very weak budget

The_White_Horse

i am waiting for the public sector lot to defend all these salaries and the fact that they always speak out about teachers and nurses, but never availability and improvement officers.

The_White_Horse

not a peep out of the lefties and their supporters for nearly two hours. idiot lefties. they need to realise once and for all that nurses and teachers probably make up less that 5% of public sector jobs and that at least 50% of jobs are waste.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I get the impression that a lot of these jobs are lumbered with ridiculous titles that their private sector equivalent probably don't have. You would need a job description to understand exactly what they do and and then judge whether it's justified.

You do realise that frontline staff like teachers, nurses, firefighters etc can't do their jobs without a backroom team ensuring that utility bills are paid, equipment is maintained, shift rotas are organised, overtime is paid, training is up to date, records are kept, the relevant HR/insurance requirements are met etc etc...

Incidentally, how would you implement your 50% cull? Sack everyone whose surname starts in one half of the alphabet? Everyone who works on odd-numbered floors of the building? How do you decide which jobs are crucial to service delivery?

The_White_Horse

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I get the impression that a lot of these jobs are lumbered with ridiculous titles that their private sector equivalent probably don't have. You would need a job description to understand exactly what they do and and then judge whether it's justified.

You do realise that frontline staff like teachers, nurses, firefighters etc can't do their jobs without a backroom team ensuring that utility bills are paid, equipment is maintained, shift rotas are organised, overtime is paid, training is up to date, records are kept, the relevant HR/insurance requirements are met etc etc...

Incidentally, how would you implement your 50% cull? Sack everyone whose surname starts in one half of the alphabet? Everyone who works on odd-numbered floors of the building? How do you decide which jobs are crucial to service delivery?

this is very easy - you simply get rid of any job that was created post 1997

chucky

bendix wrote: »

I bitterly resent the implication that Tories are nasty and uncaring. Absolutely on the contrary. The essence of conservatism is to free people to be the best they can be on their own two feet, to empower and enable class mobility, and to nurture/force self-sufficience. Fundamental to it is a belief that people are excellent and equal and left to their own devices will flourish.

this may all be true and you'd like to think it but if this was actually the case they would have had a landslide victory in the last election... they obviously didn't, they had to ask for help from a smaller party.

portraying them in such a romantic way is nice though.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

this may all be true and you'd like to think it but if this was actually the case they would have had a landslide victory in the last election... they obviously didn't, they had to ask for help from a smaller party.

portraying them in such a romantic way is nice though.

Maybe thats because a high % of the working population were glad to have secure jobs and pensions.

From a personal perspective no one wants a reduction in their standard of living. So will vote to protect themselves rather than care about the wider populace.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe thats because a high % of the working population were glad to have secure jobs and pensions.

do you have anything to back up the statement that all of those in the public sector voted for the previous government?

bendix

chucky wrote: »

this may all be true and you'd like to think it but if this was actually the case they would have had a landslide victory in the last election... they obviously didn't, they had to ask for help from a smaller party.

portraying them in such a romantic way is nice though.

chucky, my west London friend, you're a lot smarter than this post suggests.

You know full well that there is a world of difference between the essence of the philosophy of conservatism and the actual party (and how people interact with it or vote for it, or not). Just as there is a massive difference between the fundamentals of communism and how the various Communist Parties have interpreted the creed.

My point was about the concept of conservatism; the philosophical background to it as a way of thinking; and the moral standpoint or world view that leads one natural to a conservative position.

And I believe innately that conservatism as a creed is fair, empowering and rational. Also that it is predicated on a believe that all people are capable of great things.

Socialism, on the other hand, is based on the concept that people aren't free or and that some aren't equal or capable, and so need a leg-up. And that leg-up enslaves them.

I speak from experience. My recently departed father - one of the most able men I ever knew, but innately lazy- became a welfare dependent, simply because it was there for him. I know for a fact that had that support not been there, he would have soared and been successful. As it was, he wasted his life, reading the Sun (as a working man in my childhood, he read the Telegraph - go figure), watching tv, and collecting his benefit cheque for the last twenty years of his life.

Anyway, this a philosophical argument, and getting bogged down in tactical policy points or how people vote (usually irrationally - and I mean both Tory and Labour voters) in practice is taking the debate into all sorts of places that will lead nowhere.

chucky

bendix wrote: »

chucky, my west London friend, you're a lot smarter than this post suggests.

You know full well that there is a world of difference between the essence of the philosophy of conservatism and the actual party (and how people interact with it or vote for it, or not). Just as there is a massive difference between the fundamentals of communism and how the various Communist Parties have interpreted the creed.

My point was about the concept of conservatism; the philosophical background to it as a way of thinking; and the moral standpoint or world view that leads one natural to a conservative position.

And I believe innately that conservatism as a creed is fair, empowering and rational. Also that it is predicated on a believe that all people are capable of great things.

Socialism, on the other hand, is based on the concept that people aren't free or and that some aren't equal or capable, and so need a leg-up. And that leg-up enslaves them.

I speak from experience. My recently departed father - one of the most able men I ever knew, but innately lazy- became a welfare dependent, simply because it was there for him. I know for a fact that had that support not been there, he would have soared and been successful. As it was, he wasted his life, reading the Sun (as a working man in my childhood, he read the Telegraph - go figure), watching tv, and collecting his benefit cheque for the last twenty years of his life.

Anyway, this a philosophical argument, and getting bogged down in tactical policy points or how people vote (usually irrationally - and I mean both Tory and Labour voters) in practice is taking the debate into all sorts of places that will lead nowhere.

another good post - you're on a role sir!!

all the parties are very similar not in politics but the game that they play, to maintain themselves in power for as long as possible. it's a shame but it's what we've come to expect from politicians regardless from which party they are from.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

do you have anything to back up the statement that all of those in the public sector voted for the previous government?

I didn't say all. But as with British Airways dispute many people will refuse to take a downward change in their pay and conditions. Even if it endangers the security of their own employment.