Family & Relationships1 min ago
Why Are Labour Bringing This Up......?
11 Answers
http://
Personally I think cutting public sector costs is a good thing, looks like Labour are canvassing for Dave with this. Most right thinking people want the state machine to be as small as possible and spongers to be kept to a minimum, grateful that I am, why does Balls think this helps Labour? is he saying we'll carry on spending your money on red tape and WSS?
Personally I think cutting public sector costs is a good thing, looks like Labour are canvassing for Dave with this. Most right thinking people want the state machine to be as small as possible and spongers to be kept to a minimum, grateful that I am, why does Balls think this helps Labour? is he saying we'll carry on spending your money on red tape and WSS?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
During Labour’s first term in office from 1997 to 2001 public spending as a percentage of GDP fell from around 40% to 34%. By 2007-08 (which I have deliberately chosen so as to avoid distortion brought about by the financial crisis) it had risen to over 41%. This current year it will be about 42.5% (£731bn on a GDP of £1,731bn). If that total was to be reduced...
18:22 Tue 10th Mar 2015
When you say "Most right thinking people" you clearly mean "Most people who think like me".
I was born in the 50's when most people (left and right, alike) were proud to live in a country that provide across-the-board help for the sick and the poor.
Since the global banking crisis, the Tories and the right-wing press have gone to great lengths to demonise the sick, the poor, and the physically and intellectually challenged, whilst continuing to support enormous bonus for the greedy twonks who caused the problem. Given that nearly all the Tory party funding comes from the banking sector, I suppose it's not surprising; however, it has little to do with "right thinking", unless by right-thinking you mean right-wing.
I was born in the 50's when most people (left and right, alike) were proud to live in a country that provide across-the-board help for the sick and the poor.
Since the global banking crisis, the Tories and the right-wing press have gone to great lengths to demonise the sick, the poor, and the physically and intellectually challenged, whilst continuing to support enormous bonus for the greedy twonks who caused the problem. Given that nearly all the Tory party funding comes from the banking sector, I suppose it's not surprising; however, it has little to do with "right thinking", unless by right-thinking you mean right-wing.
I am the poor, I was brought up on a council estate, parents often in jail, never worked. I know who the poor are, they are created by socialism mainly, by people thinking life is fair and the state will provide, they create the poor. Giving huge salaries to unnecessary public sector jobs doesn't help the poor it discourages the conditions for wealth creation. You have to cast off envy there will always be those that do better with luck or perhaps endeavor, it matters not how, life is not fair.
During Labour’s first term in office from 1997 to 2001 public spending as a percentage of GDP fell from around 40% to 34%. By 2007-08 (which I have deliberately chosen so as to avoid distortion brought about by the financial crisis) it had risen to over 41%. This current year it will be about 42.5% (£731bn on a GDP of £1,731bn). If that total was to be reduced by the “extreme” sum of £70bn which Mr Balls would have us believe is likely it would be £661bn. That is about 38.5% of GDP. So the question is really this: if spending of 34% of GDP was deemed sufficient at the end of Labour’s first term in office why does a proposal of 38.5% leave the nation facing “catastrophic” cuts the like of which the world has never seen and which will see the end of civilisation as we know it?
It is clearly ridiculous that the government should spend more than 40% of the nation’s turnover. These proposals only see a reduction to around 38% which is still far too much. In 1996 the then shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, told the nation in a speech at his party’s pre-election conference that he accepted that Labour had been profligate in the past. This time it would be different. A Labour government would run the nation’s finances with iron discipline and would adhere to the Conservatives’ departmental spending plans. One of the co-authors of his speech was Ed Balls. And we all know what happened to those pledges: armies of scribes, bean counters, box-tickers, form-fillers and quangocrats were recruited and the public service head count went up by about three quarters of a million. Many of these additional souls did little or nothing to improve the lot of those paying their wages and the much of the residue of this irresponsible profligacy still exists today.
Instead of bleating on about savage cuts to front line services and painting pictures of people dying in the gutters Mr Balls would do better to explain to the electorate how he would manage on about 35% of GDP which the previous Labour administration managed to do in 2001. Many voters do not want their hard earned frittered away by a profligate government and the sooner politicians stop measuring their success by the amount of other people’s money they manage to waste the sooner the nation’s finances might return to some form of sanity.
It is clearly ridiculous that the government should spend more than 40% of the nation’s turnover. These proposals only see a reduction to around 38% which is still far too much. In 1996 the then shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, told the nation in a speech at his party’s pre-election conference that he accepted that Labour had been profligate in the past. This time it would be different. A Labour government would run the nation’s finances with iron discipline and would adhere to the Conservatives’ departmental spending plans. One of the co-authors of his speech was Ed Balls. And we all know what happened to those pledges: armies of scribes, bean counters, box-tickers, form-fillers and quangocrats were recruited and the public service head count went up by about three quarters of a million. Many of these additional souls did little or nothing to improve the lot of those paying their wages and the much of the residue of this irresponsible profligacy still exists today.
Instead of bleating on about savage cuts to front line services and painting pictures of people dying in the gutters Mr Balls would do better to explain to the electorate how he would manage on about 35% of GDP which the previous Labour administration managed to do in 2001. Many voters do not want their hard earned frittered away by a profligate government and the sooner politicians stop measuring their success by the amount of other people’s money they manage to waste the sooner the nation’s finances might return to some form of sanity.
"armies of scribes, bean counters, box-tickers, form-fillers and quangocrats "
If true, then perhaps all public sector jobs should be assigned a cost/benefit ratio so all those who apply for vacancies know -precisely- how perilous a placement their chosen job is. Those in post will know which jobs to maneuvre themselves into, for the purposes of job security (yes, I'm being cynical again).
Anyway it would be fun to discover some sectors save the taxpayer money. Last place that (centralised purchasing) did that got broken up because local government wanted to it all themselves, losing bulk-buying power in the process.
"were recruited and the public service head count went up by about three quarters of a million"
Mind boggling. All their PAYE is just going around in a circle, too, achieving nothing for the economy.
If true, then perhaps all public sector jobs should be assigned a cost/benefit ratio so all those who apply for vacancies know -precisely- how perilous a placement their chosen job is. Those in post will know which jobs to maneuvre themselves into, for the purposes of job security (yes, I'm being cynical again).
Anyway it would be fun to discover some sectors save the taxpayer money. Last place that (centralised purchasing) did that got broken up because local government wanted to it all themselves, losing bulk-buying power in the process.
"were recruited and the public service head count went up by about three quarters of a million"
Mind boggling. All their PAYE is just going around in a circle, too, achieving nothing for the economy.
Dave50
The Government collect taxes. Spending that money to provide services is not wasting money. The problem is Governments, including the Coalition Government setting budgets that spend more money than they have collected. They have to borrow vast amounts year after year to feed their spending habits.
The alternative to borrowing is growing the economy so the tax raised increases giving the Government more to spend. But that hasn't happened (or not much) under the Coalition Government.
The Government collect taxes. Spending that money to provide services is not wasting money. The problem is Governments, including the Coalition Government setting budgets that spend more money than they have collected. They have to borrow vast amounts year after year to feed their spending habits.
The alternative to borrowing is growing the economy so the tax raised increases giving the Government more to spend. But that hasn't happened (or not much) under the Coalition Government.
Or of course another alternative is to consider spending less (and there's plenty of scope for that. See below).
Spending money to provide services is indeed not a waste. However, spending money employing non-productive public "servants" who do not add any value to the services they allegedly enhance is. And that's what happened in the latter years of the last administration. And still it goes on:
http://
(£23k pa)
http://
(£75k pa)
http://
(Brand new post, £35k pa)
http://
(£54k pa - about the same as two police constables in a force bleating on about the "massive cuts" they are to endure)
http://
(£40k pa "We are looking for a first class Internal Communications Manager to develop and deliver a proactive internal communications strategy". Presumably West Sussex CC does not have such a strategy present so it's a wonder how they - or more importantly the good burghers of that county - have managed to survive for so long).
http://
(£40kpa. "The Skills Board is seeking a highly organised Coordinator of activity to support the Skills Hub Director and support its work in setting the skills agenda for Lancashire in future years." Yeah, right).
I could go on because in the current Guardian jobs supplement there are around 460 jobs, many like this which, on cursory examination, provide nothing useful to the people who fund the organisations advertising for them (i.e. national and local government).
This countrwill not prosper whilst taxpayers' dosh is being used for such frivolities. Remember that the 460 jobs currently advertised are only vacancies. There must be many thousands if not tens of thousands of people up and down the country "Skills Board coordinators", "Content Officers" and "Communications Managers" and if they all stopped work tomorrow I doubt any member of the public would notice it one jot.
Spending money to provide services is indeed not a waste. However, spending money employing non-productive public "servants" who do not add any value to the services they allegedly enhance is. And that's what happened in the latter years of the last administration. And still it goes on:
http://
(£23k pa)
http://
(£75k pa)
http://
(Brand new post, £35k pa)
http://
(£54k pa - about the same as two police constables in a force bleating on about the "massive cuts" they are to endure)
http://
(£40k pa "We are looking for a first class Internal Communications Manager to develop and deliver a proactive internal communications strategy". Presumably West Sussex CC does not have such a strategy present so it's a wonder how they - or more importantly the good burghers of that county - have managed to survive for so long).
http://
(£40kpa. "The Skills Board is seeking a highly organised Coordinator of activity to support the Skills Hub Director and support its work in setting the skills agenda for Lancashire in future years." Yeah, right).
I could go on because in the current Guardian jobs supplement there are around 460 jobs, many like this which, on cursory examination, provide nothing useful to the people who fund the organisations advertising for them (i.e. national and local government).
This countrwill not prosper whilst taxpayers' dosh is being used for such frivolities. Remember that the 460 jobs currently advertised are only vacancies. There must be many thousands if not tens of thousands of people up and down the country "Skills Board coordinators", "Content Officers" and "Communications Managers" and if they all stopped work tomorrow I doubt any member of the public would notice it one jot.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
News17 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago