500,000 Public Sector Workers Culled

ninky_2

it's interesting that at no point do the coalition paint a picture of the sort of society they wish to create by cutting the deficit - because the truth is they aren't interested in 'society', like thatcher they are just interested in what the individual (specifically an individual like them) can get. it's all about figures and the bottom line.

most uninspiring. big society my !!!!.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

no it wasn't just about the borrowing. it was also about allocation. and attitude - one that puts value on things other than money and profit. if we are going to use the (flawed) domestic living analogy it's the difference between living in a household that cares about the lives and feelings of members in it and one that only cares about the rent they bring in and costs incurred keeping and feeding them.

That is all very well, but if the money runs out and you just keep on increasing borrowing to fund all these nice things, eventually it crashes. That is what is happening now. I believe we are now having to pay something like £40 million per day in interest alone.

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Just out of interest do you recognise any of these traits on this board

There is nothing callous, ruthless or lacking in empathy about people approving of the cuts. On the contrary.

Take benefits for example. To my way of thinking, a system that has developed under Labour which steals the potential out of millions of people by facilitating them spending their lives on benefit money is callous, cruel and cynical. To remove that possibility, on the other hand, is empowering, incentivising, nurturing.

That Tories are somehow 'crueler' than Socialists is the biggest political myth of modern times. The essence of Toryism is to free people from a life of dependancy, to encourage them to be the best they can be without the crippling cycle of dependancy we are now in

There are whole generations that are cynically consigned to the scrapheap - and, curiously, to a life of voting to continue it (go figure) - by the growth of the welfare state.

What a waste of human potential.

bendix

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

With my level of savings, I am in fact relatively indifferent between the choice of still having a job but having to live in the UK, and having £17500 (even after the cap is introduced) redundancy given to me and moving to France.

Remember it is predicted that there will be an equal number of private sector jobs lost, and that is assuming the cuts do not trigger another recession. Who in their right minds would want to live in a country in that state?

LOL. £17500 redundancy. I hope you missed a zero off that.

As for private sector jobs being lost, so be it. They too are non-jobs, jobs that are at best quasi-public sector jobs because they have suckled off the public sector teat for too long.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

it's interesting that many who seem to be gleeful about culling the public sector are the same ones who are planning (or have moved overseas) anyway.

i'm afraid in 'fight or flight' mode i'm pretty much opting for flight too and am currently investing in a place overseas where i plan to spend at least 6 months of the year. i really do believe we had the most vibrant and positive years in the uk under the previous government and i think they realised the need to claw in the deficit but in a less cruel fashion. this lot don't seem to care about creating carnage and the cries of "all in it together" ring so hollow.

Meanwhile, your beloved Labour Party were also going to make pretty severe cuts too.

Luckily for you, their electoral failure allows you to be indignant at the Tories doing precisely what Labour belatedly realised they had to do too, but failed to do so while in power for fear of harming their chances of reelection.

At least this government has the moral backbone to do what needs to be done, even if it's unpopular.

Sir_Humphrey

bendix wrote: »

I don't understand your point.

I realise there is a lot you don't understand.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

There are whole generations that are cynically consigned to the scrapheap - and, curiously, to a life of voting to continue it (go figure) - by the growth of the welfare state.

What a waste of human potential.

says the person who only survived childhood through social housing, benefits, state education and free healthcare....

"consigned"? would you have rather have picked a pocket or two?

The_White_Horse

tomterm8 wrote: »

In this case, it is a Clinical Infant feeding Lead working in the biggest childrens hospital in the country, If you read the job specification, the role involves making clinical decision regarding feeding babys that may have been born premature, have cancer, or have similar diseases which mean that there ability to eat is impared. Of course, the role is valueless, because using expert knowledge to allow babys that are deeply sick to eat is unimportant.


Before we had roles such as this, the baby would have died a slow, painful, lingering death, but I suppose that is unimportant, and the role is valueless.

there are these people who wear white coats, i think they are called doctors. i reckon they could deal with the problems you have described. in fact, if i was the parent of a child with such a problem, i would demand a doctor, not some jumped up breast feeding nurse.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Meanwhile, your beloved Labour Party were also going to make pretty severe cuts too.

Luckily for you, their electoral failure allows you to be indignant at the Tories doing precisely what Labour belatedly realised they had to do too, but failed to do so while in power for fear of harming their chances of reelection.

At least this government has the moral backbone to do what needs to be done, even if it's unpopular.

don't quite understand the logic of this...i'm lucky because the party i wanted in power 'lost' the election. but according to you they would have done the same thing anyway. only maybe they wouldn't because the don't have the backbone. but probably they would because they had said they were going to before the election. but probably they wouldn't because they don't want to lose an election. but then they did lose and election. even though they said they were going to make cuts (that they wouldn't have made....moral backbone none etc).

hmmmmm. let me work this out.

hope your marketing messages are a little more clear.

The_White_Horse

private sector jobs which are wholly reliant on the public sector are in fact, public sector. good riddance to them.