General Election, June 8th

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Saw something where an MP gave a great speech as to why a section of a NHS services should be sold and put in the hands of a private company. The bill was passed and it turned out that the company that eventually won the bid to buy the service the MP was a director.

 

Just sayin'

Unfortunately, whoever gets in power will continue to sell off the NHS. I did like the NHS, but people have abused it for far too long and it just isn't sustainable anymore. 

 

I still see people going to the doctors for Paracetamol, Ibruphorpen, anti histamines and all those lovely over the counter drugs that in some cases cost the NHS 10x as much to buy because they are too lazy and inconsiderate to buy themselves because they are entitled to them for "free" - 

[Rincewind]

Just watched a Jonathan Pie video. Made me smile. Don't have the link but it may not go down too well anyway with some on here. I don't want to upset anyone.

[SMX11]

2 hours ago, Harry - LCFC said:

IMO immigration controls should count as protectionism.

 

Tariffs are often justified on the basis that, while they may reduce economic efficiency, they will give extra security to those working in the relevant industry. Immigration controls are defended in much the same way: "Large flows of immigration lead to an increase in supply of low-skilled labour which lowers the wages of British workers and makes it harder for young people to find work. Therefore we should limit immigration." That's a pretty typical argument and to me it's a protectionist one.

You are correct in principle but you have to remember that low skilled workers will have a disproportionate drain on state provided services.

 

In principal I support the free movement of workers but it is incompatible with a cradle to grave welfare state unless you have criteria (wage, age etc.)

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Would you also be well and truly ****ed off if the Tories won and put your tax up? They seem to be avoiding any commitment NOT to increase income tax / N.I. (correctly, in my view). I presume they at least want to give themselves the option to increase tax IF Brexit or its economic impact prove costly to the public finances. Of course, they might increase tax on those poorer than you (or richer) - would you be happy with that?

 

If you don't like tax increases generally, then presumably any shortfall in the public finances would need to be met by larger cuts in public spending or by higher borrowing. Would you favour increasing public sector debt? If not, which areas of public spending are ripe for much larger cuts?

 

Difficult to pin down a definition for "rich". As well as income, you'd have to consider capital, property, mortgage outgoings, family status, work/travel expenses etc. Even so, I understand that only those earning over £123,000 per annum get no tax-free allowance. That's a pretty good income, comparatively, even with a mortgage, travel expenses and a family to support (some support families on £15-£20k or whatever). Someone earning £150,000 will pay £53,600 in income tax plus about £6,000 in N.I. contributions, leaving a disposable income of over £90,000. Most people could only dream of wealth on that scale, even allowing for mortgage and travel costs......not to mention the property capital acquired via that mortgage.

I don't like tax increases generally no.  I don't expect to Tories to tax me any more - they have cost me enough already!

More to the point, I remain convinced that there is VAST waste across the public sector, and steady cuts over time will clear that out.  The risk is in the short term that incompetence means services get cut instead of the waste, often for political reasons.

 

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I don't like tax increases generally no.  I don't expect to Tories to tax me any more - they have cost me enough already!

More to the point, I remain convinced that there is VAST waste across the public sector, and steady cuts over time will clear that out.  The risk is in the short term that incompetence means services get cut instead of the waste, often for political reasons.

 

 

People and politicians have been talking about tackling public sector waste since the 1980s, at least (maybe earlier). If such vast waste exists, I wonder why nobody has been able to eliminate it over 35+ years?

 

I worked in 2 civil service offices in the 1980s. One was very wasteful (too many staff) but produced high-quality work and had a good working atmosphere. The other was highly efficient in terms of the quantity of work done and money brought in, but I'm not convinced that the work done was of high quality - it was all short-term target-hitting. It was also a much more stressful place to work, with high staff turnover as a result. 

 

Friends who still work in the civil service and who have risen in the ranks tell me that vast sums have been squandered in recent years employing consultants to seek out this elusive waste and elusive efficiency gains.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the Tories say about future tax/N.I. increases during the campaign. So far, I think they've ruled out VAT hikes (for what it's worth) but have studiously avoided doing the same for income tax / N.I.

My assumption is that they want the option to raise taxes, if necessary - and feel that they're in a strong enough position electorally not to have to repeat their "no increase in income tax/N.I." pledge. I'm no Tory but agree with them, on both points.

 

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Not really. I can fully believe that someone could be in the top five percent of earners and not feel rich, particularly if they live in close proximity of London. That however is due to mismanagement by the government, not because they're not earning that much.

[Jon the Hat]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

People and politicians have been talking about tackling public sector waste since the 1980s, at least (maybe earlier). If such vast waste exists, I wonder why nobody has been able to eliminate it over 35+ years?

 

I worked in 2 civil service offices in the 1980s. One was very wasteful (too many staff) but produced high-quality work and had a good working atmosphere. The other was highly efficient in terms of the quantity of work done and money brought in, but I'm not convinced that the work done was of high quality - it was all short-term target-hitting. It was also a much more stressful place to work, with high staff turnover as a result. 

 

Friends who still work in the civil service and who have risen in the ranks tell me that vast sums have been squandered in recent years employing consultants to seek out this elusive waste and elusive efficiency gains.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the Tories say about future tax/N.I. increases during the campaign. So far, I think they've ruled out VAT hikes (for what it's worth) but have studiously avoided doing the same for income tax / N.I.

My assumption is that they want the option to raise taxes, if necessary - and feel that they're in a strong enough position electorally not to have to repeat their "no increase in income tax/N.I." pledge. I'm no Tory but agree with them, on both points.

 

Its not really about individuals teams being busy or not busy, its about whether the activity they are carrying out is actually something which they should be doing with taxpayers money.  Mission creep in other words.  Loads and loads of it.  Plus additional bureaucracy, much of which I suspect comes about becuase of the way public service react to things:

 

1) Underfund / under resource something

2) Failure occurs

3) Consultants hired / commission setup to investigate failure

4) Findings suggest lack of oversight was the problem

5) Permanent overseeing body created.

6) Another failure occurs (base activity still underfunded or resourced)

7) New body has to investigate both failure, and oversight body failure

8) Spending 50% more but base process is still underfunded

 

[Izzy]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

People and politicians have been talking about tackling public sector waste since the 1980s, at least (maybe earlier). If such vast waste exists, I wonder why nobody has been able to eliminate it over 35+ years?

 

I worked in 2 civil service offices in the 1980s. One was very wasteful (too many staff) but produced high-quality work and had a good working atmosphere. The other was highly efficient in terms of the quantity of work done and money brought in, but I'm not convinced that the work done was of high quality - it was all short-term target-hitting. It was also a much more stressful place to work, with high staff turnover as a result. 

 

Friends who still work in the civil service and who have risen in the ranks tell me that vast sums have been squandered in recent years employing consultants to seek out this elusive waste and elusive efficiency gains.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the Tories say about future tax/N.I. increases during the campaign. So far, I think they've ruled out VAT hikes (for what it's worth) but have studiously avoided doing the same for income tax / N.I.

My assumption is that they want the option to raise taxes, if necessary - and feel that they're in a strong enough position electorally not to have to repeat their "no increase in income tax/N.I." pledge. I'm no Tory but agree with them, on both points.

 

I've often wondered how 'lean' the public sector really is.

All of my consultancy work over the years has been in the private sector and most of the companies I've worked with (apart from energy suppliers ) are as lean as lean can be.

We hear a lot about 'red tape' and bureaucracy in government and I often wonder what the real opportunity is to reduce waste.

I'm sure there's been endless reports done but like you say, we've been talking about it for years. 

Part of me would like the opportunity to work in the public sector to see it first hand but I probably wouldn't last five minutes 

 

 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its not really about individuals teams being busy or not busy, its about whether the activity they are carrying out is actually something which they should be doing with taxpayers money.  Mission creep in other words.  Loads and loads of it.  Plus additional bureaucracy, much of which I suspect comes about becuase of the way public service react to things:

 

1) Underfund / under resource something

2) Failure occurs

3) Consultants hired / commission setup to investigate failure

4) Findings suggest lack of oversight was the problem

5) Permanent overseeing body created.

6) Another failure occurs (base activity still underfunded or resourced)

7) New body has to investigate both failure, and oversight body failure

8) Spending 50% more but base process is still underfunded

 

I always assumed the core issue was around processes (or lack of)

 

Or outdated processes that are inefficient or duplicated.

Or ageing and antequated systems.

Or processes that don't add value or take too long.

Or unnecessary paperwork/form filling etc.

 

That sort of thing...

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I always assumed the core issue was around processes (or lack of)

 

Or outdated processes that are inefficient or duplicated.

Or ageing and antequated systems.

Or processes that don't add value or take too long.

Or unnecessary paperwork/form filling etc.

 

That sort of thing...

 

I talked with one of my former bosses who worked as a consultant on a large infrastructure project with the council in Stoke-on-Trent. He said one of the major barriers is that cuts are always around the corner and people are always looking out for their own backs in case redundancies do come. Seemed to him that it was a real problem in getting a coherent and agreed confirmation to any queries.

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I talked with one of my former bosses who worked as a consultant on a large infrastructure project with the council in Stoke-on-Trent. He said one of the major barriers is that cuts are always around the corner and people are always looking out for their own backs in case redundancies do come. Seemed to him that it was a real problem in getting a coherent and agreed confirmation to any queries.

When I've worked in places where cuts are always around the corner, it can be a horrible place to work as people are 'too busy trying to look busy' or creating work for themselves to remain in a job. I guess it's human nature but it can't be good for morale and productivity I wouldn't have thought. This is where strong leadership comes in for me but I don't know if senior managers in the public sector are of the same calibre as those in the private sector. Reading posts on here I'd suggest possibly not...

[Sharpe's Fox]

23 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

When I've worked in places where cuts are always around the corner, it can be a horrible place to work as people are 'too busy trying to look busy' or creating work for themselves to remain in a job. I guess it's human nature but it can't be good for morale and productivity I wouldn't have thought. This is where strong leadership comes in for me but I don't know if senior managers in the public sector are of the same calibre as those in the private sector. Reading posts on here I'd suggest possibly not...

Get in the game lad and do your civic duty. You'll sort them out.

[davieG]

I think part of the problem with local councils is that they are in the blame firing line so everything they do is done to the nth degree to avoid as far as possible any incidents that they might be blamed for.

 

We also have a population that seems to need to be molly coddle to the extreme for examples you only need to look at the road systems where we're now flooded with traffic lights, fancy crossing, what was wrong with the old zebra ones that couldn't be simply improved, min islands, road humps, chicanes and road signage etc. This has also bred a population that seems to take the view that if I'm not commanded to do something then FU! Courtesy and consideration seem long gone.

 

Every time there's an incident the public demand that something needs to be done evermore with the advent of social media even if it's a 1 in a million event and this all costs money.

 

Councils also have to spend big money recording every little detail of their work so that they can provide datoaon every thing you can think of much of which is never used or doesn't provide realistic info again all at the behest of the government/public.

 

 

[LiberalFox]

The line about public sector waste is typical right winger fantasy. Also blaming left wingers when services are affected because apparently the public sector is full of communists who'll down tools when there's a Tory government in an effort to frame them. Also I'm unsure what point Jon is trying to make when he says things are underfunded, surely funding cuts would make things worse?

[Sharpe's Fox]

55 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

The line about public sector waste is typical right winger fantasy. Also blaming left wingers when services are affected because apparently the public sector is full of communists who'll down tools when there's a Tory government in an effort to frame them. Also I'm unsure what point Jon is trying to make when he says things are underfunded, surely funding cuts would make things worse?

Good first post mate stay on the forum and put across your view. Could do with less frothing kippers on here

[Stadt]

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Good first post mate stay on the forum and put across your view. Could do with less frothing kippers on here

Yeah kippers that voted brexit, who'd vote brexit eh @Sharpe's Fox

[Sharpe's Fox]

8 minutes ago, Wookie said:

Yeah kippers that voted brexit, who'd vote brexit eh @Sharpe's Fox

True leftists

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

True leftists

 

Hmmmm, as part of Marxist theory?  In the absence of any contemporary manifesto's, I happened to look over a certain historical one today (purely for reference).

[Sharpe's Fox]

21 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Hmmmm, as part of Marxist theory?  In the absence of any contemporary manifesto's, I happened to look over a certain historical one today (purely for reference).

No mate as part as accepted norms and traditions in mainstream British politics. I'm not some drippy communist with patches on his coat.

[Webbo]

My daughter has worked for both the county and city council and the stories she's told me confirm all the public sector stereotypes.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

My daughter has worked for both the county and city council and the stories she's told me confirm all the public sector stereotypes.

My wife has worked at the NHS for over 20 years, on the wards, in the clinics and in admin, for 4 trusts in the east mids, it's fair to say she would agree that the NHS is very poorly managed and ££'s are wasted like it was fashion 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

The line about public sector waste is typical right winger fantasy. Also blaming left wingers when services are affected because apparently the public sector is full of communists who'll down tools when there's a Tory government in an effort to frame them. Also I'm unsure what point Jon is trying to make when he says things are underfunded, surely funding cuts would make things worse?

The point is more that pockets of funding disparity cause stupid amounts of bureaucracy due to overreaction, which leads to less funds where needed.  So you spend more than enough to do the job, but it doesn't get done.

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The point is more that pockets of funding disparity cause stupid amounts of bureaucracy due to overreaction, which leads to less funds where needed.  So you spend more than enough to do the job, but it doesn't get done.

That sounds like poor management to me. 

 

I know the sitting government are ultimately accountable, but who's managing the performance of the senior leaders?

 

If it's true that we spend enough to get the job done but it doesn't get done, then that's just plain incompetence isn't it? 

 

Rather than make more cuts or spend more money, it sounds like people at a senior level aren't doing the jobs they're paid to do properly.

 

And sorry if I've missed the point or way off the mark here...

[sphericalfox]

Lols

 

Tories can't be trusted with the NHS - John Major.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/john-major-nhs-risk-brexit-pythons-johnson-and-gove

[Strokes]

How has John major not aged in 20 years, a bit suspicious if you ask me.