" are the answer. They are part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, for the very top positions, you could almost try to justify a high salary, you know for a head of a very difficult council, huge budget a rare person for a rare task etc..

But over 1,000 people on more than £100,000 a year ! That's just a nonsense.

Didn't you tell us that you were on £100,000 years ago? Bet I could make a reasonable case as to why that was at least twice as much as "value for money" would have dictated. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err... yes?

On account of the mess left in the city over years of neglect, the reduction in trade out of the city and the reluctance of people to invest despite it obviously being a 'pool full of talent'.

This thread shows how sad people are that they draw on headlines in the Daily M**l about Cheerleader jobs and such. If a council has 5 or 6 jobs that you don't like the title of, so what? I could name many private companies that have perfectly disagreeable job titles.

Ultimately public sector workers (and I'm not one, before you ask - I'm in the private sector) are easy targets at the minute, fed by a diatribe of bizm from the likes of tory rags like the M**l and also Murdoch funded babbage like Sky TV.

not only are they the targets, they are the overspend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borrowing makes sense if you can afford to repay the borrowing and are better off after doing so than you would have been had you not borrowed.

Yes, I agree with that 100% although how you measure "better off" is open to wide interpretation. The trouble is, borrowing has always been more available to some than it is to others and often that difference has little to do with ability to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nickolarge obviously believes in the "magic money tree" school of government, sadly it's pervasive.

Greece and Ireland should default on their debts and teach the real rulers of this planet a lesson. It won't happen for the one simple reason that they are all part of the same cartel designed to bleed the rest of us dry. When you guys crack on about some council paying someone "too much money" (which is almost certainly less than most of you guys take home <_< ) you are chasing the wrong target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does liverpool need a regeneration officer?

From what I see the whole country needs regenerating. Not sure if an officer is needed. More like a whole army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst some of the opprobrium poured on the public sector is unwarranted, I still cannot for the life of me understand the ideological zeal that defenders thereof seem to muster.

Private companies can have all the shit job titles they want. The cost of their product will be influenced by the amount of such dead wood they decide to carry. Purchasing decisions can then be made A. On the basis of cost and B . On a rational decision to decide to support an organisation or not.

Not so with public money. I have to pay for disagreeable jobs or go to prison. If I am forced to pay for something I expect to be able to influence the use of said money.

That said I don't believe the characterisation of public sector workers as troughing exploiters. The vast majority are decent people trying to make ends meet. That however has no bearing at all on whether employing millions upon millions of them is affordable. It isn't.

Two points.

Any unbiased visitor to this forum would find that the ideological zeal comes, in the vast majority, from those who are championing the cuts. It does not come from defenders of public services.

Secondly, you think that you have a real choice as to whether or not you pay for useless workers in the private sector. Sadly that is largely untrue. If it were possible to measure how much of your expenditure went on waste I suspect that a greater amount of your hard earned was wasted in the proportion that went to the private sector. Yes, you can choose who to spend your money with and which services you won't use at all but a large chunk of your cash will always be lining someone else's pocket who charged you a fair bit more than was strictly necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I see the whole country needs regenerating. Not sure if an officer is needed. More like a whole army.

It shouldn't be a specific job!

It needs to be built into everyone. What ideas and schemes can bring genuine regeneration do not need to be the sole responsibility of a non-job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people rattle on about the money that gets borrowed or spent by governments and councils using this "they never asked me if that's what I wanted" nonsense they fail to grasp how time consuming it would be for them if they all had a say in every pound that was spent. They also fail to grasp how expensive it would be if everything was purchased locally by small groups or individuals. For example, I predict that the GP control of NHS money thing will turn out to be an unmitigated disaster. Another thing that is never properly grasped is just how many things there are that would not be provided at all.

problem with this argument is that it depends on the assumption that resources would be equally limited under a competitive system as they are under a state monopoly

A state monopoly creates waste for the sake of waste ('empire building' - funny, the first time I heard that phrase was from an NHS trust non-clinical middle manager describing how she got to where she is today!). Competitive organisations, despite the obvious duplication, appear to more than make up for this in efficiency - for example compare western supermarkets with state provision of food in the former USSR, North Korea etc. In my opinion, competitive advantages of a market system will more than compensate for duplicated capacity, my intuition that this does not make sense is overriden from my experience that says it works, providing alternative private sector monopolies (ie in the US health care system) are prevented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I support the austerity drive I feel the coalition have little credibility on cutting the deficit considering the tax breaks they're giving to big business and in particular the banks.

do you 'feel' that the deficit is worse now at 10% compared to April 2010 when it was 12%? How is this worse, in what way, and how, honestly, do you 'feel' this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 351 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.