George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

milliebear00001

Nice_Username wrote: »

No, the OP simply states "sounds fair enough to me".

I contest that it isn't actually fair at all, not in the slightest.



Then I suggest you have another rethink and consider the broader picture bacause all the "We're all in this together" nonsense is complete b0llox. We're all being mugged off.

In my experience 'we're all in this together' usually means the poorest (whether working poor or non-working) suffer while the rich look after their own.

StevieJ

Echoes of Ramsay MacDonald.

And fellow Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham said the Lib Dems had "sold their souls" for jobs in government.

chopperharris

worried_jim wrote: »

Progress--

lol you are entering a neighbourhood watch area sign.Someone has stolen one of thems shoes.And one guy is that stoned he hasnt realised his bike has been half hinched.

leveller2911

StevieJ wrote: »

Echoes of Ramsey McDonald.

Damn you Stevie, your just posts are far too inteligent for me to grasp ....:rotfl:

Can you give to me in "Laymans " terms.

StevieJ

leveller2911 wrote: »

Damn you Stevie, your just posts are far too inteligent for me to grasp ....:rotfl:

Can you give to me in "Laymans " terms.

Any bells ringing with this clue just substitute LibDem for Labour.

Ramsay MacDonald

He remained Prime Minister of the National Government from 1931 to 1935; during this time his health rapidly deteriorated and he became increasingly ineffective as a leader. He stood down as Prime Minister in 1935 but stayed in the Cabinet as Lord President of the Council until retiring from politics in 1937 and dying later that year.
He is generally viewed with contempt by left-wing members of today's Labour Party who view him as a "traitor" from the Labour Right, mainly for forming the National Government with the Conservatives, and for nearly destroying as a national force the party that had supported him.

tartanterra

carolt wrote: »

Please re-read my first post in its entirety rather than selectively quoting. You criticised that post on the - entirely unsupported and as it turned out entirely wrong - assumption that I was a public sector worker hoping to feather my nest.

I'm not.

I work in the private sector and get no bonus at all. I have never had a job where I got any kind of bonus, public or private sector.

You then incorrectly drew the conclusion from my post that I was in favour of performance-related bonuses. I'm not.

Where we differ is that you would specifically like to bash all public-sector workers because a small proportion of the pay of some public-sector workers (as I said, no more a grand - so not a huge amount) is performance related - as though they all put up their hand and voted for this!

I have many friends who work in the public sector ad I can assure you that it was imposed on them from above, to ape the private sector, which was seen as some kind of ideal model for public sector work - even though, as many (including yourself) have pointed out, public sector work is very different and not primarily profit-driven, and therefore the bonus culture is even less appropriate there than it is in the public sector (where I think recent experience with the bankers has shown how deeply pointless it usually is there too, as it encourages focusing on short-term goals over long-term ones).

I really dislike public-sector bashing for the sake of it - public sector workers are just workers doing a job, like the rest of us, to the best of their ability in most cases.

Blaming them for a bonus system that they did not choose or create seems utterly petty and divisive. Much like your good self.

Nex time you make factually wrong assumptions about fellow posters' motives, you might like to apologise rather than trying to hide your error in a sea of pointless venom.

Whatever.

You clearly disagree with me, but I'm not really willing to be stalked and ranted at, so this is my final post on this thread.

I will of course retain my views on the Public sector as having previously worked in the the Public service (albeit as a crown servant), I actually know that it is rife with waste and there are many "made up" jobs where productivity varies from "very little" to "zero". Hence I now work in the private sector, where if you don't work, or no work is available, you don't get paid - Which really, is as it should be.

By the way, all the civil servants where I worked recieved bonuses, for no discernable reason that I could understand.

Over and out:)

Gorgeous_George

A household's total benefits should be limited to 80% of the minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Simples.

GG

kabayiri

I don't get all this talk of fairness.

Who cares.

We have to save money. We give out a hell of a lot of tax money to people who provide no economic benefit. We can't afford this to continue.
Therefore, we change things.

Right now, I earn less than I did before the recession. I have had to adapt. Less tax receipts mean others have to adapt. It isn't exactly rocket science.

dopester

worried_jim wrote: »

Progress--

That street-post-sign. YOU ARE ENTERING A NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH AREA.

kabayiri

chopperharris wrote: »

lol you are entering a neighbourhood watch area sign.Someone has stolen one of thems shoes.And one guy is that stoned he hasnt realised his bike has been half hinched.

To be accurate I think it was a scooter which the gentleman had lost, and not a bike.

He had to downsize due to the recession.