How many more before the nation cries "enough"?

[Alexikokopops]

ENOUGH!

I'm listening

[Hullfox]

Thrach

Like Jon says, your arguments are eloquent and well researched.

The worry that I have is that given another 10 years under the Tories you may be saying exactly the same things about the incumbent government. Not I hasten to add as a result of you changing your views but rather as a result of the inability of any party just to get on and do the right thing and when it goes wrong, acknowledging their mistakes before getting on and doing the right thing.

[Thracian]

Thrach

Like Jon says, your arguments are eloquent and well researched.

The worry that I have is that given another 10 years under the Tories you may be saying exactly the same things about the incumbent government. Not I hasten to add as a result of you changing your views but rather as a result of the inability of any party just to get on and do the right thing and when it goes wrong, acknowledging their mistakes before getting on and doing the right thing.

I've felt exactly that in the past.

But I'd welcome an alternative now - if only for the hope it might offer.

[Ultra]

The greatest folly of the last 10 years has been Nu Labour's failure to save while times were good.

...as if the Tories did anything different. They kept taxes artificially low and ran up massive debts which took Labour the best part of a decade to clear.

We are in the worst possible position going in to this recession. We have a bloated Public sector which adds nothing to the economy.

This statement is sheer economic illiteracy. In all major economies the public and private sectors are closely interlinked. Many sectors of the private sector rely heavily on contracts from public sector organisations - the construction and arms industries are prime examples. In addition, most if not all of the money spent by public sector employees will go into the private sector sooner or later.

Public sector pay and pensions are far better than the private sector which pays for it.

What planet are you on? The salaries and pension schemes which the private sector's fat cats award themselves are far in excess of anything to be found in central or local government.

Time for change. We need a Tory government with an agenda to cut public spending drastically to achieve a low tax economy which allows companies to thrive and provide jobs.

As those who live in the real world (rather than with their noses stuck in Milton Friedman's textbooks) will tell you, the classic Tory solutions of deflation, privatisation and mass unemployment are not going to revive the economy or give support to worried families and communities.

[Ultra]

Labour could have offered tenants the right to buy their houses - they didn't. As for what you describe as a chronic housing shortage, how does that possibly equate with Labour continuing to open the UK doors to ever more immigrants, well knowing about the housing shortage and that it will make the shortage even more acute and create yet more social problems?

Actually, the right to buy was introduced under a Labour government of the 70s, albeit on a far smaller and more localised scale. Some councils saw it as a means of raising finance to build new housing stock. Thatcher put a stop to that - she wanted to destroy public sector housing entirely.

The idea of mass migration as a social issue is largely a myth promoted by the BNP and their fellow travellers in the media. In a modern globalised society, it will be a fact of life for the foreseeable future, whichever government is in power.

Of course shops and businesses in mining communities went bust. The whole local economy was interconnected and would have been similarly affected in any downturn as you well know including when the mines finally stopped being economical to run which was fast becoming the case in many instances, as, again, you well know.

What I know above everything else is that the decimation of the mining communities was NOTHING to do with economics - if the mines had received the same levels of subsidy that the nuclear power industry did, many of them would still be in operation today.

It was malice, prejudice and spite which led the Tories to run down the coal industry. They didn't give a monkey's about the social and economic consequences that pit closures often had on local communities.

The current economic crisis is not unique to the UK - the US and the rest of Europe are going through similar problems. And in virtually every case, governments from across the political spectrum are following the road of reflation rather than deflation, spending more in the short-term in a concerted and co-ordinated effort to kick-start their economies back to life.

Internationalism and interventionism has to be the way forward. The alternative is a return to the barbarism of the 1930s.

Is there anyone on here who seriously argues for the latter option?

[Manwell Pablo]

Decimated Mining communties? Dunno about the rest of em but Co ville was a shit hole full when the mine was open, and it's still a shit hole now. but with a rather nice discovery park. Theres been plenty of work there for ages they opened 2 or 3 industrial estates in the 90's.

[Thracian]

...as if the Tories did anything different. They kept taxes artificially low and ran up massive debts which took Labour the best part of a decade to clear.

This statement is sheer economic illiteracy. In all major economies the public and private sectors are closely interlinked. Many sectors of the private sector rely heavily on contracts from public sector organisations - the construction and arms industries are prime examples. In addition, most if not all of the money spent by public sector employees will go into the private sector sooner or later.

What planet are you on? The salaries and pension schemes which the private sector's fat cats award themselves are far in excess of anything to be found in central or local government.

As those who live in the real world (rather than with their noses stuck in Milton Friedman's textbooks) will tell you, the classic Tory solutions of deflation, privatisation and mass unemployment are not going to revive the economy or give support to worried families and communities.

This isn't about what the Tories or anyone else may or may not do, is it?

It is about your people's performance.

Other people will be judged when they have their turn but I am quite sure Labour have had quite long enough in power to make their policies work and there's hundreds of thousands of job losses and billions of pounds of wasted money which says they're not working and are not likely to work anytime soon.

The Labour Party is like Leicester City last season - they are in denial. They refuse to accept that the waste has to end, that the country needs to be run according to sound economic rules, that real jobs need to be found for people already here and that the something-for-nothing culture has to end.

With City they refused to recognise that they wouldn't score enough goals because they hadn't got enough attacking players and, in the end, were predictably relegated.

Your people are just as pig-headed. They've been big on some peoples human rights, all but ignorant of others and endless excuse-makers when it comes to human responsibility.

Only today I read that thousands of protest letters about a travellers site were to be ignored in mid-Bedfordshire because they were deemed "racist".

That as much as anything sums up this Government's ongoing attitude to often hardworking house-dwellers and their rights. They stiffle their voice, defend the rights of a few, ignore the rights and wishes of hundreds and go their own way by whatever slight of hand suits them. That's not democracy. It's selling our nation to the dogma.

If Gordon Brown really wanted the best for this country and really wanted to do it a favour he would quit tomorrow.

He was never really wanted in the first place, he's never been elected as Prime Minister, he's not even loved within his own party, and few of us have seen any reasons to think he's ever going to provide the fair-minded and inspirational leadership this country now needs.

[Jon the Hat]

This statement is sheer economic illiteracy. In all major economies the public and private sectors are closely interlinked. Many sectors of the private sector rely heavily on contracts from public sector organisations - the construction and arms industries are prime examples. In addition, most if not all of the money spent by public sector employees will go into the private sector sooner or later.

What planet are you on? The salaries and pension schemes which the private sector's fat cats award themselves are far in excess of anything to be found in central or local government.

Labour have created nearly 2 Million additional public sector jobs, yet we see no benefit in services from that extra expense. One great example of an area which adds nothing? the tax credit system. If you want to reduce people's tax burden then you cut their taxes. Gordon of course wanted more people to be beholden to the state, so instead he takes their money, spend £Billions on administration and then gives the remainder back again. That adds nothing to the country, becuase if you had not taken the money in the first place, it would have been spent on invested without the Overhead. As for your interlinked comment, if they had spent the cash on investment in infrastructure instead of using PFI off balance sheet scams then we would at least have something to show for it.

Average salaries in the public sector is now higher than the private sector. They also get far better pensions. Nearly 5 Million of them. This profligate waste of OUR money has to stop. I suppose next you will use the example of Christiano Ronaldo's pay packet to explain to me why this is not a valid point?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Great Britain's benefits bill is now £61 billions (not millions) a year. What the hell could we do with even half of £61 billion?

Considering some of this benefit billions is paid via tax credits, to potentially working single parents and the like, any idea on how much of that £61 Billion is basically a rebate?

You may think that doesn't matter, but I know of a fair few single parents that are greatful for the assistance - true the assistance can be a pain in the arse to get, but at least it is there. And without that assistance, they wouldn't be able to contribute anything to society.

Sadly a well reported few, do dis-service to the benefits system, despite the fact that in a large majority of cases provides positive support to people in their lives.

[Ultra]

Labour have created nearly 2 Million additional public sector jobs, yet we see no benefit in services from that extra expense. One great example of an area which adds nothing? the tax credit system. If you want to reduce people's tax burden then you cut their taxes.

Or (as you have suggested previously) cut their jobs - so that their income falls below the tax threshold.

By the way, the health and education services in particular are in a lot better state now than they were before 1997. Shame that the same can't be said for the transport service, which has remained largely in private hands.

Gordon of course wanted more people to be beholden to the state, so instead he takes their money, spend £Billions on administration and then gives the remainder back again. That adds nothing to the country, becuase if you had not taken the money in the first place, it would have been spent on invested without the Overhead.

Where would it have gone though? Into offshore black holes or into the pockets of crooks like Madoff, Robert Maxwell and their ilk?

The idea that the public sector is somehow not contibuting to the activity of the economy as a whole is a falsehood.

As for your interlinked comment, if they had spent the cash on investment in infrastructure instead of using PFI off balance sheet scams then we would at least have something to show for it.

I'm glad you mentioned PFI. It's an inefficient form of subsidy which adds no value whatsoever to major building projects. But I'm sure the contractors and their shareholders might take a different view...

Average salaries in the public sector is now higher than the private sector. They also get far better pensions. Nearly 5 Million of them. This profligate waste of OUR money has to stop. I suppose next you will use the example of Christiano Ronaldo's pay packet to explain to me why this is not a valid point?

Ronaldo and the rest of them are indeed overpaid, though nowhere near as the heads of most of the corporations to be found in Wall Street or the City of London.

[Hullfox]

By the way, the health and education services in particular are in a lot better state now than they were before 1997.

I'm afraid that is open to debate based upon people's own experiences.

Mine lead me to disagree vehemently with you.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I'm afraid that is open to debate based upon people's own experiences.

Mine lead me to disagree vehemently with you.

Personally I've been impressed with the techincal advances that have come into schools, such as the electronic white board (clearly not a cheap bit of kit.) and the 'specalims' that senior schools have brought in. (Like being sports schools and the like.)

Whether that is having a positive effect on young peoples minds is another thing though, as kids do seem to me to be thicker than ever - but maybe thats unfair and an unscientific approach!

[Thracian]

Actually, the right to buy was introduced under a Labour government of the 70s, albeit on a far smaller and more localised scale. Some councils saw it as a means of raising finance to build new housing stock. Thatcher put a stop to that - she wanted to destroy public sector housing entirely.

The idea of mass migration as a social issue is largely a myth promoted by the BNP and their fellow travellers in the media. In a modern globalised society, it will be a fact of life for the foreseeable future, whichever government is in power.

What I know above everything else is that the decimation of the mining communities was NOTHING to do with economics - if the mines had received the same levels of subsidy that the nuclear power industry did, many of them would still be in operation today.

It was malice, prejudice and spite which led the Tories to run down the coal industry. They didn't give a monkey's about the social and economic consequences that pit closures often had on local communities.

The current economic crisis is not unique to the UK - the US and the rest of Europe are going through similar problems. And in virtually every case, governments from across the political spectrum are following the road of reflation rather than deflation, spending more in the short-term in a concerted and co-ordinated effort to kick-start their economies back to life.

Internationalism and interventionism has to be the way forward. The alternative is a return to the barbarism of the 1930s.

Is there anyone on here who seriously argues for the latter option?

Internationalism has been a fecking curse. This nation is awash with products from the Far East and from endless other low-labour-cost economies.

Britain has become so much of a pound shop that even Woolworth's hasn't been able to survive.

Low-cost-Labour nations have plagiarised every worthwhile idea and every product then sent them over here so we could buy em and put our own workforces out of a job.

It is no coincidence that the BNP is so strong in places where local industry has been most decimated as a result - like Stoke-on-Trent. Last time I went half the place was up for sale.

Even last ditch attempts to stave off bankruptcy by having our own goods produced overseas have often failed. We've sat back and allowed ourselves to be shafted.

As Springsteen said: "those jobs are going boy and they ain't coming back..."

All the above wouldn't matter if we were creating other jobs - worthwhile jobs which perhaps didn't rely so much on the purchase of raw materials which will inevitably become overpriced and economically all-but-unbuyable because of the inexhaustible demands of China, India and all places in between and round about.

At a time when the Labour Government are seeking to rob the rich to pay the poor we should actually be investing in intelligence and excellence. Buy the best you can afford has always been a family motto and the same goes for people. Buy the best and educate the rest.

Reinvent our nation and focus on leading the way with new planet-sensitive technologies, new power sources, new types of transportation, medical advancements, space exploration, nano-technology the improvement of health and people's welfare and so on without end really...

We need to lead not follow. Aim high not sink without trace.

Instead of wasting money putting irresponsible single mothers in swish houses I'd see that our University students got the education they've earned without the debts which will weigh them down for years. Going to university should be a challenge and an awakening not a constant worry about debt.

Every energy would be put into making 21st century Great Britain a centre of excellence and giving as many of our resident population as possible the backing and movitation to advance their capabilities and achieve things.

Even the least academic might be encouraged to be a craftsman or a mechanic. Each to their own but with maximum effort and expectation.

Our building industry wouldn't be allowed to disperse or become idle. We'd build an entertainment industry that would be the envy of the world - Leicestershire would have the biggest Water Theme Park in Britain - and there would be others, places that would employ people and make them feel worthwhile and a part of something.

The freeloaders could all piss off. They wouldn't be encouraged in any way whatsoever. Serious crime would disappear, it really would, because the vast majority would have too much good living to lose and the intractable minority wouldn't be put up with. The easy going atmosphere would not mean anyone could take liberties.

Britain would be re-marketed and, once again, the Union Jack would be a symbol of quality...quality goods, quality people and a quality way of life. And as for your "social" housing or "antisocial" housing if you really want to describe it...that wouldn't exist.

So much of the thrust of education would be to wipe away snobbery, to encourage achievement, to make helpfullness towards one another a natural reaction and to value the dustman as much as the academic or creative genius.

No-one would be encouraged to live in a ghetto with the undefined but very real barriers that surround them. And everyone would be respectively paid. In my world I'd know that were the dustbins not emptied we'd be in as bad a position as if the surgeon didn't turn up to work. It's a bit communistic actually but without the self-serving.

People would be part of team Britain from the day they first saw a musical instrument in playschool or kicked their first football. People in Labour Britain are so undervalued and under-utilised and so many are being steered into no-hope jobs doing unnecessary and unfulfilling things. What a fecking life.

What did you do day today? Booked 35 motorists for illegal parking. What a hero.

Twenty-first century Britain would set an example to the world instead of becoming the dumping ground for so much trash that it has become under the lowlifes that run us today. Our biggest export would be expertise. We would lead the way in getting the very best out of people.

We'd never fight another war unless invaded. Soldiers would have the chance to become adventure leaders or something similar. War would be considered obscene and an utter waste of money. Why mankind has never worked that out I've no idea.

Ah idealism.... if only. I was only fantasising.

Carry on with Labour. The "Christmas" you get you deserve...

[Thracian]

Labour have created nearly 2 Million additional public sector jobs, yet we see no benefit in services from that extra expense. One great example of an area which adds nothing? the tax credit system. If you want to reduce people's tax burden then you cut their taxes. Gordon of course wanted more people to be beholden to the state, so instead he takes their money, spend £Billions on administration and then gives the remainder back again. That adds nothing to the country, becuase if you had not taken the money in the first place, it would have been spent on invested without the Overhead. As for your interlinked comment, if they had spent the cash on investment in infrastructure instead of using PFI off balance sheet scams then we would at least have something to show for it.

Average salaries in the public sector is now higher than the private sector. They also get far better pensions. Nearly 5 Million of them. This profligate waste of OUR money has to stop. I suppose next you will use the example of Christiano Ronaldo's pay packet to explain to me why this is not a valid point?

You've become the man I'd most like to sit next to at a match....

With Dags on the other side!

With your good sense and Dags' inimitable good humour it should be a cracking afternoon.

[Hullfox]

This nation is awash with products from the Far East and from endless other low-labour-cost economies.

How many of the goods in your own house and garage are British though Thrach?

Instead of wasting money putting irresponsible single mothers in swish houses I'd see that our University students got the education they've earned without the debts which will weigh them down for years. Going to university should be a challenge and an awakening not a constant worry about debt.

How do you define "irresponsible" in a single mother or do you mean all single mothers? Are these "irresponsible" people not a by-product of the society that your generation has allowed to develop?

[Jon the Hat]

By the way, the health and education services in particular are in a lot better state now than they were before 1997. Shame that the same can't be said for the transport service, which has remained largely in private hands.

The idea that the public sector is somehow not contibuting to the activity of the economy as a whole is a falsehood.

If you throw enough money at something it of course gets better. The question is whether the taxpayer gets value for money. You have to judge on output, and our school leavers are astoundingly uneducated on international comparison, and we fail left right and centre to provide world class healthcare for the world class money we have thrown at it.

Of course people in public sector jobs add something, but what extra are those 2million adding? I am certainly not happy to be paying for people who administer tax credits, or for endless quangos who seem to achieve nothing. As Thrac has said, we also subsidise an underclass with no interest in work. Who created the welfare system which encouragd this? Local councils are paying people 30-50k salaries to publiish crap which no one reads. It is never ending.

[Flynny]

You've become the man I'd most like to sit next to at a match....

With Dags on the other side!

With your good sense and Dags' inimitable good humour it should be a cracking afternoon.

Jon's noticing that top-down big government has done fook-all for the country is just a touch more sophisticated than your knee-jerk occasional right-wingery mixed with an odd streak of idealism. You've railed against a Marxist/socialist government and then against free-market capitalism in the same thread.

While we're on the subject, you realise the protectionism you're endorsing would have left us trailing in the wake of just about every other major industrialised nation and we'd regard the current state of affairs as pretty good going, right?

What was needed was the combination of the effective conservative, free-market fiscal policy that we had/have, with much better regulation. That a government that's been pretty authoritarian on every other matter did nothing to curb the financial sector is surprising, though I'd have backed it as the right call until all of this happened, as would the labour cabinet, it seems.

Edit: If that sounded a little aggressive I'd consider you a 'jaded, occasionally despairing idealist', Thracian.

[Thracian]

How many of the goods in your own house and garage are British though Thrach?

How do you define "irresponsible" in a single mother or do you mean all single mothers? Are these "irresponsible" people not a by-product of the society that your generation has allowed to develop?

a) Not enough, I'm afraid. For all my ideals I've got a living to earn.

b) I don't know about my generation being the root cause of irresponsible parenting. There's nothing new about single parent situations. I do however think that some women bleed the system by deliberately having unsupported kids and claiming benefit.

Broadly I'm a big believer in people having to take responsibility for their own actions. I coped without social security when I became a 17-year-old father-to-be so I'm quite sure most others can.

It always strikes me as strange that any woman would get themselves pregnant without wishing to with the availability of today's contraceptive options.

However my generalisations don't mean I'm blind to exceptions where the need for help is categoric. Not everyone has the family support of my generation since it's gradual erosion in importance over the recent years by yet more misguided socialist doctrine.

[Thracian]

Jon's noticing that top-down big government has done fook-all for the country is just a touch more sophisticated than your knee-jerk occasional right-wingery mixed with an odd streak of idealism. You've railed against a Marxist/socialist government and then against free-market capitalism in the same thread.

While we're on the subject, you realise the protectionism you're endorsing would have left us trailing in the wake of just about every other major industrialised nation and we'd regard the current state of affairs as pretty good going, right?

What was needed was the combination of the effective conservative, free-market fiscal policy that we had/have, with much better regulation. That a government that's been pretty authoritarian on every other matter did nothing to curb the financial sector is surprising, though I'd have backed it as the right call until all of this happened, as would the labour cabinet, it seems.

Edit: If that sounded a little aggressive I'd consider you a 'jaded, occasionally despairing idealist', Thracian.

Being essentially non political I can quite easily criticise misguided socialism at exactly the same time as criticising the folly of free-market capitalism that is not based on the ideal of a reasonably level playing field.

I certainly wouldn't have made the mistake of failing to demand responsibility from the financial section - I have always been essentially prudent and have never favoured the extention of reckless credit, nor of spending money I didn't have or which wasn't mine, on highly speculative ventures.

On rare occasions I do make rules I believe in trying to keep them.

Whether my approach to short or medium term protectionism would have done us harm I don't know. I've heard so many economic theories that didn't quite pan out as experts predicted that I would never dream or presuming mine would necessarily be better than others nor that it would be as bad as you suggest.

However I have adapted to competition and to changing circumstances for the 20-odd years of my business life, to the point of turning in five quite distinct though loosely connected directions during that time.

I would stress that I'm no business superstar. I've simply made a living. My oldest son is much more relevent, working as a kind of company doctor to a huge variety of Midland firms, so there's plenty of family access to the realities of changing economic circumstances including what has been seen to work and what has not.

I do admit to being reactionary which can, of course, lead to mistakes. But that same "fault" also guarantees rapid recognition of something going wrong and the implementation of modifications or a plan B. As I've said many times, I've never been one for inflexibility in any part of my life.

If I sound jaded I apologise. But if you think me despairing nothing could be further from the truth. Frustrated by uninspired politics maybe but despairing, no.

Both in business and in my personal life, I couldn't feel more positive. We have what seems to be a reasonably sound business, my oldest son's business is positively thriving and even my youngest son's company looks highly promising judging by the volume of bookings already pencilled in for next year.

That's four totally separate businesses, plus add ons and not one of them showing signs of malfunction, credit crunch or not.

Circumstances can change and catch any of us out but that does seem a sound enough basis for at least voicing an opinion.

Idealism there may be but it is only the guiding light at the end of a long and inevitably bumpy road.

[breadandcheese]

Ultra, you seem to start from a position of assuming that the a large proportion of the private sector is made up of people taking home city-wage salaries and bonuses. Consequently, you're probably not qualified to add anything to a discussion of public sector pay as you're starting from a falsehood position.

So your comparison of public sector wages and pensions with those fat-cat chief exec wages and pensions is lunacy. To also assume that all those in the private sector have secret offshore bank accounts is a fictional paranoia which adds very little to the discussion.

There are also contradictions in your position. Public sector wages may on the whole be less than their private counterparts (although this is open to debate as there are a number of reports that show different), but when you factor in pension provision (based on a final salary scheme with no contributions necessary), the public sector is actually a better payer and employer over the long term. There are also a large number of "fat cats" in the public sector earning large fees (the former head of social services at Haringey council comes to mind being on over £100,000 per year with final salary pension)

I would also ask, if you are so convinced the public sector earn less than the private sector, whether you support privatisation as it would surely increase the wage levels of those currently on public sector levels?

There is far too much waste in the public sector. Someone mentioned earlier how Gordon Brown's favourite mechanism, the tax credits rebate, is beneficial to a large number of people. Well these tax credit rebates are a perfect example of the lunacy and sheer bloatedness of Gordon's public sector.

Ignoring the deviousness that they rely on over-complication so that not all entitled actually claim, what is the point of them? Far better to increase the tax threshold at the lower level and do away with the tax credits. Tax credits cost a fortune to administer, employing large amounts of people to give back what has been taken in the first place. This money could be diverted to all manner of better projects (investment in infrastructure, etc). I can not believe that anybody would support the large overcomplicated tax credits scheme that Gordon Brown seems to love.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Oh how I hark for the days of Empire (and not the magazine). None of this mattered when we had a captive market to sell our shoddy goods to at ridiculous prices. I don't know about blaming Gordon Brown, it's blooming brown people and their annoying insistence on self determination that's really done us all up the bottoms. Curse them and their work ethic.

Victoria would never have stood for it

[Benji]

Morgan has just cried enough

[Head Honcho]

:D It's a long time since I voted Conservative, or for anyone else.

And the situation today is far different from Thatcher's time.

From my recollection every miner I ever met got decent severence pay, not to mention medical compensation and a good many of them spent that money on paying for the houses Mrs Thatcher gave them the opportunity to buy, something Labour never wanted.

It was the biggest lift the working man ever got.

Furthermore while the mines closed the mining areas were redeveloped and were the better for it because there was never any sense in one area relying on one type of industry.

Not only that but the mineworkers never stopped complaining about what their work was doing to their health. Pneumoconiosis etc was rife. How ironic that their politicis still made them complain about the closures and the opportunity to get themselves into healthy work.

And there were alternatives. No-one would complain about the closure of Woolworths etc if there was any signs of new industry or sources of work (apart from more Government departments). But there isn't.

In Thatcher's day there were options and, furthermore the native population had no problem taking those options if they wished to, whereas nowadays they would be way down the politically correct league table and there's not much in the way of productive jobs anyway.

Perhaps you'll explain to me where the options are coming from? Cos I've heard of no great vision for a prosperous future - no great Gordon Brown plan for the re-generation and reinvigorating of Great Britain PLC.

I take it you've never been to Merthyr Tydfil then!

[davieG]

Ultra, you seem to start from a position of assuming that the a large proportion of the private sector is made up of people taking home city-wage salaries and bonuses. Consequently, you're probably not qualified to add anything to a discussion of public sector pay as you're starting from a falsehood position.

So your comparison of public sector wages and pensions with those fat-cat chief exec wages and pensions is lunacy. To also assume that all those in the private sector have secret offshore bank accounts is a fictional paranoia which adds very little to the discussion.

There are also contradictions in your position. Public sector wages may on the whole be less than their private counterparts (although this is open to debate as there are a number of reports that show different), but when you factor in pension provision (based on a final salary scheme with no contributions necessary), the public sector is actually a better payer and employer over the long term. There are also a large number of "fat cats" in the public sector earning large fees (the former head of social services at Haringey council comes to mind being on over £100,000 per year with final salary pension)

I would also ask, if you are so convinced the public sector earn less than the private sector, whether you support privatisation as it would surely increase the wage levels of those currently on public sector levels?

There is far too much waste in the public sector. Someone mentioned earlier how Gordon Brown's favourite mechanism, the tax credits rebate, is beneficial to a large number of people. Well these tax credit rebates are a perfect example of the lunacy and sheer bloatedness of Gordon's public sector.

Ignoring the deviousness that they rely on over-complication so that not all entitled actually claim, what is the point of them? Far better to increase the tax threshold at the lower level and do away with the tax credits. Tax credits cost a fortune to administer, employing large amounts of people to give back what has been taken in the first place. This money could be diverted to all manner of better projects (investment in infrastructure, etc). I can not believe that anybody would support the large overcomplicated tax credits scheme that Gordon Brown seems to love.

I worked at County Hall for 4 years and contributed quite hefty proportion of my part time salary to the pension scheme, in fact a bigger portion than my previous company scheme which was also based on final salaries.

Whether people at the top of the local government ladder or Civil Servants contribute I can't say but they certainly do at local level.

[Thracian]

I take it you've never been to Merthyr Tydfil then!

Why would I want to go to Merthyr Tydfil? Isn't it a dour socialist stronghold? Weren't the people around Merthyr partly responsible for this administration's existence, which is ironic because one of the few sources of entertainment in inland Wales is the pub and I was taking bets only today on how many pubs would close in the next calendar year.

The Government have kicked publicans like gang members with a helpless victim what with their taxation, the ban on smoking, the ban on drinking outside and their unadmitted toadying to certain pressure groups. Even the Swan and Rushes is up for sale!

I reckoned 25% will close this year but some estimations were far higher. It will be like putting the lights out in Wales.

No, I've not been to Merthyr. I did go close once when I took a holiday in Tenby but the place was such a tourist rip off and I was so disinclined to be shafted that I just turned around on day two and went home.

For saying how many Welsh work in England the country seemed quite nationalistic with regards to who they are prepared to employ and good luck to them.

Get on with it I say. In fact were it up to me I'd give Wales their independence tomorrow because really, they are entitled to it. Then they could right all their wrongs in their own way and with their own politics.

They've got a beautiful country, a beautiful language, they retain something of a clan mentality, they still retain the ability to entertain themselves, they could sing for God and are such spirited and sporty people who seem to care what their country becomes.

Why do they need us to look out for them? Especially with so many socialists in their ranks already who would naturally help anyone, and do, including themselves?

We should just pay the Welsh the compliment of taking the same nationalistic approach and fight for the greatness of our land. It too has strengths and they have been shamefully diluted in recent years.