Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of some people. Constantly posting articles saying we're going to hell in a hand cart and then when there's a bit of good news it's " ah well, that doesn't count". 

 

Irony? 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

 Fine but why is your definition of achievement only defined by salary?

 

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Where did I say my definition of achievement is defined only by salary?

 

51 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Here

a) I never mentioned salary

b) I never said increasing income was my ONLY definition of achievement 

 

We were discussing debt and ways to get out of it. As well as reducing outgoings, the other way is to increase income - nothing wrong with stating that. 

 

Excuse me for suggesting people try to better themselves in life and strive to reach their potential - why shouldn't they?

 

And of course there are many other definitions of achievement in life. Here's a list of mine for you...

 

1. Leicester small schools cross country champion - 1984

 

That's it...

Edited 14 July 2017 by Izzy Muzzett

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

 

a) I never mentioned salary

b) I never said increasing income was my ONLY definition of achievement 

 

We were discussing debt and ways to get out of it. As well as reducing outgoings, the other way is to increase income - nothing wrong with stating that. 

 

Excuse me for suggesting people try to better themselves in life and strive to reach their potential - why shouldn't they?

 

And of course there are many other definitions of achievement in life. Here's a list of mine for you...

 

1. Leicester small schools cross country champion - 1984

 

That's it...

That's fair enough but i just don't see that the link between potential and increased income is the the only measure of increased potential. 

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's fair enough but i just don't see that the link between potential and increased income is the the only measure of increased potential. 

Nobody has said that. 

Do you think the best way out of debt is not to increase income then?

[Guest]

The point I'm trying to make is that reaching potential is not about earning more money. I was just linking to words in the earlier conversation about debt, not reopening that line of debate. 

I suppose i want a debate about what society should actually look like. So many conversations on here end up turning into a slugfest between, for example, public sector workers deserving more money because of the important work they do and public sector workers not deserving more money as they don't (allegedly) create wealth. It just seems to me that a great many people do jobs upon which society relies but are treated by contempt by those earning far more in much less important lines of work. People seem to forget that public sector workers pay tax too. I really struggle with the concept that employment of too many schools careers officers is a waste (said by somebody a few weeks ago) but having 10,000 extra double glazing salesmen is a wonderful boon for growth and the economy. At what point do we recognise and value a job's contribution to society? There is also criticism of waste through procurement in the public sector - rightly to some extent - when the cause of this is the greed of private sector organisations. Doing the right thing, being a valuable member of society and working for the common good are seen as failures whilst motivation through greed is seen as virtuous. 

Edited 14 July 2017 by Guest

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nobody has said that. 

Do you think the best way out of debt is not to increase income then?

You're right. Nobody has said that here.

 

However there are a plethora of people out there who think material gain is the sole arbiter of success in life and quite a few of them occupy positions in society where they can directly or indirectly influence the lives of other people.

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

 

a) I never mentioned salary

b) I never said increasing income was my ONLY definition of achievement 

 

We were discussing debt and ways to get out of it. As well as reducing outgoings, the other way is to increase income - nothing wrong with stating that. 

 

Excuse me for suggesting people try to better themselves in life and strive to reach their potential - why shouldn't they?

 

And of course there are many other definitions of achievement in life. Here's a list of mine for you...

 

1. Leicester small schools cross country champion - 1984

 

That's it...

 I won that in 97 and 98 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 hours ago, Captain... said:

Nope, taxes are a method of wealth collection and distribution, not a punishment. Raising taxes are done to increase the value of the public pot to provide a better society for all, including large companies that rely on a country's infrastructure and workforce. The level of taxation isn't punitive, that isn't how the world works. If you move to a bigger house in a better location you expect to pay more rent. At the moment the country is in a huge amount of debt, austerity can only go so far and it feels like it as the point of breaking and we are still running a massive deficit. The other way to deal with a huge deficit is increase tax revenue. This could be VAT, or income tax, but these would hit people on a personal level, or we could hit the profits of companies. Or run the country into the ground with wave after wave of cuts and austerity. Seems a no brainer to me. 

 

Finally you can reel in that Brexit straw man, it is a separate discussion and the distinction needs to be made between the domestic market and international, except to say that Corbyn stated in his manifesto that staying in the single market was his priority, so in a world where Corbyn is "punishing" companies he is also offering them tariff free access to the biggest trading bloc on the planet. The reality of the situation will not be known until the next GE.

 

 

In your opinion it isn't punitive, in my opinion it is. Any level above 20% in my opinion is punitive. It will reduce the ability of a company to invest in training, expansion and assets. We are running a massive deficit because Labour spent too much, they want to do that again, its is not businesses fault that they failed to regulate banking properly, its not business fault that they allowed mass unskilled immigration overwhelming our public services, this is Labours fault, their answer is more of the same. You squeeze business with high tax and low profit margins, they will create less jobs and reinvest less money which is bad for all. We have not run the country into the ground, the deficit is reducing and will be eliminated. If we increase tax it needs to be across the board, VAT would actually be good why not follow the economic model of Swede and raise it to 23%, it affects mostly people buying luxury items as cold food and veg is not VAT rated. Again the evidence is ignored that Tax revenues increase after corporation tax cuts, if we hit business it will move or find ways to avoid or offshore profits.

 

Corbyn also said he wants to end freedom of movement, you can not stop freedom of movement and remain in the single market, it were that simple there wouldn't even be a discussion to have. The EU have stated they will not even entertain that. So high tax and brexit would be an absolute disaster for the UK.

[Kopfkino]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The point I'm trying to make is that reaching potential is not about earning more money. I was just linking to words in the earlier conversation about debt, not reopening that line of debate. 

I suppose i want a debate about what society should actually look like. So many conversations on here end up turning into a slugfest between, for example, public sector workers deserving more money because of the important work they do and public sector workers not deserving more money as they don't (allegedly) create wealth. It just seems to me that a great many people do jobs upon which society relies but are treated by contempt by those earning far more in much less important lines of work. People seem to forget that public sector workers pay tax too. I really struggle with the concept that employment of too many schools careers officers is a waste (said by somebody a few weeks ago) but having 10,000 extra double glazing salesmen is a wonderful boon for growth and the economy. At what point do we recognise and value a job's contribution to society? There is also criticism of waste through procurement in the public sector - rightly to some extent - when the cause of this is the greed of private sector organisations. Doing the right thing, being a valuable member of society and working for the common good are seen as failures whilst motivation through greed is seen as virtuous. 

 

Hyperbole or not, that would not be allowed to happen because the market would signal that isn't an efficient use of resources and there would be no incentive for there to be 10000 extra double glazing salesmen. Whereas the creation of schools careers officers isn't subject to the same freedoms and so it is very easy to just create more and for it to be wasteful. Someone decides the value of extra careers officers rather than the value being determined. Diminishing returns seems to be a forgotten concept in the public sector.

 

I take issue with the fact that you seem to feel that working in the public sector and possibly being paid less makes gives you some virtuous stick to way, or that this has a greater contribution to society and makes you a valuable member of society. I dare say you don't have much time for bankers, and possibly rightly so given the actions of a small few. But the work that M&A bankers do (admittedly I choose an M&A banker because there is little scandal) could quite easily be considered valuable for society. Maybe it's different to that of a public sector worker but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

31 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The point I'm trying to make is that reaching potential is not about earning more money. I was just linking to words in the earlier conversation about debt, not reopening that line of debate. 

I suppose i want a debate about what society should actually look like. So many conversations on here end up turning into a slugfest between, for example, public sector workers deserving more money because of the important work they do and public sector workers not deserving more money as they don't (allegedly) create wealth. It just seems to me that a great many people do jobs upon which society relies but are treated by contempt by those earning far more in much less important lines of work. People seem to forget that public sector workers pay tax too. I really struggle with the concept that employment of too many schools careers officers is a waste (said by somebody a few weeks ago) but having 10,000 extra double glazing salesmen is a wonderful boon for growth and the economy. At what point do we recognise and value a job's contribution to society? There is also criticism of waste through procurement in the public sector - rightly to some extent - when the cause of this is the greed of private sector organisations. Doing the right thing, being a valuable member of society and working for the common good are seen as failures whilst motivation through greed is seen as virtuous. 

No one has ever said that public sector workers or perhaps more correctly 'some' public sector workers don't deserve more money. Nurses, Drs, Police, Firemen, absolutely. Some of the non jobs and senior management roles in most councils, absolutely not. If the CEO (why do they need a CEO) of Stoke-On-Trent is earning more than the PM (234000 a year) why the heck to they need a pay rise? infact why the hell are they earning that much at all? This is duplicated across the public sector, there are certain jobs with unjust salaries and this is my problem, these management are making the decisions to cut staff from the front lines whilst maintaining themselves and their cronies!! There needs to be a serious independent review and I am pretty sure that billions could be saved, but no government ever has the guts to do it. A company employing 10000 salesmen would probably soon by out of business! The same as relatively unimportant jobs in the public sector is not funded.

 

Waste in the public sector is not caused by greed in the public sector. If there is demand by incompetents to purchase a service or product for a price someone will sell it as the market dictates (supply and demand), it is the duty of the person doing the procurement to take due diligence and ensure they get the best deal. Again I have seen this time and time again. I saw equipment being purchased at high prices, one example is an NHS that procured bulk toilet roll at prices more expensive than getting it from Tesco. Again a review is needed here, why is it not done on a national level to give more purchasing power?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Hyperbole or not, that would not be allowed to happen because the market would signal that isn't an efficient use of resources and there would be no incentive for there to be 10000 extra double glazing salesmen. Whereas the creation of schools careers officers isn't subject to the same freedoms and so it is very easy to just create more and for it to be wasteful. Someone decides the value of extra careers officers rather than the value being determined. Diminishing returns seems to be a forgotten concept in the public sector.

 

I take issue with the fact that you seem to feel that working in the public sector and possibly being paid less makes gives you some virtuous stick to way, or that this has a greater contribution to society and makes you a valuable member of society. I dare say you don't have much time for bankers, and possibly rightly so given the actions of a small few. But the work that M&A bankers do (admittedly I choose an M&A banker because there is little scandal) could quite easily be considered valuable for society. Maybe it's different to that of a public sector worker but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

I'm not necessarily saying public sector = good, private sector = bad. Although i work hard in the public sector i don't think my job is anywhere close to as important as a great many other people. I get paid more than many nurses but their job is more important than mine, for example. And you are right that there are valuable private sector jobs. There are also carers who are treated woefully compared to their worth to society (and how much they save society).

 

I see your point on the freedom to create jobs in the public sector. It's probably difficult to evaluate though. I suspect one man's waste may be another's valuable service.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No one has ever said that public sector workers or perhaps more correctly 'some' public sector workers don't deserve more money. Nurses, Drs, Police, Firemen, absolutely. Some of the non jobs and senior management roles in most councils, absolutely not. If the CEO (why do they need a CEO) of Stoke-On-Trent is earning more than the PM (234000 a year) why the heck to they need a pay rise? infact why the hell are they earning that much at all? This is duplicated across the public sector, there are certain jobs with unjust salaries and this is my problem, these management are making the decisions to cut staff from the front lines whilst maintaining themselves and their cronies!! There needs to be a serious independent review and I am pretty sure that billions could be saved, but no government ever has the guts to do it. A company employing 10000 salesmen would probably soon by out of business! The same as relatively unimportant jobs in the public sector is not funded.

 

Waste in the public sector is not caused by greed in the public sector. If there is demand by incompetents to purchase a service or product for a price someone will sell it as the market dictates (supply and demand), it is the duty of the person doing the procurement to take due diligence and ensure they get the best deal. Again I have seen this time and time again. I saw equipment being purchased at high prices, one example is an NHS that procured bulk toilet roll at prices more expensive than getting it from Tesco. Again a review is needed here, why is it not done on a national level to give more purchasing power?

 This all reads as rather bitter. 

I agree some jobs have more worth than others and should be paid better. 

I don't necessarily agree that it follows that middle management or supposed non-jobs (see my comment above re one man's waste is another's valuable service) should lose money year in year out due to a pay cap. 

I do agree that exec pay is concerning. I would add that the same is true of the private sector. To pre-empt you, though, if you accept high executive pay in the private sector (i don't) then you cannot argue against it in the public sector as it is the same jobs market at work. 

Re your last point on procurement. I personally think the issue is too much localisation of services and the idea of 'choice' in public services that creates waste. I don't think internal markets are useful. People don't need a choice of hospital - they just need to know the service they'll get is good everywhere. You don't need a market for that, you need a strong regulator. Internal markets mean a system of small organisations each procuring goods and services individually, creating the waste. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm not necessarily saying public sector = good, private sector = bad. Although i work hard in the public sector i don't think my job is anywhere close to as important as a great many other people. I get paid more than many nurses but their job is more important than mine, for example. And you are right that there are valuable private sector jobs. There are also carers who are treated woefully compared to their worth to society (and how much they save society).

 

I see your point on the freedom to create jobs in the public sector. It's probably difficult to evaluate though. I suspect one man's waste may be another's valuable service.

Yeah.

 

I think the point being that the market isn't always and forever the best arbiter of true value of a person and what they do.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

28 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 This all reads as rather bitter. 

I agree some jobs have more worth than others and should be paid better. 

I don't necessarily agree that it follows that middle management or supposed non-jobs (see my comment above re one man's waste is another's valuable service) should lose money year in year out due to a pay cap. 

I do agree that exec pay is concerning. I would add that the same is true of the private sector. To pre-empt you, though, if you accept high executive pay in the private sector (i don't) then you cannot argue against it in the public sector as it is the same jobs market at work. 

Re your last point on procurement. I personally think the issue is too much localisation of services and the idea of 'choice' in public services that creates waste. I don't think internal markets are useful. People don't need a choice of hospital - they just need to know the service they'll get is good everywhere. You don't need a market for that, you need a strong regulator. Internal markets mean a system of small organisations each procuring goods and services individually, creating the waste. 

No bitterness just something I see as a problem.

 

I do not necessarily agree with the high levels of private pay either, the same as I disagree with footballers pay. The trouble with the private sector and a global economy is you can not really cap pay in the UK at a certain level, else the top people may go overseas unless there is a global coordinated effort. Also within a private company, if a business is making a lot of money they are able to justify giving high pay.

 

There needs to be a reviews of some middle management jobs as there are a lot that aren't really necessary, you could remove them and honestly no one would notice. For instance would Stoke-on-Trent north miss its Communities Development Manager? and Communities development team, probably not! Will it miss the Swimming Pool which is being closed - yes.

 

I agree that a lot of things in the public sector need more joined up thinking, and a unification of some services in certain areas would improve services and cut costs. For instance if Staffordshire had once council instead of one city and 7 borough councils, surely services could be streamlined and better equipped on the frontline. The other thing I was amazed at when I was working at a college is they pay to be part of some thing called the Colleges Purchasing Consortium, the idea of this is that colleges as a group submit what equipment they require each year and they negotiate a bulk purchasing price, fine in principal but I found when using it one you are restricted to certain equipment specified and the prices are not even remotely good, five minutes of the Internet I was able to save over £50 per item. Some staff in the organisation quite rightly were sold this great system to save money and didn't doubt it but that isn't their fault.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

Seems the Tories are doing a good job.

Revealed: NHS cuts could target heart attack patients in Surrey and Sussex

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/14/revealed-nhs-cuts-could-target-heart-attack-patients-in-surrey-and-sussex

 

18 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No bitterness just something I see as a problem.

 

I do not necessarily agree with the high levels of private pay either, the same as I disagree with footballers pay. The trouble with the private sector and a global economy is you can not really cap pay in the UK at a certain level, else the top people may go overseas unless there is a global coordinated effort. Also within a private company, if a business is making a lot of money they are able to justify giving high pay.

 

There needs to be a reviews of some middle management jobs as there are a lot that aren't really necessary, you could remove them and honestly no one would notice. For instance would Stoke-on-Trent north miss its Communities Development Manager? and Communities development team, probably not! Will it miss the Swimming Pool which is being closed - yes.

 

I agree that a lot of things in the public sector need more joined up thinking, and a unification of some services in certain areas would improve services and cut costs. For instance if Staffordshire had once council instead of one city and 7 borough councils, surely services could be streamlined and better equipped on the frontline. The other thing I was amazed at when I was working at a college is they pay to be part of some thing called the Colleges Purchasing Consortium, the idea of this is that colleges as a group submit what equipment they require each year and they negotiate a bulk purchasing price, fine in principal but I found when using it one you are restricted to certain equipment specified and the prices are not even remotely good, five minutes of the Internet I was able to save over £50 per item. Some staff in the organisation quite rightly were sold this great system to save money and didn't doubt it but that isn't their fault.

I can tell you that middle management has born the brunt of the public sector cuts I've seen. 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I have seen other wise, some organisations I have worked in it has grown. One college I worked at 10% of the budget went on management posts. Managers made their staff redundant and did not have a clue how to run the departments without them.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I'm not necessarily saying public sector = good, private sector = bad. Although i work hard in the public sector i don't think my job is anywhere close to as important as a great many other people. I get paid more than many nurses but their job is more important than mine, for example. And you are right that there are valuable private sector jobs. There are also carers who are treated woefully compared to their worth to society (and how much they save society).

 

I see your point on the freedom to create jobs in the public sector. It's probably difficult to evaluate though. I suspect one man's waste may be another's valuable service.

Hold on a minute - you're on here all day! 

 

I'm glad to know our private sector taxes are paying for your public sector salary so you can post on FT pretty much full time 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Hold on a minute - you're on here all day! 

 

I'm glad to know our private sector taxes are paying for your public sector salary so you can post on FT pretty much full time 

Not at work today  have been using quite a lot of holiday recently - expect to see an improvement in your daily reading soon!

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

 

You only read what toy want to. Hence your  'terrifying ' post thr other day that contained a link to no terrifying information. 

 

Yesterdsy the obr - set up by osborne - reported that the econony is in worse shape now to deal with economic troubles than it was in 2007. The toriy's entire spiel relies upon their economic competence and fixing the roof. Perhaps you could provide the context to make this a positive reinforcement of the tory's expert handling of the economy?

I think you've got the wrong man, wasn't me.

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's good news that our scores have dropped and previously raised areas of concern haven't been improved upon?

Best is best.

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Irony? 

No.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Revealed: NHS cuts could target heart attack patients in Surrey and Sussex

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/14/revealed-nhs-cuts-could-target-heart-attack-patients-in-surrey-and-sussex

 

 

 

 

Apparently you have to put these things in context.

[Guest]

 

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think you've got the wrong man, wasn't me.

So i did

 

On 12/07/2017 at 09:15, Foxin_mad said:

Terrifying:

 

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21724827-labours-leader-will-badly-disappoint-his-young-supporters-jeremy-corbyn-and-bourgeois-dream

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Apparently you have to put these things in context.

That's a pretty shoddy response. Surely you can bring yourself to admit that your beloved tory party must have got something wrong somewhere if decisions like this are being made?

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

That's a pretty shoddy response. Surely you can bring yourself to admit that your beloved tory party must have got something wrong somewhere if decisions like this are being made?

And the fact that it comes from senior NHS 'sources' couldn't possibly mean that it's exaggerated or posturing to achieve more leeway from NHS England. At the end of the day, as the head of policing in Leicestershire admitted recently, it in their interests to get as much funding as possible. I've  seen enough working part-time this year in corporate comms to see how much bullshit is fed to the media and that you might be selective on which publications you feed certain information to.

 

Now that might not be the case here and there may well be serious imminent plans in place to select these procedures for cuts. But then the question is raised, and I'm not selecting what should and shouldn't be cut myself, at what point do you continue to fund and fund and fund some more? I accept, in this case, it might be a false economy, but someone somewhere is making the selection and they are not the Conservative party. But what value do you go up to, or do you keep going up and up and up because it's the NHS and everybody should have access to the best possible treatment for free? I would suggest even you have a limit to what we fund, hence I don't see you getting angry that every single pioneering treatment isn't available on the NHS. So then why is one value more acceptable than another? 

 

And I just speculate that to achieve an optimal healthcare system, people might need to change their attitudes towards the NHS and the entire system. Singapore and Switzerland offer differing examples.

 

 

Edited 14 July 2017 by KingGTF