The Truth About The State Pension

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Isn't that slightly contradictory?

If those who work in the public sector represent such good value (as you so self-effacingly put it), why would your bosses need to hire private sector consultants? Arent you guys up to the tasks yourself? Don't your bosses rate you?

Why, then, should we?

You are really brilliant at twisting the argument to suit your own ends, aren't you? Typical of a troll.

If you had any logic you would realise that the reason consultants have been brought in is because they have certain skills that are missing in the permanent workforce. Now, the question you should be asking is: do these people offer the taxpayer value for money, when existing staff could have been retrained at a fraction of the cost? And I believe the answer is no. The reason I came up with this example is that the public sector is full of these consultants that are being taken on at huge cost. The problem lies in the attitude of senior management, who only seem interested in quick fixes, regardless of cost.

marklv

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Such good value that he spends all his time on here moaning about how hard done to he is and arguing with everyone. I feel that that's my tax money well spent. No wonder they need external resources, nothing would get done otherwise. :rolleyes:

Really? Well, what job do you do then? Other than being a total waste of space, that is.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

You are really brilliant at twisting the argument to suit your own ends, aren't you? Typical of a troll.

If you had any logic you would realise that the reason consultants have been brought in is because they have certain skills that are missing in the permanent workforce. Now, the question you should be asking is: do these people offer the taxpayer value for money, when existing staff could have been retrained at a fraction of the cost? And I believe the answer is no. The reason I came up with this example is that the public sector is full of these consultants that are being taken on at huge cost. The problem lies in the attitude of senior management, who only seem interested in quick fixes, regardless of cost.

Well, of course I am. Isn't that the point of debate?

Your post just argues my case further. The public sector is incapable of doing what it needs to do, without wasting more taxpayer money. It is bloated with jobsworths who obviously aren't capable of doing what is needed themselves, and yet despite being bloated it still feels the need to hire private sector expertise.

It must make you very proud, mark. No, really, it must. Congratulations.
:T:T:T:T:T:T

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Well, of course I am. Isn't that the point of debate?

Your post just argues my case further. The public sector is incapable of doing what it needs to do, without wasting more taxpayer money. It is bloated with jobsworths who obviously aren't capable of doing what is needed themselves, and yet despite being bloated it still feels the need to hire private sector expertise.

It must make you very proud, mark. No, really, it must. Congratulations.
:T:T:T:T:T:T

You really have no idea of what you are talking about, do you? I bet you are a UKIP supporter - the arrogance shines through magnificently. You must have a real hate-fixation with the public sector; even Maggie Thatcher was probably not radical enough for your taste.

The public sector is perfectly capable - the problem is that it tries to do too much, and in so doing does very little well. This is the real problem in the public sector; take it from the horse's mouth. What we need in this country is a public sector that concentrates on the essentials. Instead we are seeing schools clogged up with useless bureaucracy and pointless tests, teachers with less power to do their jobs the way they want to, hospitals with countless administrators staff trying to hit government targets, etc. To do a job well you need clear objectives and the tools with which to do it, not having to justify everything you do or spend to some auditor or inspector. The sooner the government realises this, the sooner we'll have a really efficient public sector.

i8change

Elderly socialist couple insist state provision is adequate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5541076/Kinnocks-entitled-to-six-state-pensions-think-tank-report-finds.html

bendix

marklv wrote: »

You really have no idea of what you are talking about, do you? I bet you are a UKIP supporter - the arrogance shines through magnificently. You must have a real hate-fixation with the public sector; even Maggie Thatcher was probably not radical enough for your taste.

The public sector is perfectly capable - the problem is that it tries to do too much, and in so doing does very little well. This is the real problem in the public sector; take it from the horse's mouth. What we need in this country is a public sector that concentrates on the essentials. Instead we are seeing schools clogged up with useless bureaucracy and pointless tests, teachers with less power to do their jobs the way they want to, hospitals with countless administrators staff trying to hit government targets, etc. To do a job well you need clear objectives and the tools with which to do it, not having to justify everything you do or spend to some auditor or inspector. The sooner the government realises this, the sooner we'll have a really efficient public sector.

Actually, I'm not against the public sector per se. I can see an efficient public sector has a certain useful function in society. Sadly, the public sector we have is bloated, grown too fast, inefficient and wasteful. It also has a self-regard far in excess of its value. You are a perfect example of that.

And, for the record, no . . Margaret Thatcher only went so far. She could have gone much further, in my view.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

And, for the record, no . . Margaret Thatcher only went so far. She could have gone much further, in my view.

I think that says it all - I rest my case!

bendix

marklv wrote: »

I think that says it all - I rest my case!

You almost post that as an insult, but I'm not sure why. Her entire focus was one of reducing wasteful excesses in the public sector and encouraging free market enterprise, something which - unless I'm very much mistaken - every single major political party in the UK is currently agreed is necessary.

An interesting picture of the future needs for public sector cuts was made in The Economist this week:

"The fat has built up across the public sector. The total pay bill has risen by almost 30% in the five years to 2008-09, reaching £158bn; it accounts for a quarter of overall spending. The number of state employees has increased over the past decade by about 600,000 to 5.8 bn, excluding the staff of bailed out banks. Average earnings in the public sector have grown faster than those in the private sector since 2000, and the gap has widened in the recession. State employees also enjoy much more generous pension arrangements than most private workers get.

"The evidence of an over-reaching and inefficient state with unaffordable aspirations is all around. Defence procurement is notorious for overruns. A project to create electronic patient records in the NHS is proving hugely expensive and has been beset by delays. Despite ministers' claims of efficiency gains, the Office of National Statistics has recorded falling productivity in the public services in the decade to 2007."

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. If caring about such waste, such inefficiences and such incompetence makes me an uncaring Thatcherite, then I am guilty as charged. I'd prefer to see essential public services run efficiently by those we overpay to run them; sadly it seems that is beyond the average public sector employee, and so their management have to rely instead on expensive private sector consultants.

It's completely shameful.

And then we have dear old marklv saying we can't cut back on this waste because there will be angry strikes.

Seriously - will anyone notice? Let them strike. Fat lot of good it's done the Postal Service, for example. Are they on strike still? I believe so, but noone really cares and noone is really bothered, are they?

marklv

Bendix, you sound like a party political broadcast for the Conservative Party..............but maybe not, as they would probably reject you for extremism. You can come up with as many quotes as you like from ultra-capitalist newspapers and magazines, but this is just regurgitating the same extremist mantras that these publications have been vomiting since time immemorial.

Thatcher destroyed the industrial base of this country and inflicted massive social damage from which this nation has never properly recovered. This is her lasting legacy. I still remember the accursed day in 1975 when that witch beat Ted Heath and Willie Whitelaw to the leadership of the Tory Party, and then proceeded to destroy everything that British conservatism had been about, turning it into an extremist capitalist party on American lines.

Old_Slaphead

The Tories were so bad that they were democratically elected for 4 sucessive terms - something which the present Labour Party will not replicate (thank god).