Jon the Hat Posted 29 March 2012 Posted 29 March 2012 Just out of interest, how many posters would do the job of Lord Mayor, and what would they consider an acceptable remuneration package? Would they turn down £65,000 pa? How about those politicians who give up careers where they were earning a damn sight more than £65,000 pa? Are they not making sacrifices for the "greater good"? These aren't necessarily my views, but I'd be interested to see what your views are. I'm sure I heard Thrace on the radio a while back talking about the market; he was the spokesman, or something? I wouldn't. Would happily be the shadowing finance man in the background though, I would take 65k to be an MP though. I think I change my mind too much though, I would piss everyone off. I love it when Jon and Daggers cross-swords. *pulls up a chair and munches popcorn* Shit. I thought I was replying to someone sensible.
Daggers Posted 29 March 2012 Posted 29 March 2012 Shit. I thought I was replying to someone sensible.
Daggers Posted 29 March 2012 Posted 29 March 2012 Just out of interest, how many posters would do the job of Lord Mayor, and what would they consider an acceptable remuneration package? Would they turn down £65,000 pa? How about those politicians who give up careers where they were earning a damn sight more than £65,000 pa? Are they not making sacrifices for the "greater good"? These aren't necessarily my views, but I'd be interested to see what your views are. A secondary school Head earns around £65K, a primary Head can pull around £55K - running an entire city for £65,000? Nah, I don't reckon.
Daggers Posted 29 March 2012 Posted 29 March 2012 There is clearly a political angle to a mayor getting a pay rise while also being a Labour type no doubt complaining that Government cuts will mean frontline services being cut. If you take a pay rise yourself while cutting actual services to the needy then you are a hypocrite. But it'd be OK to take a pay-rise if he was a Tory then? Well you don't generally increase your company profits by stopping doing the things which earn you that profit, you do it by doing the non-income generating activities more cheaply. Likewise a council should be trying to do its not frontline activities as efficiently as possible to make funds available to deliver frontline services. that is not to say the way you deliver the frontline cannot be changed as well, but that is not the same as cutting them. So if you equate revenue generating activities in the private sector to frontline services in the public sector, then the equivalent to increasing profitability is reducing back office costs and maintaining frontline services on a reducing tax bill. The only way your analogy works is if you cite companies cutting back on support services and sacking half the board - but you know this doesn't happen as a primary way of improving efficiency and unit price. And I don't equate revenue generating activities in the private sector to frontline services in the public sector, I don't equate it at all.
Jon the Hat Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 But it'd be OK to take a pay-rise if he was a Tory then? The only way your analogy works is if you cite companies cutting back on support services and sacking half the board - but you know this doesn't happen as a primary way of improving efficiency and unit price. And I don't equate revenue generating activities in the private sector to frontline services in the public sector, I don't equate it at all. Whether it was hypocritical or not would depend on the line of the party I guess, but I would view any increase in exec pay as inappropriate if frontline services were being cut. to be fair though I consider any public sector service which is saying it must cut frontline services to achieve the saving required as not trying hard enough. I also realise this might be a circular argument re capability and paying for the best. Do you accept that the primary purpose of business is to earn profit and companies have frontline operations which achieve that, and the primary purpose of public services is to provide frontline services, and that everything that supports those is support services, and that doing those support services more efficiently is good in both cases as long as it doesn't impact the primary prupose, then it is exactly the same. Clearly it is never quite that clear cut, and there are risks in any change but the point is valid.
Jon the Hat Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 A secondary school Head earns around £65K, a primary Head can pull around £55K - running an entire city for £65,000? Nah, I don't reckon. Peanuts, monkeys etc.
Daggers Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 Peanuts, monkeys etc. Due to successive governments' approaches to education the only people you tend to find running schools now are incompetent ones who can hide well or the sort of person suited to an failed appearance on The Apprentice. I currently believe it's more a case of : nice picnic hamper, monkeys etc. Do you accept that the primary purpose of business is to earn profit and companies have frontline operations which achieve that, and the primary purpose of public services is to provide frontline services, and that everything that supports those is support services, and that doing those support services more efficiently is good in both cases as long as it doesn't impact the primary prupose, then it is exactly the same. Is that a question?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.