The left's mistake

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/the-left-s-mistake-1.1035923

[hibsbollah]

I agree with his second paragraph, 'theres no getting away from it, im starting to think like a Tory'. He's also correct in his analysis about the consultant invasion into the public sector in the New Labour years. The jump from this analysis, to his suggestion that the public sector should bend over and accept a good shafting from the rapacious right, is harder to agree with.

[Jack]

hibsbollah 08:44 AM Today
I agree with his second paragraph,
'theres no getting away from it, im
starting to think like a Tory'. He's
also correct in his analysis about the
consultant invasion into the public
sector in the New Labour years. The
jump from this analysis, to his
suggestion that the public sector
should bend over and accept a good
shafting from the rapacious right, is
harder to agree with.
.
Whoa!
.
Consultants were introduced in numbers into the Civil Service by Thatcher because she didn't trust the Civil Servants. Its always been a wee perk to see your pals get a wee job.

[IndieHibby]

While I'm inclined to sympathise with the general premise of the necessity to make cuts in the public sector, I get frustrated with the base analysis that seems to be endemic in the msm.
What would the author say about the comparison of the average pay in the private sector (with a pay pyramid which includes millions of minimum-wage workers) with a public sector made up
of doctors, teachers, police, fire, university professors, lawyers, judges - you get the idea...
Or is that too much to ask of journalists these days?

[RyeSloan]

While I'm inclined to sympathise with the general premise of the necessity to make cuts in the public sector, I get frustrated with the base analysis that seems to be endemic in the msm.
What would the author say about the comparison of the average pay in the private sector (with a pay pyramid which includes millions of minimum-wage workers) with a public sector made up
of doctors, teachers, police, fire, university professors, lawyers, judges - you get the idea...
Or is that too much to ask of journalists these days?

Clearly not all newspapers or journos are born equal.

The analysis (according to the Economist) is as follows:

Public sector wages are on average 15% higher for men and 25% for women.

However adjused for education and qualifications the difference is 2% higher for men and 7% higher for women.

A two year pay freeze would bring these back in line with the private sector and save a net £5.5bn (0.4% GDP)



Considering the governments own wage bill accounts for a quarter of all spending I think it would be madness not to look at that area for some sort of savings, savings which will of course help to secure their workers jobs in the future!!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Considering the governments own wage bill accounts for a quarter of all spending I think it would be madness not to look at that area for some sort of savings, savings which will of course help to secure their workers jobs in the future!!

I think freezing everyone's pay in the public sector because the average wage is high is typical of the clumsy, unthinking approach this lot are taking.

Why not trim the wage bill by weeding out highly paid managers in unnecessary posts?

[Leicester Fan]

Why not trim the wage bill by weeding out highly paid managers in unnecessary posts?

That's likely to happen too in the not too distant future. Seeing as you've suggested it I hope you won't be crying crocodile tears when it happens.

[SlickShoes]

So for once the pay in the public sector is DECENT, its not great. Its great for a small % at the very top, these are the ones that can afford to take pay cuts.

I have worked in the public sector for 5 years now and when i started my job paid many thousands LESS than anything in the private sector. Now my job pays about the same as a private sector job of the same type. Clearly there are differences in these working environments but the public sector is nearly always underpaid for most compared to the private sector, as soon as something like what has happened recently happens everyone jumps on the public sector as a whole. Not just the fat cats at the top, everyone gets the abuse and its really uncalled for.

The hit you take working in public sector rather than private is that your job is probably more secure in the long term, usually this is offset by making a bit less than a similar job in the private sector would. As soon as the private sector starts to collapse and wages start to stagnate or drop all the mud gets slung at public sector workers who are bleeding the country dry based on the assumption because its the public sector its not "real" work.

[Leicester Fan]

So for once the pay in the public sector is DECENT, its not great. Its great for a small % at the very top, these are the ones that can afford to take pay cuts.

I have worked in the public sector for 5 years now and when i started my job paid many thousands LESS than anything in the private sector. Now my job pays about the same as a private sector job of the same type. Clearly there are differences in these working environments but the public sector is nearly always underpaid for most compared to the private sector, as soon as something like what has happened recently happens everyone jumps on the public sector as a whole. Not just the fat cats at the top, everyone gets the abuse and its really uncalled for.

The hit you take working in public sector rather than private is that your job is probably more secure in the long term, usually this is offset by making a bit less than a similar job in the private sector would. As soon as the private sector starts to collapse and wages start to stagnate or drop all the mud gets slung at public sector workers who are bleeding the country dry based on the assumption because its the public sector its not "real" work.
My daughter did her work experience at our local county council. She reckoned that all the women there did was to eat chocolate and play patience on the computer.
When you add the excellent pension scheme, the holidays and guaranteed sick pay, the public sector isn't doing too badly.

[SlickShoes]

My daughter did her work experience at our local county council. She reckoned that all the women there did was to eat chocolate and play patience on the computer.
When you add the excellent pension scheme, the holidays and guaranteed sick pay, the public sector isn't doing too badly.

Public Sector does not simply = council workers.

Ive worked in a private sector job with people that done nothing but play solitaire all day and make tea.

I work as Technical Support in a university, i put in a lot of hours, i work hard, i develop my skills on my own, i do overtime, i am never off sick. But what does that matter when someone knows a council worker who eats biscuits all day eh.

What they need to do is weed out the people on stupid money and people that do NO work or just enough to get by, then they might get somewhere. The same could be said about the private sector really.

Its the "im in the private sector so i work harder" attitude that annoys me and also the image you portray that all public sector workers do is eat biscuits and drink tea.

I worked in the register office years ago and 2 of the guys i shared an office were the hardest working people i have ever worked with, doing a job that earned a maximum of 12 grand a year, they worked from the moment they got in the door took a half hour lunch and worked solidly until they left at 5pm.

Do private sector workers really think that everyone in the public sector is on a free ride from the government? we didnt try to get our jobs? just walked into them, we dont have any skills? we just sit around all day and do nothing wasting tax payers money? Seems that way.

[Leicester Fan]

Do private sector workers really think that everyone in the public sector is on a free ride from the government? we didnt try to get our jobs? just walked into them, we dont have any skills? we just sit around all day and do nothing wasting tax payers money? Seems that way.

I'm not saying that everyone in the public sector does nothing but I'd guess that we could lose 50% 0f the office staff and your average customer/ratepayer/consumer wouldn't notice much difference

[Borders Hibby]

I'm not saying that everyone in the public sector does nothing but I'd guess that we could lose 50% 0f the office staff and your average customer/ratepayer/consumer wouldn't notice much difference

Certainly 50% of civil servants.:agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not saying that everyone in the public sector does nothing but I'd guess that we could lose 50% 0f the office staff and your average customer/ratepayer/consumer wouldn't notice much difference

If you're David Cameron or George Osbourne then pubic services don't really affect you.

If you're old or young, have children you can't afford to educate privately, if you can't afford to see a doctor privately, basically if you're in any way vulnerable, then public services matter and matter crucially.

Out of interest, once you start slashing services for ordinary people and laying off half the workforce - you have to pay them redundancy.

You lose out on the income tax these people would have paid.

The economy loses out on the wages they would have spent.

On a day where another thread is discussing the hundreds of jobs that might be lost by one of Edinburgh's bigger private sector employers, where are all these laid-off workers going to find employment?

There's no growth in putting people out of work is there?

Of course, if it's not really about growth and just about a hatred of the public sector, a hatred of people looking out for one another - well that's another thing. It's a pity there isn't the honesty in the Conservative ranks to admit it.

[Leicester Fan]

Without being political it's a fact that the private sector creates wealth, the public sector consumes wealth.

As we all (public and private alike) only pay a proportion of our wages as tax it's obvious that the taxes collected from public sector workers only covers a small proportion of their expense . It's totally unsustainable to keep on expanding the public sector, 900,000 extra jobs since 1997 at the expense of the private sector.

I don't want to be rude after my faux pas the other night but saying that the Tories are cutting spending just to spite poor people is totally ridiculous.

[Borders Hibby]

If you're David Cameron or George Osbourne then pubic services don't really affect you.

If you're old or young, have children you can't afford to educate privately, if you can't afford to see a doctor privately, basically if you're in any way vulnerable, then public services matter and matter crucially.

Out of interest, once you start slashing services for ordinary people and laying off half the workforce - you have to pay them redundancy.

You lose out on the income tax these people would have paid.

The economy loses out on the wages they would have spent.

On a day where another thread is discussing the hundreds of jobs that might be lost by one of Edinburgh's bigger private sector employers, where are all these laid-off workers going to find employment?

There's no growth in putting people out of work is there?

Of course, if it's not really about growth and just about a hatred of the public sector, a hatred of people looking out for one another - well that's another thing. It's a pity there isn't the honesty in the Conservative ranks to admit it.

Thats the problem, the policies are made along the lines of party politics and not economic theory, that was why I had some faith in the Lib Dems! Doh!!!

[hibsbollah]

Without being political it's a fact that the private sector creates wealth, the public sector consumes wealth.

:tee hee: Thats brilliant. Thats about as far away from being a)non-political or b) a fact, as its possible to get:top marks

[Borders Hibby]

:tee hee: Thats brilliant. Thats about as far away from being a)non-political or b) a fact, as its possible to get:top marks

The biggest purchaser in the UK is the government, so they must create some wealth.

[Leicester Fan]

:tee hee: Thats brilliant. Thats about as far away from being a)non-political or b) a fact, as its possible to get:top marks
What profit does the public sector create?

[Darth Hibbie]

What profit does the public sector create?

Is that not the whole point of the public sector though?:confused:

[Borders Hibby]

Is that not the whole point of the public sector though?:confused:

Maybe it should be run more like a business with the excesses or "profits" ploughed back into the country. A bit like Hibs really! We dont want to see waste or people taking a dividend.

[Leicester Fan]

Is that not the whole point of the public sector though?:confused:
I'm not arguing that fact that's why I said I was being non-political.

[Darth Hibbie]

Maybe it should be run more like a business with the excesses or "profits" ploughed back into the country. A bit like Hibs really! We dont want to see waste or people taking a dividend.

I agree money that is provided in the public sector should not be wasted but it is impossible to run it like a business. How do you make a profit on free health care or free education


I'm not arguing that fact that's why I said I was being non-political.

At the end of the day it is not really possible to compare the public and private sector. You did ask the question and it really in not a fair question.

[SlickShoes]

I dont think you understand the point of the public sector. I think you still think that public sector = council offices.

I have worked in Universities for 5 years and these are places that you simply cannot run like a business, you couldnt just sack 50% of the staff due to cuts because then the place is understaffed and no one is there to educate your children.

The aim of places like these are to educate, and prepare students for what comes next, making a profit is not something that education establishments should be trying to do. If you turn it into a business then you wreck everything about education, you cannot run everything like a business.

If you think these are services we can sack 50% of the workers then you are off your head.

[Borders Hibby]

I agree money that is provided in the public sector should not be wasted but it is impossible to run it like a business. How do you make a profit on free health care or free education



At the end of the day it is not really possible to compare the public and private sector. You did ask the question and it really in not a fair question.

I agree but need to find a way of judging performance.

[Leicester Fan]

At the end of the day it is not really possible to compare the public and private sector. You did ask the question and it really in not a fair question.

I made a statement saying that the public sector consumed wealth, which it does, it gets it's money from taxes and that the private sector creates wealth which it does, it has no access to taxpayers money and has to earn it's own money through selling goods and services. These are unanswerable facts but Hibollah tried to ridicule them and I was asking him (and still waiting) for him to justify his statement.

[Borders Hibby]

I made a statement saying that the public sector consumed wealth, which it does, it gets it's money from taxes and that the private sector creates wealth which it does, it has no access to taxpayers money and has to earn it's own money through selling goods and services. These are unanswerable facts but Hibollah tried to ridicule them and I was asking him (and still waiting) for him to justify his statement.

What does that make RBS?

[Leicester Fan]

What does that make RBS?
A bank.

[Darth Hibbie]

I agree but need to find a way of judging performance.

:agree: Absolutely.

I think at the moment its called "best value." How effective it is at the moment I really do not know but I am sure it could be better.

[Darth Hibbie]

I made a statement saying that the public sector consumed wealth, which it does, it gets it's money from taxes and that the private sector creates wealth which it does, it has no access to taxpayers money and has to earn it's own money through selling goods and services. These are unanswerable facts but Hibollah tried to ridicule them and I was asking him (and still waiting) for him to justify his statement.

Thats a pretty naive way of looking at it. The public sector does not consume wealth. Money is invested in it to provide a service to everybody. The private sector benefits greatly from the money invested in the public sector. Its employees get an education, they have access to health facilities that may result in less ill health days. Employees from the public sector spend their wages on the goods and services provided by the public sector. Private companies are can also be provided grants from the government. What about the safety and security that are provided by the fire brigade and the police.

To say that the private sector does not benefit from the tax system is just wrong.

[Jack]

What profit does the public sector create?

This, and your sack 50%, shows just how little you know of what the public sector does.

Its like saying all the private sector are **** because they leech on the public to pay themselves inflated bonuses.

The next time you need the NHS and cant get an appointment, think about the public sector.

The next time your bins don’t get emptied the day you thought they should be and there's nowhere to dump your crap, in fact think about where that goes too, think about the public sector.

The next time your house is burgled or your beaten to a pulp by some thug and the police don’t come round think about the public sector.

The next time you **** the suspension on your car because of a pothole think about the public sector.

The next time the bus is late / missing think about the public sector.

Think about your subsidised kids buss pass for school going from 2 miles to 3 miles.

Think about your kids education.

And so the list goes on.

Think about the public sector when its reduced by a third/half and think about the service it will then be able to provide for you, your wife and kids, your aging parents then.

The public sector isn't there to create profit, Thatcher sold off any bits that could the last time. The public sector is there for the public, not the profit of a greedy few. Think about the profits to be made off the backsides of your ageing parents as they lie covered in excrement and piss because public servant that was once employed to take of it is now claiming the dole instead.

Just think.

[Mibbes Aye]

What profit does the public sector create?

Good grief!

Have you any notion of how much the public sector procures in way of goods and services from the private sector?

To take one example - local authorities. The biggest spend in their budget is on social care and education. These two dwarf everything else by a country mile.

The biggest spend in social care is on over-65s. Nearly half the total budget (same for hospitals as it happens).

The biggest spend on over-65s is on paying for people in care homes and on paying for caring for them at home. Either way, all councils spend most of that money buying it from the private sector.

The bill for health and social care for over-65s is around five billion pounds a year in Scotland, a large chunk of which is going into the private sector.

That's only one area of public sector spend.

It's facile to suggest that the private sector doesn't make a profit from the public sector.

In fact it's facile to entertain the idea that the private sector doesn't depend on the public sector for a substantial chunk of its livelihood.

[RyeSloan]

What I think Leicester is trying ot say is that no matter what the Public Sector puts back into the ecomomy (in terms of £'s) is possibly irrelevant as these £'s have already been taken OUT by taxation.

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need a public sector but it is clear that this sector of the economy is far too large, there are too few tax payers to pay for all the public servants and services. It's quite clear that Governmnet provided services have overreached and that the country can no longer afford it. It's also clear that there is massive waste in public services as a whole and that a fresh approach to a sustainable public service is long overdue....oh and maybe an acceptance that a vibrant and growing private sector is the best way of ensuring we as a country can continue to provide public services to those that need it and to provide proper pay and conditions for the workers doing so?!?

[Borders Hibby]

What I think Leicester is trying ot say is that no matter what the Public Sector puts back into the ecomomy (in terms of £'s) is possibly irrelevant as these £'s have already been taken OUT by taxation.

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need a public sector but it is clear that this sector of the economy is far too large, there are too few tax payers to pay for all the public servants and services. It's quite clear that Governmnet provided services have overreached and that the country can no longer afford it. It's also clear that there is massive waste in public services as a whole and that a fresh approach to a sustainable public service is long overdue....oh and maybe an acceptance that a vibrant and growing private sector is the best way of ensuring we as a country can continue to provide public services to those that need it and to provide proper pay and conditions for the workers doing so?!?

As long as the private sector is properly regulated and abnormal profits are not made I agree.

[Leicester Fan]

What I think Leicester is trying ot say is that no matter what the Public Sector puts back into the ecomomy (in terms of £'s) is possibly irrelevant as these £'s have already been taken OUT by taxation.


That's exactly what I'm saying. I never once suggested that everyone should be forced to send their children to private schools/hospitals or that we should sack all the binmen.

The fact is that public services cost money from our taxes. The private sector has to earn that money. Is that clear?

[Borders Hibby]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I never once suggested that everyone should be forced to send their children to private schools/hospitals or that we should sack all the binmen.

The fact is that public services cost money from our taxes. The private sector has to earn that money. Is that clear?

Apart from me, I am a teacher and pay income tax therefore pay for myself.:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Should the aim of a nation be to ensure the well being of its citizens or to produce wealth in excess of what it actually needs? Seems to me that capitalisms only interest in the welfare of its citizens is to supply labour and consumers.

[RyeSloan]

Should the aim of a nation be to ensure the well being of its citizens or to produce wealth in excess of what it actually needs? Seems to me that capitalisms only interest in the welfare of its citizens is to supply labour and consumers.

Considering our 'capitalist' country spent £120bn on pensions last year, £120bn on healthcare, £84bn on education and £105bn on welfare it would suggest it's interests go somewhat beyond labour and consumers would you not say?

Still I'm sure you have an alternative system that could generate £400bn+ to pay for such things.......

[SlickShoes]

There you go, cuts starting already.

My work had Voluntary Redundancy last year, this was closed. Today it was reopened and along with a jargon filled e-mail it said Voluntary Redundancy is open now and Compulsary Redundancy will come later.

Good times.

[Betty Boop]

There you go, cuts starting already.

My work had Voluntary Redundancy last year, this was closed. Today it was reopened and along with a jargon filled e-mail it said Voluntary Redundancy is open now and Compulsary Redundancy will come later.

Good times.

Do you work for the Council ?

[SlickShoes]

Do you work for the Council ?

Nah i work for a University.

[Geo_1875]

Going back to the title of the thread - the Left's mistake was abandoning their principles in a desperate attempt to gain power. They also forgot that it is the job of a Government to Govern, not to Rule.

[Green Mikey]

Going back to the title of the thread - the Left's mistake was abandoning their principles in a desperate attempt to gain power. They also forgot that it is the job of a Government to Govern, not to Rule.

The left abandoned their principles in order to gain power. I think some people on here vastly inflate the electorates appetite for the left.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I never once suggested that everyone should be forced to send their children to private schools/hospitals or that we should sack all the binmen.

The fact is that public services cost money from our taxes. The private sector has to earn that money. Is that clear?

And what does it do to earn that money? What activities does the private sector engage in to generate the income?

And what would you put in place to make up the gap when you stop public sector investment in building hospitals and schools (money that's going into the private sector)?

SiMar says it's "irrelevant" but I'm not so sure I would think it irrelevant if my firm or my job needed that business.

I hope you weren't one of the ones lambasting Gordon Brown about PPP prior to the election? :greengrin

[Leicester Fan]

I hope you weren't one of the ones lambasting Gordon Brown about PPP prior to the election? :greengrin
I don't know what PPP is. If it's the same as PFI then yes I did. Borrowing money in the most expensive way just to keep the figures off the books.

[Mibbes Aye]

The left abandoned their principles in order to gain power. I think some people on here vastly inflate the electorates appetite for the left.

I agree with the second statement wholeheartedly. I think there is a residual appetite for something progressive, something co-operative, but many people will opt for individual gain (or the perception of it; or the perception of avoiding risk to one's own situation) when it comes to the crunch.

There are a range of reasons as to why that may be (thread in its own right).

Not so sure about the first statement though. In order to effect change one must have power. When it's all said and done, taking a perspective over the long-term, the 97-10 governments will be seen as using their power to attempt a massive piece of social engineering to better the less well-off,to better the disadvantaged - minimum wage, child poverty, tax credits, Sure Start etc etc.

The perspective will also acknowledge massive investment in hospitals and schools to try and bring them up to a reasonable standard and secure a decent infrastructure for those who can't afford to go private, for the next thirty or so years.

What might be regarded as opportunism wasn't at the expense of principles IMO.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't know what PPP is. If it's the same as PFI then yes I did. Borrowing money in the most expensive way just to keep the figures off the books.

So you were criticising a Labour government for investment in the private sector at the expense of the public sector.

But you've just been posting saying the Labour government has spent too much on the public sector, at the expense of the private sector?

More pertinently, what about these points?


And what does it do to earn that money? What activities does the private sector engage in to generate the income?

And what would you put in place to make up the gap when you stop public sector investment in building hospitals and schools (money that's going into the private sector)?

[Leicester Fan]

So you were criticising a Labour government for investment in the private sector at the expense of the public sector.

But you've just been posting saying the Labour government has spent too much on the public sector, at the expense of the private sector?

The govt can borrow money at a cheaper rate than anyone else in the country because lending the money is considered a non-risk investment. In other words the lender knows for sure it will get it's money back. This is how hospitals/schools etc used to be built.
Under PFI the private sector borrows the money at a higher rate and then gets the govt to pay them back with their own mark up placed on top.
The only reason for doing this is an accounting trick to make it look like the govt is borrowing less money than it actually is.




More pertinently, what about these points?


And what does it do to earn that money? What activities does the private sector engage in to generate the income?

And what would you put in place to make up the gap when you stop public sector investment in building hospitals and schools (money that's going into the private sector)?I'm getting bored with this now. It's not such a hard concept to grasp if you've got the will.

If we say for the sake of argument that an average person pays 40% of their income in taxes of all kinds then the govt has to find the other 60% of their wages. That has to come from the private sector.

The larger the public sector the larger the burden on the private sector.There has to be a balance between what the private sector can afford and the size of the public sector.

No one is saying that there shouldn't be any public sector spending just that under the last govt there was an unsustainable imbalance between the public and private sector.

[One Day Soon]

The govt can borrow money at a cheaper rate than anyone else in the country because lending the money is considered a non-risk investment. In other words the lender knows for sure it will get it's money back. This is how hospitals/schools etc used to be built.
Under PFI the private sector borrows the money at a higher rate and then gets the govt to pay them back with their own mark up placed on top.
The only reason for doing this is an accounting trick to make it look like the govt is borrowing less money than it actually is.
Wrong

I'm getting bored with this now. It's not such a hard concept to grasp if you've got the will.

If we say for the sake of argument that an average person pays 40% of their income in taxes of all kinds then the govt has to find the other 60% of their wages. That has to come from the private sector.

The larger the public sector the larger the burden on the private sector.There has to be a balance between what the private sector can afford and the size of the public sector.

No one is saying that there shouldn't be any public sector spending just that under the last govt there was an unsustainable imbalance between the public and private sector.

No there wasn't.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not saying that everyone in the public sector does nothing but I'd guess that we could lose 50% 0f the office staff and your average customer/ratepayer/consumer wouldn't notice much difference

50%?

aye that will help the economy, how many more unemployed on benefits?

How many less people spending in the shops on a saturday?

By all means lets trim the fat, but jesus thats lunacy, even for you!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

What about all the industries that rely on the public sector for income, the private sector will in some ways become smaller due to these cuts. It's just not a forward thinking strategy.

[Leicester Fan]

Like I said I'm bored with this, especially the deliberate misunderstanding and the disagreeing for the sake of it. This will be my last post on this subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-what-is-the-pfi-and-why-is-it-in-such-trouble-on-the-london-underground-457586.htmlPFI the pros and cons.

[Beefster]

When it's all said and done, taking a perspective over the long-term, the 97-10 governments will be seen as using their power to attempt a massive piece of social engineering to better the less well-off,to better the disadvantaged - minimum wage, child poverty, tax credits, Sure Start etc etc.

Ignoring the good things that Labour did under Blair, in 10-15 years time I'd be surprised if the Labour government is remembered for much more than Iraq.

[RyeSloan]

And what does it do to earn that money? What activities does the private sector engage in to generate the income?

And what would you put in place to make up the gap when you stop public sector investment in building hospitals and schools (money that's going into the private sector)?

SiMar says it's "irrelevant" but I'm not so sure I would think it irrelevant if my firm or my job needed that business.

I hope you weren't one of the ones lambasting Gordon Brown about PPP prior to the election? :greengrin

My point was, quite clearly, that this money that you fairly point out is being re-cycled back into the private sector has been extracted from the private sector in the first place. Therefore your continued supposition that somehow the public sector is creating this wealth is totally incorrect.

The private sector creates the vast majority of the governments wealth, the government then re-distributes this through it's annual spending across all departments. It's called the tax system.

[RyeSloan]

What about all the industries that rely on the public sector for income, the private sector will in some ways become smaller due to these cuts. It's just not a forward thinking strategy.

See my response above.....just where do you think the goverment money that is being given to private sector companies comes from in the first place??

Smaller more effective government should mean lower taxes for all and more room for more effective and productive private sector. This in turn increases revenues and by default tax returns giving the government more flexibility in it's finances to facilitate even further economic growth (like EFFECTIVE investment in education, health and infrastructure) so it is maybe a more forward thinking strategy than you have considered and the backwards strategy is to continue to believe that governments know best, that governments should continue to spend regardless of their underlying economies and regardless of what long term good that spending is actually doing!!

[hibsbollah]

See my response above.....just where do you think the goverment money that is being given to provate sector companies comes from in the first place??

Smaller more effective government should mean lower taxes for all and more room for more effective and productive private sector. This in turn increases revenues and by default tax returns giving the government more flexibility in it's finances to facilitate even further economic growth (like investing in education, health and infrastructure) so it imaybe it is a forward thinking strategy and the backwards strategy is to continue to belive that governments know best, that governments should continue to spend regardless of their underlying economies and regardless of what long term good that spendign is actually doing!!

Just out of interest, when coal is being dug out of the ground, railways built, gas and electricity produced and generated, and a thousand other economic activities are carried out by nationalised industry, does the money still come from 'the private sector in the first place'?

People create wealth, political systems can't.

[RyeSloan]

Just out of interest, when coal is being dug out of the ground, railways built, gas and electricity produced and generated, and a thousand other economic activities are carried out by nationalised industry, does the money still come from 'the private sector in the first place'?

People create wealth, political systems can't.

Well in the UK those industries tended to cost money when they nationlised!!

Fact is none of those industries are in the public sector in the UK now so none of them create wealth for the government.

As this was a specific debate about the UK Governments finances and public sector spending are you, out of interest, claiming that the majoirty of the governments income is not derived from money originally generated in the private sector?

[hibsbollah]

Well in the UK those industries tended to cost money when they nationlised!!

Fact is none of those industries are in the public sector in the UK now so none of them create wealth for the government.

As this was a specific debate about the UK Governments finances and public sector spending are you, out of interest, claiming that the majoirty of the governments income is not derived from money originally generated in the private sector?

Obviously not. I'm sure you know i'm not.

Regardless of whether most industries in the UK are privately owned or not, are you suggesting that nationalised industry doesnt/can't make a profit?

[Green Mikey]

Obviously not. I'm sure you know i'm not.

Regardless of whether most industries in the UK are privately owned or not, are you suggesting that nationalised industry doesnt/can't make a profit?

It is not the primary purpose of nationalised industries to make profit unlike private industry which is designed to ultimately increase shareholder wealth.

Nationalised industries are rigid and formulaic in their approach to the marketplace and changes therein, this is mostly due to the vasy majority of nationalised industries having a monopoly or are given considerable subsidies.

When competition is removed and losses can be covered by a government the incentive to make profit is greatly diminished.

[hibsbollah]

It is not the primary purpose of nationalised industries to make profit unlike private industry which is designed to ultimately increase shareholder wealth.

Nationalised industries are rigid and formulaic in their approach to the marketplace and changes therein, this is mostly due to the vasy majority of nationalised industries having a monopoly or are given considerable subsidies.

When competition is removed and losses can be covered by a government the incentive to make profit is greatly diminished.

Nationalised (or more properly State-controlled) industries can, have and continue to make profits and create wealth. I dont know how you analyse what their 'primary purpose' is:confused: It depends on their circumstance.

Neither is there is nothing inherent in nationalised industries that make them 'rigid or formulaic' or indeed make them more likely to form monopolies than private sector companies. In fact, one of the distinct features of the UK economy of the 21st century is the proliferation of private sector monopolies.

I think theres some massive generalisation going on on this and similar threads, as if the public sector are all sprawling, inefficient behemoths with lazy inefficent workforces and the private sector is lean and ruthlessly efficient. The truth is more complicated than that.

[PeeJay]

I made a statement saying that the public sector consumed wealth, which it does, it gets it's money from taxes and that the private sector creates wealth which it does, it has no access to taxpayers money and has to earn it's own money through selling goods and services. These are unanswerable facts but Hibollah tried to ridicule them and I was asking him (and still waiting) for him to justify his statement.

Can't quite agree with you and the answer seems simple to me, but ... surely the public sector purchases goods and services from the private sector thereby creating wealth for the private sector while providing public sector services? :cool2:

[Big Ed]

Is it also not the case that the Government had to step in to save some of the largest Private Sector companies (i.e. the financial institutions) with public funds, thus contributing hugely to the fiscal mess we are in now?

[Green Mikey]

Nationalised (or more properly State-controlled) industries can, have and continue to make profits and create wealth. I dont know how you analyse what their 'primary purpose' is:confused: It depends on their circumstance.

Neither is there is nothing inherent in nationalised industries that make them 'rigid or formulaic' or indeed make them more likely to form monopolies than private sector companies. In fact, one of the distinct features of the UK economy of the 21st century is the proliferation of private sector monopolies.

I think theres some massive generalisation going on on this and similar threads, as if the public sector are all sprawling, inefficient behemoths with lazy inefficent workforces and the private sector is lean and ruthlessly efficient. The truth is more complicated than that.

I'm using primary purpose in terms of the long term objective of a company. Private companies exist to increase the wealth of their owners however state-controlled companies do not have such a distinct remit.

I completely disagree with you on the statement that there has been an increase monopolies. There has mostly been a move towards oligopoly in many UK markets, particularly in formerly state dominated markets of telecoms and utilities . The latter part of the 20th century saw the removal of many state-controlled companies thus reducing the amount of monopolies in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

State-controlled companies have the luxury of the deep pockets and cheap borrowing capabilities provided by a government. These along with other factors can discourage both efficiency and competition in markets thus causing state-controlled companies to become rigid and less productive. Without any punishment for loss or inefficiency there is little to discourage it. Obviously there is a fair bit of generalistion here but it is hard to discuss the smaller details when looking at markets and national industries.

[Borders Hibby]

I'm using primary purpose in terms of the long term objective of a company. Private companies exist to increase the wealth of their owners however state-controlled companies do not have such a distinct remit.

I completely disagree with you on the statement that there has been an increase monopolies. There has mostly been a move towards oligopoly in many UK markets, particularly in formerly state dominated markets of telecoms and utilities . The latter part of the 20th century saw the removal of many state-controlled companies thus reducing the amount of monopolies in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

State-controlled companies have the luxury of the deep pockets and cheap borrowing capabilities provided by a government. These along with other factors can discourage both efficiency and competition in markets thus causing state-controlled companies to become rigid and less productive. Without any punishment for loss or inefficiency there is little to discourage it. Obviously there is a fair bit of generalistion here but it is hard to discuss the smaller details when looking at markets and national industries.

I agree without the profit motive the public sector does tend towards inneficiencies. The change that is needed is to bring in a method of rewarding performance and good practice. Public sector workers need to feel like stakeholders in the way that shareholders do in the private sector. Unfortunately by freezing pay and taking away pension rights workers will be de motivated.

Profit motive is not the solution though. There are market failures that require us to have a strong public sector, but I agree a more efficient one.

Would you prefer Hibs to be owned and run by shareholders who take a dividend, or by a nonprofit making committee run for the good of the club with surpluses used to strengthen the club. If the answer is the latter maybe capitalism isnt the complete answer.:agree:

[RyeSloan]

Obviously not. I'm sure you know i'm not.

Regardless of whether most industries in the UK are privately owned or not, are you suggesting that nationalised industry doesnt/can't make a profit?

Good, so we are clear in this discussion relating to the UK that the public sector is largely funded by taxing the welalth created by the private one. That was my main point. That no matter wht the public sector puts back in in terms of £ that most of this has been already extracted out of the economy in terms of tax.

At no point did I not say nationalised industries could not make a profit but as Green Mikey has pointed out (and the history of britiains nationlised industries shows) they are commonly found to operate in a protected sector and away from the cold wind of competition. Just look at the trevails of the Post Office and the legacy pension issue in BT and you will see clear evidence that nationalised industires are rarely the route to bumper profits and healthy balance sheets!!

[RyeSloan]

Can't quite agree with you and the answer seems simple to me, but ... surely the public sector purchases goods and services from the private sector thereby creating wealth for the private sector while providing public sector services? :cool2:

The point is, and it has been made repeatedly, where did the £'s come from in the first place to allow the public sector to purchase those goods.....it has been taken OUT of the economy in the first place via taxation (or in recent times borrowed from the capital markets). That is not wealth creation.

[PeeJay]

The point is, and it has been made repeatedly, where did the £'s come from in the first place to allow the public sector to purchase those goods.....it has been taken OUT of the economy in the first place via taxation (or in recent times borrowed from the capital markets). That is not wealth creation.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because of it's tax revenue origins this shouldn't be factored in to the wealth creation process? :confused: By procuring goods and services from the private sector it is generating wealth in that private sector, surely? Private sector companies make money, they then develop and invest in goods and services to cater to the public sector demand - this all contributes to company profits and wealth, some of which is then taxed. You cannot just view the public sector in isolation: you have to consider it as part of the whole system surely?

[Borders Hibby]

The point is, and it has been made repeatedly, where did the £'s come from in the first place to allow the public sector to purchase those goods.....it has been taken OUT of the economy in the first place via taxation (or in recent times borrowed from the capital markets). That is not wealth creation.

Where do the £ come from for wealth creation then?

[RyeSloan]

Are you seriously suggesting that just because of it's tax revenue origins this shouldn't be factored in to the wealth creation process? :confused: By procuring goods and services from the private sector it is generating wealth in that private sector, surely? Private sector companies make money, they then develop and invest in goods and services to cater to the public sector demand - this all contributes to company profits and wealth, some of which is then taxed. You cannot just view the public sector in isolation: you have to consider it as part of the whole system surely?

Yes I am seriously suggesting that. The goods and services the government procures is procured using money already taken out of the economy....ergo the 'wealth' has already been created elsewhere, the government simply re-distrtibutes that on a grand scale.

I'll turn your argument on it's head to try and explain are you seriously suggesting that if the government did't tax people directly that none of this cash left in peoples back pockets would be used to buy goods and services?

[RyeSloan]

Where do the £ come from for wealth creation then?

As you know there is many ways to define and refine such a general statement but Adam Smith would suggest it is the combination of materials, labour, land, and technology in such a way as to capture a profit.....not something you would immediately associate with a welfare budget is it.

[Mibbes Aye]

The point is, and it has been made repeatedly, where did the £'s come from in the first place to allow the public sector to purchase those goods.....it has been taken OUT of the economy in the first place via taxation (or in recent times borrowed from the capital markets). That is not wealth creation.

Yes, and of course the money that pays for the schools to educate the private sector workforce; the hospitals that treat them when they are sick; the police who protect their lives and property; etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.....well that just magically appears out of nowhere I assume? :confused:

You don't appear to be advocating the abandonment of at least some form of social contract, so it seems wrong to ignore the fundamentally crucial range of services the population enjoys as a result of tax wealth.

[Beefster]

Yes, and of course the money that pays for the schools to educate the private sector workforce; the hospitals that treat them when they are sick; the police who protect their lives and property; etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.....well that just magically appears out of nowhere I assume? :confused:

You don't appear to be advocating the abandonment of at least some form of social contract, so it seems wrong to ignore the fundamentally crucial range of services the population enjoys as a result of tax wealth.

No, it comes from taxpayers - the vast majority of whom work in the private sector.

[RyeSloan]

Yes, and of course the money that pays for the schools to educate the private sector workforce; the hospitals that treat them when they are sick; the police who protect their lives and property; etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.....well that just magically appears out of nowhere I assume? :confused:

You don't appear to be advocating the abandonment of at least some form of social contract, so it seems wrong to ignore the fundamentally crucial range of services the population enjoys as a result of tax wealth.

C'mon read the thread...where on earth have I said the money for all of those servcies just magically apprears out of nowhere?? In fact I have been arguing quite the opposite and it is the detractors of change in the public services that sometimes seem to think the government has soem sort of magic money tree.

To repeat what I have stated quite clearly in a previous post:

"Smaller more effective government should mean lower taxes for all and more room for more effective and productive private sector. This in turn increases revenues and by default tax returns giving the government more flexibility in it's finances to facilitate even further economic growth (like EFFECTIVE investment in education, health and infrastructure) so it is maybe a more forward thinking strategy than you have considered and the backwards strategy is to continue to believe that governments know best, that governments should continue to spend regardless of their underlying economies and regardless of what long term good that spending is actually doing!! "

Therefore I would suggest that I have evidenced the fact that I understand the need for a public sector and what benefits it can provide and that I have argued that the money that pays for those critical services is generated via taxation and it is the private sector that provides that base to tax.

Nothing to do with magic or abandonment of at least some form of social contracts what so ever.....

[PeeJay]

Yes I am seriously suggesting that. The goods and services the government procures is procured using money already taken out of the economy....ergo the 'wealth' has already been created elsewhere, the government simply re-distrtibutes that on a grand scale.

I'll turn your argument on it's head to try and explain are you seriously suggesting that if the government did't tax people directly that none of this cash left in peoples back pockets would be used to buy goods and services?

SiMar are you sure? If a company lands a large public sector contract and then has to take out a loan to buy machinery, invest in premises, to advertise for new workers, to buy trucks, and so on and so forth surely that is wealth being created down the line involving banks, other companies, workers, services - and the tax money you mention isn't yet involved?
I'm not disputing your "money taken from the economy" point, just pointing out that that is not the whole story, and that wealth is surely also created by demand from the public sector. I don't see how you can get round that as a fact. How is my example wrong?

BTW - I didn't understand your turning of my argument on its head - maybe it's too hot here in Germany or maybe I'm too dim:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

SiMar are you sure? If a company lands a large public sector contract and then has to take out a loan to buy machinery, invest in premises, to advertise for new workers, to buy trucks, and so on and so forth surely that is wealth being created down the line involving banks, other companies, workers, services - and the tax money you mention isn't yet involved?
I'm not disputing your "money taken from the economy" point, just pointing out that that is not the whole story, and that wealth is surely also created by demand from the public sector. I don't see how you can get round that as a fact. How is my example wrong?

BTW - I didn't understand your turning of my argument on its head - maybe it's too hot here in Germany or maybe I'm too dim:greengrin

Maybe both :greengrin

I take your point regarding private companies using public money contracts to secure and expand the companies future..there is no denying that some of public spending facilitates this.

All I was trying (rather poorly obviously!!) was to say that that public money that is securing that private companies expansion plans is money already removed from the economy....that money could quite easily have not been taken by the government and used directly by those that made or held it in the first place. At no point in this cycle is the fact that the government is spending it adding any value, in fact as public procurement is knowingly awful it could be argued that retaining the monies outwith the governments hands would be the more effective way of using it!!.

[Mibbes Aye]

C'mon read the thread...where on earth have I said the money for all of those servcies just magically apprears out of nowhere?? In fact I have been arguing quite the opposite and it is the detractors of change in the public services that sometimes seem to think the government has soem sort of magic money tree.

To repeat what I have stated quite clearly in a previous post:

"Smaller more effective government should mean lower taxes for all and more room for more effective and productive private sector. This in turn increases revenues and by default tax returns giving the government more flexibility in it's finances to facilitate even further economic growth (like EFFECTIVE investment in education, health and infrastructure) so it is maybe a more forward thinking strategy than you have considered and the backwards strategy is to continue to believe that governments know best, that governments should continue to spend regardless of their underlying economies and regardless of what long term good that spending is actually doing!! "

Therefore I would suggest that I have evidenced the fact that I understand the need for a public sector and what benefits it can provide and that I have argued that the money that pays for those critical services is generated via taxation and it is the private sector that provides that base to tax.

Nothing to do with magic or abandonment of at least some form of social contracts what so ever.....

Can you reconcile "smaller" with "more effective"?

One of the big. massive, enormous, huge spends the Government has is on older people.

Nearly half of the money spent in hospitals, nearly half of the money spent by social services.

And that's only really on people with high levels of need, critical levels.

Over the next twenty years the over-75 population will double.

To deal with that there will have to be massive changes, societal changes. But I have no doubt Government spending (in this area) will both have to increase and become more effective, as well as mustering every other resource at its disposal, including elements of what Cameron has tried to articulate in his occasional allusions to a 'Big Society'.

"Smaller" doesn't necessarily mean "more effective".

It does tend to mean it's the least well-off, the least-able to protect themselves, who suffer the most, as we saw with the 'Emergency' Budget, where it emerged the poorest would be six times worse-off than the richest as a consequence.

You talk about smaller government creating greater wealth as if there were no other factors at play. You also neglect to say whereabouts that wealth is concentrated. I'm sure others (if not you) have used the argument that you can only attract the kind of entrepeneurialism that creates wealth by making sure there's not too heavy a tax burden.

The truth is that health and education won't see that money through tax returns. It will simply go on reducing tax and thus reducing public services and in the process it will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable in our society.

[RyeSloan]

Can you reconcile "smaller" with "more effective"?

One of the big. massive, enormous, huge spends the Government has is on older people.

Nearly half of the money spent in hospitals, nearly half of the money spent by social services.

And that's only really on people with high levels of need, critical levels.

Over the next twenty years the over-75 population will double.

To deal with that there will have to be massive changes, societal changes. But I have no doubt Government spending (in this area) will both have to increase and become more effective, as well as mustering every other resource at its disposal, including elements of what Cameron has tried to articulate in his occasional allusions to a 'Big Society'.

"Smaller" doesn't necessarily mean "more effective".

It does tend to mean it's the least well-off, the least-able to protect themselves, who suffer the most, as we saw with the 'Emergency' Budget, where it emerged the poorest would be six times worse-off than the richest as a consequence.

You talk about smaller government creating greater wealth as if there were no other factors at play. You also neglect to say whereabouts that wealth is concentrated. I'm sure others (if not you) have used the argument that you can only attract the kind of entrepeneurialism that creates wealth by making sure there's not too heavy a tax burden.

The truth is that health and education won't see that money through tax returns. It will simply go on reducing tax and thus reducing public services and in the process it will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable in our society.

So no mention of magical money this time...or indeed any recognition that your statement was false.

Anyway to answer your post:

There is pretty strong evidence that a business friendly environment, i.e low labour taxes, low business taxes and sensible regulation can encourage more than enough growth to grow an economy enough to actually increase tax revenue altough headline tax rates are lower. It is not automatic that higher tax rates mean higher returns the opposite can be true.

You also assume that loweing taxes will not help the vulnerable or poor or whatever section of society you want but the plans to raise the tax threshold does exactly the opposite and is the best way to ensure people at the bottom of the payscale DO gain.

When I talk about smaller government I mean that it should only operate in areas where there is no other provision or there can be no effective market....that can actually mean it has more money to spend on essential services rather than spreading it's tax revenue thinly across more areas. I also firmly believe that government in the UK is is grossly inefficent and substantial savings could be sought across the board (including *gasp* health care provision) to allow better more effective services in the areas where the government is required.

So to summarise I have no problems with certain areas of government spending increasing WHERE REQUIRED but I do have a problem that the assumption of big govermnet automatically equals good government and protection for the most needy as that simply isn't true and in fact substantial waste and overspending across the board can threaten the most vital services the most!!

[One Day Soon]

Like I said I'm bored with this, especially the deliberate misunderstanding and the disagreeing for the sake of it. This will be my last post on this subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-what-is-the-pfi-and-why-is-it-in-such-trouble-on-the-london-underground-457586.htmlPFI the pros and cons.

I have read the article and it is utterly crap. It doesn't even qualify as third rate journalism. If you have made up your mind on the basis of that you have sold yourself very short indeed. It is about what I would expect from the Independent - perhaps the most inappropriately named paper in the UK. The Effete Middleclassista would be a more accurate title.

[Borders Hibby]

As you know there is many ways to define and refine such a general statement but Adam Smith would suggest it is the combination of materials, labour, land, and technology in such a way as to capture a profit.....not something you would immediately associate with a welfare budget is it.

Limited resources must be allocated in the most efficient way, market economies have failures that are supplied by the state. A mixed economy is the only answer.

[Green Mikey]

Limited resources must be allocated in the most efficient way, market economies have failures that are supplied by the state. A mixed economy is the only answer.

Personally I find the term 'mixed economy' a bit cumbersome. Does it refer to having state-controlled enterprises in an economy along with private entprise or does it refer to private enterprise and a welfare state? Lumping all economies into state, free and mixed categorie is a bit simplistic;

The UK has a mostly free market for consumers but provides a non-profit welfare state using the tax revenues from the private sector. Privatisation facilitated a vast reduction in state-controlled enterprises that compete with private enterprise in the last 30 years therefore the definition of 'mixed economy' does not provide and adequate description of the UK.

[Phil D. Rolls]

See if the private sector is going to create all these new jobs, why haven't they managed it up until now? What will the Tories do to make this happen.

My money is on removing protection for workers such as health and safety and the minimum wage.

[Beefster]

See if the private sector is going to create all these new jobs, why haven't they managed it up until now? What will the Tories do to make this happen.

My money is on removing protection for workers such as health and safety and the minimum wage.

You don't think the private sector has created jobs recently?

I can guarantee you that the minimum wage won't be scrapped either but H&S may be made less bureaucratic.

[Borders Hibby]

Personally I find the term 'mixed economy' a bit cumbersome. Does it refer to having state-controlled enterprises in an economy along with private entprise or does it refer to private enterprise and a welfare state? Lumping all economies into state, free and mixed categorie is a bit simplistic;

The UK has a mostly free market for consumers but provides a non-profit welfare state using the tax revenues from the private sector. Privatisation facilitated a vast reduction in state-controlled enterprises that compete with private enterprise in the last 30 years therefore the definition of 'mixed economy' does not provide and adequate description of the UK.

The market decides the allocation of resources through the interaction of supply and demand. However some goods and services would not be supplied under this system and the government think we should all have access to others such as education, NHS. There is no such thing as a free market or a command economy, all are mixed economies, the split being determined by the politics of the government and not by economic laws.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You don't think the private sector has created jobs recently?

I can guarantee you that the minimum wage won't be scrapped either but H&S may be made less bureaucratic.

My point was, what has changed that will make it easier for them to create jobs. The only thing I can think of is farming out public sector work to the private sector, but surely the efficiencies to be gained would result in a loss of jobs.

I hope that any loosening of beaurocracy in H&S isn't matched by an increase in accidents and deaths. It seems to me that the Tories always use the Freedom card to justify employers taking liberties.

See all you PC gone mad brigade (not you mate)? In a couple of years, I hope you aren't on here whingeing about loss of civil liberties or problems in the NHS. You never had it so good.

[New Corrie]

My point was, what has changed that will make it easier for them to create jobs. The only thing I can think of is farming out public sector work to the private sector, but surely the efficiencies to be gained would result in a loss of jobs.

I hope that any loosening of beaurocracy in H&S isn't matched by an increase in accidents and deaths. It seems to me that the Tories always use the Freedom card to justify employers taking liberties.

See all you PC gone mad brigade (not you mate)? In a couple of years, I hope you aren't on here whingeing about loss of civil liberties or problems in the NHS. You never had it so good.

I wont FR, civil liberties!!!!! they only apply to criminals, so who gives a pheck about them? (apart from criminals) I've been burgled twice by Junkies and my elderly parents twice by Junkies, on all occasions these trendy "chaotic lifestyle" "civil liberty" social worker" "background report" apologist Legal Aid tosspots have bent over backwards to accomodate the dross and not given a **** about the victims, Potential problems with the NHS!!! well, that will again only apply to the hard working taxpayers as you can rest assured all these layabouts with "money sticks" pretending to be ill, will always be top of the priority list,

Not a Daily Mail rant, just a cry from the law abiding asking that dross stops getting pandered to!

We never had it so good!! Aye right

[Green Mikey]

The market decides the allocation of resources through the interaction of supply and demand. However some goods and services would not be supplied under this system and the government think we should all have access to others such as education, NHS. There is no such thing as a free market or a command economy, all are mixed economies, the split being determined by the politics of the government and not by economic laws.

What is your definition of a mixed economy?

The UK market for goods and services is almost completely devoid of state-controlled enterpise and is pretty lightly regulated (just ask the banks). The UK economy has a welfare state that basically provides the services that the free market will not provide. Education and health have beem removed from the marketplace and are supplied by the government on a needs basis. It has to be acknowledged that the vast majority of markets in the UK are 'free' to allow supply and demand to operate on a price basis.

Economic defintions will not always apply to real life situations they are a tool to help understand and analyse the real world. Broad statements like 'There is no such thing as a free market or a command economy, all are mixed economies' is too simplistic for the real world, all it serves to do is pigeonhole situations into economic language not actually provide any analysis.

[Mibbes Aye]

You don't think the private sector has created jobs recently?

I can guarantee you that the minimum wage won't be scrapped either but H&S may be made less bureaucratic.

How does that work then?

How exactly do you make it less bureaucratic - I'm assuming you're not proposing making working conditions more dangerous for people?

And given much of our H+S legislative framework is enshrined through European law, aren't your hands tied a bit?

[Beefster]

How does that work then?

How exactly do you make it less bureaucratic - I'm assuming you're not proposing making working conditions more dangerous for people?

And given much of our H+S legislative framework is enshrined through European law, aren't your hands tied a bit?

What's all this referring to 'you'? I'm not a politician.

I'm sure the government will do what they can to make H&S less onerous, time-wise, while maintaining adequate safety in the workplace. It's not rocket science.

If things like this and your 'social engineering' argument on the plans to help unemployed people move is the level of opposition that Labour and their supporters are going to come up with, the coalition is going to have a very easy time for the next few years.

[Mibbes Aye]

What's all this referring to 'you'? I'm not a politician.

I'm sure the government will do what they can to make H&S less onerous, time-wise, while maintaining adequate safety in the workplace. It's not rocket science.

If things like this and your 'social engineering' argument on the plans to help unemployed people move is the level of opposition that Labour and their supporters are going to come up with, the coalition is going to have a very easy time for the next few years.

Okay then - so lots of abstract stuff about "reducing bureaucracy" and "supporting people to find work" but behind it all, there isn't actually anything concrete.

No answer to the housing question, no idea what bureaucracy you're actually reducing. Empty meaningless soundbites?

Undoubtedly though, as the Budget demonstrated, it's just about cuts. But cuts that aren't even. Cuts that impact hardest, that impact disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society.

[Borders Hibby]

What is your definition of a mixed economy?

The UK market for goods and services is almost completely devoid of state-controlled enterpise and is pretty lightly regulated (just ask the banks). The UK economy has a welfare state that basically provides the services that the free market will not provide. Education and health have beem removed from the marketplace and are supplied by the government on a needs basis. It has to be acknowledged that the vast majority of markets in the UK are 'free' to allow supply and demand to operate on a price basis.

Economic defintions will not always apply to real life situations they are a tool to help understand and analyse the real world. Broad statements like 'There is no such thing as a free market or a command economy, all are mixed economies' is too simplistic for the real world, all it serves to do is pigeonhole situations into economic language not actually provide any analysis.
I am pigeon holing nothing, I am saying that all economies are on a sliding scale betwen free and command and are therefore all mixed. The split is determined by government through legislation.

Economics is the model of how our society organises itself, I am not qualified to comment on a sociological model of why.


Your statement is a bit like saying physics doent explain how an apple falls on your head. What it doesnt do is describe that it bloody hurts!:wink:

[Beefster]

Okay then - so lots of abstract stuff about "reducing bureaucracy" and "supporting people to find work" but behind it all, there isn't actually anything concrete.

No answer to the housing question, no idea what bureaucracy you're actually reducing. Empty meaningless soundbites?

Undoubtedly though, as the Budget demonstrated, it's just about cuts. But cuts that aren't even. Cuts that impact hardest, that impact disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society.

A million of the poorest paid taken out of income tax.

A CGT rise.

Tax credits reduced only for families earning >£40k pa.

Public sector pay freeze for all except those paid <£21k pa.

Basic state pension linked back to earnings.

A bank levy introduced.

NI exemptions for new businesses outside of the South East.

NHS spending protected.

Foreign aid protected.

Aye, it's all about cuts that impact on the poorest in society. You don't honestly believe that pish, do you?

[twiceinathens]

Without being political it's a fact that the private sector creates wealth, the public sector consumes wealth.

As we all (public and private alike) only pay a proportion of our wages as tax it's obvious that the taxes collected from public sector workers only covers a small proportion of their expense . It's totally unsustainable to keep on expanding the public sector, 900,000 extra jobs since 1997 at the expense of the private sector.

I don't want to be rude after my faux pas the other night but saying that the Tories are cutting spending just to spite poor people is totally ridiculous.

Presumably you do not consider the major financial instituations, who lest we forget were at the bottom of this financial crisis, to be private sector.

[RyeSloan]

Okay then - so lots of abstract stuff about "reducing bureaucracy" and "supporting people to find work" but behind it all, there isn't actually anything concrete.

No answer to the housing question, no idea what bureaucracy you're actually reducing. Empty meaningless soundbites?
Undoubtedly though, as the Budget demonstrated, it's just about cuts. But cuts that aren't even. Cuts that impact hardest, that impact disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society.

Pot kettle black there?

As you will undoubtedly know 'cuts' will make up the majority but by no means all of the governments efforts to bring the deficit back under control....in fact there was a number fo tax rises in the budget so how does that fit into your statement of "it's just about cuts"?

I'm all up for debate and god knows the mess of the countries finances and how to fix them is fertile ground for it but if you are only going to rubbish every proposal becuse it happens to be a Tory one and make blatently false statements to try and re-enforce your suggestion that the government is somehow deliberately only out to get the most vulnerable then it's going to be hard to have any sort of serious discussion would you not say?

[Mibbes Aye]

Pot kettle black there?

As you will undoubtedly know 'cuts' will make up the majority but by no means all of the governments efforts to bring the deficit back under control....in fact there was a number fo tax rises in the budget so how does that fit into your statement of "it's just about cuts"?

I'm all up for debate and god knows the mess of the countries finances and how to fix them is fertile ground for it but if you are only going to rubbish every proposal becuse it happens to be a Tory one and make blatently false statements to try and re-enforce your suggestion that the government is somehow deliberately only out to get the most vulnerable then it's going to be hard to have any sort of serious discussion would you not say?

Oh please SiMar...:greengrin

"Rubbish every proposal"??? How many proposals have we seen?

You were singing the praises of this economic migration idea and I asked where the houses would come from. It's basic stuff and if you think that's "rubbishing", as opposed to trying to establish how policy might be implemented then I don't know what to say to you. Apart from "Where are the houses"? :greengrin

As it happens, you don't seem to have any idea where the houses might come from - you've not responded to my query about whether you would make tenants in 'under-utilised houses' homeless. Just accused me of putting words in your mouth when it's more a case of trying to get answers from you.

If you don't have an answer to a pretty basic question then we're only left with speculation as to what the answer might be. There aren't many options though and they all seem to require massive state investment or massive state intervention and coercion, which is hilariously at odds with everything that's usually propounded from your position.

Or the other possibility - the policy hasn't been thought through, isn't credible and wouldn't work without the drivers described above. In which case why were you supporting it?

[Mibbes Aye]

A million of the poorest paid taken out of income tax.

A CGT rise.

Tax credits reduced only for families earning >£40k pa.

Public sector pay freeze for all except those paid <£21k pa.

Basic state pension linked back to earnings.

A bank levy introduced.

NI exemptions for new businesses outside of the South East.

NHS spending protected.

Foreign aid protected.

Aye, it's all about cuts that impact on the poorest in society. You don't honestly believe that pish, do you?

The IFS have stated that this Tory budget hits the poorest harder than the rich. I don't know why you would consider their analysis "pish" - maybe you can share that with the rest of us?

Modelling of the Budget, taking into account the autumn spending cuts, as they've been trailed by the Government, identifies the poorest being hit six times harder than the richest. Again, if you believe the analysis to be "pish" perhaps you can illustrate why?

I like your list - as if a bank levy that takes 0.07% of their balance sheet is somehow a shining example of social justice. Or raising CGT to 28% to allay the Tory Right, when everyone was predicting it would go up to 50%, is somehow a concrete step in making poverty history :greengrin

The big one is the income tax threshold rise though. It sounds great at first, several hundred thousand people removed from paying income tax. Who could protest against that?

Dig a little deeper though and it's not quite as wonderful news. The people who stop paying tax were already only paying a marginal amount on the taxable element above the previous threshold. Unfortunately that's clobbered by the likes of the VAT rise. For the rest of the basic rate taxpayers I think the benefit is around three quid a week. Again, negated by the VAT rise. The cost of the tax cut has to come from somewhere - oh yes, the cuts in public spending. So people are losing out through other benefits being frozen, services being reduced etc etc etc.

But here's the best bit (and by best I mean worst, obviously). Reducing income tax and raising VAT hits the likes of pensioners and the unemployed hardest, because they don't gain from the former but get the pain from the latter. So yes, the most vulnerable do get hit the hardest.

I'm astonished that you can somehow see it as laudable that NHS spending is being 'protected'. I've posted elsewhere about the demographic pressures on health budgets. Quite simply, there has to be an increase in investment into the NHS just to maintain current levels of treatment - "running to stand still" if you like.

There are alternatives, ways of trying to reduce this burden on resources. That involves finding ways of preventing and reducing admissions and re-admissions, primarily among older people, which means services provided or commissioned by local authorities.

But I forgot, the Tories are cutting local authority budgets (which would have happened under Labour, don't get me wrong, just not to the same depth). And then to add to that, they're trying to impose a council tax freeze, which further hinders what LAs can do. A double whammy on this country's capacity to look after the old and frail in our society.

As I've said before, there are no surprises in all this. This is ideological on the Tories' part. Slash public spending way beyond what is necessary and in the process hit those hardest who are least capable of looking after themselves. That doesn't matter though - all that's important is shrinking the state and creating the capacity to lower taxes, and the rich get richer.

I feel sorry for the Lib Dem voters who genuinely believe in a society where people work together to make sure the weakest don't get left behind. They've been sold down the river and all they've got to show for it was a postponing of the inheritance tax plans where the Tories would give nearly a billion to the richest families in Britain, and a referendum on AV which the Tories will campaign against with all their might.

[Beefster]

.......

You're being fairly selective with what the IFS actually said (as with everything the IFS does, there are several different measures that can be used to argue different viewpoints) but I'm not getting into a 'pick a stat' argument.

I'm not arguing that certain groups aren't being hit by the measures needed to get the government finances back in order. I argue when you made sweeping generalisations that just aren't true.

I get it though, I do. Labour = good, Tories = bad.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're being fairly selective with what the IFS actually said (as with everything the IFS does, there are several different measures that can be used to argue different viewpoints) but I'm not getting into a 'pick a stat' argument.

I'm not arguing that certain groups aren't being hit by the measures needed to get the government finances back in order. I argue when you made sweeping generalisations that just aren't true.

I get it though, I do. Labour = good, Tories = bad.

:greengrin There are elements of Cameron's "Big Society" stuff that I like and think might be desirable/necessary. Also think we both want to be watching Argentina-Germany? :greengrin


I enjoy and respect your posts in debates like these :thumbsup:

[Beefster]

I enjoy and respect your posts in debates like these :thumbsup:

Likewise. It'll be a rare day when we actually agree but at least you're passionate about what you believe in!

[RyeSloan]

Oh please SiMar...:greengrin

"Rubbish every proposal"??? How many proposals have we seen?

You were singing the praises of this economic migration idea and I asked where the houses would come from. It's basic stuff and if you think that's "rubbishing", as opposed to trying to establish how policy might be implemented then I don't know what to say to you. Apart from "Where are the houses"? :greengrin

As it happens, you don't seem to have any idea where the houses might come from - you've not responded to my query about whether you would make tenants in 'under-utilised houses' homeless. Just accused me of putting words in your mouth when it's more a case of trying to get answers from you.

If you don't have an answer to a pretty basic question then we're only left with speculation as to what the answer might be. There aren't many options though and they all seem to require massive state investment or massive state intervention and coercion, which is hilariously at odds with everything that's usually propounded from your position.

Or the other possibility - the policy hasn't been thought through, isn't credible and wouldn't work without the drivers described above. In which case why were you supporting it?

If you want answers to questions, just ask them...I'll do my best to reply! However to remind you it was you that suggested I was suggesting I would compel people to leave their homes and you that said it's all about cuts...I merely pointed out that I said nothing of the sort and that the budget did contain tax rises....that was not so much trying to get answers was it but more about deliberately mis representing my position and the contents of the last budget.

Correct you may not have rubbished every proposal or budget move but lets be honest you have hardly openly supported any of them have you...you come across as extremely critical without particularily explaining the alternatives that you woudl have enacted (and please please don't say tax the rich because I know you are smart enough to understand that there simply isn't enough 'rich' to tax to make anything like the fiscal adjustement required)

See the other thread for responses to your 'basic question'...but to summarise if 700,000 empty private homes and 500,000 under utilised council homes is not a starting point for answering 'where the houses might come from ' I don;t know what is.

Oh then you are at it again:
"massive state investment or massive state intervention and coercion, which is hilariously at odds with everything that's usually propounded from your position."
You have aligned this comment to the idea that government may help council house owners to move acorss council boundaries and for those authorities to better utilise those homes not me....maybe it's a Labour thing that any government proposal needs to have half the national debt thrown at it to make it work but I see no reason why a lot of the basics here could not be done without a massive anything.

I have stated time and again that governments should keep to things that other agencies, markets etc don't cover effectively...I have also stated that facilitating economic movement within it's boundaries and therefore helping economic development of the country seems like exactly one of those areas. I am entirely comfortable with that position.

[Part/Time Supporter]

The IFS have stated that this Tory budget hits the poorest harder than the rich. I don't know why you would consider their analysis "pish" - maybe you can share that with the rest of us?

Modelling of the Budget, taking into account the autumn spending cuts, as they've been trailed by the Government, identifies the poorest being hit six times harder than the richest. Again, if you believe the analysis to be "pish" perhaps you can illustrate why?

I like your list - as if a bank levy that takes 0.07% of their balance sheet is somehow a shining example of social justice. Or raising CGT to 28% to allay the Tory Right, when everyone was predicting it would go up to 50%, is somehow a concrete step in making poverty history :greengrin

The big one is the income tax threshold rise though. It sounds great at first, several hundred thousand people removed from paying income tax. Who could protest against that?

Dig a little deeper though and it's not quite as wonderful news. The people who stop paying tax were already only paying a marginal amount on the taxable element above the previous threshold. Unfortunately that's clobbered by the likes of the VAT rise. For the rest of the basic rate taxpayers I think the benefit is around three quid a week. Again, negated by the VAT rise. The cost of the tax cut has to come from somewhere - oh yes, the cuts in public spending. So people are losing out through other benefits being frozen, services being reduced etc etc etc.

But here's the best bit (and by best I mean worst, obviously). Reducing income tax and raising VAT hits the likes of pensioners and the unemployed hardest, because they don't gain from the former but get the pain from the latter. So yes, the most vulnerable do get hit the hardest.

I'm astonished that you can somehow see it as laudable that NHS spending is being 'protected'. I've posted elsewhere about the demographic pressures on health budgets. Quite simply, there has to be an increase in investment into the NHS just to maintain current levels of treatment - "running to stand still" if you like.

There are alternatives, ways of trying to reduce this burden on resources. That involves finding ways of preventing and reducing admissions and re-admissions, primarily among older people, which means services provided or commissioned by local authorities.

But I forgot, the Tories are cutting local authority budgets (which would have happened under Labour, don't get me wrong, just not to the same depth). And then to add to that, they're trying to impose a council tax freeze, which further hinders what LAs can do. A double whammy on this country's capacity to look after the old and frail in our society.

As I've said before, there are no surprises in all this. This is ideological on the Tories' part. Slash public spending way beyond what is necessary and in the process hit those hardest who are least capable of looking after themselves. That doesn't matter though - all that's important is shrinking the state and creating the capacity to lower taxes, and the rich get richer.

I feel sorry for the Lib Dem voters who genuinely believe in a society where people work together to make sure the weakest don't get left behind. They've been sold down the river and all they've got to show for it was a postponing of the inheritance tax plans where the Tories would give nearly a billion to the richest families in Britain, and a referendum on AV which the Tories will campaign against with all their might.

As in the poor who can't be arsed to get a job poor. The poor who do are getting a £200 tax cut.

The IFS research states the group that's least worst off from the budget are those earning just over £10K (ie working but well below average salary). Followed by those earning just over £20K (ie just below average salary). It's the richest who are being hit hardest by proportion of income (due to the CGT rise).

When people cited the IFS research saying the poorest were being hit hardest, what they were meaning were people sitting long term on benefits, who don't gain from the income tax cut but still pay some VAT (mostly on drink and fags, it has to be said).

[Mibbes Aye]

If you want answers to questions, just ask them...I'll do my best to reply! However to remind you it was you that suggested I was suggesting I would compel people to leave their homes and you that said it's all about cuts...I merely pointed out that I said nothing of the sort and that the budget did contain tax rises....that was not so much trying to get answers was it but more about deliberately mis representing my position and the contents of the last budget.

Correct you may not have rubbished every proposal or budget move but lets be honest you have hardly openly supported any of them have you...you come across as extremely critical without particularily explaining the alternatives that you woudl have enacted (and please please don't say tax the rich because I know you are smart enough to understand that there simply isn't enough 'rich' to tax to make anything like the fiscal adjustement required)

See the other thread for responses to your 'basic question'...but to summarise if 700,000 empty private homes and 500,000 under utilised council homes is not a starting point for answering 'where the houses might come from ' I don;t know what is.

Oh then you are at it again:
"massive state investment or massive state intervention and coercion, which is hilariously at odds with everything that's usually propounded from your position."
You have aligned this comment to the idea that government may help council house owners to move acorss council boundaries and for those authorities to better utilise those homes not me....maybe it's a Labour thing that any government proposal needs to have half the national debt thrown at it to make it work but I see no reason why a lot of the basics here could not be done without a massive anything.

I have stated time and again that governments should keep to things that other agencies, markets etc don't cover effectively...I have also stated that facilitating economic movement within it's boundaries and therefore helping economic development of the country seems like exactly one of those areas. I am entirely comfortable with that position.

:greengrin :top marks