Public sector monster needs to be tamed

donaldtramp

Macaque,

The past couple of days has seen some excellent posts with very damning evidence. I see Vladimir Posner (beingJDC) has scuttled off.

If you are skulking in the background Vladimir how about a response to this one?

There is simply no response that can be put forward in defence of this largesse.
The public sector employees have went very quiet sitting hoping this will all go away!
Much like Crash Gordon. Just keep your head under the duvet and pretend it isn't happening. That'll make it better won't it? Just keep ignoring all of our debts eh?
Wasn't it debt that got us all into the position we are in today?
Why is plunging Britain into ludicrous sums of debt (to keep the public sector/benefits merry go round going) going to do any better?

We can see from the lack of defence put forward by the public sector employees that they:
- know they're onto a good thing (with their jobs and pension benefits being subsidised by the private sector)
- know a great proportion of their jobs have been created with no real benefit for the UK.
- know Gordon Brown has been getting away with murder and disguising the failings of our manufacturing and wealth creating industries by employing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the public sector to artificially keep up employment.
- know Gordon Browns spending plans are totally unsustainable (if you can call bankrupting our country a plan!)

At least they will now be a wee bit more prepared when the lay offs and pension rationalisation begins. The taxpayer won't stand for it and the country can't afford it.

Mark my words, it's coming whether they like it or not!

A._Badger

Snipped for space:

donaldtramp wrote: »

Macaque,
We can see from the lack of defence put forward by the public sector employees that they:
- know they're onto a good thing (with their jobs and pension benefits being subsidised by the private sector)
- know a great proportion of their jobs have been created with no real benefit for the UK.
- know Gordon Brown has been getting away with murder and disguising the failings of our manufacturing and wealth creating industries by employing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the public sector to artificially keep up employment.
- know Gordon Browns spending plans are totally unsustainable (if you can call bankrupting our country a plan!)

At least they will now be a wee bit more prepared when the lay offs and pension rationalisation begins. The taxpayer won't stand for it and the country can't afford it.

Mark my words, it's coming whether they like it or not!

You might well have added 'been part of the construction of a client state- buying votes'.

Few of the state sector workers employed since Labour gained power are going to vote Conservative and neither are the vast number of immigrants, or those receiving
state benefits for no good reason (the disguised unemployed).

This has been a period of gerrymandering on a simply colossal scale.

beingjdc

macaque wrote: »

The past couple of days has seen some excellent posts with very damning evidence. I see Vladimir Posner (beingJDC) has scuttled off.

Yes, guess what, I don't know what all you hard-pressed people in the private sector here do, but I have a job to do and I can't just wander on to deal with MSE when I feel like it!

Anyway, I just got home, and you asked for a response, so;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...ss-398501.html

"Organisation of business leaders rank countries according to how much they tax and regulate business". What does that prove? Aren't we mostly agreed here that for example banks, estate agents, mortgage pushers, etc need more regulation? Business leaders will squeal of course, but so what? If the last 2 years have proved anything it's that the interests of big business and the interests of the country aren't the same thing.

Would love to see how you felt about the money involved if the public sector organised a self-congratulatory jamboree for bigwigs like Davos, too!

donaldtramp wrote:

What about the UK's "third world health service" killing hundreds and thousands unnecessarily???

Look at some proper international comparisons. We spend less on health than most developed countries, but we get equal or better results than many others out of that spending, and more people say the system works than say so in other countries. On the money, this report is quite good, and free; http://www.health.org.uk/publications/research_reports/value_for_money_1.html and for international comparisons http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/en/ .

donaldtramp

Would love to see how you felt about the money involved if the public sector organised a self-congratulatory jamboree for bigwigs like Davos, too!

OOOH that's on the same scale as the £1 TRILLION deficit the UK faces due to the public sector isn't it???
As for your "study," it proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

Read the Conclusion...

Moreover, hospital activity levels are increasing, though not in proportion to the funding increases.

and

. One reason for this is that the new consultant and GP contracts, as well as Agenda for Change, have consumed a significant percentage of the funding increase.

and

Whether these will lead to measurable health gains is also a matter for debate.

and

However, it is becoming clear that the careful measurement of productivity growth plays a central role in deciding how much of taxpayers’ money to spend on healthcare and in holding the NHS to account for its spending.

If that is the "defence" put forward from the public sector it is laughable:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Conclusion
The report concludes by pointing out that for many years the UK has spent far less on healthcare, as a proportion of its gross domestic product, than most of its European counterparts. This may have contributed to poor UK health outcomes, for example in cancer survival rates, relative to other countries.
It argues that if there was a cumulative under-spend of £267 billion from 1972 to 1998 (in 1998 prices), it is unlikely that an additional £6 billion per year will transform the NHS in the space of five or six years. Some of the additional resources could be seen as investment in labour and capital needed to overcome the years of under-investment.
On the capital side, the downward trend in the number of acute beds has now been reversed and there has been dramatic growth in the number of day beds. Moreover, hospital activity levels are increasing, though not in proportion to the funding increases. One reason for this is that the new consultant and GP contracts, as well as Agenda for Change, have consumed a significant percentage of the funding increase.
Additional cost pressures have also been imposed by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendations, the hospital building programme and a considerably increased intake to medical schools. Whether these will lead to measurable health gains is also a matter for debate. However, in the short term, the impact of these cost pressures means that much less money is available for increased activity, which is the prime driver of NHS output.
There remain many important unresolved issues, including the proper treatment of physical and human capital, the measurement of healthcare quality, the handling of ‘hard to measure’ areas such as mental health and the treatment of pharmaceutical price changes. However, it is becoming clear that the careful measurement of productivity growth plays a central role in deciding how much of taxpayers’ money to spend on healthcare and in holding the NHS to account for its spending.

If the last 2 years have proved anything it's that the interests of big business and the interests of the country aren't the same thing.

As I have said in a very recent post (with numbers to back it up) the bank bailout is SMALLER than the public sector liabilities and the banks can work the debt off. It is an injection of money over a 2 year period. See the outcry!The public sector debt just keeps mushrooming, if only people understood what it was going to cost us all over the next 2 or 3 DECADES!

donaldtramp

You might well have added 'been part of the construction of a client state- buying votes'.

Few of the state sector workers employed since Labour gained power are going to vote Conservative and neither are the vast number of immigrants, or those receiving
state benefits for no good reason (the disguised unemployed).

This has been a period of gerrymandering on a simply colossal scale.

Gerrymandering on a grand scale. Couldn't have put it any better.
Other names for it are Marxism, socialism (at least in Browns eyes) or as comrade Brown likes to refer to it, "fairness"

beingjdc

donaldtramp wrote: »

As for your "study," it proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

Read the Conclusion...

Well done, you have discovered that a proper study of something will demonstrate both good and bad. This is an important first step in your coming to terms with the fact that the world isn't black and white, and I regard it as progress.

treliac

donaldtramp wrote: »

if only people understood what it was going to cost us all over the next 2 or 3 DECADES!

How does the cost compare with the ongoing benefits bill and with the costs of tax evasion?

At least the public sector are contributing to the rest of us. I hope you never have need of the police, have a house fire, car accident or an elderly parent who needs care.

It may not be perfect but it's a lot better than in many parts of this world, where you'd be left to rot, whatever happened to you.

donaldtramp

Well done, you have discovered that a proper study of something will demonstrate both good and bad. This is an important first step in your coming to terms with the fact that the world isn't black and white, and I regard it as progress.

I thanked your last post as I hope you've came to realise that you should READ studies before you post them up as "evidence":rotfl:
It's quite clear from the conclusion in your "evidence" that the NHS is NOT spending out tax wisely.
Thanks for the link!;)
Nice of you to help prove our point:p

treliac

A._Badger wrote: »

Few of the state sector workers employed since Labour gained power are going to vote Conservative.

Rather too sweeping a statement. I doubt Labour stands any chance of getting back in now. But then again, there's got to be a viable alternative and that's an unknown quantity to gamble on, as things stand.

donaldtramp

Treliac

At least the public sector are contributing to the rest of us. I hope you never have need of the police, have a house fire, car accident or an elderly parent who needs care.

It may not be perfect but it's a lot better than in many parts of this world, where you'd be left to rot, whatever happened to you.

Resorting to insults, how intelligent!

Let me re-phrase that,
The public sector are bleeding the country dry. I pay for the services of the police, fire brigade(so I am more than entitled to use them) and my taxes along with the other workers in this country pick up the tab for the elderly, unemployed and the sick.

It is nowhere near good enough. I know there are less privileged parts of the world but if Britain keeps on down this route we will be joining them. We are all ready well on our way, as we plunge down all the measures of quality of life indexes as published.
If people like me were left to rot, there would be nobody to pay for the public sector. Remember the public sector are public servants and they have got a wee bit above their station.

The day of reckoning is coming.....