We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector
Comments
-
If you believe we can sustain public spending at a level of something north of 150 billion more than tax receipts on the base of "investing" in a public sector which is laughably inefficient and unproductive then why not start forming a queue to pay higher taxes so we can actually afford them? What's the return on the investment exactly? We don't get growth from the public sector, we get bloat.
It's not just the economy that Labour corrupted. This use of 'investment' to descrbie spending has to be one of the greatest linguistic perversions of the century.0 -
Do Royal mail staff count as Public or Private ?Royal Mail axes 2,000 middle managers
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=514446&in_page_id=2&position=moretopstories0 -
-
That has got to be the most insanely stupid comment I have ever seen from a Labour supporter, although there's a rich harvest in your other contributions,
This government hasn't had the chance to put inflation up yet. It's attempting to deal with a deficit which is way out of control, and guess who set that up? Or did your lot do nothing since 1997 (when they inherited extremely strong fundamentals and chucked them down the toilet)?
If you believe we can sustain public spending at a level of something north of 150 billion more than tax receipts on the base of "investing" in a public sector which is laughably inefficient and unproductive then why not start forming a queue to pay higher taxes so we can actually afford them? What's the return on the investment exactly? We don't get growth from the public sector, we get bloat.
Empty waffle, hysterical rantings from a Tory fanatic.
No chance to put up inflation? Inflation is already running at 4.5% and will most likely increase further. And the Con-Dem way of dealing with the deficit is going to lead to mass unemployment, huge disruption in public services and yes, damage to the private sector as well. It will have a domino effect. This monetarist obsession with strangling spending has been a popular economic ideology since the days of Thatcher but it is analogous to killing a patient in order to eliminate the infection/tumour/whatever.
There is more to good government that cutting taxes and doing everything to suit the interests of certain private sector concerns. The conservatives have always well rewarded their paymasters in the City and various other industries, so I can well understand where they are coming from. The public sector is not 'laughably inefficient and unproductive' - it is there to do a different job to that of the private sector, you moron! And the job of the public sector is not to make money for its directors, but to deliver good education, medical care and policing. The fibre of the nation depends on the public sector that you so hate. Of course there is a need for cuts in certain areas, but the approach of the current administration is to destroy entire swathes of the public sector, and this is what is not acceptable.0 -
I simply don't agree that it was the government that needed to do this work. Fundamentally I don't understand why the public sector should provide services
You haven't quite cottoned on to the fact that no-one is going to be providing some services...
Reality is about to impinge on these Libertarian fantasies.Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
The alternative would have been not to outbid private sector enterprise for the value of labour when the jobs market was booming. It may seem a dream now but the reason millions of folk from eastern Europe came here was the availability of jobs (let's not get onto the subject of Labour thinking only 13,000 would come!)
First, private organisations need not be profit-making. Second, the state is often not the solution for the provision of services (Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson won the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for their empirical work related to this subject).
Not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. Outbid private sector enterprise? Nonsense. Private sector enterprise was awarded large projects like the NHS IT and made a pig's ear of it, hugely outstripping project estimates in both cost and time. Your talk of non-profit private sector organisations is utter nonsense, as the very reason why the private sector exists is to make a profit, unless you refer to charities, but these have no place in running government work.Third, just because profit-making companies have profit margins doesn't make them more costly. You're taking one element of cost (the return on investment expected by investors who provide capital) and ignoring everything else. If profit-making is so costly then how do the likes of Tesco, Asda/Walmart, Sainsbury's, Aldi & Lidl compete on cost with Waitrose or the Co-op? And if rubbish collection is so expensive why have so many councils outsourced this work to profit-making companies rather than kept this service function in-house? Profit-margins are irrelevant relative to all the efficiencies that profit-making brings.
You can outsource a lot of work to the private sector quite well, I'm not denying that. But there is a huge political risk in making key public services open to private sector bidders. Your supermarket analogy is irrelevant to the argument, as we are talking about running services not selling beef and lamb. And quite frankly, would you be happier with an 'Aldi' health service or a 'Waitrose' one? We are talking about human lives here, not food.As opposed to politicians in an ivory tower? 'Worthwhile' is best defined by individuals using their own money, accumulated by their own labour, deciding what is worthwhile. Individuals do this by buying goods and services from organisations that employ those accountants locked in an ivory tower.
No, 'worthwhile' is something that, as far as public services are concerned, is there to be decided by the elected representatives of the people, not by Daily Mail journalists or middle aged Tory supporters who post on forums such as this one.edit: forgot this
I simply don't agree that it was the government that needed to do this work. Fundamentally I don't understand why the public sector should provide services (note this does not mean government shouldn't allocate resources for, say, primary education, imho it should, but it shouldn't be in charge of providing that service).
Name one major country in the world that doesn't have the public sector to run primary and secondary education, health, uniformed services, local government administration and central government administration. Name one country that has privatised all of these. What you advocate is utter nonsense, born of an ideological obsession with reducing state employment in the vain hope that a private sector takeover will mean lower taxes for higher taxpayers like yourself. Dream on.0 -
Where does the figure of 1.3 million come from? Another piece of hyperbole. I'm happy to wager with anyone that unemployment will not be 1.3 million higher (3.8 million) in five years time.0
-
Nonsense. If you follow the 'housewife with a budget' policy you will drive the nation to disaster. The government raises revenue through tax, and tax is raised from taxpayers, now if you want to raise more tax you need to grow the economy so that more people earn more money. How do you that? By cutting this, that and the other? Of course not - you do that by investing, creating jobs and growing the economy.
How exactly are public sector non-jobs helping to raise tax?0 -
Bullfighter wrote: »How exactly are public sector non-jobs helping to raise tax?
Public sector jobs are not 'non-jobs' - they are jobs because they deliver essential services that the country relies on. Only a moron would use the phrase 'non-jobs', so that speaks more about yourself than anything else. And yes, public sector workers pay tax just like everyone else.0 -
Public sector jobs are not 'non-jobs' - they are jobs because they deliver essential services that the country relies on. Only a moron would use the phrase 'non-jobs', so that speaks more about yourself than anything else. And yes, public sector workers pay tax just like everyone else.
I would dispute that for many of them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards