Bob Weasel Fox Posted 9 March 2011 Posted 9 March 2011 What do people out there think of the government cuts? Im Fed up today, the wife is due to lose £300 net a month at least and thats only if she keeps her job, mine is a little more secure but not by much, one fook up and im out. Im 40 and have worked full time since i was 16 (no University for me when i left school - okay not bright enough!!!) and TBH we are thinking of selling our terraced house as we cant afford the mortgage payments and bills etc if my wifes wages go down (or she loses her job). Government cuts when politicians are on the fiddle with their expenses, WTF?
Fox1651 Posted 9 March 2011 Posted 9 March 2011 What do people out there think of the government cuts? Im Fed up today, the wife is due to lose £300 net a month at least and thats only if she keeps her job, mine is a little more secure but not by much, one fook up and im out. Im 40 and have worked full time since i was 16 (no University for me when i left school - okay not bright enough!!!) and TBH we are thinking of selling our terraced house as we cant afford the mortgage payments and bills etc if my wifes wages go down (or she loses her job). Government cuts when politicians are on the fiddle with their expenses, WTF? Think this topic has been covered already Carlito's Way - but good point, Politicians are all slimey self centered tossers but there you go - life goes on
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 March 2011 Author Posted 10 March 2011 Think this topic has been covered already Carlito's Way - but good point, Politicians are all slimey self centered tossers but there you go - life goes on Cheers Fox1651 thanks for your support
Jon the Hat Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 Unlucky. Unfortunately 800,000 new public sector jobs since 1997 is not sustainable.
Fox92 Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 I find it disgraceful that the government are prepared to cut so many things and raise so many prices because the country is in a state and has no money, yet they are prepared to give other countries like Heiti millions of pounds because of a disaster etc. I don't get it, its a disgrace.
Christoph Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 Unlucky. Unfortunately 800,000 new public sector jobs since 1997 is not sustainable. Agreed.
Fox1651 Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 Unlucky. Unfortunately 800,000 new public sector jobs since 1997 is not sustainable. In mine and Carlito's Way job there are not so much job losses, more natural wastage, but the government are making things unsafe for the people who work with us and more importantly to the public and the service we provide for the public is therefore diminished. I do however realise things need to be improved on (ie cuts made etc) by the government but i cant help feeling that whatever political persuaion you lean towards, they all lied to us before last years general election - that is clear!
Fox1651 Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 I find it disgraceful that the government are prepared to cut so many things and raise so many prices because the country is in a state and has no money, yet they are prepared to give other countries like Heiti millions of pounds because of a disaster etc. I don't get it, its a disgrace. Agreed having said that - what has happenend in Haiti is very sad and we should help where we can but not at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country etc etc
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 March 2011 Author Posted 10 March 2011 the whole thing is very disapointing ive gotta admit, but hey ho just get on with it i say
Jon the Hat Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 In mine and Carlito's Way job there are not so much job losses, more natural wastage, but the government are making things unsafe for the people who work with us and more importantly to the public and the service we provide for the public is therefore diminished. I do however realise things need to be improved on (ie cuts made etc) by the government but i cant help feeling that whatever political persuaion you lean towards, they all lied to us before last years general election - that is clear! It was clear they were lying at the time. Whoever won these cuts were coming. Labour have conveniently forgotten this.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 10 March 2011 Posted 10 March 2011 Basically people are losing jobs so bankers can get bonuses.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 March 2011 Author Posted 10 March 2011 Basically people are losing jobs so bankers can get bonuses. yep, the whole thing stinks really doesnt it? It would be interesting to see how the general public feel about wages / bonuses etc etc, im sure without sounding too commie like that wealth could be distributed in a much fairer way in this country - surely the bankers themselves must feel what they get paid is immoral?
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 March 2011 Author Posted 10 March 2011 It was clear they were lying at the time. Whoever won these cuts were coming. Labour have conveniently forgotten this. yep agreed in fairness they have all lied, we could all see it coming but it doesnt sit well with me, i deal in honesty full stop.
l444ry Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 It was clear they were lying at the time. Whoever won these cuts were coming. Labour have conveniently forgotten this. Unfortunately, all the political party's are spinning the "there is no alternative to cuts" mantra. But at least Labour's cuts were going to be at a more realistic pace and in a more sensible fashion. More and more people are now seeing these cuts for what they are - idealogical!! In what is now becoming more obvious by the day, we are being dragged back to the 80's and all the problems, social strife and unemployment it brought. The rate the nation is turning, it wouldn't surprise me if this parliament doesn't last the distance.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 Unfortunately, all the political party's are spinning the "there is no alternative to cuts" mantra. But at least Labour's cuts were going to be at a more realistic pace and in a more sensible fashion. More and more people are now seeing these cuts for what they are - idealogical!! In what is now becoming more obvious by the day, we are being dragged back to the 80's and all the problems, social strife and unemployment it brought. The rate the nation is turning, it wouldn't surprise me if this parliament doesn't last the distance. Unfortunately dealing with structural problems like public sector pension and welfare reform is not easy. You keep throwing this idealogical cuts accusation around like it is some damning commentary, but to be honest all I see in the media day in day out is unions, special interest groups and the like fighting for their own corner regardless of how unfair that might be and screw everyone else. They are defending the indefensible, and they are not going to get broad support for that no matter how much you wish they would.
FoxyPV Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 They should cut final salary pensions - they are a joke. Mrs Reynard informed me that in schools that she has worked in staff who have been there for 20 years and are nearing their retirement are often promoted or promotions created for them the year/ two years before retirement as a reward for their service to get a much better pension. It should be linked to average earnings.
cambridgefox Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 Basically people are losing jobs so bankers can get bonuses. Not sure that is true,but hey my wife got her banking bonus.its so easy to blame the banks.i used to be a manager at one and hated the bank and the way things were done and that includes the lower end staff eg me.i have no reason to stick up for them,but they are an easy target to blame,they are in a no win situation,if they make money they are wrong,if they lose money they are wrong.Although it is a parnership,no one has batted an eyelid with John Lewis bonuses of 15% when the bottom line wasnt that good.The banks have lost thousands of jobs at the lower end in the last 18 months,so it is also them that suffer.
Stevosevic Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 The public sector is too inefficient unfortunately, it was always going to happen and is needed.
James. Posted 11 March 2011 Posted 11 March 2011 Basically people are losing jobs so bankers can get bonuses. I assume this is a bit of bait for the bankers like me to nibble on? You do understand the situation isn't quite so clear cut as that, right?
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 11 March 2011 Author Posted 11 March 2011 The public sector is too inefficient unfortunately, it was always going to happen and is needed. but you dont make them more efficient by imposing cuts, its dangerous - people will neddlessly die, both who work for the public sector and those they serve because of these cuts
Webbo Posted 12 March 2011 Posted 12 March 2011 I'd like to know how bankers' bonuses are calculated. If it's a small percentage of the business they've generated or the profit on a successful deal they've done then I don't have a problem with that. I must say it does irk me when I see chief executives getting massive bonuses when their companies have lost money that year.
Hullfox Posted 12 March 2011 Posted 12 March 2011 but you dont make them more efficient by imposing cuts, its dangerous - people will neddlessly die, both who work for the public sector and those they serve because of these cuts How on earth are people who work for the Public Sector going to die?
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 March 2011 Author Posted 12 March 2011 How on earth are people who work for the Public Sector going to die? you clearly arent a public sector worker are you? work in that industry before you make judgements - i know - you dont
FoxyPV Posted 12 March 2011 Posted 12 March 2011 I'd like to know how bankers' bonuses are calculated. If it's a small percentage of the business they've generated or the profit on a successful deal they've done then I don't have a problem with that. I must say it does irk me when I see chief executives getting massive bonuses when their companies have lost money that year. Never understood how it works.
Frenzied Posted 13 March 2011 Posted 13 March 2011 Unlucky. Unfortunately 800,000 new public sector jobs since 1997 is not sustainable. Really? Care to explain why? And if you were to expand your time-frame a little you'd see that the proportion of public sector jobs in 1992 was 23.1% (under a Tory government), whereas now it's 21%.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.