How about a poll of CL members here to conclude this - would be interesting to see how our views stack up with the population after a godd discussion and reasoned arguments from both sides. I think the question should be - Do public servants have, in your opinion, justification on going on strike - YES or NO?
To put my hat in the ring, despite thinking there are better ways for them to take action, my answer is
I've just managed to read this entire thread and one thing stands out. There is a general feeling from many people that the depression in the UK was caused by the bankers. One writer even termed it 'raped' by the bankers. Actually economics will tell you that it has very little to do with bankers as a group. The banking crisis was just part of a chain a cycle, to which there were many elements. But it is not the fault of the bankers. Every time there is a depression people look to blame the bankers, as they are the front line managers of finance, but as the 'Great Depression' of 1930-42 in the US showed, the whole economic system, with all it's variables. was at fault not just the bankers.
Being a Brit who lives overseas now it gives me a different perspective. I read some of these posts with angst and general ill ease. The blatant trading of certain events as FACT, is as an economic historian disconcerting. Thatcher screwing the workers for one thing. Really? Economics and History are clearly showing now that if Thatcher had not taken action in the early 1980s then the British economy would be ill positioned for any possible growth in the 'new' global economy.
I am returning to the UK in two weeks for a short break. I hope 'we' as a nation can pull together and not pull apart. That private backs public, that friend supports foe, that nationalist supports liberal, that conservative supports socialist. A divided economy is a failed economy.
Of late all unions that have gone on strike have lost some of their power and influence, I think that prolonged strike action will destroy any sympathy and Milliband will have stand by the unions as they are the only reason he got his job, this will destroy his support and be an end to him as well.
With all the restraint in the public sector, fat cats like the one I know who had his overall pay package rise by 12% from £122,167 to £133,183 last year drive me mad. To make matters worse, he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548. These are the sort of people whose income tax should increase significantly to support the country.
The pension bill gets it's second reading today in the commons.........
We shall see what the MP's are prepared to do to 'ammend' 'review' or change the details.
Apparently according to the bbc breakfast news..... 180 MPS have signed a motion in regard to the the double whammey of the age range from 60-65 by 2010-2020, and then to 66 etc etc........
In the same broadcast 'we' are 'commited' to £5 billion to bale out the Greeks, who are wanting a further 'loan'.
The greeks have the lowest age and most generous of pension, based on average national earnings......... provisions in the EEC, or did until recently!
So who is the 'we'....... I think you will find it is the 'banks'........ albeit that we as taxpayers own some of them, we still seem to be financing countries which we are not part of the 'Euro'.
So we cannot afford the £500, million, for our own, but readily accept the £5 billion liability who have far more generous benefits than ourselves!
Based on the fact that if the Greeks default our 'speculators' may be out of pocket!........
Okay, simplistic economics, but is this not exactly what the previous goverment wanted the banks to do seprate and 'firewall this type of 'business', when the banking crisis first started!
Dan, the European travel doesn't seem to reduce attendances in the Champions League too much. Why would the clubs care how many travelling fans there are when they have so much TV money. Irrespective, if Sky took their millions elsewhere half of the Premier League teams left would be unable to pay the players wages and they would drop like flies.
Give ita couple of years and the fans of the teams competing would be bored to teras and stop going and the productr wouldn't be worth televising - Murdoch thinks he has us over a barrel but it will only take a couple of years to correct itself - sky need our football more than we need them.
With all the restraint in the public sector, fat cats like the one I know who had his overall pay package rise by 12% from £122,167 to £133,183 last year drive me mad. To make matters worse, he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548. These are the sort of people whose income tax should increase significantly to support the country.
His name?
Bob Crowe.
And it's totally deserved. Unlike the bonuses the bank bosses get.
I've just managed to read this entire thread and one thing stands out. There is a general feeling from many people that the depression in the UK was caused by the bankers. One writer even termed it 'raped' by the bankers. Actually economics will tell you that it has very little to do with bankers as a group. The banking crisis was just part of a chain a cycle, to which there were many elements. But it is not the fault of the bankers. Every time there is a depression people look to blame the bankers, as they are the front line managers of finance, but as the 'Great Depression' of 1930-42 in the US showed, the whole economic system, with all it's variables. was at fault not just the bankers.
Being a Brit who lives overseas now it gives me a different perspective. I read some of these posts with angst and general ill ease. The blatant trading of certain events as FACT, is as an economic historian disconcerting. Thatcher screwing the workers for one thing. Really? Economics and History are clearly showing now that if Thatcher had not taken action in the early 1980s then the British economy would be ill positioned for any possible growth in the 'new' global economy.
I am returning to the UK in two weeks for a short break. I hope 'we' as a nation can pull together and not pull apart. That private backs public, that friend supports foe, that nationalist supports liberal, that conservative supports socialist. A divided economy is a failed economy.
Dear oh dear. Thatcher and the banks defended in one post. Ive read it all now.
Senior public sector managers, head teachers, council leaders etc. have seen massive pay rises over last few years. Their main competition comes from within their own organization so their subordinates get rewarded. High profile examples in the press don't seem to lag behind private sector. Take a look at the relatively few ads in the press, usually very competitive salaries but often filled internally. They have a culture of suspicion against outsiders who they know are more savvy and will threaten their own job. Unthreatening incompetants promoted. When I worked for LT, the CFO of our division was an ex-bus driver, unqualified and clueless. All his decisions were to cover his back. NHS worse but I was only there six months.
the tories are so using the deficit to do loads of ideologically/politically motivated stuff, mind you some of needs doing, not sure the coalition is strong enough to pull it off though
With all the restraint in the public sector, fat cats like the one I know who had his overall pay package rise by 12% from £122,167 to £133,183 last year drive me mad. To make matters worse, he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548. These are the sort of people whose income tax should increase significantly to support the country.
His name?
Bob Crowe.
And it's totally deserved. Unlike the bonuses the bank bosses get.
Perhaps he could increase the supply of social housing, by one?
Welcome back to the UK Bangkok Dave. It will be interesting to see how you read the situation after your short break. Thatcher did screw the workers in that it was they who paid the price for economic reforms. We can argue the merits or otherwise of the reforms, and I would agree that it is not as straightforward as some would have us believe, but decimating our manufacturing base and leaving us dependent upon the financial services sectors hardly seems to have been a good idea either does it? Especially when Thatcher Mk11 (TB/GB's) decided to de-regulate the financial system without effective safeguards being put in place. (Although by then, it seems likely that even the banks themselves hadn't got any real idea of the true financial states they were in.)
Pulling together is an interesting concept. How exactly do I, on a state pension of less than £500 a month, pull together with a naughty investment banker who has a pension of squillions? We're being ruled by cloned Etonian types with whom I have absolutely no affinity and they certainly have no understanding whatever of the way some people have to live their lives. I merely observe that the rich have got richer and the poor poorer, and it matters not a jot who governs Britian.
Has not the state pension system been built on todays workers paying for yesterdays previous workforce!....... what that not the basis of the agreement!
We seem to be arriving at a junction where Todays/tommorows workforce and paying for yesterdays banking crisis!.......
The systematic failure of all political parties to deal with this global financial meltdown, seems still to be the default basis on which these policies are based on!
The logic of rewarding sucess, seems not to count!, but underwriting failure and 'speculation' who in some way avoid paying tax's!.. because they threaten to leave these 'shores'
Perhaps we could introduce this 'economic' principle at Charlton,....... I only want to pay for the matches we win, play entertaining football, and if I agree with the managers team selection!
All this bullshit about the inflated publIc sector and the waste by the last govt. People quote it as though its a fact - we are in the shit because of a worldwide banking crisis which started in America - not because of the last government. People in the public sector can rightly feel aggrieved. They are being victimised and i have to agree with the poster who said we don't have the boll*x of previous generations as the bankers continue to get huge bonuses as we all take the cuts. We don't have the manufacturing base we once had, our economy is reliant on the financial and service sector but lets not get all daily mail and confuse things. The recession was caused by a financial f''k up. not because we have free swimming sessions for kids in local pools.
The point isn't what caused it - although the 'worldwide banking crisis' exposed the last government's profligate economic policy and lack of regulation - but how to get out of it. One way is to spend spend spend, but then we've been doing that for 13 years, including even creating money to spend more, and look where it got us. An alternative approach is to bolster the private sector, particularly construction and manufacturing, so we have something on which to rebuild our economy.
And frankly anyone who believes there isn't waste in the public sector has either worked there all their lives and/or just doesn't have a clue. Waste doesn't primarily mean unnecessary services, it means simply that government and in particular local government have been woefully lax in making sure there's value for money in those services. As I said before, there are people in local government who literally do nothing for their salary. I'm not making that up, I've seen it with my own eyes. Valuable services are being lost because the public sector refuses to do things in a cost-effective way, the way the private sector has to in order to survive. It's often more tricky to evaluate - a greater proportion of intangible benefits - but they can address their appalling business management, terrible project management, lack of governance, lack of true best value, redeployment or release of staff in redundant roles. It's not rocket science, but the unions have tried to make it into a job for life - and frankly in this day and age that seems terribly outdated.
All this bullshit about the inflated publIc sector and the waste by the last govt. People quote it as though its a fact - we are in the shit because of a worldwide banking crisis which started in America - not because of the last government. People in the public sector can rightly feel aggrieved. They are being victimised and i have to agree with the poster who said we don't have the boll*x of previous generations as the bankers continue to get huge bonuses as we all take the cuts. We don't have the manufacturing base we once had, our economy is reliant on the financial and service sector but lets not get all daily mail and confuse things. The recession was caused by a financial f''k up. not because we have free swimming sessions for kids in local pools.
The point isn't what caused it - although the 'worldwide banking crisis' exposed the last government's profligate economic policy and lack of regulation - but how to get out of it. One way is to spend spend spend, but then we've been doing that for 13 years, including even creating money to spend more, and look where it got us. An alternative approach is to bolster the private sector, particularly construction and manufacturing, so we have something on which to rebuild our economy.
And frankly anyone who believes there isn't waste in the public sector has either worked there all their lives and/or just doesn't have a clue. Waste doesn't primarily mean unnecessary services, it means simply that government and in particular local government have been woefully lax in making sure there's value for money in those services. As I said before, there are people in local government who literally do nothing for their salary. I'm not making that up, I've seen it with my own eyes. Valuable services are being lost because the public sector refuses to do things in a cost-effective way, the way the private sector has to in order to survive. It's often more tricky to evaluate - a greater proportion of intangible benefits - but they can address their appalling business management, terrible project management, lack of governance, lack of true best value, redeployment or release of staff in redundant roles. It's not rocket science, but the unions have tried to make it into a job for life - and frankly in this day and age that seems terribly outdated.
true, there is a lot of waste in the public sector - i don't work in it but have lots of clients who do but life isn't all about driving costs down to the bone - its about ensuring that people who want to work have jobs and a quality of life. The amount of personal wealth in this country is unbelievable and a bit more effort needs to be put into the redistribution of this wealth before victimising low paid public sector workers and although i'm not part of a union, i support what they stand for.
Give ita couple of years and the fans of the teams competing would be bored to teras and stop going and the productr wouldn't be worth televising - Murdoch thinks he has us over a barrel but it will only take a couple of years to correct itself - sky need our football more than we need them.
You're right Dan - Sky do need 'our' football, but their interest in 'our' football consists of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and maybe Spurs. If an agreement was reached for clubs to negoiate individual deals I suspect that these teams would all have massive contracts and the rest would only be able to sell their home games with the six teams listed, and maybe a local derby or two. You just need to look at the viewing figures to know which clubs the paying (subscriptions) public want to watch. Even the BBC dedicate three quarters (or more) or each show on games that contain the six listed teams, and they make up 30% of the division. The armchair fan has little, or no interest, in football outside of the top clubs.
Give ita couple of years and the fans of the teams competing would be bored to teras and stop going and the productr wouldn't be worth televising - Murdoch thinks he has us over a barrel but it will only take a couple of years to correct itself - sky need our football more than we need them.
You're right Dan - Sky do need 'our' football, but their interest in 'our' football consists of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and maybe Spurs. If an agreement was reached for clubs to negoiate individual deals I suspect that these teams would all have massive contracts and the rest would only be able to sell their home games with the six teams listed, and maybe a local derby or two. You just need to look at the viewing figures to know which clubs the paying (subscriptions) public want to watch. Even the BBC dedicate three quarters (or more) or each show on games that contain the six listed teams, and they make up 30% of the division. The armchair fan has little, or no interest, in football outside of the top clubs.
i know - but the product they like won't be there - the stadiums will be empty because those top 6 need the rest of the league as much as we need them but the rest of the league aren't prepared to make a stand because things aren't bad enough - yet.
There is waste, but there is also value for money in the public sector, see my post above about primary school teachers cost verses paying for private childcare.
The global financial meltdown is a collective responsibility. Personally I don't get the latest gadgets as soon as they come out, nor do I have a plasma screen, a fancy car, holidays, £10,000 weddings and the like. I pay my credit card and bills in full every month, and don't spend what I don't have (barring a mortgage). However people were told they must have everything, they must have it now 'because you're worth it', and encouraged to borrow stupidly to get it. Money they couldn't afford for stuff they didn't need.
It is the bitterest irony that borrowing is now advertised not to help folk buy stuff, but as 'payday loans' simply to survive...at unbelieveable rates of interest.
All of us who have spent what we don't have are collectively responsible, as are the financial institutions for lending the money. It isn't public sector workers in a job, doing their best, and paying into a pension scheme who caused this mess, but they're now expected to stump up to pay for the wasteful indulgent lifestyle of people in the recent past.
what people tend to forget to ask Mr Balls is why when you were in a long period of sustained growth were you still borrowing billions, I think he claimed on Sunday morning it wasn't a structural deficit only an investment one - effectively it was growth from borrowing and therefore unsustainable?
Quite simply there is waste in any and all large organisations, public or private it's just a lot more convenient to assume that there are 10,000's of public sector employees contributing nothing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is niave or a fool. We also pay for the 'waste' in the private sector through higher bills and a poorer service btw but that seems never to come into the equation.
We've seen time and again examples of poorly managed organisations in the private sector too, just the latest being Southern Cross (and there's an example of what happened in the drive for profit before people!). It's too simplistic to believe that "private = always best, public = always worst" I'm afraid but it does help people justify their position when it comes to issues like this.
At the end of the day if your job was in danger or someone was threating to f**k with your pension while the bankers get away scott free. Bankers that have raped this country and put it in the mess it is now , then you would do whatever you have to help your family and save your home regardless of who heads your union or how it might inconvenience other people. That might sound harsh but when the chips are down...
Having said that it must be a last resort and regardless of what some people about strike action, it usually is a last resort .
I understand what you are saying but frankly it is far too simplistic just to blame bankers for the mess we are in. Failure to manage the systemic banking risks is the primary cause. Bankers did what they did because the Government of the day wanted a "light" touch. (And before I am accused of anti Labour bias, the Tories wanted an even lighter touch). The failure was political because Banking was paying Billions in tax. Banking created the credit availability which lead to crazy mortgages, and lax loan underwriting which we all, to some degree wanted. We all loved the era of cheap credit. Now this has to be paid for.
Just blaming the bankers misses the point that the system was bust and needs fixing. Moaning about bankers bonuses makes us feel better, gives us a focus of anger and blame but isn't going to solve the problems we are in.
There is waste, but there is also value for money in the public sector, see my post above about primary school teachers cost verses paying for private childcare.
The global financial meltdown is a collective responsibility. Personally I don't get the latest gadgets as soon as they come out, nor do I have a plasma screen, a fancy car, holidays, £10,000 weddings and the like. I pay my credit card and bills in full every month, and don't spend what I don't have (barring a mortgage). However people were told they must have everything, they must have it now 'because you're worth it', and encouraged to borrow stupidly to get it. Money they couldn't afford for stuff they didn't need.
It is the bitterest irony that borrowing is now advertised not to help folk buy stuff, but as 'payday loans' simply to survive...at unbelieveable rates of interest.
All of us who have spent what we don't have are collectively responsible, as are the financial institutions for lending the money. It isn't public sector workers in a job, doing their best, and paying into a pension scheme who caused this mess, but they're now expected to stump up to pay for the wasteful indulgent lifestyle of people in the recent past.
Well I agree with pretty much all that. There is good and bad in all things.
The banking crisis was fuelled by demand for cheap credit. Just to blame Bankers is wrong, just as some of the crazy things they did and the obscene bonuses they earned were equally wrong. Just to say it was the sole responsibility of the last Labour Government is equally as wrong as Labour politicians in total denial who have tried to blame the current problems only on the banking crisis when they spent beyond their own cyclical rules and against the advice of many.
As for strike action, my grandfather was a London bus driver and was involved in the General Strike in 1926. In the end the strikers failed to achieve their objectives, and additional legislation was introduced curbing strike action/union power.
There was a battle of wills which the Government in 1926 was determined to win. We have a similar scenario now and much as I would wish it differently, the country is short of money and there is a ticking time bomb in respect of pensions due to life expectancy and dependency of an ageing population which has to be tackled.
Sadly, I think that the battle will be joined and the Government will not bow. At the end of it the country will be more bitter and more divided. Millions will be inconvenienced both as victims of industrial action, and those and their families on strike. In the course of this battle, we will see additional legislation introduced to require 50% plus strike ballots and other measures.
What many people fail to pick up on was that borrowing was much lower under the previous Government immediately before the credit crunch than it was when they took power. Had they (and they should have) anticipated and acted to prevent the crunch, their biggest critics would have been the Conservatives. The problem is that new labour was quite conservative with a small c themselves and intervention is a no no - Don't interfere, let the banks and markets regulate themselves was the mantra.
It is perfectly resonable that a deficit reduction plan was needed- all parties agreed with that at the last election. The problem is that an economy in recovery is going to be more effective than one that isn't. That is why you need the flexibility to make cuts but not to the point where growth can't work it's healing qualities. Alistair Darling and dare I say it Gordon Brown were praised across the globe for the pro-active way the handled the post credit crunch era and make no mistake they were planning painful cuts. The problem is that this Government decided to put all it's eggs in one basket in terms of the cuts and hope that growth happened. This would work if growth was able to weather the storm but it is showing every sign that it can't. The Condems have nailed their colours to the mast so can't retreat at all as the markets would lose confidence in them if they U-turned which would be a disaster. If they had been a bit more flexible and circumspect with the plan they would not be in this position but the cuts message appealed to people who don't understand the difference between managing an economy and a household.
Somehow it has become the last Govermnents faul and those lazy greedy public servants - as was said before- one of the biggest con tricks ever. As Ed Balls stated over the weekend- the strikes are playing into the Government's hands though in this elaborate but immoral illusion that seems to have conned a fair few of the gullable population.
There is waste, but there is also value for money in the public sector, see my post above about primary school teachers cost verses paying for private childcare.
The global financial meltdown is a collective responsibility. Personally I don't get the latest gadgets as soon as they come out, nor do I have a plasma screen, a fancy car, holidays, £10,000 weddings and the like. I pay my credit card and bills in full every month, and don't spend what I don't have (barring a mortgage). However people were told they must have everything, they must have it now 'because you're worth it', and encouraged to borrow stupidly to get it. Money they couldn't afford for stuff they didn't need.
It is the bitterest irony that borrowing is now advertised not to help folk buy stuff, but as 'payday loans' simply to survive...at unbelieveable rates of interest.
All of us who have spent what we don't have are collectively responsible, as are the financial institutions for lending the money. It isn't public sector workers in a job, doing their best, and paying into a pension scheme who caused this mess, but they're now expected to stump up to pay for the wasteful indulgent lifestyle of people in the recent past.
Can't disagree with most of that Seth, apart from the last bit. It isn't JUST public sector workers who are expected to stump up - we all are. Public sector workers aren't somehow exempt from all this, nor should that be. I think that's the point some are trying to make. If we all share the burden the pain should hopefully be shared, whereas if the public sector is somehow exempt it means that everyone else will suffer more for their benefit - and surely that isn't right?
Muttley, I hate to contradict you but I believe you are confusing debt with deficit. Debt is the total amount the country owes. Deficit is the current and continuing short fall between what revenue the Government gains versus what it spends.
It is true that the total national debt was higher under the Tories because Labour paid it down in their first five years.
What happened though in later years was that the structural deficit which Gordon Brown had cyclical golden rules to bring into balance within the economic cycle, he just ignored and they carried on regardless. Thus when the credit crunch hit and the bail outs came, along with quantitative easing and all the other measures, we were already spending massively more than the country was getting in tax revenues.
We went from a point were we could afford public services to one where we couldn't because it all went belly up. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut, just that the attacks on the public sector have been particularly savage and that the government wants the confrontation to deflect away from its problem. Do you think we would have avoided the credit crunch had the tories been in power and do you disagree with the statements from America praising the post crunch handling of the situation?
I'm not confusing but do understand your point. The trick was to avoid the worst of the credit crunch and recover quickly as Germany managed.
Again I hate to pick you up on another point but it is really far too simplistic to compare our economy and Germany's economy. Germany is a powerhouse industrial economy with relatively low levels of home ownership and personal debt. The UK economy has hitherto been driven by completely different factors. A massive over-bloated financial sector, large consumer led spending growth based on inflated property prices and high levels of personal debt.
The levers that Germany have been able to pull has resulted in real economic growth as they are actually making things. Our economy requires re-balancing so that our industrial and non financial private sector base is able to grow. That is what is happening.
it all seems to boil back to the de regulation of the financial services - somebody said that happened under labour - i'm sure it was under Thatcher wasn't it?
Comments
To put my hat in the ring, despite thinking there are better ways for them to take action, my answer is
YES
With all the restraint in the public sector, fat cats like the one I know who had his overall pay package rise by 12% from £122,167 to £133,183 last year drive me mad. To make matters worse, he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548. These are the sort of people whose income tax should increase significantly to support the country.
His name?
Bob Crowe.
Welcome back to the UK Bangkok Dave. It will be interesting to see how you read the situation after your short break. Thatcher did screw the workers in that it was they who paid the price for economic reforms. We can argue the merits or otherwise of the reforms, and I would agree that it is not as straightforward as some would have us believe, but decimating our manufacturing base and leaving us dependent upon the financial services sectors hardly seems to have been a good idea either does it? Especially when Thatcher Mk11 (TB/GB's) decided to de-regulate the financial system without effective safeguards being put in place. (Although by then, it seems likely that even the banks themselves hadn't got any real idea of the true financial states they were in.)
Pulling together is an interesting concept. How exactly do I, on a state pension of less than £500 a month, pull together with a naughty investment banker who has a pension of squillions? We're being ruled by cloned Etonian types with whom I have absolutely no affinity and they certainly have no understanding whatever of the way some people have to live their lives. I merely observe that the rich have got richer and the poor poorer, and it matters not a jot who governs Britian.
The point isn't what caused it - although the 'worldwide banking crisis' exposed the last government's profligate economic policy and lack of regulation - but how to get out of it. One way is to spend spend spend, but then we've been doing that for 13 years, including even creating money to spend more, and look where it got us. An alternative approach is to bolster the private sector, particularly construction and manufacturing, so we have something on which to rebuild our economy.
And frankly anyone who believes there isn't waste in the public sector has either worked there all their lives and/or just doesn't have a clue. Waste doesn't primarily mean unnecessary services, it means simply that government and in particular local government have been woefully lax in making sure there's value for money in those services. As I said before, there are people in local government who literally do nothing for their salary. I'm not making that up, I've seen it with my own eyes. Valuable services are being lost because the public sector refuses to do things in a cost-effective way, the way the private sector has to in order to survive. It's often more tricky to evaluate - a greater proportion of intangible benefits - but they can address their appalling business management, terrible project management, lack of governance, lack of true best value, redeployment or release of staff in redundant roles. It's not rocket science, but the unions have tried to make it into a job for life - and frankly in this day and age that seems terribly outdated.
Give ita couple of years and the fans of the teams competing would be bored to teras and stop going and the productr wouldn't be worth televising - Murdoch thinks he has us over a barrel but it will only take a couple of years to correct itself - sky need our football more than we need them.
You're right Dan - Sky do need 'our' football, but their interest in 'our' football consists of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and maybe Spurs. If an agreement was reached for clubs to negoiate individual deals I suspect that these teams would all have massive contracts and the rest would only be able to sell their home games with the six teams listed, and maybe a local derby or two. You just need to look at the viewing figures to know which clubs the paying (subscriptions) public want to watch. Even the BBC dedicate three quarters (or more) or each show on games that contain the six listed teams, and they make up 30% of the division. The armchair fan has little, or no interest, in football outside of the top clubs.
There is waste, but there is also value for money in the public sector, see my post above about primary school teachers cost verses paying for private childcare.
The global financial meltdown is a collective responsibility. Personally I don't get the latest gadgets as soon as they come out, nor do I have a plasma screen, a fancy car, holidays, £10,000 weddings and the like. I pay my credit card and bills in full every month, and don't spend what I don't have (barring a mortgage). However people were told they must have everything, they must have it now 'because you're worth it', and encouraged to borrow stupidly to get it. Money they couldn't afford for stuff they didn't need.
It is the bitterest irony that borrowing is now advertised not to help folk buy stuff, but as 'payday loans' simply to survive...at unbelieveable rates of interest.
All of us who have spent what we don't have are collectively responsible, as are the financial institutions for lending the money. It isn't public sector workers in a job, doing their best, and paying into a pension scheme who caused this mess, but they're now expected to stump up to pay for the wasteful indulgent lifestyle of people in the recent past.
Quite simply there is waste in any and all large organisations, public or private it's just a lot more convenient to assume that there are 10,000's of public sector employees contributing nothing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is niave or a fool. We also pay for the 'waste' in the private sector through higher bills and a poorer service btw but that seems never to come into the equation.
We've seen time and again examples of poorly managed organisations in the private sector too, just the latest being Southern Cross (and there's an example of what happened in the drive for profit before people!). It's too simplistic to believe that "private = always best, public = always worst" I'm afraid but it does help people justify their position when it comes to issues like this.
I understand what you are saying but frankly it is far too simplistic just to blame bankers for the mess we are in. Failure to manage the systemic banking risks is the primary cause. Bankers did what they did because the Government of the day wanted a "light" touch. (And before I am accused of anti Labour bias, the Tories wanted an even lighter touch). The failure was political because Banking was paying Billions in tax. Banking created the credit availability which lead to crazy mortgages, and lax loan underwriting which we all, to some degree wanted. We all loved the era of cheap credit. Now this has to be paid for.
Just blaming the bankers misses the point that the system was bust and needs fixing. Moaning about bankers bonuses makes us feel better, gives us a focus of anger and blame but isn't going to solve the problems we are in.
Well I agree with pretty much all that. There is good and bad in all things.
The banking crisis was fuelled by demand for cheap credit. Just to blame Bankers is wrong, just as some of the crazy things they did and the obscene bonuses they earned were equally wrong. Just to say it was the sole responsibility of the last Labour Government is equally as wrong as Labour politicians in total denial who have tried to blame the current problems only on the banking crisis when they spent beyond their own cyclical rules and against the advice of many.
As for strike action, my grandfather was a London bus driver and was involved in the General Strike in 1926. In the end the strikers failed to achieve their objectives, and additional legislation was introduced curbing strike action/union power.
There was a battle of wills which the Government in 1926 was determined to win. We have a similar scenario now and much as I would wish it differently, the country is short of money and there is a ticking time bomb in respect of pensions due to life expectancy and dependency of an ageing population which has to be tackled.
Sadly, I think that the battle will be joined and the Government will not bow. At the end of it the country will be more bitter and more divided. Millions will be inconvenienced both as victims of industrial action, and those and their families on strike. In the course of this battle, we will see additional legislation introduced to require 50% plus strike ballots and other measures.
What many people fail to pick up on was that borrowing was much lower under the previous Government immediately before the credit crunch than it was when they took power. Had they (and they should have) anticipated and acted to prevent the crunch, their biggest critics would have been the Conservatives. The problem is that new labour was quite conservative with a small c themselves and intervention is a no no - Don't interfere, let the banks and markets regulate themselves was the mantra.
It is perfectly resonable that a deficit reduction plan was needed- all parties agreed with that at the last election. The problem is that an economy in recovery is going to be more effective than one that isn't. That is why you need the flexibility to make cuts but not to the point where growth can't work it's healing qualities. Alistair Darling and dare I say it Gordon Brown were praised across the globe for the pro-active way the handled the post credit crunch era and make no mistake they were planning painful cuts. The problem is that this Government decided to put all it's eggs in one basket in terms of the cuts and hope that growth happened. This would work if growth was able to weather the storm but it is showing every sign that it can't. The Condems have nailed their colours to the mast so can't retreat at all as the markets would lose confidence in them if they U-turned which would be a disaster. If they had been a bit more flexible and circumspect with the plan they would not be in this position but the cuts message appealed to people who don't understand the difference between managing an economy and a household.
Somehow it has become the last Govermnents faul and those lazy greedy public servants - as was said before- one of the biggest con tricks ever. As Ed Balls stated over the weekend- the strikes are playing into the Government's hands though in this elaborate but immoral illusion that seems to have conned a fair few of the gullable population.
Pensions biggest crock of shyte i know but if these people signed up to these pensions then they should get them.
However new people signing up should be told this is the deal from now on.
it all seems to boil back to the de regulation of the financial services - somebody said that happened under labour - i'm sure it was under Thatcher wasn't it?