Nick D

Will be watching the developments with interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

I can just imagine the amount of strikes that are going to take place. I hope / believe that the strikes wont make much difference.

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Sorry. Are you saying you hope lots of public sector workers lose their jobs?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I certainly do hope exactly that.

We have an epic amount of national debt and we need to cut costs, that means cutting public sector jobs IMHO, and I genuinely believe there are a whole load of them that can be cut without effecting service much.
I also think public sector pensions need revising downwards to whatever extent is legal as they are unsustainable at the level they are at, and I think that holiday entitlements are excessively generous for a lot of public sector workers too.
Basically the whole lot needs bringing more inline with the private sector, the argument used to be that all he other cushy stuff was negated by public sector wages being lower, but they simply arent anymore in a lot of cases, and in fact in some cases they are higher than private sector.

cjwood555

IMHO the point is mainly to reduce wastage and inefficiencies.

Unfortunately for the employees of the state, the wastage and inefficiencies are part of the reason they have jobs. E.g. there's not much point halving the paperwork involved in a process but retaining all the people previously needed to cope with the workload.

Ultimately though, what needs to happen is a true and full disclosure of the fraudulent way in which the banking and monetary system currently operates, so that the public knows where they stand; OR make the banks 'pay back' the money the government 'lent' them. Or both.

Chris

Nick D

Yes.

Too good, too long.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The money we gave the banks was a drop in the ocean compared to our national debts, people are too focussed on the banking crisis and not seeing the far more important bigger picture IMHO

Banks are the least of our worries at the moment really.

MadMac

Chip, couldn't agree more. Being a bank manager I am quite biased I must admit, but if you take the governments bail out of the banks, say RBS for example. The government bought an 80% share in the bank at 0.34p and the share price at te moment is hovering at just under 50p. When the bank starts buying back those shares in the next couple of years I recon the price will probably continue to rise. Potentially the government could double their investment. Which by my calculations accross the banks they hace bailed out they could pay for the police and fire service for a whole year. Not only that, the asset security insurance scheme which each member bank pays hundreds of millions into every year and the increased taxes the governed will easily make a fortune out of the situation. Assuming of course they don't drive away the big tax payers to other countries by going ott.

I also have the viewpoint of having been a civil servant myself and my Mrs works for the UKBA. If the government was a business, it would have been bust years ago. They need to change the way government departments operate I recon, like actually pay them based on the amount of work they do like any business earns profit. I still shake my head at the guy who I worked with who was on 50-60k a year just to write snotty emails correcibg people on their spelling, still don't know what he actually did.

twinkle_2k86

agree with chip. There pensions they get is very very good, and that could be cut right down. Holiday entitlemnet they get, well i wish i could have what they get. Its almost double what i get.

There seems to be to many pen pushers now, and PA`s. Everyone has a PA, even the PA has a PA.

Whats up with people doing more then the one job now? can you not answer a phone and do paperwork at the same time? is that to taxing for you now a days?

Dangerous Malcolm..

Damn right the public sector needs sorting out! I've just had a shufty at the figures and it's crazy. From what I can ascertain, it's like this:

A UK population of around 61 million.
1 in 5 are under 16.
1 in 5 are retired.
5 million are on benefits of some description.
6 million work in the public sector.... (Of which 9000 are paid more than the PM!)

Which leaves approx 26 million private sector workers sustaining the rest. It's no wonder this country's FUCKED!


*Disclaimer. I can't be held responsible for any inaccuracies in my findings 'cos my Mum says I'm special... Thank you please.

rog

iTrader: (2)

You've hit the nail on the head!

tabetha

I'd like to see stupidity with creating jobs for the boys finish as well.
A waste you may be interested in, Norfolk PCT employ/contract east anglian ambulance trust to offer services for "difficult" patients, asked to leave their normal surgeries , the DR they use only works 2 hours some days yet is paid for 40(no weekend work) and he has a full time driver to drive him from his house to the place of work 4 miles away, and then back etc, some days he only has 1 patient to see, PCT pay Ł600K a year for this.
tabetha

Chip

iTrader: (3)

hopefully by cutting budgets they can force a change in stuff like that tabetha, as they cant possibly look into every case from the top, but by tightnening the belts of those that can, hopefully it will result in some changes for the better.
I suspect in some cases when people really start looking how to save 20% they will work out how to save 30% instead and actually end up with a better service! Some of the public sector stuff is just so wasteful, like that example you just gave, that even on 20% less budget im sure it can still be improved.

paddyrs

docs get payed to much imho. alot of the public sector need sorting out .

phil_focus

they need to abolish EMA aswell as thats a load of shite. i dont know of one person that has truely helped in the way it was intended. all my mates who wanted to leave after gsce's only stayed on to ge the Ł30 a week just for turning up, dosed about, did shit at school, spent the money on booze fags and cars (of which i couldnt afford a car because it was the ea that boosted them enough to be able to afford a car) and then never went to uni after anyway and those who wanted to go to uni after gcse's stayed on and did a levels regardless of whether or not they got ema. totally unfair! either everyone should get it or no-one should get it!

i also think its unfair that uni students get bursaries and reduced tuition fees because they come from a low income family. my mate got reduced fees and bursaries because of this and i didnt yet we both came out with the same degree and therefore the same ability to pay back the student loan yet he's got fuck all to pay back and i've got a Ł22,000 debt!

i only managed to scrape by at uni because my parents helped me but that meant they have not been able to pay off their morgage and my mate was able to by a 42" flat screen hd tv and was never short of cash!

the whole system is fucked up. it IS a stealth tax on middle income families that pay for EVERYTHING and get NOTHING back off the government!

massivewangers

iTrader: (1)

The idea of giving students from a low income backgrounds a break is a good thing IMO. University shouldn't be exclusive for those that are rich enough to pay for it. If it wasn't for the increased bursaries and things, I wouldn't be here. If your parents are on a higher income, they are expected to contribute towards your education. Admittedly that doesn't always work out, as the boundaries aren't really ideal. When I went to uni a few years ago, I was totally skint, as my financial assessment was based on my old man's income, so I didn't get much help, which was fine, except he didn't help out either, so I was right up shit creek financially. If they had to pay back a load more money, it might put them off going, which isn't really a good thing, so I think care needs to be taken in that area.

In my opinion, the way we need to shake up the HE system, is by axeing a load of university places. Why the hell are we letting hundreds or thousands of young people go to university to get a degree that simply won't get them a job. We don't need thousands of graduates with pschology or media based degrees. My uni has a massive course base in computer game design, what a fucking waste! How many of them will actually get a job in that area when they graduate? Not to mention the fact the course breeds these weak, socially inept people into thinking that spending 20 hours a day sat at a computer is acceptable behaviour. Most of them act like children, despite being 18+.

Emphasis needs to be removed from giving people degrees in worthless subjects and getting people into apprenticeships and vocational subjects. It almost seems that there is a stigma attached to getting qualified in mechanics/building/plumbing/electrical, like it's for thick people or drop outs, which is just totally wrong. They're the areas in which we should be training people. Cut university funding so they train important stuff; nurses, doctors, solicitors, engineers, teachers etc etc, and actually put some energy and worth back into vocational stuff.

phil_focus

completely agree with paragraphs 2 and 3 but not 1.

i had no money when i went to uni and got no help from the government because my dad earns over the threshold which does NOT take into account the huge morgage we have had to take on! my parents have not been able to pay off that morgage and cant afford nice cars (2 mondeos only worth about Ł4000 each) and even with their help i had to get a job during term time and summer to help get me by. my mate did not need a term time job as my dads taxes payed for his education!

my point is student loans and bursaries should NOT be judged on the parents income! it should be based on the student and what degree they are doing as it is the student that will have to pay off the loan when the graduate and get a job! as said he has the SAME ability to pay off his student loan as i do mine but i have a bigger debt, had to work a lot harder as had a job and therefore less time to study and he was able to buy frivilous things such as a big tv and not worry about money where as i always had fuck all money! therefore either i should have had the same benefits from lower tuition fees and bursaries as he got or he should have had to pay the higher fees and not get the bursaries same as me!

as you can see it makes NO difference whether you are from a low income family or not as to your ability to pay off a student loan so student loans and bursaries should NOT be based on family income. its the fucking student who pays the loan off.

another way of putting it.

no bank will give you a morgage based on your parents income, its based on yours!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

It would be better if the system was fairer for deciding who gets assistance, but the trouble is that then there would be big admin costs ascociated with it and everyone would have to end up with less on the whole as a result.

It kind of works at the moment, providing you arent near the borderline and heavily committed elsewhere.

phil_focus

oh and the fact my family (and those above the threshold) is "expected" to pay for their childs uni education IS an extra expense on families in my parents possition that families below the threshold do not pay and therefore IS a stealth tax!

phil_focus

the admin costs wouldnt be any bigger than they are now because they wouldnt be looking at parents income but just looking at the type of course the student is going to be studying.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont agree with that method of deciding as being fairer TBH, will mean people take stupid subjects just cause they are free, and then they'll never end up earning any money to pay tax with.

I think it should stay as it is, and its just unfortunate a few people like yourself get stuck in the middle, on the main it works though IMHO

arch

[QUOTE=Chip;5143514]I certainly do hope exactly that.


I also think public sector pensions need revising downwards to whatever extent is legal as they are unsustainable at the level they are at, and I think that holiday entitlements are excessively generous for a lot of public sector workers too.
Basically the whole lot needs bringing more inline with the private sector, the argument used to be that all he other cushy stuff was negated by public sector wages being lower, but they simply arent anymore in a lot of cases, and in fact in some cases they are higher than private sector.[/QUOTE





Working in the public sector, I'm going to disagree with this. My pay isn't great, my holiday entitlement is only so so, and my pension costs me a few quid.

phil_focus

hence why the mickey mouse degrees should be got rid of and therefore theres a level playing field.

if it anything is introduced like certain degrees costing more to the student then students on those courses should be allowed a higher student loan to compensate. that will not be discriminating against anyone from high or low income families as the students will have the same ability to pay back the loan as they we all be looking at the same jobs and therefore the same pay.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Depends what you do in the public sector.

for example my mate is a police sergeant, she earns in the low 30s per year, and has only GCSE's as a qualification before she joined up so was working in a fish and chip shop for less than half that

Thats the case with most coppers, they would stand little chance in the real world, yet still get quite a good salary and loads of benefits and pension etc.

Totally ridiculous IMHO that we are paying 30K a year for someone with hardly any qualifications or qualifications that were learnt on the job whilst being paid anyway!


What level of qualification did you yourself have prior to signing up Arch?
Does it match the degree level that most people in the private sector matching a coppers wage have?


Why should a "final salary pension" copper earning 30K a year have a better pension than a private sector worker earning 50K a year and paying twice as much tax into his state non final salary pension?
Its a nonsense, especially as I beleive the police pension is even non contribiturary as well, so the person paying 50K in is paying that 30K coppers pension and thats why is own isnt very good.


The pensions that the police etc get are no longer realistic as they involve an absolutely mammoth investment from the government, in the past they made sense when interest rates were at 10% and pension funds were earning big money, but they arent now and it means that all other pensioners get stolen from to make up the shortfall.

Its a total nonsense, although it doesnt surprise me to hear a copper saying they are for it, as they do tend to view themselves as a bit special in the first place typically

daviddunlop83

iTrader: (7)

If everyone had to take a student loan to pay for thier own uni fee's it would be fair cause they come out with the same qualification and you only pay it back when you earn a certain amount.

Whats not fair about that?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Thats a fair system when worded like that and assuming no other input, but in reality most wealthier people help their kids out, which means they dont have to have a job at the same time as studying like the poorer kids do, and hence have more time to study and a better chance of passing.
So some assistance to the people who have nothing from elsewhere is a good thing to a certain extent.

Its a difficult balancing act.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

When you have kids you are opting into an extra expense, this is merely extending something that you specifically opted into, so its a tax, but there is nothing stealth about it IMHO

daviddunlop83

iTrader: (7)

Thats true, my mum helped me out with my college fee's for my HND, well she paid for them and i either spent my student loan on my ST170 or pissing it up against a wall tho i did work as well part time.

Tho im paying it back now

fordsportjay

iTrader: (6)

where are all these people who's jobs are being axed going to find work?

Dangerous Malcolm..

I disagree totally with that! Why should a 'qualification' determine what sort of wage you can earn? And anyway, qualifications learnt whilst on the job are way more appropriate for that actual job than a degree earned potentially many years before!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Qualifications (or relevant experience which is of course a qualification in itself) should count towards starting salary was my point.
And qualifications learned while you are being paid for doing them are already payment in themselves so should be renumerated to a lesser extent than a degree someone has gone through 3 years of poverty and got 20 grand of personal debt to achieve.

twinkle_2k86

What about this then, i know in realality it wont work, but just an idea.

If you want to go to uni, then pay for it yourself, out of your own pocket. If that means a loan then so be it. You pay for it when you get into work. It could be something banks to sort out, not the goverment paying out. If your from a well off family, then they can pay part or all of your fees. It basicly has nothing to do with grants etc from goverment. All off your own back.

Now heres the bit that cant work at the mo.

If your not so well off, then go for apprentaships, YTS etc, you work for a company and they train you for a job, and send you to uni to get your qualifications. Now the fees for this could be split 50/50 by the goverment and workplace, so it dont all fall on the workplace. So not only do you get to go to uni, but you get experiance at the same time, and payed.You could also have some of there pay put back into the cost of uni payments.

It would help the less wealthy, as they have the choice to go for an apprentaship, and get to go to uni, with out the large cost of going on there own back.

just a thought, and like i said, couldn`t happen at the mo.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The biggest single problem at the moment, is that you only have to pay the money back when you earn a certain amount of money from the UK PAYE system.

So if you fuck off abroad into a massively well paid job as a result of the education the uk taxes paid for, you dont give back a penny

Dangerous Malcolm..

Relevant experience is by far and away the best 'qualification' you can have. Just because someone has a degree in whatever subject shouldn't give them the right to expect a minimum salary! They'll still need 'on the job' training themselves when they find employment.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

On the contrary, I think that if a job requires a degree its only natural to expect it to have a higher starting salary than one that doesnt, if all other things are equal as its expecting people to have invested time and money to gain that degree versus others who havent done so.
Likewise, if a job requires experience then obviously that should be paid for too.

At the end of the day, in the private sector all this is taken care of automatically by supply and demand, but in the public sector it isnt, its a case of once you are in you get massively over compensated versus what you are actually doing in a great deal of cases, pensions in the current economic climate being by far the biggest one.

phil_focus

its people who have children that are ensuring the future survival of this country. why the fuck should they be peanilsed for that?

why the fuck should someone who has worked fucking hard and sacrificed a lot of leasure time to get to a decent job on a decent salary and not qualify for any benefits be penalised for their achievements by having to pay for their childs higher education aswell?

Cameron specifically said and i quote "its not a tax on the family its a tax on the student" so why aren't students all treated equally.

for instance my mum's friends own their 60 acre farm in staffordshire outright. they have more assets and pension provision than at least 10 middle class families, all their expenses are put on the business, wife and children are payed as employees, mum has breeds horses for a hobby (not cheap), daughter had Ł17,000 in the bank when she started uni and still took out a student loan (put it in the bank and made money on it by the interest) BUT still qualified for ema and no tuition fees.

this system makes that possible!

how is that fair?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont believe that we are short of kids, if anything we have a glut.
What people are doing is insuring the survival of their own genes and often themselves via all the benefits they claim back.
A lot of the kids out there are hindering the proper survival of what matters about this country not helping it!



The problem isnt that they have to, its that they often choose to, which means that the poorer kids suffer because their parents CANT choose to.


Cause politicians lie


That particular case isnt, and any sweeping system will have inherent flaws.

gaz s1

apparantly from the private sector but a report has just been commisioned that the majority of new jobs in the private sector have gone to foreign workers(awaits the pc backlash from saying the proven facts!!)

arch

Not much in the way of qualifications. I left school with 9 'O' levels, but started working almost straight away, so no degree for me.

I do not have argument with folks getting a degree, IF they need it for the job they want ie, Dr, teacher etc. However, seems that folk get a degree as they cant be arsed to get a job first. Then because they have spent a few years in further education, they seem to feel that they should be paid more than anyone else. There are loads of bobbies with degrees Chip, should they be paid more pro-rota that those of us without one? (Incidentally, most folk armed with a degree do not make good officers, they seem to lack a bit of common sense. Seems the higher your level of paper qualifications the lower something I would call 'street' skills.)

I'm a bit confused about the non contributory part of my pension, and the part about other folks paying twice as much tax (lack of a good education)

And I'm very special, my mother says so

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

Not in my experience - The rich kids stayed rich, the poor kids got rich because the state gave it to them on a plate, but the kids in the middle (me) had to get their parents to pay cash they couldn't really afford, plus I had to get a job to see me through.

Fair enough disadvantaged kids should be helped out with grants, but why should they leave with no (or very little debt), when other student are saddled with massive financial burdens that they're unlikely to shake off for decades!

~nomad~

iTrader: (4)

They will earn far more now!