BoneDog Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 El Empty is here! Things are starting to warm up nicely now. HIGH FIVE! That said, I may only be passing through. I must say that this thread has already warmed up quite enough before I arrived! I came on as a guest last night and read the whole thing, whereas normally I wouldn't bother reading so many pages in one go! I was hooked after page 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 The only reason half this stuff has come out at all is that the media is trying its best to piss off everyone in politics becuase they are under attack via the Leveson enquiry. If you cannot look past the irrelevant shit then you must find politcs exhausting. Economists always disagree with something. Lots of them, including for example those at the world bank recognise that the only reason we have not had our credit rating downgraded and are not in the shit with some other countries is becuase the Government showed the political will to make necessary cuts at the right time. It is easy to point at what has happened (double dip) than to consider what might have happened (massive increase in cost of borrowing and consequential larger cuts) when it suits your argument. We will never know, but it would have been a huge gamble to not show the will to make cuts. I do find it exhausting, but I don't find jumping into bed with Murdoch and selling access to the PM irrelevant. Of course we don't know what would have happened, but all the trends pointed to Darling actually triggering a resurgence in the economy and if the trend had continued we would have been ok, but of course we don't know that, likewise we didn't know that Osbourne's actions were going to create a double dip recession, but we could have an educated guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I do find it exhausting, but I don't find jumping into bed with Murdoch and selling access to the PM irrelevant. Of course we don't know what would have happened, but all the trends pointed to Darling actually triggering a resurgence in the economy and if the trend had continued we would have been ok, but of course we don't know that, likewise we didn't know that Osbourne's actions were going to create a double dip recession, but we could have an educated guess. Anyone who guesses Labour are better at handling the economy isn't very educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Anyone who guesses Labour are better at handling the economy isn't very educated. Oh who gives a flying fvck about whether it is Labour's fault of the tories (it is clearly down to both of them, Labour for creating the deficit and conservatives for plunging us further into recession), all that I can see is the economy of this country is going down the shitter, and political point scoring is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I've always thought we live under an ecomonic system that relies on the Private Sector to cover around 80-85% (roughly I'd imagine) of the workforce in able to have a enough to maintain a Public Sector that works to it's potential and can be funded by the General public, the trend we have had of the Public Sector increasing and the Private decreasing is always going to lead to a situation of a damanging financial situation, add to that some of the absolutely ridiculous pensions schemes behind promised against taxpayers money and you can end up with a catastrophe. I think we are just going to have to accept the next few years are going to be very very tough, for all the talk of cuts and austerity in reality it hasnt even started yet, we are still borrowing far far more than we are spending every single day and with the immiment collapse of certain parts and maybe eventually the whole of the Eurozone I really don't think that increasing that borrowing is a realistic option at the minute at a time of such uncertainly. The only real cock up I've seen of the last couple of years was not forcing the banks in someway to lend a certain percentage of the money out to local businesses they given on the bailout and even that mistake pales into insignificence compared to the bank de-regulation that last Government allowed so they could create a private debt crisis of huge proportion a lot of people are still paying for now that is probably as much to do with the fact people arent spending as many other things. The so called cuts would be happening now under anyone and the people who seem to think the Lib Dems or Labour would have had some magic pot of beans to stop all this from happening need to get into the real world. I think that first sentence sums up why you haven't got a fooking clue about what your talking about. Really 80-85% of the economy should be private sector? I suppose selling off the police/fire service, and selling off the NHS should about cover that idiotic percentage. I love how it's so easy to blame the last government. Every government slags the last, when there own incompetence and shite ideas hit the fan. Consecutive governments including the Tories have put the countries finances in meltdown. Each government after the next out for 'their own' corporate buddies. The Tories mastered this art in the 80's and the Labour government picked up the gauntlet. But the beauty of most governments, when they know they are on the way out, is to make sure to fook things up proper to make the next government unable to succeed, buying enough time to rejig your own party, and recoup your voter losses, and rebrand, whilst trying to gain back the corporate backers you've lost along the way, with promises of corporate law laxity and relief where applicable. This government is doing its best in hard times to serve its corporate master, but those sneaky papers, and prying eyes don't half make it difficult. So the next best thing is total 'shock and awe'. Rapid dramatic austerity measures and political policy controlling measures. The theory is simple - go as hard and fast as possible, the noises from those in opposition and in public will be that, just noise. They have recall a few ideas, trim back a couple of others, but the net effect is getting precisely what they want. The Tories are dicks, just like the previous greedy government, but the reason they are despised that little bit more, is they are picking up the Thatcher ideologies of privatisation at all costs, with their fingers pointed at the institutions that will make the most profit, yet will suffer at the hands of greedy corporates. Look how well the privatisation of the rail system went. PFI's were a great example of how privatisation of the NHS will end in ruin. Labour tried to sell a portion of NHS's facilitation and it's already buried a Trust in London and there are MANY others on the brink. This (OP) proposal is a cynical ploy and we'll see more and more of these half-arsed middle class vote marketing with the lead up to the election, with the emphasis on trying to convince the middle-class that the reason they are in a tight squeeze is that 17yr old Tina and her fourteen children are the reason you can't afford to shop in Sainsbury's and god forbid you have to either go 'basic' or pop in the local Aldi/Lidl/Pleb shop to buy your dinners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I think that first sentence sums up why you haven't got a fooking clue about what your talking about. Really 80-85% of the economy should be private sector? I suppose selling off the police/fire service, and selling off the NHS should about cover that idiotic percentage. Do you really think 80% is that unrealistic?, 60million people, 40millionish of working age. That's 8million in the Public Sector and 32million in the Private, I don't think that's such a outrageous base for a stable economy. As you are such an expert what's your estimate of how many a Public Sector can sustain whilst having the basis of a growing and thriving economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Good Luck Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Do you really think 80% is that unrealistic?, 60million people, 40millionish of working age. That's 5million in the Public Sector and 35million in the Private, I don't think that's such a outrageous base for a stable economy. As you are such an expert what's your estimate of how many a Public Sector can sustain whilst having the basis of a growing and thriving economy? You clearly haven't a clue how many people it would take just to run a lean and efficient NHS do you? Nevermind the rest of the Public Sector. You are just pulling percentages out of your arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 You clearly haven't a clue how many people it would take just to run a lean and efficient NHS do you? Nevermind the rest of the Public Sector. You are just pulling percentages out of your arse. It's only about 1.4million now isn't it? Answer the question anyway, what's your estimate of how many a Public Sector can sustain whilst having the basis of a growing and thriving economy? And of course if you do know just how many people it takes to run a lean and efficient NHS you should be talking about this is far higher circles than foxestalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Some interesting figures here. (from last year) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12819538 1,431,557: Total number of NHS employees in England: 41,962 managers and senior managers 721,717 professionally qualified clinical staff, including: 39,409 GPs 37,752 consultants 410,615 qualified nurses The number of managers has also climbed dramatically over the past ten years, to 41,962 - an increase of 66%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 It's only about 1.4million now isn't it? Answer the question anyway, what's your estimate of how many a Public Sector can sustain whilst having the basis of a growing and thriving economy? And of course if you do know just how many people it takes to run a lean and efficient NHS you should be talking about this is far higher circles than foxestalk. Really where do you get your figure of 40m(ish) people of working age into your made-up stats? Please show me where you've obtained this figure I can bask in your more knowledgeable shadow. Do you actually know where to source these figures? Do you need a hand? It's not in online newspaper article...that's your first clue. I don't have my figures to hand, and yet I don't make stupid statements on an internet forum with made-up ones. Some interesting figures here. (from last year) http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-12819538 1,431,557: Total number of NHS employees in England: 41,962 managers and senior managers 721,717 professionally qualified clinical staff, including: 39,409 GPs 37,752 consultants 410,615 qualified nurses The number of managers has also climbed dramatically over the past ten years, to 41,962 - an increase of 66%. There is no doubt that there is an issue with the number of senior posts in the NHS. This isn't up for debate, yet is actually in the process of being reduced, but unfortunately the system is old and antiquated to say the least and turning such a beast is very difficult. There's no debate about NHS reform, and/or system reform within all of the Public Sector with efficiency and lean improvements, and a culture change. Though the opening up the Public Sector, and saying it will be much more efficient under a privately run and profit-focussed approach is a falsity and the current economic climate is an excuse for the Tories grubby corporate mates to get their hands on the real 'cash cow' they've been seeking for the last 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 http://www.ons.gov.u...2012/index.html The key points from this release are: The employment rate for those aged from 16 to 64 was 70.6 per cent, up 0.3 on the quarter. There were 29.28 million people in employment aged 16 and over, up 166,000 on the quarter. The number of people employed in the private sector increased by 205,000 to reach 23.38 million but the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 39,000 to reach 5.90 million, the lowest figure since March 2003. The unemployment rate was 8.2 per cent of the economically active population, down 0.2 on the quarter. There were 2.61 million unemployed people, down 51,000 on the quarter. The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 was 23.0 per cent, down 0.2 on the quarter. There were 9.23 million economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64, down 69,000 on the quarter. Total pay (including bonuses) rose by 1.4 per cent on a year earlier, up 0.5 on the three months to March 2012. Regular pay (excluding bonuses) rose by 1.8 per cent on a year earlier, up 0.2 on the three months to March 2012. So it's about 30million, but look at all that good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 So it's about 30million, but look at all that good news. 30million/ 40 million, why quibble over the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 30million/ 40 million, why quibble over the difference I never said it was 40 million, but did you notice that unemployment went down despite a fall in the number employed in the public sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I never said it was 40 million, but did you notice that unemployment went down despite a fall in the number employed in the public sector? That wasn't aimed at you Webbo, you helped make my point. The figures that the ONS provide are interpretive to say the least and should be taken with a pinch of salt as there are plenty of variables that are not evident. Ask yourself how the statistics of unemployment are generated. Then ask yourself how many people don't claim benefit. Now that isn't a huge number but it's one of the many variables. Another is those who join further education or when students leave education/university and take part-time/fulltime low paid jobs after their exams at this time of the year. I'm sure there are plenty of others that make a difference to the numbers and figures at particular times of the year. You'd have to cross reference trends across these figures rather than taking them at face value, as many lazy journalists or sneaky agenda driven politicians do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 The figures that the ONS provide are interpretive to say the least and should be taken with a pinch of salt as there are plenty of variables that are not evident. I'll remember that next time there's some bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Really where do you get your figure of 40m(ish) people of working age into your made-up stats? Please show me where you've obtained this figure I can bask in your more knowledgeable shadow. Do you actually know where to source these figures? Do you need a hand? It's not in online newspaper article...that's your first clue. There is no doubt that there is an issue with the number of senior posts in the NHS. This isn't up for debate, yet is actually in the process of being reduced, but unfortunately the system is old and antiquated to say the least and turning such a beast is very difficult. There's no debate about NHS reform, and/or system reform within all of the Public Sector with efficiency and lean improvements, and a culture change. Though the opening up the Public Sector, and saying it will be much more efficient under a privately run and profit-focussed approach is a falsity and the current economic climate is an excuse for the Tories grubby corporate mates to get their hands on the real 'cash cow' they've been seeking for the last 40 years. I had a quick esitmate, so I was a few % out that's probably nearly there when you take into all the people working cash in hand etc etc I don't mind taking a guess at something. If the Tories really wanted to get their hands on the real cash cow of the NHS they would have done it under Thatcher. The problem with the Public Sector is it's like a Tortoise, it's slow as anything anyway but if you touch it it seems to stop altogther. Hrd dilemma for any Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I'll remember that next time there's some bad news. Surely you know that statistics have underlying variables don't you? If you read the stats on face value without any knowledge of the sector, then you can make happy face all day long, or sad faces in the paper of your choice, with a quote off a so-called expert who has clear (with not much digging) leanings to a particular party. It's not rocket science. My point was, making up stats is even worse than pulling stats from Government websites and utilising them with no actual knowledge of the variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Surely you know that statistics have underlying variables don't you? If you read the stats on face value without any knowledge of the sector, then you can make happy face all day long, or sad faces in the paper of your choice, with a quote off a so-called expert who has clear (with not much digging) leanings to a particular party. It's not rocket science. My point was, making up stats is even worse than pulling stats from Government websites and utilising them with no actual knowledge of the variables. So there might be a 40million working population then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Are some people actually saying cutting funding to help special needs children is a good thing? I assume those saying have normal or no children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 I had a quick esitmate, so I was a few % out that's probably nearly there when you take into all the people working cash in hand etc etc I don't mind taking a guess at something. If the Tories really wanted to get their hands on the real cash cow of the NHS they would have done it under Thatcher. The problem with the Public Sector is it's like a Tortoise, it's slow as anything anyway but if you touch it it seems to stop altogther. Hrd dilemma for any Government. Firstly you were 10million out Say it quick and it doesn't sound like much. Good thing your not studying to be a journalist! Ha! And they tried to get their hands on the NHS, but they didn't have the premise to do so. Under the guise of the arse falling out the economy and the blame being put on institutions such as the NHS, the can make drastic and unnecessary wholesale changes without the public batting an eyelid, and when it comes out in the wash later, it's too late. MattP, my advice is if you are going to be vocal about something, start off with the facts and go from there, I don't mind having a discussion with someone who's not making it up, and actually has some experience about what their lambasting/praising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 So there might be a 40million working population then? Jeebus fooking wept. Webbo I thought you were one of those who might be capable of understanding. Please don't disappoint me with shite like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Jeebus fooking wept. Webbo I thought you were one of those who might be capable of understanding. Please don't disappoint me with shite like that. In the last few posts you have been both for and against backing up claims with hard numbers. Make your own mind up before saying other people are talking shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 In the last few posts you have been both for and against backing up claims with hard numbers. Make your own mind up before saying other people are talking shite. Oh dear, read my posts again. I've stated that you should use facts to have an opinion, and then have the understanding that the numbers that your are basing your opinion on have variables. Where's the contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 27 June 2012 Share Posted 27 June 2012 Oh dear, read my posts again. I've stated that you should use facts to have an opinion, and then have the understanding that the numbers that your are basing your opinion on have variables. Where's the contradiction? Variables which only work in one direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.