Hundreds of council workers facing redundancy despite Government promise of fair funding deal

First published in News: North Yorkshire County Council Darlington and Stockton Times: Photograph of the Author by , Regional Chief Reporter

THOUSANDS of local authority workers are facing a bleak Christmas with union leaders warning of a fresh wave of redundancies set to hit the region’s embattled town halls.

Public sector union Unison is preparing for negotiations with local authority chiefs across the North-East and North Yorkshire after hundreds of council workers were told their jobs were at risk.

The threat of further redundancies comes despite ministers promising the region’s councils a “fair deal” when next year’s local government financial settlement is announced later this month.

Union leaders said 60 staff at Durham County Council received redundancy notices last week, with 28 positions due to go by April next year. The council needs to make savings of around £180m by 2016/17.

The authority has already made 25 compulsory redundancies during the current financial year, while 116 people applied for voluntary redundancy or early retirement.

A further 800 posts are due to be lost over the next two years, according to the council’s medium term financial plan.

Darlington Borough Council is still to set its new budget - however redundancies were likely before the end of the current financial year, a spokesman said.

Stockton Council said it was still assessing the details of the autumn statement.

However, council leader Coun Bob Cook said: “It is clear that there will be further cuts to local government which will impact on the authority and make the already difficult financial situation even more challenging.

“It is clear that any further reduction to funding will mean we need to look again at the services we provide and further cuts may be necessary. “

North Yorkshire County Council has also warned of redundancies on the way in coming months.

A spokeswoman said: “"We have been restructuring our back office services and holding and deleting vacant posts, so we have lost posts rather than people.

“We are also reviewing our management structures and non-frontline services, but we are not anticipating hundreds of redundancies before the end of the financial year, though undoubtedly there will be a few."

On Tyneside, more than 1,000 jobs are due to go. Gateshead is looking to axe 450 posts in a bid to save £38m over the next two years, while Newcastle will lose 360 positions.

A further 300 jobs are due to go at North Tyneside Council.

Other councils in the region are still calculating their budgets but few have ruled out further redundancies.

Clare Williams, Unison northern regional convenor, said the responsibility for the job losses lay with the Coalition Government.

She added: “We expect redundancies to be in the thousands and we are working hard with the local authorities in the region to minimise the impact on the local authority workers and on the services they provide.

“These job losses are the result of the Coalition Government pursuing an absolutely ridiculous policy of cuts that has been totally discredited - yet they refuse to change course.”

George Osborne announced on Wednesday during his autumn statement that local authorities would be hit with a two per cent budget cut in 2014 - but would escape a one per cent cut faced next year by government departments.

Councils will be told of their precise financial settlement later this month.

The Association of North East Councils last month lobbied ministers for a fairer deal from the settlement amid criticism that local authorities in the region were losing out to richer town halls in the south of the country.

The Department for Communities and Local Government told the Northern Echo that the settlement would be fair, with ministers ensuring that the formula grant funding per head was higher in those parts of the country with the highest level of need.

A spokesman said: “Councils still account for a quarter of all public spending - £114bn of taxpayers’ money - so they must help act to reduce the inherited deficit.

"The Chancellor has exempted councils from the reductions Government must make in 2013/14. This will give councils time to find sensible savings by transforming front-line service delivery as well as reducing fraud, procuring better and sharing back offices.”

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:31am Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Sad for the unfortunate people directly affected. Good news for those of us who have seen our council tax double for zero improvement in services. Time for councils to share business support services, eliminate ridiculous jobs like Climate Change Officers and chop put layers of management.
Sad for the unfortunate people directly affected. Good news for those of us who have seen our council tax double for zero improvement in services. Time for councils to share business support services, eliminate ridiculous jobs like Climate Change Officers and chop put layers of management. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

9:32am Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

"Out" - sorry.
"Out" - sorry. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

9:42am Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up.
If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

9:51am Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David,share services with private companies? thats a good idea like the power companies idea,look how that plan worked out,if you think you pay to much now watch out when private finance gets involved.
David,share services with private companies? thats a good idea like the power companies idea,look how that plan worked out,if you think you pay to much now watch out when private finance gets involved. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

9:52am Mon 10 Dec 12

BMD says...

loonyleft wrote:
If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up.
It’s not the front line staff that require cutting.

Darlington
Ada Burns Chief Executive = £187,573 pa

United Kingdom
David Cameron PM = £142,000 pa

Cut the amount of training days, un-needed roles – Gay & Lesbian advice councilors, Climate Change Officers, etc……..
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up.[/p][/quote]It’s not the front line staff that require cutting. Darlington Ada Burns Chief Executive = £187,573 pa United Kingdom David Cameron PM = £142,000 pa Cut the amount of training days, un-needed roles – Gay & Lesbian advice councilors, Climate Change Officers, etc…….. BMD
  • Score: 0

10:21am Mon 10 Dec 12

detachedbystander says...

I've always been baffled by the pay of those senior execs at Darlo council. They do compare the council as an organisation to other large private sector companies and pay a rate to suit.

The comparison is a false one. The effort, talent and job security just don't compare.

My mind also casts back to a report that there were 6 senior execs at Darlo who earned in excess of £100k each. The actual figure would be higher, we only know that they were paid 'in excess' - slap on the pension and NI and it's a whole lot of cash, paid by us lot.

And that's in a borough with a population of 100,000 - so these execs cost the tax payers at least £6 for each man, woman and child - as a bare minimum.

However, when it comes to saving cash, it's those at the bottom of the council pile who pay the price. It'll be the admin staff, cleaners, bin men, social care etc - the sharp-elbowed fat cats at the top will consider themselves far too good value a talent to get the chop. They'll be alright, Jack.

Absolutely ridiculous.
I've always been baffled by the pay of those senior execs at Darlo council. They do compare the council as an organisation to other large private sector companies and pay a rate to suit. The comparison is a false one. The effort, talent and job security just don't compare. My mind also casts back to a report that there were 6 senior execs at Darlo who earned in excess of £100k each. The actual figure would be higher, we only know that they were paid 'in excess' - slap on the pension and NI and it's a whole lot of cash, paid by us lot. And that's in a borough with a population of 100,000 - so these execs cost the tax payers at least £6 for each man, woman and child - as a bare minimum. However, when it comes to saving cash, it's those at the bottom of the council pile who pay the price. It'll be the admin staff, cleaners, bin men, social care etc - the sharp-elbowed fat cats at the top will consider themselves far too good value a talent to get the chop. They'll be alright, Jack. Absolutely ridiculous. detachedbystander
  • Score: 0

11:02am Mon 10 Dec 12

stevegg says...

I agree with just about all the comments on here. The problem is this culture of waste and inefficiency has existed for half a century or more and has only recently been challenged. The high paid executives is a modern phenomina that has spiralled out of control, these people actually believe they deserve this money and not a penny less thanks to their so called 'experience and talents', they will defend their jobs at any cost and if forced to go will take a huge 6 figure payoff with no remorse whatsoever. Layers of middle management on hefty salaries who could easily be dispensed with are also protected, these are the people who pay 6 figure sums to consultants to come in and tell them how they should be doing their jobs. Creating Jobs with liberal titles, high salaries and no meaningful role has also spiralled out of control. Such is the regard for public money, they are on the gravy train and will not get off unless they get golden cheque, meanwhile low paid frontline jobs and services the pubilc want are culled in order to keep these people in their bubbles.
I agree with just about all the comments on here. The problem is this culture of waste and inefficiency has existed for half a century or more and has only recently been challenged. The high paid executives is a modern phenomina that has spiralled out of control, these people actually believe they deserve this money and not a penny less thanks to their so called 'experience and talents', they will defend their jobs at any cost and if forced to go will take a huge 6 figure payoff with no remorse whatsoever. Layers of middle management on hefty salaries who could easily be dispensed with are also protected, these are the people who pay 6 figure sums to consultants to come in and tell them how they should be doing their jobs. Creating Jobs with liberal titles, high salaries and no meaningful role has also spiralled out of control. Such is the regard for public money, they are on the gravy train and will not get off unless they get golden cheque, meanwhile low paid frontline jobs and services the pubilc want are culled in order to keep these people in their bubbles. stevegg
  • Score: 0

11:14am Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

bmd, The thing is front line staff will be cut ,and eventually the highly paid bosses will be cut ,and then you will have to pay for every service you want out of your own pocket instead of paying council tax, then you will wish for the days when all you had to moan about w as paying your council tax.
bmd, The thing is front line staff will be cut ,and eventually the highly paid bosses will be cut ,and then you will have to pay for every service you want out of your own pocket instead of paying council tax, then you will wish for the days when all you had to moan about w as paying your council tax. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

11:34am Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Loopy - when I said "share services" I didn't use the words "private companies". You slipped them in. Why have 13 payroll departments, 13 personnel departments, 13 IT departments, 13 finance departments etc etc etc? Why don't they centralise and allocate each function to one council? The answer is obvious - superfluous jobs would be lost. The winner would be the council tax payer.
.
As for "Chief Executives" - what can we say? Do you remember when the old Town Hall in Darlo housed the entire management of the authority? When the top man was the Town Clerk? When bins were emptied every week on the backs of strong men who got a nice little gift at Christmas from grateful residents?
.
When we allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum, we ought to have realised that they would also charge us for the privilege of running it!
Loopy - when I said "share services" I didn't use the words "private companies". You slipped them in. Why have 13 payroll departments, 13 personnel departments, 13 IT departments, 13 finance departments etc etc etc? Why don't they centralise and allocate each function to one council? The answer is obvious - superfluous jobs would be lost. The winner would be the council tax payer. . As for "Chief Executives" - what can we say? Do you remember when the old Town Hall in Darlo housed the entire management of the authority? When the top man was the Town Clerk? When bins were emptied every week on the backs of strong men who got a nice little gift at Christmas from grateful residents? . When we allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum, we ought to have realised that they would also charge us for the privilege of running it! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

11:53am Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David,Yes what you just mentioned about all those depart ments will be cut eventually,as i said to BMD all services will be cut right back,then people will have to pay directly out of their own pockets instead of paying council tax,then you will be able to compare if council tax was value for money or not.
David,Yes what you just mentioned about all those depart ments will be cut eventually,as i said to BMD all services will be cut right back,then people will have to pay directly out of their own pockets instead of paying council tax,then you will be able to compare if council tax was value for money or not. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Mon 10 Dec 12

MST1975 says...

loonyleft wrote:
David,Yes what you just mentioned about all those depart ments will be cut eventually,as i said to BMD all services will be cut right back,then people will have to pay directly out of their own pockets instead of paying council tax,then you will be able to compare if council tax was value for money or not.
You have some very twisted views.

David I have to agree with you. Surely it has to be looked into in more depth. Same with Hospitals, all these Trusts with IT, Supplies etc. when the DOH has contracts in place via DHL to deliver cost savings.

Share services, reduce costs, and improve end users satisfaction
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David,Yes what you just mentioned about all those depart ments will be cut eventually,as i said to BMD all services will be cut right back,then people will have to pay directly out of their own pockets instead of paying council tax,then you will be able to compare if council tax was value for money or not.[/p][/quote]You have some very twisted views. David I have to agree with you. Surely it has to be looked into in more depth. Same with Hospitals, all these Trusts with IT, Supplies etc. when the DOH has contracts in place via DHL to deliver cost savings. Share services, reduce costs, and improve end users satisfaction MST1975
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13.
.
The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT.
One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13. . The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

Twisted views MSR1975,Osbourne is predicting 6 more years of cutbacks which will turn out to be longer if there is no signs of growth. The tories used the same methods they are using now int he thirties,and the only thing that stopped them then was world war 2!!.They have missed all their targets for getting spending under control,the country will soon lose it's AAA rating then it will be harder to get spending uder control ergo more cutbacks,less council services,therefore you will have to pay private companies to provide servcices now provided by the council,have a happy Christmas thinking about that .
Twisted views MSR1975,Osbourne is predicting 6 more years of cutbacks which will turn out to be longer if there is no signs of growth. The tories used the same methods they are using now int he thirties,and the only thing that stopped them then was world war 2!!.They have missed all their targets for getting spending under control,the country will soon lose it's AAA rating then it will be harder to get spending uder control ergo more cutbacks,less council services,therefore you will have to pay private companies to provide servcices now provided by the council,have a happy Christmas thinking about that . loonyleft
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

So you accept that they have failed to "get spending under control". By that you must mean that they have't imposed any cuts. And you are right! Spending IS GOING UP. And here are a few more facts for you to digest. The only people paying a higher percentage of their tax this year than they did in 2009 are those earning over £50K. Those at the bottom end (earning £10K) paid 7.8% of their income in tax during the final year of the Labour disaster. Now they are paying 5.7%. These are official Treasury figures, confirmed by the OBR.
.
And with regard to the lies about the cut in the 50% tax rate, please remember that under Labour the top rate was 40%. They planned to increase it (2009 budget) to 50% in April 2010 as an election trap. The coalition has settled on 45%. A HIGHER FIGURE THAN LABOUR IMPOSED DURING ITS 13 YEARS OF MISRULE.
.
The best friends of millionaires aren't Osborne and Alexander. Rich people were much better off under Brown and Balls.
.
These are facts, supported by the Treasury and OBR. Let's hear what the lefties have to say about it.
So you accept that they have failed to "get spending under control". By that you must mean that they have't imposed any cuts. And you are right! Spending IS GOING UP. And here are a few more facts for you to digest. The only people paying a higher percentage of their tax this year than they did in 2009 are those earning over £50K. Those at the bottom end (earning £10K) paid 7.8% of their income in tax during the final year of the Labour disaster. Now they are paying 5.7%. These are official Treasury figures, confirmed by the OBR. . And with regard to the lies about the cut in the 50% tax rate, please remember that under Labour the top rate was 40%. They planned to increase it (2009 budget) to 50% in April 2010 as an election trap. The coalition has settled on 45%. A HIGHER FIGURE THAN LABOUR IMPOSED DURING ITS 13 YEARS OF MISRULE. . The best friends of millionaires aren't Osborne and Alexander. Rich people were much better off under Brown and Balls. . These are facts, supported by the Treasury and OBR. Let's hear what the lefties have to say about it. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David, what are you on about,they have't imposed any cuts, the reason spending is going up is partly the extra they are spending on benefits ,because they have put so many people out of work.Never mind about what the labour government did, we are talking about what the present government is doing. As i said before because they are failing to control spending,eventually councils will not provide many services,and people who at the moment grumble about th level of taxation that is levied on them,will in future have to pay directly to get work done the council used to under take.
David, what are you on about,they have't imposed any cuts, the reason spending is going up is partly the extra they are spending on benefits ,because they have put so many people out of work.Never mind about what the labour government did, we are talking about what the present government is doing. As i said before because they are failing to control spending,eventually councils will not provide many services,and people who at the moment grumble about th level of taxation that is levied on them,will in future have to pay directly to get work done the council used to under take. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loopeyloo75 says...

darlington have started sharing services. everyone who is paid from the council recieves their wages from stockton payroll. this has been going on for a while. also lots of schools have gone in house for catering so the council has lost control of these, academies also mean that schools dont have to have council aid caretakers etc and are using cheaper services. ada burns salary...........dis
gusting.
darlington have started sharing services. everyone who is paid from the council recieves their wages from stockton payroll. this has been going on for a while. also lots of schools have gone in house for catering so the council has lost control of these, academies also mean that schools dont have to have council aid caretakers etc and are using cheaper services. ada burns salary...........dis gusting. loopeyloo75
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 10 Dec 12

st-george1 says...

Union-speak … or another case of Labour and the Unions scare mongering …
60 jobs cut last week out of 19000 Council EMPLOYEES … the real problem is that here in the North East it costs twice as much to run a council with ONE employee for 12 households and/or ONE employee for every 27 people … suggesting that Labour was and still is running UP the down escalator
NO apologies for believing they were right, despite being WRONG … was one of the Labour Party’s unacceptable undying legacies in my view , so what they offer when there’s no culture change and no money to spend is an even bigger concern.
Union-speak … or another case of Labour and the Unions scare mongering … 60 jobs cut last week out of 19000 Council EMPLOYEES … the real problem is that here in the North East it costs twice as much to run a council with ONE employee for 12 households and/or ONE employee for every 27 people … suggesting that Labour was and still is running UP the down escalator NO apologies for believing they were right, despite being WRONG … was one of the Labour Party’s unacceptable undying legacies in my view , so what they offer when there’s no culture change and no money to spend is an even bigger concern. st-george1
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

ST GEORGE. what scaremongering people like you campaign for the cutting out of waste,the way the country is going there won't be any people working for the council never mind any wastage.The country i on the verge of losing it's AAA rating that means it will cost more in interesy payments when it borrows to pay benefits for all the people it is sacking,and trying to keep what is left going.You will be able to celebrate when you have less council tax to pay,until you realise you have to pay for everything yourself.
ST GEORGE. what scaremongering people like you campaign for the cutting out of waste,the way the country is going there won't be any people working for the council never mind any wastage.The country i on the verge of losing it's AAA rating that means it will cost more in interesy payments when it borrows to pay benefits for all the people it is sacking,and trying to keep what is left going.You will be able to celebrate when you have less council tax to pay,until you realise you have to pay for everything yourself. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Loopyleft. Please explain how " they have put so many people out of work" when unemployment is going DOWN month after month.
.
I'd love to have your explanation.
Loopyleft. Please explain how " they have put so many people out of work" when unemployment is going DOWN month after month. . I'd love to have your explanation. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Lifetime Townie says...

With all the staff and services cuts why do we need the same amount of councillors when there is less work for them to do? In Darlo new wheelie bins are prefered to the council keeping essential local bus services going and a web site tells us the council charge us about £46k a year for a propaganda mag. that we don't want! A decent non political Mayor would make a better job of running the town and would be cheaper for the public than all the overpaid town hall execs and cabinet members who don't listen to the electorate..
With all the staff and services cuts why do we need the same amount of councillors when there is less work for them to do? In Darlo new wheelie bins are prefered to the council keeping essential local bus services going and a web site tells us the council charge us about £46k a year for a propaganda mag. that we don't want! A decent non political Mayor would make a better job of running the town and would be cheaper for the public than all the overpaid town hall execs and cabinet members who don't listen to the electorate.. Lifetime Townie
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Mon 10 Dec 12

borocoffindodger says...

The Councillors who are making these decisions are earning thousands of pounds for a few hours a week. Why do the Unions put up with this? Why do the workers put up with this? Why do the taxpayers put up with this? There is supposed to be an Independent Mayor in Middlesbrough who is Labour through and through. Mallon refuses to do anything at all about mima which is costing the people of the Boro one million pounds a year. Where is the sense in that.
The Councillors who are making these decisions are earning thousands of pounds for a few hours a week. Why do the Unions put up with this? Why do the workers put up with this? Why do the taxpayers put up with this? There is supposed to be an Independent Mayor in Middlesbrough who is Labour through and through. Mallon refuses to do anything at all about mima which is costing the people of the Boro one million pounds a year. Where is the sense in that. borocoffindodger
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Mon 10 Dec 12

MSG says...

If only we had an elected mayor, at least we would have a say in the propsed cuts & if the popular choices were not taken you could vote the concil leading mayor out!.
I would like our bus service & town toilets back, not a climate change officer or wheelie bins!
If only we had an elected mayor, at least we would have a say in the propsed cuts & if the popular choices were not taken you could vote the concil leading mayor out!. I would like our bus service & town toilets back, not a climate change officer or wheelie bins! MSG
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David the numbers may be going down but unemployment is still high ,people are being taken of benefits even though they comply with the many hoops the dwp make them jump through.Back to the subject,you are one of the people who moan about the amount of council tax they have to pay,don't wory when all the cutbacks at the council are completed,you may get a rebate,of course then you will have to pay for every service you require your self!!!
David the numbers may be going down but unemployment is still high ,people are being taken of benefits even though they comply with the many hoops the dwp make them jump through.Back to the subject,you are one of the people who moan about the amount of council tax they have to pay,don't wory when all the cutbacks at the council are completed,you may get a rebate,of course then you will have to pay for every service you require your self!!! loonyleft
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Mon 10 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Answer the question. Unemployment is going down, so how can it be going up?
Answer the question. Unemployment is going down, so how can it be going up? David Lacey
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Mon 10 Dec 12

MST1975 says...

loonyleft wrote:
David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Yes just as I thought, you really do believe all that Balls spouts or stutters about.

So your view is keep spending like Brown did and all will be right in the Uk.

I hope you don't run your own household with the same reckless abandon.
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Yes just as I thought, you really do believe all that Balls spouts or stutters about. So your view is keep spending like Brown did and all will be right in the Uk. I hope you don't run your own household with the same reckless abandon. MST1975
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Mon 10 Dec 12

loan_star says...

loonyleft wrote:
David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
The unemployment figures have been fiddled by both Tory and Labour governments to give a more favourable total.
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]The unemployment figures have been fiddled by both Tory and Labour governments to give a more favourable total. loan_star
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Spy Boy says...

David Lacey wrote:
One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13.
.
The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT.
This is quite true. We were told that getting PCs at every desk would improve performance. All it did was double our workload and many of us were having to go into work early every day to trawl through hundred of E-mails, many of which were rubbish and many others were so mis-informed that we had to spend more and more time trying to put things straight. I know that this is a computer age, but it's about time people realised that they are there as tools not a way of life.

PCs are needed, but maybe they should be switched off for 4 hours every day to enable workers to get on with their jobs. They can be counter-productive. You end up in endless spirals and notes-wars and this is just on work related use. The amount of people I've seen just trawling the internet when they were supposed to be working is just too much. Mobile phones and iPhones and the like are also counter productive at work and these are also causing issues with schooling. When you are at work, switch them off !

I was watching six men working on some road works. One was actually working. Twoe were watching. One was reading a newspaper and two were on their phones.

On the subject of redundancies, it's always the poor bloody infantry that get chopped. The workers get hit and the executives stay on. Why is this ? It's because the execs decide who will go and there is no one to question them. No one has the power to do anything about them. Someone was passing around details of the Exec's salaries. Their cost far excedes their salaries. Not only in money. We can't even vote them out. Oh yes. Maybe we can. We can ask for a local vote on an elected mayor. Why should we have an elected mayor ? Because the council execs don't want one. That sounds like a very good reason to me.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13. . The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT.[/p][/quote]This is quite true. We were told that getting PCs at every desk would improve performance. All it did was double our workload and many of us were having to go into work early every day to trawl through hundred of E-mails, many of which were rubbish and many others were so mis-informed that we had to spend more and more time trying to put things straight. I know that this is a computer age, but it's about time people realised that they are there as tools not a way of life. PCs are needed, but maybe they should be switched off for 4 hours every day to enable workers to get on with their jobs. They can be counter-productive. You end up in endless spirals and notes-wars and this is just on work related use. The amount of people I've seen just trawling the internet when they were supposed to be working is just too much. Mobile phones and iPhones and the like are also counter productive at work and these are also causing issues with schooling. When you are at work, switch them off ! I was watching six men working on some road works. One was actually working. Twoe were watching. One was reading a newspaper and two were on their phones. On the subject of redundancies, it's always the poor bloody infantry that get chopped. The workers get hit and the executives stay on. Why is this ? It's because the execs decide who will go and there is no one to question them. No one has the power to do anything about them. Someone was passing around details of the Exec's salaries. Their cost far excedes their salaries. Not only in money. We can't even vote them out. Oh yes. Maybe we can. We can ask for a local vote on an elected mayor. Why should we have an elected mayor ? Because the council execs don't want one. That sounds like a very good reason to me. Spy Boy
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Mon 10 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Answer the question. Unemployment is going down, so how can it be going up?
The claimant count (JSA) is going up -this is a monthly count.
The overall survey figures which the Government uses were falling - but they were for an earlier period. It takes longer to update those.
So the recent figures are going up - it should indicate that the wider figure will too when eventually published.
It is therefore possible for two published pieces of data to appear to be going in opposite directions.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Answer the question. Unemployment is going down, so how can it be going up?[/p][/quote]The claimant count (JSA) is going up -this is a monthly count. The overall survey figures which the Government uses were falling - but they were for an earlier period. It takes longer to update those. So the recent figures are going up - it should indicate that the wider figure will too when eventually published. It is therefore possible for two published pieces of data to appear to be going in opposite directions. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Mon 10 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Loopy - when I said "share services" I didn't use the words "private companies". You slipped them in. Why have 13 payroll departments, 13 personnel departments, 13 IT departments, 13 finance departments etc etc etc? Why don't they centralise and allocate each function to one council? The answer is obvious - superfluous jobs would be lost. The winner would be the council tax payer.
.
As for "Chief Executives" - what can we say? Do you remember when the old Town Hall in Darlo housed the entire management of the authority? When the top man was the Town Clerk? When bins were emptied every week on the backs of strong men who got a nice little gift at Christmas from grateful residents?
.
When we allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum, we ought to have realised that they would also charge us for the privilege of running it!
David - are you suggesting a regional level of government with no local authorities?
Certainly not something the Tories or UKIP would vote for.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Loopy - when I said "share services" I didn't use the words "private companies". You slipped them in. Why have 13 payroll departments, 13 personnel departments, 13 IT departments, 13 finance departments etc etc etc? Why don't they centralise and allocate each function to one council? The answer is obvious - superfluous jobs would be lost. The winner would be the council tax payer. . As for "Chief Executives" - what can we say? Do you remember when the old Town Hall in Darlo housed the entire management of the authority? When the top man was the Town Clerk? When bins were emptied every week on the backs of strong men who got a nice little gift at Christmas from grateful residents? . When we allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum, we ought to have realised that they would also charge us for the privilege of running it![/p][/quote]David - are you suggesting a regional level of government with no local authorities? Certainly not something the Tories or UKIP would vote for. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Mon 10 Dec 12

jdgibson says...

David Lacey wrote:
One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13.
.
The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT.
On the subject of the use of IT in the modern workplace, perhaps you should follow your own advice and not comment on subjects you know very little about.

The public sector is appalling at using IT and if anything does not use it enough.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: One point worth considering. In the "good old days" the management and staff had pen and paper. Now they have computers running just about everything. So when Loopy mentions his/her mythical "cut right back" scenario, what we are talking about is one computer doing the job rather than 13. . The computers were supposed to make the staff more efficient. All they've done is ensure that thousands of unnecessary e-mails are written along with reports gathering dust on shelves and the creation of a completely new department of highly paid boys playing with their toys called IT.[/p][/quote]On the subject of the use of IT in the modern workplace, perhaps you should follow your own advice and not comment on subjects you know very little about. The public sector is appalling at using IT and if anything does not use it enough. jdgibson
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Mon 10 Dec 12

jdgibson says...

David Lacey says... 2:16pm Mon 10 Dec 12
"Rich people were much better off under Brown and Balls."

Everybody was better off under Brown and Balls, It's 2.5 years of a flat lining economy and the total and utter economic incompetence of this government that has made us all poorer.
David Lacey says... 2:16pm Mon 10 Dec 12 "Rich people were much better off under Brown and Balls." Everybody was better off under Brown and Balls, It's 2.5 years of a flat lining economy and the total and utter economic incompetence of this government that has made us all poorer. jdgibson
  • Score: 0

9:15am Tue 11 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

As usual ajtib is wrong. God this is getting to be a habit! In September 2011 the unemployment count was 2.62m and the claimant count was 1.59m. In September 2012 the figures were 2.51m and 1.57m respectively.
.
I know that left wingers relish bad news and would LOVE to see the unemployment count go over 3 million, but if you wish to peddle lies, PLEASE don't use data that can be checked.
.
And, ajtib, I was perfectly clear when I proposed that the 13 North East Councils centralise services, each taking one key task group - finance, IT, HR etc. I was NOT proposing "a regional level of government with no local authorities?". Perhaps that's something else you've just made up?
As usual ajtib is wrong. God this is getting to be a habit! In September 2011 the unemployment count was 2.62m and the claimant count was 1.59m. In September 2012 the figures were 2.51m and 1.57m respectively. . I know that left wingers relish bad news and would LOVE to see the unemployment count go over 3 million, but if you wish to peddle lies, PLEASE don't use data that can be checked. . And, ajtib, I was perfectly clear when I proposed that the 13 North East Councils centralise services, each taking one key task group - finance, IT, HR etc. I was NOT proposing "a regional level of government with no local authorities?". Perhaps that's something else you've just made up? David Lacey
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 11 Dec 12

Homshaw1 says...

The councils are odd organisations. They are full of people who sit in offices on high salaries doing little apart from talking rubbish and making excuses. They are more political than the politicians.

The front line services are underresourced and really poorly supervised. They seem to do as they please. The management are wasteful, arrogant and unprofessional.

I'm not in favour of across the board cuts but there is a need for change
The councils are odd organisations. They are full of people who sit in offices on high salaries doing little apart from talking rubbish and making excuses. They are more political than the politicians. The front line services are underresourced and really poorly supervised. They seem to do as they please. The management are wasteful, arrogant and unprofessional. I'm not in favour of across the board cuts but there is a need for change Homshaw1
  • Score: 0

11:11am Tue 11 Dec 12

the-big-yin says...

MSG wrote:
If only we had an elected mayor, at least we would have a say in the propsed cuts & if the popular choices were not taken you could vote the concil leading mayor out!.
I would like our bus service & town toilets back, not a climate change officer or wheelie bins!
its funny you should mention toilets...i myself applied to take over the running of the toilets in darlington....do you know what i was told...we do not need them opening any longer as the public can use the leisure centre toilets.....as to wheelie bins they are worth the money being spent on them...darlo looks like a tip on bin days...once a fortnight collections are also right for all areas....recycling improves...
[quote][p][bold]MSG[/bold] wrote: If only we had an elected mayor, at least we would have a say in the propsed cuts & if the popular choices were not taken you could vote the concil leading mayor out!. I would like our bus service & town toilets back, not a climate change officer or wheelie bins![/p][/quote]its funny you should mention toilets...i myself applied to take over the running of the toilets in darlington....do you know what i was told...we do not need them opening any longer as the public can use the leisure centre toilets.....as to wheelie bins they are worth the money being spent on them...darlo looks like a tip on bin days...once a fortnight collections are also right for all areas....recycling improves... the-big-yin
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Tue 11 Dec 12

mark.wilkinson says...

There are massive savings that can be made at this and every other council across the country.

They are expert at spending other peoples money - badly in most cases.

I know first hand the amount of waste that goes on and the number of employees who simply take the pi$$ and the situation needs to be urgently rectified.

There is a culture of waste in all councils because they are 'gifted' all this free money every year and don't have to justify the spending of it to anyone. And don't be fooled by the yearly published figures and reports about where our money is being spent - they're about as true as Santa!
There are massive savings that can be made at this and every other council across the country. They are expert at spending other peoples money - badly in most cases. I know first hand the amount of waste that goes on and the number of employees who simply take the pi$$ and the situation needs to be urgently rectified. There is a culture of waste in all councils because they are 'gifted' all this free money every year and don't have to justify the spending of it to anyone. And don't be fooled by the yearly published figures and reports about where our money is being spent - they're about as true as Santa! mark.wilkinson
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Tue 11 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
As usual ajtib is wrong. God this is getting to be a habit! In September 2011 the unemployment count was 2.62m and the claimant count was 1.59m. In September 2012 the figures were 2.51m and 1.57m respectively.
.
I know that left wingers relish bad news and would LOVE to see the unemployment count go over 3 million, but if you wish to peddle lies, PLEASE don't use data that can be checked.
.
And, ajtib, I was perfectly clear when I proposed that the 13 North East Councils centralise services, each taking one key task group - finance, IT, HR etc. I was NOT proposing "a regional level of government with no local authorities?". Perhaps that's something else you've just made up?
Going up - ie present tense means now compared to the previous published figures ie in case of JSA this month to last - any one could pick any month in history and do what you just did. God this is becoming a habit!

Your last point is, as usual for you, impractical and stupid -the point of local government providing local services is that they are locally accountable.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: As usual ajtib is wrong. God this is getting to be a habit! In September 2011 the unemployment count was 2.62m and the claimant count was 1.59m. In September 2012 the figures were 2.51m and 1.57m respectively. . I know that left wingers relish bad news and would LOVE to see the unemployment count go over 3 million, but if you wish to peddle lies, PLEASE don't use data that can be checked. . And, ajtib, I was perfectly clear when I proposed that the 13 North East Councils centralise services, each taking one key task group - finance, IT, HR etc. I was NOT proposing "a regional level of government with no local authorities?". Perhaps that's something else you've just made up?[/p][/quote]Going up - ie present tense means now compared to the previous published figures ie in case of JSA this month to last - any one could pick any month in history and do what you just did. God this is becoming a habit! Your last point is, as usual for you, impractical and stupid -the point of local government providing local services is that they are locally accountable. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Lifetime Townie says...

BMD wrote:
loonyleft wrote: If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up.
It’s not the front line staff that require cutting. Darlington Ada Burns Chief Executive = £187,573 pa United Kingdom David Cameron PM = £142,000 pa Cut the amount of training days, un-needed roles – Gay & Lesbian advice councilors, Climate Change Officers, etc……..
£187573 maybe take home pay so when NICs, gold plated pension contributions, health benefits etc are added then the cost to the tax payers could be around £250,000. And the same idea would apply to the other overpaid execs. at the top of the pile.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: If councils are stripped right back of staff,then you may make savings on council tax,but think about it if councils had virtually no staff,you would have to pay for every service out of your own pocket.Just think your bins, street maintenance, everything,so you would still have to pay up.[/p][/quote]It’s not the front line staff that require cutting. Darlington Ada Burns Chief Executive = £187,573 pa United Kingdom David Cameron PM = £142,000 pa Cut the amount of training days, un-needed roles – Gay & Lesbian advice councilors, Climate Change Officers, etc……..[/p][/quote]£187573 maybe take home pay so when NICs, gold plated pension contributions, health benefits etc are added then the cost to the tax payers could be around £250,000. And the same idea would apply to the other overpaid execs. at the top of the pile. Lifetime Townie
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Tue 11 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour.

Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax.

But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World".

Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub.

And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves.

Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will.
Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour. Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax. But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World". Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub. And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves. Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will. johnny_p
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Tue 11 Dec 12

mark.wilkinson says...

johnny_p wrote:
Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour.

Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax.

But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World".

Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub.

And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves.

Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will.
I agree with your comments.

But the kind of hardship you're talking about leads to civil unrest and ulitimately war. It's happened before and is certainly capable of happening again.

You're right about the Labour Party and their policies - they want everyone on some kind of benefit - but your prediction of the future under them Is truly terrifying. I hope you're wrong. There has to be another way is all I'm saying.
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour. Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax. But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World". Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub. And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves. Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will.[/p][/quote]I agree with your comments. But the kind of hardship you're talking about leads to civil unrest and ulitimately war. It's happened before and is certainly capable of happening again. You're right about the Labour Party and their policies - they want everyone on some kind of benefit - but your prediction of the future under them Is truly terrifying. I hope you're wrong. There has to be another way is all I'm saying. mark.wilkinson
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Tue 11 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

johnny_p wrote:
Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour.

Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax.

But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World".

Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub.

And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves.

Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will.
What utter crap as usual Jonny P - but I suggest sending your comment in a letter to the Daily Mail - those thick fascist types will love it!
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Labour have bribed a whole generation of people to well, vote Labour. Millions of people now expect cushy, well paid jobs working for the Public Sector, or doing fine on benefits. It's all okay because those who are working will pay with stealth taxes and massive increases in council tax. But the maths doesn't work- too much going out and not enough coming in. So we'll blame "the bankers", borrow billions and then the PM (Gordon B) can announce in Parliament that he's "saved the World". Sadly, Labour probably will get in again at the next election. There;s too many people who want an easy time and don't want to think about where the money's coming from. After all there's a bottomless pit of the stuff eh? We can criticise our successors, The Tories for having austerity cuts which are, well austere. Imagine that? Our plan is to "spend our way out of recession"- brilliant! You've got my vote Mr Milliband. Roll on the good days of watching Jeremy Kyle in bed until lunchtime and then going down the pub. And you know? I want them to get in again. And quickly. I want the economy in Britain to collapse completely. I want people to know what total failure, ruin and despair are. This time we will maybe remember the pain- we will be crushed, like Germany at the end of the second World War. All down to Labour, and their dreamy, socialist ideology. The 1960's and 70's radicalised students who shook hands with Erich Honecker and formulated their own political ideology despite never working themselves. Labour isn't working. It never has, and I'm sorry never will.[/p][/quote]What utter crap as usual Jonny P - but I suggest sending your comment in a letter to the Daily Mail - those thick fascist types will love it! ajtib3
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Tue 11 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

johnny p, S o labour isn't working,so why is it every time the tories are in power unemployment goes up.When labour is in power everyone watches tv then goes down the pub do they,isn't that what happens now except more and more people can't afford the pub or any form of entertainment.As for Davids idea,each council in the area having one department each,i have never heard such a rubbish idea ever i thought you were supposed to be brainy David,each council with one massive dept each,totally unworkable ,i told you don't worry about saving council tax thats the least of your worries,Osbournes only idea is keep on cutting so slowly but surely the economy will shrink and shrink leaving less and less funds for councils to function with,that's what happened in the thirties and it's happening again capitalism isn't working.
johnny p, S o labour isn't working,so why is it every time the tories are in power unemployment goes up.When labour is in power everyone watches tv then goes down the pub do they,isn't that what happens now except more and more people can't afford the pub or any form of entertainment.As for Davids idea,each council in the area having one department each,i have never heard such a rubbish idea ever i thought you were supposed to be brainy David,each council with one massive dept each,totally unworkable ,i told you don't worry about saving council tax thats the least of your worries,Osbournes only idea is keep on cutting so slowly but surely the economy will shrink and shrink leaving less and less funds for councils to function with,that's what happened in the thirties and it's happening again capitalism isn't working. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Tue 11 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

The usual suspects throwing abuse about again- but failing to put any meaningful suggestions forward.

Oh. By the way, paragraphs, full stops, commas, capital letters and good grammar will make your "comments" much more readable. One Nu Labour scheme I did agree with was adult learning. Sadly though there seems to have been few takers.
The usual suspects throwing abuse about again- but failing to put any meaningful suggestions forward. Oh. By the way, paragraphs, full stops, commas, capital letters and good grammar will make your "comments" much more readable. One Nu Labour scheme I did agree with was adult learning. Sadly though there seems to have been few takers. johnny_p
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Tue 11 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

johnny_p wrote:
The usual suspects throwing abuse about again- but failing to put any meaningful suggestions forward.

Oh. By the way, paragraphs, full stops, commas, capital letters and good grammar will make your "comments" much more readable. One Nu Labour scheme I did agree with was adult learning. Sadly though there seems to have been few takers.
Amazing how you and Lacey pull out the 'ooh your grammar' card to some on these threads.
Surely it would be better to make a sensible comment - pity you and he can never manage that.

Its interesting too that you are always complaining about those at the lower end of employment pay scales - people who are on benefits - most working by the way - and never those super-millionaires robbing us all blind, getting their taxable earnings out of the country and taking massive bonuses for failure.

No you'd rather clobber the nurse, fireman, binman etc. As I've said before, your priorities are all wrong and your loyalties to the Tory party completely unfathomable.

And your understanding of economics - non-existent! The UK economy has always worked best as a mixed economy. The government using the public sector when necessary to trigger growth in the private sector which can rarely do it alone - as we are finding out now.

Stop listening to Osbornes's stubborn rhetoric and understand that 'investing for growth' is preferable to 'government borrowing' to pay for JSA. Which is actually what we have now. This government has had to increase borrowing - contrary to what we were told would happen by this point.

Osborne has failed - as a result he and his lot deserve to be kicked out. After all they're quick to call for failure to be sacked elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: The usual suspects throwing abuse about again- but failing to put any meaningful suggestions forward. Oh. By the way, paragraphs, full stops, commas, capital letters and good grammar will make your "comments" much more readable. One Nu Labour scheme I did agree with was adult learning. Sadly though there seems to have been few takers.[/p][/quote]Amazing how you and Lacey pull out the 'ooh your grammar' card to some on these threads. Surely it would be better to make a sensible comment - pity you and he can never manage that. Its interesting too that you are always complaining about those at the lower end of employment pay scales - people who are on benefits - most working by the way - and never those super-millionaires robbing us all blind, getting their taxable earnings out of the country and taking massive bonuses for failure. No you'd rather clobber the nurse, fireman, binman etc. As I've said before, your priorities are all wrong and your loyalties to the Tory party completely unfathomable. And your understanding of economics - non-existent! The UK economy has always worked best as a mixed economy. The government using the public sector when necessary to trigger growth in the private sector which can rarely do it alone - as we are finding out now. Stop listening to Osbornes's stubborn rhetoric and understand that 'investing for growth' is preferable to 'government borrowing' to pay for JSA. Which is actually what we have now. This government has had to increase borrowing - contrary to what we were told would happen by this point. Osborne has failed - as a result he and his lot deserve to be kicked out. After all they're quick to call for failure to be sacked elsewhere. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 11 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly.

Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?
Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly. Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen? johnny_p
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 11 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks.
Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 11 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks.
Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Tue 11 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

loonyleft wrote:
Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks.
So what are you ideas Loony? Write out a few paragraphs telling us why you think council workers shouldn't lose their jobs in these times of austerity? Tell us what you believe we should do, and why?

And perhaps write without going on about The Tories. tell us about Labour polices and exactly why you believe in them?

Discuss.
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: Jonny ,you may spell and type well ,but your ideas are complete b*ll**ks.[/p][/quote]So what are you ideas Loony? Write out a few paragraphs telling us why you think council workers shouldn't lose their jobs in these times of austerity? Tell us what you believe we should do, and why? And perhaps write without going on about The Tories. tell us about Labour polices and exactly why you believe in them? Discuss. johnny_p
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Tue 11 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

johnny_p wrote:
Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly.

Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?
Interesting you try to defend your 'lets have good grammar' comment rather than the economic performance of your pal George or the rich list tax dodgers.
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly. Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?[/p][/quote]Interesting you try to defend your 'lets have good grammar' comment rather than the economic performance of your pal George or the rich list tax dodgers. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Tue 11 Dec 12

jdgibson says...

johnny_p wrote:
Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly.

Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?
Some people never get the opportunity to receive a degree of education whilst others are educated beyond their innate intellectual ability.

The inherent injustice than runs through the British education system and damages both individuals and society.
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly. Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?[/p][/quote]Some people never get the opportunity to receive a degree of education whilst others are educated beyond their innate intellectual ability. The inherent injustice than runs through the British education system and damages both individuals and society. jdgibson
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Tue 11 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

ajtib3 wrote:
johnny_p wrote:
Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly.

Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?
Interesting you try to defend your 'lets have good grammar' comment rather than the economic performance of your pal George or the rich list tax dodgers.
Okay I will.

George Osbourne has been handed a poisoned chalice by the last government. There is no money. Nothing. So cuts have to be made.

You may argue that "we can spend our way out of recession" (I don't agree), but even if we can- with what? Where is this money?

And the rich are usually rich for a reason. They are innovators, inventors, designers, marketers. They create jobs, and employ millions of people worldwide. Very few people become rich through inheritance, and if they do it soon goes.

When the rich are taxed highly they go. They take their money elsewhere and jobs go too. It is fantasy that we can tax the rich and spread the wealth. We can't- it was tried by Labour in the 1970's and we ended up with the Brain Drain. These people moved elsewhere, and the economy suffered. So that's why even labour daren't tax the wealthy now.

And talking about "pals"- as a Socialist don't you feel uncomfortable about your pal Tony and his huge wealth? That must wrestle with your socialist conscience just a bit?

Discuss......
[quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Because good writing shows a degree of education. It shows you have taken time to think about what you have written and convey your feelings clearly. Or should we all write as we wish? I'm sorry but when these guys hit the keyboard it's like trying to listen to Vicky Pollard. Nonsensical rambling. It's a drunken tramp shouting at you. Who can be bothered to listen?[/p][/quote]Interesting you try to defend your 'lets have good grammar' comment rather than the economic performance of your pal George or the rich list tax dodgers.[/p][/quote]Okay I will. George Osbourne has been handed a poisoned chalice by the last government. There is no money. Nothing. So cuts have to be made. You may argue that "we can spend our way out of recession" (I don't agree), but even if we can- with what? Where is this money? And the rich are usually rich for a reason. They are innovators, inventors, designers, marketers. They create jobs, and employ millions of people worldwide. Very few people become rich through inheritance, and if they do it soon goes. When the rich are taxed highly they go. They take their money elsewhere and jobs go too. It is fantasy that we can tax the rich and spread the wealth. We can't- it was tried by Labour in the 1970's and we ended up with the Brain Drain. These people moved elsewhere, and the economy suffered. So that's why even labour daren't tax the wealthy now. And talking about "pals"- as a Socialist don't you feel uncomfortable about your pal Tony and his huge wealth? That must wrestle with your socialist conscience just a bit? Discuss...... johnny_p
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Johnny - wonderful stuff. Straight to the point and deadly accurate. Ajtib once again ducks and dives in a pathetic attempt to justify his/her position.
.
Let's address a few points he/she has made.
.
Local services. Of course they should be local. But this only applies to FRONT LINE services. Back office stuff can be done anywhere. Some of the more enlightened councils are already carrying out the sharing of services I propose - its NOT my idea. Its called efficiency. I wonder if our resident Loopy one has got this through his/her skull. Seems too hard to comprehend.
.
I posted some Treasury facts above that ajtib and his/her lefty friends have carefully avoided answering because they demolish the fantasy that the coalition is targeting the poor. Here they are again:
.
"The only people paying a higher percentage of their tax this year than they did in 2009 are those earning over £50K. Those at the bottom end (earning £10K) paid 7.8% of their income in tax during the final year of the Labour disaster. Now they are paying 5.7%." This is true.
.
With regard to the rich I said "please remember that under Labour the top rate was 40%. They planned to increase it (2009 budget) to 50% in April 2010 as an election trap. The coalition has settled on 45%. A HIGHER FIGURE THAN LABOUR IMPOSED DURING ITS 13 YEARS OF MISRULE. This is true.
.
A sad attempt to justify the increase to 50% was made saying "the additional tax was needed" or some such lie. As the Treasury has confirmed the tax take WENT DOWN because rich people had sufficient incentive to shift their wealth.
.
Another even sadder attempt was then made by referring to increased VAT. VAT applies to us all, rich or poor. But no mention was made of the freezing of fuel duty. Petrol is now 10p a litre cheaper than it would have been under Labour. And Labour were of course going to increase NI - the jobs tax - putting thousands out of work.
.
In respect of unemployment (falling) claimant count (falling) and people in work (an all time high) the country is slowly and painfully recovering from the disaster that was Labour.
.
Merry Christmas!!!
Johnny - wonderful stuff. Straight to the point and deadly accurate. Ajtib once again ducks and dives in a pathetic attempt to justify his/her position. . Let's address a few points he/she has made. . Local services. Of course they should be local. But this only applies to FRONT LINE services. Back office stuff can be done anywhere. Some of the more enlightened councils are already carrying out the sharing of services I propose - its NOT my idea. Its called efficiency. I wonder if our resident Loopy one has got this through his/her skull. Seems too hard to comprehend. . I posted some Treasury facts above that ajtib and his/her lefty friends have carefully avoided answering because they demolish the fantasy that the coalition is targeting the poor. Here they are again: . "The only people paying a higher percentage of their tax this year than they did in 2009 are those earning over £50K. Those at the bottom end (earning £10K) paid 7.8% of their income in tax during the final year of the Labour disaster. Now they are paying 5.7%." This is true. . With regard to the rich I said "please remember that under Labour the top rate was 40%. They planned to increase it (2009 budget) to 50% in April 2010 as an election trap. The coalition has settled on 45%. A HIGHER FIGURE THAN LABOUR IMPOSED DURING ITS 13 YEARS OF MISRULE. This is true. . A sad attempt to justify the increase to 50% was made saying "the additional tax was needed" or some such lie. As the Treasury has confirmed the tax take WENT DOWN because rich people had sufficient incentive to shift their wealth. . Another even sadder attempt was then made by referring to increased VAT. VAT applies to us all, rich or poor. But no mention was made of the freezing of fuel duty. Petrol is now 10p a litre cheaper than it would have been under Labour. And Labour were of course going to increase NI - the jobs tax - putting thousands out of work. . In respect of unemployment (falling) claimant count (falling) and people in work (an all time high) the country is slowly and painfully recovering from the disaster that was Labour. . Merry Christmas!!! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

11:05am Wed 12 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

David,unemployment is falling, it depends what you want to believe, a lot of people who are out of work are not counted because they have had their benefit stopped,even though they are doing their best to find work.A lot of people are omly doing a few hours part time ,and they are not counted.As for targetting the poor,working people have already had their tax credits cut ,and if you read the press they are being cut back further next april.As for the council with cutting back on spending and not enough spending on growth,you can organise councils any way you like,but eventually many services will be stopped altogether,get that through your thick scull !!!!!!!!
David,unemployment is falling, it depends what you want to believe, a lot of people who are out of work are not counted because they have had their benefit stopped,even though they are doing their best to find work.A lot of people are omly doing a few hours part time ,and they are not counted.As for targetting the poor,working people have already had their tax credits cut ,and if you read the press they are being cut back further next april.As for the council with cutting back on spending and not enough spending on growth,you can organise councils any way you like,but eventually many services will be stopped altogether,get that through your thick scull !!!!!!!! loonyleft
  • Score: 0

11:39am Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Oh dear - "scull". That's what people in boats do isn't it? Look it up Loopy.
.
But here we have a classic example of the left wing mindset.
.
Imagine (horror) Labour are in power and unemployment rises (likely). That means the figures are wrong. Or perhaps unemployment is falling (unlikely) - that means the figures are right.
.
Now Labour are chucked out (hooray!) and the Coalition takes over. Unemployment rises (it hasn't) - the figures are right. Unemployment falls (it is) the figures are wrong.
.
Or if you are Loopy the figures are both right and wrong at the same time.
.
That is how the lefties think. They would be elated if another half million were to be thrown out of work. The creation of a million new private sector jobs (true) is a disaster for Britain. You have to understand the warped and twisted minds of these very sick people in order to appreciate the disaster that would befall Britain if they ever get back into Government.
Oh dear - "scull". That's what people in boats do isn't it? Look it up Loopy. . But here we have a classic example of the left wing mindset. . Imagine (horror) Labour are in power and unemployment rises (likely). That means the figures are wrong. Or perhaps unemployment is falling (unlikely) - that means the figures are right. . Now Labour are chucked out (hooray!) and the Coalition takes over. Unemployment rises (it hasn't) - the figures are right. Unemployment falls (it is) the figures are wrong. . Or if you are Loopy the figures are both right and wrong at the same time. . That is how the lefties think. They would be elated if another half million were to be thrown out of work. The creation of a million new private sector jobs (true) is a disaster for Britain. You have to understand the warped and twisted minds of these very sick people in order to appreciate the disaster that would befall Britain if they ever get back into Government. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

11:52am Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

**********NEWS FLASH**********
.
Record number in work as unemployment falls by 82,000 in three months to 2.51million. Jobless rate falls to 7.8% as 82,000 are no longer unemployed. 29.6million Britons now have a job - the highest number in history.
.
The UK has seen the biggest quarterly fall in unemployment for over a decade.
.
The country's jobless total fell by 82,000 in the three months to October, leaving 2.51million people looking for work - an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent.
.
Now the bad news:
.
The average wage increase for the public sector was 2.5 per cent, compared to just 1.7 per cent for private-sector workers.
.
These figures come from the Office for National Statistics. I assume that Loopy will write to them and tell them that they are wrong. And right. Or wrong and right at the same time. Ajtib will find some way to warp the figures and show that this good news is in fact bad news.
.
Can anyone from the left celebrate good news like this and show pleasure that tens of thousands of desperate people are getting back into the world of work?
.
Probably not!!
**********NEWS FLASH********** . Record number in work as unemployment falls by 82,000 in three months to 2.51million. Jobless rate falls to 7.8% as 82,000 are no longer unemployed. 29.6million Britons now have a job - the highest number in history. . The UK has seen the biggest quarterly fall in unemployment for over a decade. . The country's jobless total fell by 82,000 in the three months to October, leaving 2.51million people looking for work - an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent. . Now the bad news: . The average wage increase for the public sector was 2.5 per cent, compared to just 1.7 per cent for private-sector workers. . These figures come from the Office for National Statistics. I assume that Loopy will write to them and tell them that they are wrong. And right. Or wrong and right at the same time. Ajtib will find some way to warp the figures and show that this good news is in fact bad news. . Can anyone from the left celebrate good news like this and show pleasure that tens of thousands of desperate people are getting back into the world of work? . Probably not!! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

Only David Lacey would find something to cheer about when 2 and a half million people are out of work!

Jonny P said 'and the rich are usually rich for a reason. They are innovators, inventors, designers, marketers'

That would be like the Government's own Trade Minister Stephen Green former head of HSBC (who allowed illegal drug cartels to launder money for years while he was in charge) and who then walked away from his job with a £19m payoff according to the BBC. (and this Government gave him a job!).

And how many more of them have we seen? Contributing to the economy? Innovators - yes and we know what at!

And if George had no money why did they decide to go ahead with a top-down reorganisation of the NHS costing over £3 billion - despite what they said in their Coalition Agreement.

No money - why? Could it be because of the £22 billion plus in tax owed by big businesses.

No money? Because this failed Chancellor is having to borrow millions more than he planned because his economic policies have failed so miserably.

Its all a Tory con and sadly people like Jonny P fall for it every time. What is more he and people like David Lacey gloat as hard working but low paid people struggle to make ends meet, lose their jobs or are forced off benefits into abject poverty.

Its the Tory way - heartless, self-serving and totally corrupt.

Roll on 2015.
Only David Lacey would find something to cheer about when 2 and a half million people are out of work! Jonny P said 'and the rich are usually rich for a reason. They are innovators, inventors, designers, marketers' That would be like the Government's own Trade Minister Stephen Green former head of HSBC (who allowed illegal drug cartels to launder money for years while he was in charge) and who then walked away from his job with a £19m payoff according to the BBC. (and this Government gave him a job!). And how many more of them have we seen? Contributing to the economy? Innovators - yes and we know what at! And if George had no money why did they decide to go ahead with a top-down reorganisation of the NHS costing over £3 billion - despite what they said in their Coalition Agreement. No money - why? Could it be because of the £22 billion plus in tax owed by big businesses. No money? Because this failed Chancellor is having to borrow millions more than he planned because his economic policies have failed so miserably. Its all a Tory con and sadly people like Jonny P fall for it every time. What is more he and people like David Lacey gloat as hard working but low paid people struggle to make ends meet, lose their jobs or are forced off benefits into abject poverty. Its the Tory way - heartless, self-serving and totally corrupt. Roll on 2015. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
**********NEWS FLASH**********
.
Record number in work as unemployment falls by 82,000 in three months to 2.51million. Jobless rate falls to 7.8% as 82,000 are no longer unemployed. 29.6million Britons now have a job - the highest number in history.
.
The UK has seen the biggest quarterly fall in unemployment for over a decade.
.
The country's jobless total fell by 82,000 in the three months to October, leaving 2.51million people looking for work - an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent.
.
Now the bad news:
.
The average wage increase for the public sector was 2.5 per cent, compared to just 1.7 per cent for private-sector workers.
.
These figures come from the Office for National Statistics. I assume that Loopy will write to them and tell them that they are wrong. And right. Or wrong and right at the same time. Ajtib will find some way to warp the figures and show that this good news is in fact bad news.
.
Can anyone from the left celebrate good news like this and show pleasure that tens of thousands of desperate people are getting back into the world of work?
.
Probably not!!
The average salary increase for the public sector was 1.3% 2011-2012 (latest available data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings National Statistics). In the private sector it was 2.2%.

How do you keep getting this stuff so wrong all the time, Deluded? Its getting to be a habit I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: **********NEWS FLASH********** . Record number in work as unemployment falls by 82,000 in three months to 2.51million. Jobless rate falls to 7.8% as 82,000 are no longer unemployed. 29.6million Britons now have a job - the highest number in history. . The UK has seen the biggest quarterly fall in unemployment for over a decade. . The country's jobless total fell by 82,000 in the three months to October, leaving 2.51million people looking for work - an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent. . Now the bad news: . The average wage increase for the public sector was 2.5 per cent, compared to just 1.7 per cent for private-sector workers. . These figures come from the Office for National Statistics. I assume that Loopy will write to them and tell them that they are wrong. And right. Or wrong and right at the same time. Ajtib will find some way to warp the figures and show that this good news is in fact bad news. . Can anyone from the left celebrate good news like this and show pleasure that tens of thousands of desperate people are getting back into the world of work? . Probably not!![/p][/quote]The average salary increase for the public sector was 1.3% 2011-2012 (latest available data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings National Statistics). In the private sector it was 2.2%. How do you keep getting this stuff so wrong all the time, Deluded? Its getting to be a habit I'm afraid. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Wed 12 Dec 12

polytec1 says...

loonyleft wrote:
David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating.

Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP.

As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out.

The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems. polytec1
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

polytec1 wrote:
loonyleft wrote:
David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating.

Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP.

As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out.

The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon.

Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector.

In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy.

Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate.

And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.
[quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.[/p][/quote]You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Oh dear. The pay figures are out today and come from the ONS. Predictably - because they don't fit your preconceived ideas - they are wrong. But they are right. Check the websites right now.
.
And Poly is spot on with her (?) comments regarding AAA rating. If it goes it will be because the so-called cuts haven't been made. Spending is going UP. As for the credit card analogy - excellent! Even Loopy might be able to understand that. Probably not though.
.
I find it incredible that when the country's official body issues statistics showing that the employment situation is improving, a seemingly intelligent person can find a way to criticise good news. Only a dyed in the wool left wing fanatic could be so twisted.
Oh dear. The pay figures are out today and come from the ONS. Predictably - because they don't fit your preconceived ideas - they are wrong. But they are right. Check the websites right now. . And Poly is spot on with her (?) comments regarding AAA rating. If it goes it will be because the so-called cuts haven't been made. Spending is going UP. As for the credit card analogy - excellent! Even Loopy might be able to understand that. Probably not though. . I find it incredible that when the country's official body issues statistics showing that the employment situation is improving, a seemingly intelligent person can find a way to criticise good news. Only a dyed in the wool left wing fanatic could be so twisted. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Wed 12 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

Jonny p If you can't spend your way out of a re cession, that means you will keep on restricting spending for ever.Instead of paying people to stay on the dole the same money could be spent on building projects.David,just because the jobless figures dip for a short while doesn't mean much,when the countries AAA rating is cut there will be an upswing, and no left wingers don't celebrate when things like that happens ,because it means some body is suffering. It was a tory strategist who said unemployment was a price worth paying.
Jonny p If you can't spend your way out of a re cession, that means you will keep on restricting spending for ever.Instead of paying people to stay on the dole the same money could be spent on building projects.David,just because the jobless figures dip for a short while doesn't mean much,when the countries AAA rating is cut there will be an upswing, and no left wingers don't celebrate when things like that happens ,because it means some body is suffering. It was a tory strategist who said unemployment was a price worth paying. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Two correspondents proving what we suspected. Good news is bad news if you are a left winger (whinger).
Two correspondents proving what we suspected. Good news is bad news if you are a left winger (whinger). David Lacey
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Oh dear. The pay figures are out today and come from the ONS. Predictably - because they don't fit your preconceived ideas - they are wrong. But they are right. Check the websites right now.
.
And Poly is spot on with her (?) comments regarding AAA rating. If it goes it will be because the so-called cuts haven't been made. Spending is going UP. As for the credit card analogy - excellent! Even Loopy might be able to understand that. Probably not though.
.
I find it incredible that when the country's official body issues statistics showing that the employment situation is improving, a seemingly intelligent person can find a way to criticise good news. Only a dyed in the wool left wing fanatic could be so twisted.
I have and if you take Annual pay you will see I am correct. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong survey figures.
Complicated I know so I'll let you off that one.

The credit card analogy is inapplicable for government finance. Thought even you would know that.

The problem Deluded is that you take one set of figures and assume all is well. Sadly in the round that is not the case.

Eventually of course an economic upturn may actually come along despite the actions of this government. Hope we live long enough if there's no change in 2015.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. The pay figures are out today and come from the ONS. Predictably - because they don't fit your preconceived ideas - they are wrong. But they are right. Check the websites right now. . And Poly is spot on with her (?) comments regarding AAA rating. If it goes it will be because the so-called cuts haven't been made. Spending is going UP. As for the credit card analogy - excellent! Even Loopy might be able to understand that. Probably not though. . I find it incredible that when the country's official body issues statistics showing that the employment situation is improving, a seemingly intelligent person can find a way to criticise good news. Only a dyed in the wool left wing fanatic could be so twisted.[/p][/quote]I have and if you take Annual pay you will see I am correct. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong survey figures. Complicated I know so I'll let you off that one. The credit card analogy is inapplicable for government finance. Thought even you would know that. The problem Deluded is that you take one set of figures and assume all is well. Sadly in the round that is not the case. Eventually of course an economic upturn may actually come along despite the actions of this government. Hope we live long enough if there's no change in 2015. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

I believe the OBR. Do you?
I believe the OBR. Do you? David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Sorry - ONS. But I also believe the OBR.
Sorry - ONS. But I also believe the OBR. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Wed 12 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

If we lose the AAA rating, it's because borrowing is going up to pay benefits to all the people who have lost their jobs.The jobless total is still over a million more than before the election,so not much to celebrate there,and Jonny the reason labour governments pay out so much in benefits is because there are so many tight fisted employers!!!!
If we lose the AAA rating, it's because borrowing is going up to pay benefits to all the people who have lost their jobs.The jobless total is still over a million more than before the election,so not much to celebrate there,and Jonny the reason labour governments pay out so much in benefits is because there are so many tight fisted employers!!!! loonyleft
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

David Lacey wrote:
I believe the OBR. Do you?
I wouldn't believe the OBR - it is consistently wrong and this has been shown.

ONS provides statistics with the best quality they can. But interpretation of certain datasets can be misleading if you don't know what you're looking at.

For example - Cameron claims the number of private sector jobs went up by a million since the election. a true figure but it needs explaining.

A massive slice of it was re-coding of bank sector jobs which had been in the public sector temporarily when the Government took them over.

Also further and higher education colleges were moved out of the public sector to be re-coded as private in late 2010.

So that million were not all new jobs - some were just re-coded. The number of recodes represented about half the figure. Doesn't give quite as good a sound-bite.

Politicians use data to suit - they don't have to explain it. Some TV people (Andrew Neil for example) do seem clued up but often they don't pick up the nuances of data series either so politicians often get away with these sort of statements.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I believe the OBR. Do you?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't believe the OBR - it is consistently wrong and this has been shown. ONS provides statistics with the best quality they can. But interpretation of certain datasets can be misleading if you don't know what you're looking at. For example - Cameron claims the number of private sector jobs went up by a million since the election. a true figure but it needs explaining. A massive slice of it was re-coding of bank sector jobs which had been in the public sector temporarily when the Government took them over. Also further and higher education colleges were moved out of the public sector to be re-coded as private in late 2010. So that million were not all new jobs - some were just re-coded. The number of recodes represented about half the figure. Doesn't give quite as good a sound-bite. Politicians use data to suit - they don't have to explain it. Some TV people (Andrew Neil for example) do seem clued up but often they don't pick up the nuances of data series either so politicians often get away with these sort of statements. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 12 Dec 12

polytec1 says...

ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
loonyleft wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.
Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants.

Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry.

How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate.

I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government.

Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.
[quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.[/p][/quote]You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.[/p][/quote]Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means. polytec1
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Wed 12 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Polytec - this is sensational stuff. Where have you been when we've been under attack from raving half brained socialists for yonks? Welcome, welcome, welcome.
.
You will note that ajtib insists on evidence to support views contrary to his/hers, but such evidence is significantly absent when he/she makes lurid, ridiculous statements such as the "1.5 multiplier" joke.
.
Please keep returning to the site and give us the benefit of your opinions.
Polytec - this is sensational stuff. Where have you been when we've been under attack from raving half brained socialists for yonks? Welcome, welcome, welcome. . You will note that ajtib insists on evidence to support views contrary to his/hers, but such evidence is significantly absent when he/she makes lurid, ridiculous statements such as the "1.5 multiplier" joke. . Please keep returning to the site and give us the benefit of your opinions. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

polytec1 wrote:
ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
loonyleft wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.
Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants.

Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry.

How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate.

I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government.

Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.
Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own.

Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow.
[quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.[/p][/quote]You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.[/p][/quote]Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.[/p][/quote]Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own. Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Lifetime Townie says...

There's a lot of meaningful discussion here aswell as a load of ????.
I hope that the Darlo & Durham council execs, cabinet members and others read this and if they understand what has been said about them and they should then take note of it!! After all they are employed by the public.
There's a lot of meaningful discussion here aswell as a load of ????. I hope that the Darlo & Durham council execs, cabinet members and others read this and if they understand what has been said about them and they should then take note of it!! After all they are employed by the public. Lifetime Townie
  • Score: 0

9:31am Thu 13 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Your jibes get even more pathetic ajtib. Juvenile, playground stuff.
Your jibes get even more pathetic ajtib. Juvenile, playground stuff. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

11:32am Thu 13 Dec 12

polytec1 says...

ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
loonyleft wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.
Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.
Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own. Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow.
Teach me economics? I'm asking you to provide evidence of your claims. I know what the multiplier effect is and I also know that it hasn't worked as evidenced by the financial position we are in. Why don't you answer the questions I put to you rather than sidestepping them with a patronising remark?

As you seem to profess knowledge of economics, do you not think it's time to accept that "demand-side" measures have failed and instead focus on the "supply-side"?
[quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.[/p][/quote]You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.[/p][/quote]Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.[/p][/quote]Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own. Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow.[/p][/quote]Teach me economics? I'm asking you to provide evidence of your claims. I know what the multiplier effect is and I also know that it hasn't worked as evidenced by the financial position we are in. Why don't you answer the questions I put to you rather than sidestepping them with a patronising remark? As you seem to profess knowledge of economics, do you not think it's time to accept that "demand-side" measures have failed and instead focus on the "supply-side"? polytec1
  • Score: 0

11:40am Thu 13 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Wow! I am even more impressed. You've got his back against a wall. Stand by for the inevitable abusive reply.
Wow! I am even more impressed. You've got his back against a wall. Stand by for the inevitable abusive reply. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Thu 13 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

polytec1 wrote:
ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
ajtib3 wrote:
polytec1 wrote:
loonyleft wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.
Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.
You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.
Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.
Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own. Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow.
Teach me economics? I'm asking you to provide evidence of your claims. I know what the multiplier effect is and I also know that it hasn't worked as evidenced by the financial position we are in. Why don't you answer the questions I put to you rather than sidestepping them with a patronising remark?

As you seem to profess knowledge of economics, do you not think it's time to accept that "demand-side" measures have failed and instead focus on the "supply-side"?
Your last paragraph gives a good clue to me that you are probably still a student of the subject.

When you get out into 'real-world' economics you'll realise the difference.

There's enough about if you look - you'll find it of interest I'm sure.
[quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajtib3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David i've answered the question, people who are unemployed are not being counted in the total.the staff in the dwp are unde orders to find the least little excuse to deny people benefits,even when they are doing their best to find work.so the figures are false,Back on the subject,if every thing in the economy was so good and employment was going up why would they be making so many cuts to the money available to councils .Never mind David,the government is strangling the economy...,and they say their is no alternative i hope your money does't run out.[/p][/quote]Loonyleft - you've repeatedly referred to the AAA rating being under threat by the cuts. If you read any respectable publication, you'll note that on the contrary, the cuts are actually ensuring that we KEEP the AAA rating. Also, you talk about the cuts to council budgets then go on to state the Govt. is strangling the economy in the following sentence. The solution to the economic problems is absolutely not employing people to sit in town halls and enforce pointless bureaucracy. Such jobs make no positive contribution to GDP. As for the money running out point in your last excuse for a sentence, if you follow the Labour guide to economics then the money WILL run out. The Labour "solution" is borrowing more money to create more non-skilled "jobs". Let me ask you this, would you take out a credit card, then instead of paying off the balance in full, take out a second and a third and a fourth etc. to pay off the debts using borrowed money instead of living within your means? If you have any common sense your answer will surely be no which proves the point that you don't actually believe in the Labour "solution" since the credit card example I just mentioned is based on the same flawed principle championed by Labour as the answer to our economic problems.[/p][/quote]You are wrong - our AAA rating is very likely to go soon. Oddly it is a common mis-judgement to believe that the public sector doesn't contribute to GDP. The labour market multiplier means that the average mid-range paid civil servant generates 1.5 jobs in the private sector. In the UK a successful economy is not when there is no public sector but when the public sector operates alongside the private sector to generate growth in the economy. Your last point by the way is mis-guided - Government finances are nothing like personal ones - the credit card analogy has been well proven to be inappropriate. And anyway this Government is actually borrowing more not less! The difference is it is borrowing more to pay people JSA - wouldn't it be better to borrow more to invest in the economy and generate jobs.[/p][/quote]Our AAA rating is under threat but without the cuts it would have been a foregone conclusion as has been widely noted by economists and market participants. Show me evidence of the multiplier effect because I don't for 1 second believe that employing 1 person in a town hall leads to another 1.5 jobs in the private sector. The cost of complying with town hall bureaucracy far outweighs the benefits to private industry. How has the credit card analogy been proven to be inappropriate? A person paying off borrowings with debt is akin to the Government borrowing money to pay off debt. Explain how the 2 scenarios differ in such a fashion as to render my credit card analogy inappropriate. I disagree - Government borrowing would be a better use of funds IF used wisely. Unfortunately, Labour's idea is to borrow money at market rates and invest it in projects that consistently yield significantly less than the interest due on the borrowings. This is exactly what happened throughout their most recent tenure and is exactly the reason we are faced with the prospect of spending cuts for the foreseeable future. Aside from everything else, running for-profit businesses is outside the remit of Government. Casting political views aside, continuing to borrow and spend someone else's money WILL lead us down the same path as Southern Europe which is both obviously undesirable and unnecessary. It's high time EVERYONE learned to live within their means.[/p][/quote]Well its certainly not my job to teach you economics so I suggest you do a bit of research on your own. Deluded Lacey - keep cheering from the sidelines - you may learn something - but I doubt anything could get through somehow.[/p][/quote]Teach me economics? I'm asking you to provide evidence of your claims. I know what the multiplier effect is and I also know that it hasn't worked as evidenced by the financial position we are in. Why don't you answer the questions I put to you rather than sidestepping them with a patronising remark? As you seem to profess knowledge of economics, do you not think it's time to accept that "demand-side" measures have failed and instead focus on the "supply-side"?[/p][/quote]Your last paragraph gives a good clue to me that you are probably still a student of the subject. When you get out into 'real-world' economics you'll realise the difference. There's enough about if you look - you'll find it of interest I'm sure. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Thu 13 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

See what I mean - the abuse has started. What a failure this person is!
See what I mean - the abuse has started. What a failure this person is! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Thu 13 Dec 12

polytec1 says...

Real-world economics eh? That's rather ironic given that you're trying to claim that employing civil servants has a positive multiplier effect despite the national balance sheet providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Again, you've sidestepped another question. Are you sure you aren't a town hall bureaucrat?
Real-world economics eh? That's rather ironic given that you're trying to claim that employing civil servants has a positive multiplier effect despite the national balance sheet providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Again, you've sidestepped another question. Are you sure you aren't a town hall bureaucrat? polytec1
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Thu 13 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

That would mean a basic education has been achieved and possibly an O level awarded. Neither is likely with this failure.
That would mean a basic education has been achieved and possibly an O level awarded. Neither is likely with this failure. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 13 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

polytec1 wrote:
Real-world economics eh? That's rather ironic given that you're trying to claim that employing civil servants has a positive multiplier effect despite the national balance sheet providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Again, you've sidestepped another question. Are you sure you aren't a town hall bureaucrat?
I'll humour you Poly just this once.

The Treasury commissioned work to assess the economic impact of moving civil servants to the regions.

The results suggested that the ratio of the impact was 1:1.5 ie the transfer of 2 jobs created 1 extra in the local private sector.

It was called the Lyons Report and I've linked it here.

http://www.hm-treasu
ry.gov.uk/consult_ly
ons_index.htm

Hope that helps.
[quote][p][bold]polytec1[/bold] wrote: Real-world economics eh? That's rather ironic given that you're trying to claim that employing civil servants has a positive multiplier effect despite the national balance sheet providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Again, you've sidestepped another question. Are you sure you aren't a town hall bureaucrat?[/p][/quote]I'll humour you Poly just this once. The Treasury commissioned work to assess the economic impact of moving civil servants to the regions. The results suggested that the ratio of the impact was 1:1.5 ie the transfer of 2 jobs created 1 extra in the local private sector. It was called the Lyons Report and I've linked it here. http://www.hm-treasu ry.gov.uk/consult_ly ons_index.htm Hope that helps. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Thu 13 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

The maxed out credit card analogy? you could read this - there are others similar - all agree that it is an inappropriate analogy.

http://anotherangryv
oice.blogspot.co.uk/
2012/06/maxed-out-cr
edit-card-government
-debt.html

Hope this helps too. Of course, the nature of economics is such that economists will have different views. I'm afraid you have to make your choice about what you believe. In truth there are no absolute right answers.

If there were, the Chancellors of all governments would follow the same approach.

That's life.
The maxed out credit card analogy? you could read this - there are others similar - all agree that it is an inappropriate analogy. http://anotherangryv oice.blogspot.co.uk/ 2012/06/maxed-out-cr edit-card-government -debt.html Hope this helps too. Of course, the nature of economics is such that economists will have different views. I'm afraid you have to make your choice about what you believe. In truth there are no absolute right answers. If there were, the Chancellors of all governments would follow the same approach. That's life. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Thu 13 Dec 12

ajtib3 says...

PS Polytec - I have never worked in a Town Hall - and I am now retired so unlikely too.

However, there is a mind-set perpetrated by the Tories for political mantra reasons that is trying to demonise all public sector workers.

I think it is partly mistaken though not totally. The problem with the public sector I think is one of the distribution of salaries. The top levels have pulled away from the rest quite disproportionately. That needs addressing before attacks on mid or lower level providers of useful and vital services.

And I would agree that some councillors take far too much in allowances for what they do.

However, I hold to the belief that the UK economy works best when the public sector acts as a positive boost to the private sector when the private sector cannot generate that for itself. I think that's where we are now.
PS Polytec - I have never worked in a Town Hall - and I am now retired so unlikely too. However, there is a mind-set perpetrated by the Tories for political mantra reasons that is trying to demonise all public sector workers. I think it is partly mistaken though not totally. The problem with the public sector I think is one of the distribution of salaries. The top levels have pulled away from the rest quite disproportionately. That needs addressing before attacks on mid or lower level providers of useful and vital services. And I would agree that some councillors take far too much in allowances for what they do. However, I hold to the belief that the UK economy works best when the public sector acts as a positive boost to the private sector when the private sector cannot generate that for itself. I think that's where we are now. ajtib3
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Thu 13 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

AJTIUB, You mention that there maybe to many people on high wages working for councils,isn't that partly human nature you have banks in debt to the government,still paying huge wages,share holders still extracting as much as they can out of their companies.They reckon the legend of the the captain going down with his ship is a myth,bosses always sacrifice the plebs to save themselves!
AJTIUB, You mention that there maybe to many people on high wages working for councils,isn't that partly human nature you have banks in debt to the government,still paying huge wages,share holders still extracting as much as they can out of their companies.They reckon the legend of the the captain going down with his ship is a myth,bosses always sacrifice the plebs to save themselves! loonyleft
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Thu 13 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

loonyleft wrote:
If we lose the AAA rating, it's because borrowing is going up to pay benefits to all the people who have lost their jobs.The jobless total is still over a million more than before the election,so not much to celebrate there,and Jonny the reason labour governments pay out so much in benefits is because there are so many tight fisted employers!!!!
Loony- I've looked at your writing style.

It's not consistent is it? Not consistently bad I mean. You're a fake aren't you- a trolling fraudster who is just here trying to be controversial, inflammatory and annoying.

You've let your mask slip there- you're English suddenly improved. It's there for all to see.
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: If we lose the AAA rating, it's because borrowing is going up to pay benefits to all the people who have lost their jobs.The jobless total is still over a million more than before the election,so not much to celebrate there,and Jonny the reason labour governments pay out so much in benefits is because there are so many tight fisted employers!!!![/p][/quote]Loony- I've looked at your writing style. It's not consistent is it? Not consistently bad I mean. You're a fake aren't you- a trolling fraudster who is just here trying to be controversial, inflammatory and annoying. You've let your mask slip there- you're English suddenly improved. It's there for all to see. johnny_p
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Thu 13 Dec 12

johnny_p says...

.... and that "you're" should have been a "your".

But you know that don't you.....?!
.... and that "you're" should have been a "your". But you know that don't you.....?! johnny_p
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Thu 13 Dec 12

David Lacey says...

Johnny - I think you are being too kind.
Johnny - I think you are being too kind. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Thu 13 Dec 12

loonyleft says...

Jonny ,I admit it i am a fraud i work at a well known national bank and i put comments on here during work hours,when i'm bored how did you guess.
Jonny ,I admit it i am a fraud i work at a well known national bank and i put comments on here during work hours,when i'm bored how did you guess. loonyleft
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree