You and I are never going to agree on this subject. There are lots of respected economists who agree that this policy creates very serious risk to the economy - if not of double dip recession then at the very least stalled growth. Public sector spending supports the local economy and removing large amounts of it at a time when private sector growth is weak is a huge gamble.
Public sector spending has remained unchecked throughout the recession and indeed the coalition have left it alone for this year by continuing with large scale borrowing. The recession is over and there is now a very strong argument to curtail spending and in any case economic growth will never ever by itself sort out the deficit, it is too large.
Oh diddums, and such a company to be admired. Still, they'll get their bonuses so that should make up for it a bit.
This is the problem with people like you: you see the people at the top with their obscene bonuses and you think that's the entire sector. It's not. Ironically considering you're supposed to be of a political leaning that cares about the common man, you appear to forget that there are a whole load of ordinary banking employees who did not get fantastic bonuses; indeed, quite a few of them didn't get to keep their jobs.
In short - you really do not have a clue. And you clearly do not give a damn about ordinary workers, either. Only when it suits your political purposes.
Yes you're famous on here for taking an anti-cuts line.
I guess that's supposed to be sarcasm. Does that makes me automatically "ideologically pro-cuts", then? Your cluelessness is making itself more plainly evident by the second. I'd quit now, if I were you.
Local Enterprise Partnerships have not been agreed in all areas yet and will have access to far less funding than came via the RDAs
If the cuts hadn't been frontloaded a proportion of the cuts could have been absorbed through natural wastage, retirement, ending of short term contracts etc - there's now no time to do this and people aren't moving around because of fear about jobs so natural wastage is down generally. This means that to shed jobs the only route left is redundancy attracting significant costs. This means that even greater numbers of jobs have to be cut in order to offset that additional cost before the required saving is achieved. For example I have a member of staff who will retire in 2 years time at which time I'd planned not to replace him - now I'm likely to have to make someone redundant this year instead.
Aren't there alternatives to redundancy (or early retirement), such as reduced hours and pay?
That's really no better than those who squeal with glee over the overpaid public sector being taken down a notch or two.
Quite. I'm sure all those insurance claims handlers on £13k a year will be gratified to know that Vennegoor, champion of the Left and of the common worker, has their interests at heart. He'd better hope he doesn't have any burst water pipes this year.
Quite. I'm sure all those insurance claims handlers on £13k a year will be gratified to know that Vennegoor, champion of the Left and of the common worker, has their interests at heart. He'd better hope he doesn't have any burst water pipes this year.
Vennegoor is a higher-rate tax payer. One wonders if he/she is a public sector worker too.
I've noticed that highly-paid public sector workers (and not just from this forum) don't seem to care about the private sector - only about themselves and their own taxpayer funded empire (and how much funding it gets).
I suppose that someone in such an ivory tower has no need to care about the low-paid private sector worker.
Banker bashing is fun and neatly provides a scapegoat to demonise. Anyone with any sense knows Labour were in charge of the public finances and are therefore to blame for the state of them. e.g. last year's record deficit involved no money being spent on bailing out banks.
Like I said, the government always gets the blame and now we've got a new government to blame.
Aren't there alternatives to redundancy (or early retirement), such as reduced hours and pay?
Obviously one would look for opportunities for reduced hours - some authorities are reducing pay. But these things take time to negotiate. Also, councils are having to reduce bills for office space and overheads so would find it preferable to reduce the headcount because premises costs are also going to have to be cut significantly. Again, these changes take time because of leases, disposal etc.
I can't see any authority being able to implement the cuts without significant compulsory redundancy given the timeframe. Certainly it's happening where I work.
I guess that's supposed to be sarcasm. Does that makes me automatically "ideologically pro-cuts", then? Your cluelessness is making itself more plainly evident by the second. I'd quit now, if I were you.
Oh, I have, thanks. Rather boredom with you than cluelessness, however.
Vennegoor is a higher-rate tax payer. One wonders if he/she is a public sector worker too.
I've noticed that highly-paid public sector workers (and not just from this forum) don't seem to care about the private sector - only about themselves and their own taxpayer funded empire (and how much funding it gets).
I suppose that someone in such an ivory tower has no need to care about the low-paid private sector worker.
I challenge you to find a single statement to support the view that public sector workers don't care about their private sector counterparts. I am just as worried about the prospects of the people that I come into contact with in our private sector partner organisations as those who work for the authority. Essentially we are all in the same boat.
There are no ivory towers - that's just a cliche and it's a lazy one at that.
Vennegoor is a higher-rate tax payer. One wonders if he/she is a public sector worker too.
I've noticed that highly-paid public sector workers (and not just from this forum) don't seem to care about the private sector - only about themselves and their own taxpayer funded empire (and how much funding it gets).
I suppose that someone in such an ivory tower has no need to care about the low-paid private sector worker.
My earnings come from both the public and private sectors. My PAYE is from a public post, and my other earnings come from three private sector sources.
In both roles I work with people of immense talent, commitment and professionalism.
The disocurse around one sector being the enemy of the other is entirely right wing pish, started in the run up the last election, and continued as a convenient tool for a Government that is ideologically bent on smashing the public sector.
Oh, I have, thanks. Rather boredom with you than cluelessness, however.
Hey, I never asked you to stick your oar in (on either thread). Since you got your nose bloodied on both occasions, I'm not surprised you're "bored" with me. Heh.
Hey, I never asked you to stick your oar in (on either thread). Since you got your nose bloodied on both occasions, I'm not surprised you're "bored" with me. Heh.
Thanks for showing me the error of my ways, you're a generous soul. Big society in action right there.
Hm well maybe bankers fall into a third category? Still, I reject the notion that public sector workers are not sympathetic to private sector workers losing their jobs - which is not what that comment was actually referring to was it.
Hm well maybe bankers fall into a third category? Still, I reject the notion that public sector workers are not sympathetic to private sector workers losing their jobs - which is not what that comment was actually referring to was it.
Hey, your words, and you haven't exactly gone out of your way to contradict anything I've said regarding your attitude to low-paid private sector workers. (Especially if they're unlucky enough to have worked for RBS, eh?)
Still, I reject the notion that public sector workers are not sympathetic to private sector workers losing their jobs - which is not what that comment was actually referring to was it.
When I earlier raised the subject of private sector workers losing jobs, in this thread, Vennegoor's only contribution to the thread was to accuse me of jealousy. That really shows how much he cares. :rolleyes: In any event, it shows some pretty lazy thinking which (to be fair) is prevalent: people talk about "bankers' bonuses", and tend to forget that banks employ thousands of people who are not so privileged. And when they talk about imposing massive fines on the banks, what they forget is that those low-paid workers will be first in the firing line. People forget that all options have costs - it's not just about the costs of the option they like least. There's enough tunnel-vision and selfishness to go around, in short.
Hey, your words, and you haven't exactly gone out of your way to contradict anything I've said regarding your attitude to low-paid private sector workers. (Especially if they're unlucky enough to have worked for RBS, eh?)
Well in the specific context of RBS, it is reasonable to posit the argument that their job exists at the expense of others, given the public money they received.
My empathy for that company is non-existent. The people who work for them for a pittance have my sympathy in every sense imaginable.
When I earlier raised the subject of private sector workers losing jobs, in this thread, Vennegoor's only contribution to the thread was to accuse me of jealousy. That really shows how much he cares. :rolleyes:
When I earlier raised the subject of private sector workers losing jobs, in this thread, Vennegoor's only contribution to the thread was to accuse me of jealousy. That really shows how much he cares. :rolleyes: In any event, it shows some pretty lazy thinking which (to be fair) is prevalent: people talk about "bankers' bonuses", and tend to forget that banks employ thousands of people who are not so privileged. And when they talk about imposing massive fines on the banks, what they forget is that those low-paid workers will be first in the firing line. People forget that all options have costs - it's not just about the costs of the option they like least. There's enough tunnel-vision and selfishness to go around, in short.
This is a good point.
I think we've all gone a bit off topic though - which was about whether government should be encouraging us to give more. I'll try to get back on topic now.
Well in the specific context of RBS, it is reasonable to posit the argument that their job exists at the expense of others, given the public money they received.
There are two flaws in that argument.
One, RBS wasn't gifted the money. The Government bought shares in the company with it, and now owns five-sixths of RBS.
I've no empathy for the company either. I can't really think of any institutions for which I would describe myself as having "empathy". Doesn't fit, somehow...
The people who work for them for a pittance have my sympathy in every sense imaginable.
Oh, I think it does - you're quick with the political talking-points against someone you see as an "opponent", but considerably slower to acknowledge that it has not been all hugs and puppies for the private sector.
Comments
Oh diddums, and such a company to be admired. Still, they'll get their bonuses so that should make up for it a bit.
Yes you're famous on here for taking an anti-cuts line.
Public sector spending has remained unchecked throughout the recession and indeed the coalition have left it alone for this year by continuing with large scale borrowing. The recession is over and there is now a very strong argument to curtail spending and in any case economic growth will never ever by itself sort out the deficit, it is too large.
This is the problem with people like you: you see the people at the top with their obscene bonuses and you think that's the entire sector. It's not. Ironically considering you're supposed to be of a political leaning that cares about the common man, you appear to forget that there are a whole load of ordinary banking employees who did not get fantastic bonuses; indeed, quite a few of them didn't get to keep their jobs.
In short - you really do not have a clue. And you clearly do not give a damn about ordinary workers, either. Only when it suits your political purposes.
I guess that's supposed to be sarcasm. Does that makes me automatically "ideologically pro-cuts", then? Your cluelessness is making itself more plainly evident by the second. I'd quit now, if I were you.
Aren't there alternatives to redundancy (or early retirement), such as reduced hours and pay?
That's really no better than those who squeal with glee over the overpaid public sector being taken down a notch or two.
Quite. I'm sure all those insurance claims handlers on £13k a year will be gratified to know that Vennegoor, champion of the Left and of the common worker, has their interests at heart. He'd better hope he doesn't have any burst water pipes this year.
Vennegoor is a higher-rate tax payer. One wonders if he/she is a public sector worker too.
I've noticed that highly-paid public sector workers (and not just from this forum) don't seem to care about the private sector - only about themselves and their own taxpayer funded empire (and how much funding it gets).
I suppose that someone in such an ivory tower has no need to care about the low-paid private sector worker.
Like I said, the government always gets the blame and now we've got a new government to blame.
Obviously one would look for opportunities for reduced hours - some authorities are reducing pay. But these things take time to negotiate. Also, councils are having to reduce bills for office space and overheads so would find it preferable to reduce the headcount because premises costs are also going to have to be cut significantly. Again, these changes take time because of leases, disposal etc.
I can't see any authority being able to implement the cuts without significant compulsory redundancy given the timeframe. Certainly it's happening where I work.
Oh, I have, thanks. Rather boredom with you than cluelessness, however.
I challenge you to find a single statement to support the view that public sector workers don't care about their private sector counterparts. I am just as worried about the prospects of the people that I come into contact with in our private sector partner organisations as those who work for the authority. Essentially we are all in the same boat.
There are no ivory towers - that's just a cliche and it's a lazy one at that.
My earnings come from both the public and private sectors. My PAYE is from a public post, and my other earnings come from three private sector sources.
In both roles I work with people of immense talent, commitment and professionalism.
The disocurse around one sector being the enemy of the other is entirely right wing pish, started in the run up the last election, and continued as a convenient tool for a Government that is ideologically bent on smashing the public sector.
Hey, I never asked you to stick your oar in (on either thread). Since you got your nose bloodied on both occasions, I'm not surprised you're "bored" with me. Heh.
I refer you to post #102.
Thanks for showing me the error of my ways, you're a generous soul. Big society in action right there.
Oh QED, well done indeed.
Meanwhile back on Planet Earth.
Hm well maybe bankers fall into a third category? Still, I reject the notion that public sector workers are not sympathetic to private sector workers losing their jobs - which is not what that comment was actually referring to was it.
No it wasn't, and he/she/it knows it.
I've a feeling you'll need more lessons, but for the sake of the public good...
Hey, your words, and you haven't exactly gone out of your way to contradict anything I've said regarding your attitude to low-paid private sector workers. (Especially if they're unlucky enough to have worked for RBS, eh?)
Don't think so.
When I earlier raised the subject of private sector workers losing jobs, in this thread, Vennegoor's only contribution to the thread was to accuse me of jealousy. That really shows how much he cares. :rolleyes: In any event, it shows some pretty lazy thinking which (to be fair) is prevalent: people talk about "bankers' bonuses", and tend to forget that banks employ thousands of people who are not so privileged. And when they talk about imposing massive fines on the banks, what they forget is that those low-paid workers will be first in the firing line. People forget that all options have costs - it's not just about the costs of the option they like least. There's enough tunnel-vision and selfishness to go around, in short.
Well in the specific context of RBS, it is reasonable to posit the argument that their job exists at the expense of others, given the public money they received.
My empathy for that company is non-existent. The people who work for them for a pittance have my sympathy in every sense imaginable.
It shows nothing of the sort.
This is a good point.
I think we've all gone a bit off topic though - which was about whether government should be encouraging us to give more. I'll try to get back on topic now.
There are two flaws in that argument.
One, RBS wasn't gifted the money. The Government bought shares in the company with it, and now owns five-sixths of RBS.
Two, RBS is currently turning a profit.
I've no empathy for the company either. I can't really think of any institutions for which I would describe myself as having "empathy". Doesn't fit, somehow...
Glad to hear it.
Oh, I think it does - you're quick with the political talking-points against someone you see as an "opponent", but considerably slower to acknowledge that it has not been all hugs and puppies for the private sector.