Frank Field given role as poverty czar by Cameron - The Times

A._Badger

ninky wrote: »

you've got to wonder why kate hoey is still in the labour party given her pro hunt and anti-gay views tbh. i'm sure she'd fit in with cameron's agenda very nicely.

Most likely Cameron is too Left-wing for her.

pwllbwdr

Frank Field? "I remember you-oooooooooo"

bristol_pilot

A great decision. Frank Field is one of only three Labour politicians that I rate. And the other two are dead.

nickmason

ninky wrote: »

you've got to wonder why kate hoey is still in the labour party given her pro hunt and anti-gay views tbh. i'm sure she'd fit in with cameron's agenda very nicely.

There are lots of people in the labour party with similar views. There are even other parliamentarians. And of course there are those in other parties as well.

If anyone got around to asking Kate Hoey why she is still labour, I understand she'd say because she is a through and through socialist when it comes to social and economic matters. I don't think she would mind me saying that she wouldn't fit in, and she wouldn't want to anyhow. She is just one of the brave MPs that recognises that not everything should be sacrificed to the party line.

ash28

bristol_pilot wrote: »

A great decision. Frank Field is one of only three Labour politicians that I rate. And the other two are dead.

To be honest Frank Field is one of the only politicians I rate and that's politicians of any political persuasion.

When Tony Blair replaced Frank Field with Harriet Harman, after asking him to "think the unthinkable" on welfare reform, you knew there wouldn't be any welfare reform.

I think it's time poverty in UK was looked at and perhaps redefined, there is a difference between absolute poverty and the relative poverty we see in the UK. Perhaps it's all indication that there may be welfare reform somewhere along the line. If the new govt have the stomach for it.

carolt

I sincerely hope so - and I say that as a natural 'Old' Labour supporter.

To me, socialism is about each contributing according to his/her ability, and taking according to his/her needs.

Labour seem to have reinvented that as 'contributing nothing if you'd rather watch daytime telly, and taking enough to ensure you can afford a flatscreen telly, several games machines, a fierce dog and other decidedly non-essential items'.

Rather fed up of it.

jonewer

vivatifosi wrote: »

I know of few low-moderate paid civil servants/LGOs who have major sympathy for pay cuts for the best paid people in their service who they rarely meet or come into contact with.

I think the rule that the more a public servant gets paid, the less public service they perform.

The highest paid are in effect politicians who go around promoting their 'vision' and 'mission statement' and generally trying to show how big their bollox are by introducing silly new initiatives that waste everyone's time and money.

If you sacked all public sector staff who get paid more than £100k, things would probably run a lot smoother.

carolt

I think the first step would be sacking all the consultants brought in to 'support' the public sector, ie leech off it.

From friends working in the public sector, I know that pay of £500-1000 a day is common for these leeches.

Obviously, as they've just come from outside the organisation, with absolutely no knowledge of the policy area in question, they haven't a clue what they're talking about and are paid for nothing more than vacuous, and usually incorrect, platitudes.

But of course they were beloved by Nu Labour ministers with the 'private sector is better' mentality ingrained in them.

What an astonishing waste of public money.

jonewer

ash28 wrote: »

I think it's time poverty in UK was looked at and perhaps redefined, there is a difference between absolute poverty and the relative poverty we see in the UK. Perhaps it's all indication that there may be welfare reform somewhere along the line. If the new govt have the stomach for it.

The current definition of relative poverty means that you can never do away with it.

If you increased the entire nation's income a million-fold in real terms, we would still have the same proportion of people in 'poverty' even though the 'poorest' would be richer than all but a handful of people in the rest of world.

Its a bit silly really.

jonewer

carolt wrote: »

I think the first step would be sacking all the consultants brought in to 'support' the public sector, ie leech off it.

This ^^^



Oh, and theres also this from the Times today

The Metropolitan Police had planned to spend £38 million to overhaul its human resources department and save £15 million per year in office costs. But the latest estimate for the project is £48 million and no date has been set for when it will be ready.

And unsuprisingly,

“a highly experienced manager” had been appointed from outside the Met “to bring further rigour and discipline”.