We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

Emy1501

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but an accountant in a big firm is earning his keep by billing and making a profit - he he makes no profit, he will lose his job.

meanwhile the accountant working in the public sector makes no money - but is just a drain on public resources. if the public sector accountant wants to earn a big firm wage, he could, lets see.... hmmmm.. i know - work at a big firm. the problem is, he wouldn't stand a chance in a big firm and he knows it.

My friend is a chartered accountant and they laugh at the revenue's accountants. they are a joke. wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real world. same with the CPS. They are useless and would last 5 minutes in a big firm. So many cases fail because of their incompetence. Now, you're answer, like many lefties, is probably to throw more money at it. that is not the answer.

public sector workers are generally the failures. thank god there is no proper divide between private and public health care or else you would see a massive difference in the standard of doctors. the decent ones would work private and the failures that couldn't hack it in the real world would be at the nhs.

Teachers the same. So many are soooooo bad. They fail the kids. Many teachers in private schools don't even have teaching diplomas yet are 100% better than the state school teachers? why? If we pay the idiot 30% more will they be 30% better? I don't think so.

Public sector - the biggest cancer and threat to the economy

How do you work out teachers in the private sector are better then the public sector? As you say many do not have any teaching qualifications and some have only 3rd degrees.

The reason why the results are better are because they are selective. Many state schools would get 100% gcse A-C grades if they could choose the pupils they took.

carolt

See my post above, Emy - v interested to see how White Horse can square that circle.

vivatifosi

The_White_Horse wrote: »

that said, I am in favour of the nhs to an extent. although it is badly managed and inefficient. things like sex changes etc should NOT be available.

Concerned in case you get gelded WH?

treliac

Emy1501 wrote: »

The reason why the results are better are because they are selective. Many state schools would get 100% gcse A-C grades if they could choose the pupils they took.

And private schools can chuck out anyone they choose to.... unlike state schools, which are stuck with the inclusion policy and have to try and teach all sorts of rebels alongside those who want to learn. A pretty impossible task in many instances!

What does TWH know about it anyway?!

carolt

Possibly he's still at school?

LizEstelle

carolt wrote: »

Possibly he's still at school?

From my own experience of his worthy contributions to threads, I don't believe that dear ol' pale naggy and education have ever had much interaction...

bigheadxx

bigheadxx wrote: »

About as clueless as the man himself GB:

He went on: "Britain is on the road to recovery. Don't put that at risk. The Conservatives' policy would take £6 billion out of the economy. That is a huge sum of money to take out of the economy.
"National Insurance is to pay for the public services that we are getting. We have more teachers, we have got more nurses, we have got more doctors. That is what we are trying to maintain - the high standard of public services."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100407/tuk-pm-defends-national-insurance-plans-6323e80.html

Isn't the Conservative policy actually going to put £6BN into the economy? What GB means is under the tory proposals there is £6BN extra in the economy that individuals and businesses can spend themselves rather than the government. Same old labour, the government can spend your money better than the individual.

Just confirmed on QT!!!!!!

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

No it does not mean cutting pay just because the private sector is doing it but the private sector cutting pay does have an economic consequence for the raising of tax for the government.

If there is less money coming in to the government in terms of taxes then that has to translate to reductions in the public sector pay bill just as less money coming in to a private company means that cuts in pay and overheads have to be made.

Erm, no. If there is less money coming in to the government in terms of taxes, the government needs to borrow more. Simple. Then, when the eventual and inevitable economic boom happens again, and tax revenues go up, the borrowings get paid back.

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

I think, irrespective of what the swivel eyed Alan Cross and you (who are generally far more reasonable and measured in your points) think it is inevitably going to happen. Your wages will be effected as will your pensions. It is not reasonable to expect the private sector taxpayer to pay extra to fund the public sectors ballooning wage and pensions bill. It is fine when time is booming and jobs are being created in the private sector, it is unsustainable going forward as the money is not going to be there and deferring the pain simply prolongs the pain when we do get onto it.

Well, if the government (of whichever party) decides to do as you say, then they will face the consequences, which will be strikes and a very unhappy and disaffected workforce. As for pensions, these are no longer a big issue because the government has already said that it will contribute no more than a set amount to public sector pensions, the rest having to be met by employees. The cuts have already been made here and there isn't much room to do more. The really big pension costs are due to existing payouts to pensioners from earlier decades who are living into their 90s etc. As for the wage bills, the only way to cut them is by making lots of people redundant, but then that costs money as well, so would this really be worthwhile? Pay cuts sound great, but when the economy picks up the best people will !!!!!! off and in order to replace them jobs will have to be advertised at pay levels that will attract people from the private sector. You make it sound so easy - it isn't.

marklv

bigheadxx wrote: »

Most public sector workers will have tried to get these "big firm" jobs at some time in their careers and failed. The same as many in the private sector will have tried at some point. There are only so many big money jobs which go to sometimes the lucky and sometimes the talented.

The public sector somehow thinks that their individual failure should be compensated by the rest of us.

Rubbish. Small firms pay less because they are less profitable and can make fewer economies of scale, and therefore have more overheads proportionally. Large employers pay more because they have more financial clout, so the comparison needs to be made between employers of similar size, regardless of whether they are private or public sector.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

Then, when the eventual and inevitable economic boom happens again, and tax revenues go up, the borrowings get paid back.

I'm sorry, but citing the Gordon Brown School of Economics isn't going to give you much credibility.

I think you're making a reference to Keynesianism, but Keynes actually suggested saving in the good times which would allow deficit spending in the bad times to prop up economic activity. However, Brown borrowed in the good times and borrowed even more in the bad times. That is not sustainable for very long.

Another 'boom' in the asset based economy we had over the last ten years isn't going to happen...that would require an even greater proliferation of cheap money than before. Instead, we'll need to restructure the economy and make some painful fiscal readjustments, and adapt to the challenges in energy supply and demographics.