Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

JayScottGreenspan

geoffky wrote: »

When will people get it. that the social security bill is the price we have to pay to keep the unemployable from causing social unrest and massive crime problems..If we cut it expect them to come knocking and wanting a share of our wealth.

That's a good soundbite, but is it actually useful?

There is a bill to pay for social security, and that bill varies depending on govt policy. We can tweak the system and the bill might go up or if we tweak it differently the bill might go down.

You're not suggesting that we just ignore fine tuning welfare policy are you? That we do not even try to acheive the optimum balance? Based on a soundbite?

Old_Slaphead

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Which part of the public sector is going to bear the brunt of this revolution? I presume doctors, nurses, teachers, ambulance drivers etc are safe. So I guess that would be the "bloated bureaucrats" then, who are who?

As you say front line services should be left untouched. It's the vast unworkable computer projects, money wasted in uneconomic arms procurement, wars that we shouldn't be getting involved with, consultancy jobs, many of the quangos, layers of bureacracy (ie DTI - what does it do?), crass government advertising campaigns, foreign health tourism, benefit fraud etc etc that need radically cutting back.

StevieJ

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

That's a good soundbite, but is it actually useful?

There is a bill to pay for social security, and that bill varies depending on govt policy. We can tweak the system and the bill might go up or if we tweak it differently the bill might go down.

You're not suggesting that we just ignore fine tuning welfare policy are you? That we do not even try to acheive the optimum balance? Based on a soundbite?

I think he is talking about keeping the Proles happy/satisfied/opiated as in 1984 :eek:

ruggedtoast

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

As you say front line services should be left untouched. It's the vast unworkable computer projects, money wasted in uneconomic arms procurement, wars that we shouldn't be getting involved with, consultancy jobs, many of the quangos, layers of bureacracy (ie DTI - what does it do?), crass government advertising campaigns, foreign health tourism, benefit fraud etc etc that need radically cutting back.

Yes, but all front line services, without exception, require support services to work. Try running a university and recruiting students where the only staff are academics, or a hospital where you only employ doctors and nurses.

Many of the problems in the public sector stem from key jobs being outsourced to the private sector.

I agree about the absurd costs for consultancy and IT etc. A lot of this stuff could be done in house.

donaldtramp

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I find it bizarre that almost incalculable billions have been piddled up the wall by banksters on stratospheric salaries, inflating a bubble that has left most of us skint, and then had further billions poured into it by the government in an attempt to stop civilisation collapsing, but according to some people here the public sector workers are to be the prime whipping boys for the new revolution of equality.

Which part of the public sector is going to bear the brunt of this revolution? I presume doctors, nurses, teachers, ambulance drivers etc are safe. So I guess that would be the "bloated bureaucrats" then, who are who?

Ah, the usual nonsense about doctors nurses and ambulance drivers eh?:rolleyes:
These jobs (easy to create sympathy for) are a tiny percentage of the bloated state that soaks up money.
What about the millions who aren't in these "socially worthwhile" jobs?
Bring on the cull and the cuts. This nonsense doesn't wash with me.

donaldtramp

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

That's a good soundbite, but is it actually useful?

There is a bill to pay for social security, and that bill varies depending on govt policy. We can tweak the system and the bill might go up or if we tweak it differently the bill might go down.

You're not suggesting that we just ignore fine tuning welfare policy are you? That we do not even try to acheive the optimum balance? Based on a soundbite?

Fine tuning welfare policy:rotfl:
The welfare "policy" of the current government has positively encouraged the underclass to expand. Giving people money for nothing except the ability to breed and watch Jeremy Kyle during the day is NOT the route to a successful society.
"Fairness" in Clowns eyes is to take cash from the working and just dish it out to the great unwashed

SGE1

donaldtramp wrote: »

Fine tuning welfare policy:rotfl:
The welfare "policy" of the current government has positively encouraged the underclass to expand. Giving people money for nothing except the ability to breed and watch Jeremy Kyle during the day is NOT the route to a successful society.
"Fairness" in Clowns eyes is to take cash from the working and just dish it out to the great unwashed

Is that a fact?

donaldtramp

SGE1 wrote: »

Is that a fact?

I believe so. The socialist government we have in at the moment has followed the same old tired route that Labour always follows.
They spend all the cash, redistribute wealth to everyone and their dogs. Eventually economics catches up with them when there is nothing left in the pot.
Labour has tried to extend the debt bubble(by taking on ridiculous, stupid amounts of debt) so that over the next year or so everything will appear rosy, but then the nastiness will begin.
It's textbook socialist governance.

donaldtramp

Oh and here is an article published today which shows just how much nonsense is spouted about the "poor" public sector.
In today's Times results from a study by Price Waterhouse Coopers comparing the benefits of Public sector and private sector benefits since 1981.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6296920.ece

Public sector pensions provide profitable twist

Patrick Hosking

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited !! color:#06c; } An entire generation of graduates spectacularly miscalculated 30 years ago when they shunned the public sector in favour of private employment because of the prospect of higher rewards. Public sector jobs might be a bit more secure, but the pay was infinitely higher in the private sector, wasn't it?
Not according to PwC, which traces the respective career paths of two 1981 graduates with middle-ranking career paths in the Civil Service and banking. The civil servant ends up earning more, spending more and leaving more to his children and grandchildren. It is the defined benefit pension enjoyed by the civil servant that makes the biggest difference to their fortunes. It's a point worth making as the public continues to recoil at rewards to one particular group of public sector workers.
MPs' expenses are nauseating but it is their unbelievably generous pensions - they clock up benefits at almost three times the speed even of civil servants - that ensure they will have the last laugh over erstwhile student colleagues foolish enough to opt for a career in private enterprise.

StevieJ

donaldtramp wrote: »

Oh and here is an article published today which shows just how much nonsense is spouted about the "poor" public sector.
In today's Times results from a study by Price Waterhouse Coopers comparing the benefits of Public sector and private sector benefits since 1981.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6296920.ece

That is better, back to your area of expertise :T