Tory Conference OR "We are so going to screw you next year!"

#81
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.

Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
Indeed, far too well.

SO you support a party that by your own admission has been very helpful financially to the very wealthy ?


At last, you admit they are nothing but a bunch of Champagne Socialists.
Big jump there. The problem is that it is very easy to give the rich money in the form of tax cut, but very hard to take it away from them again. Some work has been done around the edges, but not enough. Regarding champagne socialism, I'm afraid the true measure of one is a rich person who supports XYZ social cause in public, then in private pays an accountant to avoid paying rax and stash's their money off-shore. Someone who is rich and believes in the social good and pays their dues without such hypocrisy is not a champagne socialist.




 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#82
Bazzinho1977 said:
Oh mate, really?

Our credit rating in the recent history of this country? AAA
Our credit rating now when we are completely broken and borrowing £272m a day (and rising)? AAA

Guess what happened when debt hit £8.5 bn? The times said that we would lose our credit rating. Didn't happen

Guess what happened when debt hit £11bn in a month? The Mail said that we would lose our credit rating. Didn't happen

Guess what happened when debt hit £16.1 bn in a month? - Yes, you get the idea - right wing newspapers said we were going to lose our credit rating. Guess what? Didn't happen.

In fact, S&P and Moodys have both said that we will keep our credit rating. Perhaps there is more to fundamentals that simply level of debt. Ratings agency care about whether you will be able to long term pay off the debt.

Now, there HAS to be limits to this - and that is fairly obvious. But immediate swinging cuts without a soft landing as the private sector starts to pick up WILL lead to a deeper and longer recession. For example early 1980s, early 1990s. The historical evidence is there mate. But based on this country and our eceonomy and our fundamentals. We are a very different country to Zimbabwe, so don't try the analogy crap with me when we both know it is like comparing wheelchairs with dinosaurs.

Really - you need to stop smoking the bonepipe of the tory paper economists and look at historical evidence - before you choke on their one sided manshot.
Oh Mate Yes.

Just because the market didn’t readjust when the papers said it would and just because Moodys and S & P have made a prediction (presumably they spent 2007 predicting the crash) doesn’t mean that the laws of economics have been suspended for UK PLC.

Your argument is based around maintaining disposable income and the velocity of money and even you accept that there are limits to the extent to which Government can pump prime the economy. Where that limit is, as you have pointed out, we do not know but we do know what will happen if we hit it. The more we borrow, the more likely this is.

Further, when you use tax levied on the Private Sector to subsidise one of the many non-jobs in the Public Sector or fund some overpaid babu and his generous pension, you have a direct impact on growth and therefore on job creation, of real jobs, in the Private Sector.

As I wrote earlier, if you must borrow to prime the pump, invest in long term infrastructure projects which will deliver long term economic benefit and boost the Private Sector, anything else is a waste offering no return.

Sorry old boy but, whether you like it or not, your economic model is smashed into smithereens. It might have had a chance if Labour hadn’t borrowed so heavily during the good times but they did and now you’re stuck, with no room for manouvre; unless you can find an export market for lazy and unproductive Public Sector workers.


P.S. What historical evidence have you to prove the unprovable assertion that the recessions you mention would have been shorter? Further, since you’re in the grip of conjecture, can you prove to me that these recessions would still have occurred at their level of severity had we invested in re-equipping and re-financing UK heavy industry after the Second World War instead of putting the effort and investment into expanding the Public Sector and the Welfare State?

P.P.S. Before putting too much reliance on this country’s historical economic fundamentals, you might wish to consider the considerable financial power shift towards the Middle East and the Far East during the past 18 months, of which Barclays and Credit Suisse are but two notable examples.


Quotation edited for brevity
 
#83
From my recent experience I think I can safely say that it will be front-line services which are hit. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the senior management of public bodies will allow themselves to lose a penny - it is the lowly staff (I'm thinking NHS Band 5-ish & equivalent) who will be made to work harder for less reward.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#84
CaptainPlume said:
From my recent experience I think I can safely say that it will be front-line services which are hit. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the senior management of public bodies will allow themselves to lose a penny - it is the lowly staff (I'm thinking NHS Band 5-ish & equivalent) who will be made to work harder for less reward.
Agreed, the babus will target the cuts to hit the public hardest, generate the worst possible headlines and put pressure on the Government thereby.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#85
Fat_Cav said:
RearWords said:
The Conservatives have put their cards on the table and are fully intent on screwing the public sector.....yet again. Whilst leaving the "fat cats" to purr, smile and generally sh*t in everyones garden.
Screwing the public sector over and hasterning the failure that is PFI. Why bother strengthening fuddy-duddy public services when you can exploit the gift-horse that Labour created in Private Finance Intiatives, and feed the cosy fat-Cat business leaders as usual?


The Conservative Party - "Now for Change"
Change to an elite Boys club and the same ol' same.
I agree with most of what you say, but PFI was a Conservative invention. Gordon refined it, but a Tory Chancellor invented it and Margaret Thatcher steamrollered it through because her friends Ronald and Keith told her it was a good idea. And it was - it made so many millions for 'people like us'.

The current bunch of Tory leaders joined the party when she was in charge, and I believe are going to revert to her economic model. Only trouble is, we have no industry/unions to blame, what Public Service there is only manages really complex private outsourcing deals, and their only solution to getting the workshy into work is to pour millions into yet another private company, rather than invest properly in the JobCentres and their staff. Those private companies - are they going to accept decreased cashflow?

No thought not.

I despair. I truly despair.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#86
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Fat_Cav said:
RearWords said:
The Conservatives have put their cards on the table and are fully intent on screwing the public sector.....yet again. Whilst leaving the "fat cats" to purr, smile and generally sh*t in everyones garden.
Screwing the public sector over and hasterning the failure that is PFI. Why bother strengthening fuddy-duddy public services when you can exploit the gift-horse that Labour created in Private Finance Intiatives, and feed the cosy fat-Cat business leaders as usual?


The Conservative Party - "Now for Change"
Change to an elite Boys club and the same ol' same.
I agree with most of what you say, but PFI was a Conservative invention. Gordon refined it, but a Tory Chancellor invented it and Margaret Thatcher steamrollered it through because her friends Ronald and Keith told her it was a good idea. And it was - it made so many millions for 'people like us'.

The current bunch of Tory leaders joined the party when she was in charge, and I believe are going to revert to her economic model. Only trouble is, we have no industry/unions to blame, what Public Service there is only manages really complex private outsourcing deals, and their only solution to getting the workshy into work is to pour millions into yet another private company, rather than invest properly in the JobCentres and their staff. Those private companies - are they going to accept decreased cashflow?

No thought not.

I despair. I truly despair.
Around 20% of the working population do not have to make a profit to stay employed, get performance related pay, job security and good pensions - that's a bit more than "what there is".

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1292
 
#87
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Fat_Cav said:
RearWords said:
The Conservatives have put their cards on the table and are fully intent on screwing the public sector.....yet again. Whilst leaving the "fat cats" to purr, smile and generally sh*t in everyones garden.
Screwing the public sector over and hasterning the failure that is PFI. Why bother strengthening fuddy-duddy public services when you can exploit the gift-horse that Labour created in Private Finance Intiatives, and feed the cosy fat-Cat business leaders as usual?


The Conservative Party - "Now for Change"
Change to an elite Boys club and the same ol' same.
I agree with most of what you say, but PFI was a Conservative invention. Gordon refined it, but a Tory Chancellor invented it and Margaret Thatcher steamrollered it through because her friends Ronald and Keith told her it was a good idea. And it was - it made so many millions for 'people like us'.

The current bunch of Tory leaders joined the party when she was in charge, and I believe are going to revert to her economic model. Only trouble is, we have no industry/unions to blame, what Public Service there is only manages really complex private outsourcing deals, and their only solution to getting the workshy into work is to pour millions into yet another private company, rather than invest properly in the JobCentres and their staff. Those private companies - are they going to accept decreased cashflow?

No thought not.

I despair. I truly despair.
They can't - it has been cpontractually agreed for next thirty years after the date of the signature!

When the Tories see the real extent of the books - watch Osborn's face when he sees what he has inherited.

Solution - massive restructure of public organisations like NHS. ANYTHING that says Senior...., Budget .........., Quality ,,,,,,, Outreach........ Coordinator......... Equal Opportunities,........ Gender .......... pay the one-time redundancy money (nowhere near Northern Rock bill) and then feck them off. How they earn a living is their problem!

The NHS needs nurses, doctors, cleaners, cooks and the asscoated paraphernalia ..... its NOT a business and CAN'T be run like one. And the Fireman will be subject to real decimation if then threaten a strike.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#89
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Fat_Cav said:
RearWords said:
The Conservatives have put their cards on the table and are fully intent on screwing the public sector.....yet again. Whilst leaving the "fat cats" to purr, smile and generally sh*t in everyones garden.
Screwing the public sector over and hasterning the failure that is PFI. Why bother strengthening fuddy-duddy public services when you can exploit the gift-horse that Labour created in Private Finance Intiatives, and feed the cosy fat-Cat business leaders as usual?


The Conservative Party - "Now for Change"
Change to an elite Boys club and the same ol' same.
I agree with most of what you say, but PFI was a Conservative invention. Gordon refined it, but a Tory Chancellor invented it and Margaret Thatcher steamrollered it through because her friends Ronald and Keith told her it was a good idea. And it was - it made so many millions for 'people like us'.

The current bunch of Tory leaders joined the party when she was in charge, and I believe are going to revert to her economic model. Only trouble is, we have no industry/unions to blame, what Public Service there is only manages really complex private outsourcing deals, and their only solution to getting the workshy into work is to pour millions into yet another private company, rather than invest properly in the JobCentres and their staff. Those private companies - are they going to accept decreased cashflow?

No thought not.

I despair. I truly despair.
Actually the PFI, or large scale off-balance sheet financing, was pioneered by Mussolini and it was condemned as unscrupulous even then.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of where the Tories are going to go - I think Maggie has too much baggage with a critical part of the electorate for Cameron to shape himself in her mould, but I would like to see some of those PFIs re-negotiated and those who struck the original deals named and shamed, whatever party they belong to.

As for employment, the answer is real jobs and an incentive to take them, not more job centres.
 
#90
Oil_Slick said:
Torys = Look, the countrys bankrupt, we need to arrange an IVA


Labour = Honest! Everythings wonderful and some nice loan shark will always lend us more money
True Hurts & well said :wink:

A very cleverly written speech in which the Unions have already backlashed against due to Mr Osbournes announcement, 2010 & beyond is set to see a lot of disruption if the unions get there way

When will these Senior civil servants get back to reality & live in the real world?

Unions threatened strikes over public sector job cuts last night after the Tories vowed to slash the cost of Whitehall by a third.

Unions threatened strikes over public sector job cuts last night after the Tories vowed to slash the cost of Whitehall by a third.
Full story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tive-pledge-wield-axe-Whitehall.html#comments
The comments at the bottom of the article were interesting also, but Mr Mark Serwotka fully intends on a war with the Tories

Serwotka says he is angry at the false dichotomy between back office and frontline public sector delivery, which sees teachers and nurses lauded while "faceless bureaucrats" are considered wasteful and inefficient.

Full story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/27/interviews.politics

Some depts still refuse to accept that the UK is Fiscally skint!
 
#91
Fascinating debate and reading across the threads, a trend emerges since 1945 - that of successive and well meaning goverments applying increasing levels of correction, to adjust the unintended consequences of the previous correction by the last lot, etc.

The result has been British Society and Economy sliding around like a sports car on a skid pan, albeit in slow motion. I agree with some posters that this has been driven and fuelled by the adversarial, class-based (still) political system. Contrast with 1945 Germany, where there was only a steely resolve to dig themselves out of the s**t they were in and the politics of it were largely irrelevant.

I suspect that the current political debate (albeit with events in the real world still unfolding) will result in a more or less hung parliament, with either the Tories in by a whisker or Labour hanging on by their fingernails. If we are truly in the s**t , the only way to preserve our AAA rating, and thereby our National credibility, will be for the parties to work collectively.

If Labour and the Tories cannot bring themselves to do this, stand by for dark times (literally!)....
 
#92
FORMER_FYRDMAN said:
Oh Mate Yes.

Just because the market didn’t readjust when the papers said it would and just because Moodys and S & P have made a prediction (presumably they spent 2007 predicting the crash) doesn’t mean that the laws of economics have been suspended for UK PLC.

Your argument is based around maintaining disposable income and the velocity of money and even you accept that there are limits to the extent to which Government can pump prime the economy. Where that limit is, as you have pointed out, we do not know but we do know what will happen if we hit it. The more we borrow, the more likely this is.

Further, when you use tax levied on the Private Sector to subsidise one of the many non-jobs in the Public Sector or fund some overpaid babu and his generous pension, you have a direct impact on growth and therefore on job creation, of real jobs, in the Private Sector.

As I wrote earlier, if you must borrow to prime the pump, invest in long term infrastructure projects which will deliver long term economic benefit and boost the Private Sector, anything else is a waste offering no return.

Sorry old boy but, whether you like it or not, your economic model is smashed into smithereens. It might have had a chance if Labour hadn’t borrowed so heavily during the good times but they did and now you’re stuck, with no room for manouvre; unless you can find an export market for lazy and unproductive Public Sector workers.


P.S. What historical evidence have you to prove the unprovable assertion that the recessions you mention would have been shorter? Further, since you’re in the grip of conjecture, can you prove to me that these recessions would still have occurred at their level of severity had we invested in re-equipping and re-financing UK heavy industry after the Second World War instead of putting the effort and investment into expanding the Public Sector and the Welfare State?

P.P.S. Before putting too much reliance on this country’s historical economic fundamentals, you might wish to consider the considerable financial power shift towards the Middle East and the Far East during the past 18 months, of which Barclays and Credit Suisse are but two notable examples.


Quotation edited for brevity
Okay.

You need to read the point I am making, instead of reading the point you think that I am making. Cos at the minute we seem to be violently agreeing on a few things.

1) I am not saying that we should just go on borrowing forever and funding the public sector. I am saying that in the depth of a recession borrowing over the short term to fund investment is the right thing to do, rather than simlpy allow the economy to collapse altogether.

2) S&P have said that "it is not unthinkable that a large economy could lose its AAA credit rating". Look at that wording again. Cos for me that sounds like - "you are not even close". YOU pointed out how dangerous that would be. But it is a false fear. May as well be afraid of cats planning to take over the world. So if you accept that, then don't point it out in discussion.

3) I do not know where the limit is between pump prime and the economy coming back to life. Give me a couple of years in the treasury and peace and quiet and I might have a chance. What I do know is this - just stopping now and cutting back spending will deepen the recession. Surely you must see that. Pretty much every economist IN THE WORLD, not just the UK, has said that it is too early to cut back on the pump priming. However, we now have the two main parties threatening to do just that. In fact by them saying that is probably likely to cause the recovery to stall.*

4) Bit confused. Are you saying that we are funding expenditure by increased tax on private sector or by borrowing? We can't have it both ways. We are in a recession so the tax take has gone down (we have differential tax rates). That is why we are borrowing to keep things going. Should we instead borrow to reduce tax? Or should we reduce tax AND reduce borrowing AND simply stop providing services? If so, that will push up unemployment, which will push up requirements on the state for benefits, and will reduce aggregate demand, which will deepen the recession.

5) Yes. the pump priming should be into long term investment projects. But not, and this can't be stressed enough, NOT PFI funded projects which have been shown to be a complete nonsense in terms of value for money. Want to know where the extra spending on services has really gone? paying the interest costs on these pieces of crap.

6) Historical evidence shows that the early 1980s and early 1990s recession the policy was do nothing and let it settle and the unemployment figures and the recessionary pressure was horrific. Current recession - effort to boost public spending and the impact has been far more limited so far. By pretty much any measure you care to name. BUT we are going to spend a long time paying it off - 5 to 10 years.

7) Yes - labour p1ssed away our money when times were good. But most of that went on waste and PFI - and immediately out of the country into off shore vehicles. So not only did we give the money away for nothing - we also allowed the money to leave the country because of lax regulation. They should all be taken out and shot.



*Of course if you were truly cynical then you would think that maybe the tories have pulled a blinder. The last thing they would want is the economy coming out of recession this year. By talking about cuts etc. and forcing the government to do the same they have pretty much managed that. Well done that man.
 
#93
beemer007 said:
Oil_Slick said:
Torys = Look, the countrys bankrupt, we need to arrange an IVA


Labour = Honest! Everythings wonderful and some nice loan shark will always lend us more money
True Hurts & well said :wink:

A very cleverly written speech in which the Unions have already backlashed against due to Mr Osbournes announcement, 2010 & beyond is set to see a lot of disruption if the unions get there way

When will these Senior civil servants get back to reality & live in the real world?

Unions threatened strikes over public sector job cuts last night after the Tories vowed to slash the cost of Whitehall by a third.

Unions threatened strikes over public sector job cuts last night after the Tories vowed to slash the cost of Whitehall by a third.
Full story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tive-pledge-wield-axe-Whitehall.html#comments
The comments at the bottom of the article were interesting also, but Mr Mark Serwotka fully intends on a war with the Tories

Serwotka says he is angry at the false dichotomy between back office and frontline public sector delivery, which sees teachers and nurses lauded while "faceless bureaucrats" are considered wasteful and inefficient.

Full story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/27/interviews.politics

Some depts still refuse to accept that the UK is Fiscally skint!

Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.

By and large, the last vestiges of Unionism are in the Public Sector…


With a few million or more private sectors jobs going and the rest of the private sector taking severe cuts in pay and perks, having the Public Sector coming out on strike demanding a continuation of their State Sponsored comfy ride will be like political manna from heaven and the public will be more than happy to see the Torys stick it too them.
 
#94
Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.
I think most of the public have an ability to think more deeply than that. You shouldn't judge others by your own 'me me me' low standards.
 
#95
Oil_Slick said:
Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.

By and large, the last vestiges of Unionism are in the Public Sector…


With a few million or more private sectors jobs going and the rest of the private sector taking severe cuts in pay and perks, having the Public Sector coming out on strike demanding a continuation of their State Sponsored comfy ride will be like political manna from heaven and the public will be more than happy to see the Torys stick it too them.
Right up until there are no nurses, doctors, teachers, refuse collectors, police, firemen on duty and people start to realise that in order for the private sector to function, the public sector needs to as well.


P.S. - What makes you think that the army wont be amongst those hit by spending cuts? Cos Gorgeous George says so?
 
#96
Mediaeval said:
Fascinating debate and reading across the threads, a trend emerges since 1945 - that of successive and well meaning goverments applying increasing levels of correction, to adjust the unintended consequences of the previous correction by the last lot, etc.

The result has been British Society and Economy sliding around like a sports car on a skid pan, albeit in slow motion. I agree with some posters that this has been driven and fuelled by the adversarial, class-based (still) political system. Contrast with 1945 Germany, where there was only a steely resolve to dig themselves out of the s**t they were in and the politics of it were largely irrelevant.

I suspect that the current political debate (albeit with events in the real world still unfolding) will result in a more or less hung parliament, with either the Tories in by a whisker or Labour hanging on by their fingernails. If we are truly in the s**t , the only way to preserve our AAA rating, and thereby our National credibility, will be for the parties to work collectively.

If Labour and the Tories cannot bring themselves to do this, stand by for dark times (literally!)....
IMO I think the Tories will have a convincing win, Liebour have a had 12 years to sort the country out, Fair enough the recent Global fiscal recession has its part to play but so did Mr Broon & his wisdom.

Very Tough times lie ahead for us all, and many are under-estimating how tough it will actually be! Radical changes are forthingcoming & we need a Government with backbone even though the next Government term is going to be very harsh who-ever manages to get in office.

Either way its looking grim no matter how you look at the situation.
 
#97
parapauk said:
Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.
I think most of the public have an ability to think more deeply than that. You shouldn't judge others by your own 'me me me' low standards.

Oh dear paperpuke, are you part of New Liebours gravy train of overpaid non-jobs?
 
#98
Bazzinho1977 said:
Oil_Slick said:
Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.

By and large, the last vestiges of Unionism are in the Public Sector…


With a few million or more private sectors jobs going and the rest of the private sector taking severe cuts in pay and perks, having the Public Sector coming out on strike demanding a continuation of their State Sponsored comfy ride will be like political manna from heaven and the public will be more than happy to see the Torys stick it too them.
Right up until there are no nurses, doctors, teachers, refuse collectors, police, firemen on duty and people start to realise that in order for the private sector to function, the public sector needs to as well.


P.S. - What makes you think that the army wont be amongst those hit by spending cuts? Cos Gorgeous George says so?


Bull… Liebour have created nearly half a million non jobs in the public sector… Who gives a flying fvck if all the 'climate change co-ordinators' get their P45's?


Classic NHS non-job

http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetails.cgi?selection=912352530
 
#99
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Indeed, and I think Osborne is being very clever.

Most of the public see the Public Sector as a recession and inflation proof gravy train of high salaries, low performance and gold plated pensions.
I think most of the public have an ability to think more deeply than that. You shouldn't judge others by your own 'me me me' low standards.

Oh dear paperpuke, are you part of New Liebours gravy train of overpaid non-jobs?
No, very much private sector, I just happen to be among those people who can think about how the real world works, and not resort to crude stereotypes. In that respect, you are behaving as a right wing version of those left wing nutters who scream "baby killer!" everytime they see someone in uniform because they don't have a fcuking clue, only you no doubt scream "non-job!" every time you walk past a public building. Thankfully most of Brtain knows to ignore both their ilk and yours.
 
Oil_Slick said:
Bull… Liebour have created nearly half a million non jobs in the public sector… Who gives a flying fvck if all the 'climate change co-ordinators' get their P45's?
Really - is there a list of these non-jobs? Do the people holding them know they are in a non-job? Is it that easy to get one? Are there any qualification?

Which non-jobs from the following list would you get rid of:-

Headteacher
Deputy Headteacher
Head of Year
Head of Dept
Classroom teacher
SENCO
NHS Trust Chief Exec
Consultant
Registrar
SHO
HO
Ward manager
Nurse HCA
Infections nurse
etc. etc. etc.

EDITED TO ADD - oh my good fcuking god! You believe that clinical leadership, direction and audit are not important? Do you come out for air from that little bubble you live in? Just so we are all clear then - your definition of a "non-job" is any job you don't understand. Mate, I would say that makes 90% of the people on here working in non-jobs if that is your level of intelligence!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top