Strikes

[bighairyfaeleith]

With all the news from the unions last week about strikes being likely over the coming months I got to thinking, now I have never backed strikes in the past as I see them as being counter productive in most cases, I also just haven't agreed with the cause most of the time.

However I think this time I would back widespread strikes as the coalition appears to me to be rushing down one road too fast and not actually listening to or considering other options.

I can't help but feel that the cuts are more about tory ideology than about saving the economy.

Am I wrong?

[Beefster]

I can't help but feel that the cuts are more about tory ideology than about saving the economy.

I'm not sure what your politics are but you seem to reflect the Labour line every time. Before the election, AFAIK, Labour were proposing cutting the deficit quicker - just a year later. They've changed their tune now to suit opposition.

If the cuts were down to Tory ideology, the amount spent by the government would be decreasing every year. It's not.

The biggest mistake that the coalition have made is to protect the NHS and International Development from cuts. Every area should be made more efficient.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not sure what your politics are but you seem to reflect the Labour line every time. Before the election, AFAIK, Labour were proposing cutting the deficit quicker - just a year later. They've changed their tune now to suit opposition.

If the cuts were down to Tory ideology, the amount spent by the government would be decreasing every year. It's not.

The biggest mistake that the coalition have made is to protect the NHS and International Development from cuts. Every area should be made more efficient.

:faf: What a maroon! Just let the ********s die, eh?

[Betty Boop]

I would expect strikes from council workers, as the full extent of job losses are announced next month.

[Beefster]

:faf: What a maroon! Just let the ********s die, eh?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Because any efficiencies in the NHS would cause untold numbers to die.

Except it wouldn't really, would it?

[ballengeich]

The question for me is whether any strikers have a coherent economic plan. IMO one area of expenditure which should definitely be increased is staff at HMRC as they'll bring in more revenue than they cost, but that's not going to cover the full deficit. A lot of union activists remind me of football fans - very keen to spend someone else's money.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not sure what your politics are but you seem to reflect the Labour line every time. Before the election, AFAIK, Labour were proposing cutting the deficit quicker - just a year later. They've changed their tune now to suit opposition.

If the cuts were down to Tory ideology, the amount spent by the government would be decreasing every year. It's not.

The biggest mistake that the coalition have made is to protect the NHS and International Development from cuts. Every area should be made more efficient.

my politics are very much undecided, I don't believe in following any party regardless. I have voted lib dem, labour and snp in the past when there policies suited me.

A policy of cutting a huge % from everywhere regardless of whether it is right to save it or not doesn't seem to me to be a good policy. I'm all for cuts but they seem to be getting rushed in with little consultation or consideration of other possible avenues being pursued.

I don't believe the private sector is ready to fill the gap and so we will just have a huge hole created,

If you take out a loan, you pay back over a number of years which makes the repayments comfortable for you, you don't agree to pay it back in half the time and cripple yourself financially!

[bighairyfaeleith]

The question for me is whether any strikers have a coherent economic plan. IMO one area of expenditure which should definitely be increased is staff at HMRC as they'll bring in more revenue than they cost, but that's not going to cover the full deficit. A lot of union activists remind me of football fans - very keen to spend someone else's money.

I'd agree, generally I am against strikes, in fact I don't ever recall being for strikes, I think the problem at the moment is we are being told there is only one way to do things, and that is to cut 25% off everything right away. Surely with all the smart people in government some plans for growth could be used to save jobs, perhaps some increases in taxes to save jobs. But that doesn't fit with tory ideology.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Because any efficiencies in the NHS would cause untold numbers to die.

Except it wouldn't really, would it?

do you believe all of these cuts will be done through efficiences though?

You can't cut 25% from the police force with efficiences, you can by cutting the number of police people on the street.

[Beefster]

my politics are very much undecided, I don't believe in following any party regardless. I have voted lib dem, labour and snp in the past when there policies suited me.

A policy of cutting a huge % from everywhere regardless of whether it is right to save it or not doesn't seem to me to be a good policy. I'm all for cuts but they seem to be getting rushed in with little consultation or consideration of other possible avenues being pursued.

I don't believe the private sector is ready to fill the gap and so we will just have a huge hole created,

If you take out a loan, you pay back over a number of years which makes the repayments comfortable for you, you don't agree to pay it back in half the time and cripple yourself financially!

As I said, public spending will increase (in monetary terms) over the term of the current government.

Labour were proposing to wait a year and then deal with the deficit faster than the coalition. As far as I know, the deficit is being dealt with over a number of years.

Were public services so bad in 2006 that going back to that level of spending will cripple the nation?


do you believe all of these cuts will be done through efficiences though?

You can't cut 25% from the police force with efficiences, you can by cutting the number of police people on the street.

Nope, I don't think the cuts will all be efficiencies. I was only referring to the NHS (if their budget wasn't protected).

By the same token, you can't keep spending money that you don't have. I'm not sure anyone has said that the police have to cut their budget by 25% either.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Because any efficiencies in the NHS would cause untold numbers to die.

Except it wouldn't really, would it?

Firstly, can I please apologise for my rudeness yesterday. Unkowingly you touched a raw nerve with me. That's my problem, not yours, I went OTT with my post.

What made me blow my gasket was the suggestion that the NHS is not going to suffer any cut backs. The NHS will be hit the same as other places, but the way it happens is more subtle, and maybe not readily visible to the public.

The NHS relies a lot on other agencies such as Social Work, and the voluntary sector. Cuts to those agencies will have an indirect affect on the NHS, as it will no longer be able to move patients onto them.

This in turn, means that the same number of staff, will be required to take up the slack from things like day care centres closing. (There is an unofficial recruitment freeze on at the moment, as 100s of recently qualified nurses will be able to tell you).

Of course, the same number of staff can't deliver the same quality of care to an increased number of patients. My vision is that a lot of the preventative work that the NHS provides such as day hospitals for the elderly, will disappear. This saves some money this year, but actually stores up further expense in coming years.

It's a bit like deciding to leave your roof with a small hole in it, because you aren't too bothered by the drips of water coming in. Of course, you don't think about the day when the hole gets bigger and you are well and truly in trouble.

There is another issue behind this whole cuts exercise for me. Namely - why do we have to give up the services we provide to people because there is a budget deficit? Why can't we simply raise more money by taxing those who can afford it more heavily?

It seems to me that a society's first objective should be the health and well being of those who live in it. It looks like the capitalist system views this as a luxury that comes second to the generation of wealth, and acquisition of disposable commodities.

Are the people in this country so cow towed that they will accept the removal of one of its' greatest achievements, without a whimper? Are people that frightened that they are prepared to put their own health and their children's health in jeopardy?

I'm afraid the whole anger at the unions for daring to protest at a situation that was never the workers' (sorry if that's trite and cheesy, I can't think of a better word) fault, gives a quick answer to that. Make no mistake, it was unfettered, immoral and illegal greed from the financial sector that put us in this mess.

The irony is that whilst the NHS is forced into cuts caused by the banks, the banks will be reaping the profits of PFI projects for buidling hospitals, for years to come. How mental is this system?

[IndieHibby]

The NHS relies a lot on other agencies such as Social Work, and the voluntary sector. Cuts to those agencies will have an indirect affect on the NHS, as it will no longer be able to move patients onto them.

Is this not also true for Education, Police and communities generally though? We are all going to have to take up the slack created by the loss of a service, say day centre's or social work. Even non-public sector workers will have to take up the slack. Relatives of the sick or needy will need to step in, where they can. Rightly so too.


Of course, the same number of staff can't deliver the same quality of care to an increased number of patients.

So the service cannot be improved? I doubt that very much. Maybe the service cannot be improved under it's current structure and funding-models, but that's not the same thing as saying that they cannot be made more efficient. They patently can. It's the will that is missing, imo.



It's a bit like deciding to leave your roof with a small hole in it, because you aren't too bothered by the drips of water coming in. Of course, you don't think about the day when the hole gets bigger and you are well and truly in trouble.


No it's not. The situation we are in is actually more like bearing the discomfort of a leaky roof so that you pay to fix the foundations, which, if left as they are, will bring the house down round your children who will live in it after you are gone.

Which is sensible, imo.


There is another issue behind this whole cuts exercise for me. Namely - why do we have to give up the services we provide to people because there is a budget deficit?

Because we can't afford them?


Why can't we simply raise more money by taxing those who can afford it more heavily?

Leaving aside the fairness of the "tax-the-rich-till-the-pips-squeak" approach, it wouldn't bring in the necessary funds and we would still be spending more than we earn - which is the basis for the whole problem.


It seems to me that a society's first objective should be the health and well being of those who live in it. It looks like the capitalist system views this as a luxury that comes second to the generation of wealth, and acquisition of disposable commodities.

Health and well-being is first and foremost an aim best served by good diet (employment) and shelter (employment). Medical services come next, yet they are paid for by taxes (employment).
So, all roads in this discussion lead to jobs. Whatever you say about public services and their importance, nothing is more important to people than the freedom that comes from being able to work and provide for themselves and their families. Public services have a role to play - I am front-line public sector worker - but they cannot be provided at a level that risks the wider economy's ability to provide maximum employment.

With regard to wealth and disposable goods, the vast majority of people's earnings go on food and shelter. We work to provide a better standard of living for ourselves.

It's only recently that 'evil-Capitalism' has provided the ability for most people to purchase 'luxury' goods. Which I don't have a problem with, really. You seem to, however. Not sure why?



Are the people in this country so cow towed that they will accept the removal of one of its' greatest achievements, without a whimper? Are people that frightened that they are prepared to put their own health and their children's health in jeopardy?

Where did the Coalition Gov. say they were going to remove the NHS. As far as I understand they have promised to protect the increased rate of spending on the NHS? Did I miss something?



I'm afraid the whole anger at the unions for daring to protest at a situation that was never the workers' (sorry if that's trite and cheesy, I can't think of a better word) fault, gives a quick answer to that. Make no mistake, it was unfettered, immoral and illegal greed from the financial sector that put us in this mess.


Didn't the Government have something to do with it too? Running a deficit during a previously unheard of economic boom? Not defending the banks - AT ALL - but your point seems to focus myopically on the financial services sector!

I'm not meaning to come across as agressively attacking your post, FH, but you really have to have a more balanced view than, what appears at least, to be a very socialistic mental posture.

[IndieHibby]

With all the news from the unions last week about strikes being likely over the coming months I got to thinking, now I have never backed strikes in the past as I see them as being counter productive in most cases, I also just haven't agreed with the cause most of the time.

However I think this time I would back widespread strikes as the coalition appears to me to be rushing down one road too fast and not actually listening to or considering other options.

I can't help but feel that the cuts are more about tory ideology than about saving the economy.

Am I wrong?

I think maybe you should look at some of the available data on the government's spending and liablities vs. income. Mervyn King, before the election, stated that whoever won the next election would be out of power for a generation as a result of the effect on public opinion of the level of reduction in funding required by the current dire state of public finances.

I don't think he was joking.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is this not also true for Education, Police and communities generally though? We are all going to have to take up the slack created by the loss of a service, say day centre's or social work. Even non-public sector workers will have to take up the slack. Relatives of the sick or needy will need to step in, where they can. Rightly so too.

Yeah, but the great myth is that the NHS will not suffer. Of course others will step in, but they will struggle with more complex issues, they may let things drift that could be nipped in the bud by professionals. I would expect to see an increase in stress related illnesses, as people soldier on with problems that need professional input.

So the service cannot be improved? I doubt that very much. Maybe the service cannot be improved under it's current structure and funding-models, but that's not the same thing as saying that they cannot be made more efficient. They patently can. It's the will that is missing, imo.

That's a bit unfair, there are many people who have a will to improve the service. I would agree that it is overburdened on the admin side, but if the public wants to have a say on how the NHS is run, they should recognise that things like Cleanliness Champions programmes, and "Head of Hand Washing" are things that must exist and be paid for.

No it's not. The situation we are in is actually more like bearing the discomfort of a leaky roof so that you pay to fix the foundations, which, if left as they are, will bring the house down round your children who will live in it after you are gone.

I would disagree, and evidence suggests that early intervention usually saves money in the long run.

Which is sensible, imo.



Because we can't afford them?

Why can't we afford them? And, how could we afford to train them in the first place, that's the biggest waste.

Leaving aside the fairness of the "tax-the-rich-till-the-pips-squeak" approach, it wouldn't bring in the necessary funds and we would still be spending more than we earn - which is the basis for the whole problem.

I'll take your word for it, but I have my doubts.

Health and well-being is first and foremost an aim best served by good diet (employment) and shelter (employment). Medical services come next, yet they are paid for by taxes (employment).

You a big fan of Maslow then? Seriously though, even the most basic measures such as the 12 Activities of Daily Living, suggest that it is much more complex than that.

So, all roads in this discussion lead to jobs. Whatever you say about public services and their importance, nothing is more important to people than the freedom that comes from being able to work and provide for themselves and their families. Public services have a role to play - I am front-line public sector worker - but they cannot be provided at a level that risks the wider economy's ability to provide maximum employment.

That sounds like a fair point. However can there be full employment without health, and should full employment be at the expense of well being?

With regard to wealth and disposable goods, the vast majority of people's earnings go on food and shelter. We work to provide a better standard of living for ourselves.

In the current system.

It's only recently that 'evil-Capitalism' has provided the ability for most people to purchase 'luxury' goods. Which I don't have a problem with, really. You seem to, however. Not sure why?

Philosophical differences I guess.



Where did the Coalition Gov. say they were going to remove the NHS. As far as I understand they have promised to protect the increased rate of spending on the NHS? Did I miss something?

Where did they say they were going to cut the number of nurses? Sometimes you have to read between the lines with politicians.

Didn't the Government have something to do with it too? Running a deficit during a previously unheard of economic boom? Not defending the banks - AT ALL - but your point seems to focus myopically on the financial services sector!

That's like saying who is to blame the person who was robbed for failing to be vigilant, or the robber for being a crook. Mervyn King knows the answer, I didn't think it was up for debate.

I'm not meaning to come across as agressively attacking your post, FH, but you really have to have a more balanced view than, what appears at least, to be a very socialistic mental posture.

Why is that not possible? Why are the people who are carrying the burden of mismanagement the people who had no control over it? (No problem with your argument by the way).



OK, I've gone for an ideological take on the issue. However, I think that a bit more thought is needed as to how cuts are to be made, instead of the usual Tory bulldozer diplomacy. I believe that the costs to the country of cutting severely at an early point will cost more in the long run than a controlled, planned series of cuts.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think maybe you should look at some of the available data on the government's spending and liablities vs. income. Mervyn King, before the election, stated that whoever won the next election would be out of power for a generation as a result of the effect on public opinion of the level of reduction in funding required by the current dire state of public finances.

I don't think he was joking.

Yeah I'm not sure I want the country to be run according to Mervyn King, bear in mind he was in charge of the bank of england throughout this whole escapade. I fully appreciate labour were in charge during the crash, I fully appreciate they have spent more than they had, but this was also something that the tories backed to get out of the recession, something they choose to now forget.

The bottom line is the tories are now happy for the bankers to get back to business while cutting jobs from all of our services, local government etc all in the name of debt reduction. However they seem to be refusing to consider any other options other than widespread cuts. I firmly believe that in five or ten years time we will look back at this period and realise the huge damage that was done to many in our country as a result of this policy.

As I said before, we have a choice whether we pay back the debt over 8 years or 5 years, the result of paying it back over five years is going to mean far more people unemployed, claiming benefits, defaulting on mortgages etc. The impact of this will i fear be severe and the grand plans to cut the deficit in five years might not be that achievable as costs rise in other areas as a result.

Nobody is saying that there isn't going to be some pain, but the tories seem desperate to inflict as much pain as possible on the people who deserve it least. What really saddens me is that the people I voted for this time are helping them to do it!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

As I said, public spending will increase (in monetary terms) over the term of the current government.

Labour were proposing to wait a year and then deal with the deficit faster than the coalition. As far as I know, the deficit is being dealt with over a number of years.

Were public services so bad in 2006 that going back to that level of spending will cripple the nation?



Nope, I don't think the cuts will all be efficiencies. I was only referring to the NHS (if their budget wasn't protected).

By the same token, you can't keep spending money that you don't have. I'm not sure anyone has said that the police have to cut their budget by 25% either.

While I agree that spending needs to be reigned in, what i disagree with is the claim that the only way to do it is to make sweeping cuts now.

The 25% figure has been widely used by the police federation and in the news. It may well be portrayed differently in the end by the politicians but I suspect it will be around that figure. Now given that 85% of policing costs are wages, it's not hard to work out what is going to happen there.

From what I have heard the 25% figure is being widely used in Edinburgh council as well across all departments. You can't just cut that many jobs and expect things to keep working properly. You also can't expect the private sector, especially given that business is not booming at the moment, to step in and save the day for all these people. A lot of private sector businesses will lose contracts or at least have there spend slashed as a result of these cutbacks, so they too will be laying people off.

I believe the labour policy was to cut over 8 years, compared to the five quoted by the condems, I haven't checked back to before the election to verify this however given politicians are so trustworthy I'm not sure I need to:wink:

All in all it smacks of a poorly thought out policy, yet by just slowing down a bit, actually listening to people, rather than dismissing them and blaming labour all the time, they could actually achieve what they want without needlessly putting good people out of work.

The biggest shame for me though is not the tories, I expect little more from them, but it's the lib dems involvement. Hence the reason I'm now an undecided voter!!

[ballengeich]

As I said before, we have a choice whether we pay back the debt over 8 years or 5 years,

I think you may be confusing government debt with the government's annual deficit.

The government's economic plan will not lead to a single penny of reduction in debt over the next 5 years. The debt is going to increase. What the argument between 8 or 5 years is about is the timescale over which the annual deficit (the annual increase in our debt) will be reduced to zero.

As the debt increases, the annual amount of tax paid in interest on that debt also increases. I don't want any ever-increasing amount of my taxes going on that.

I haven't seen anyone arguing against cuts come up with a taxation plan which will balance income with expenditure. Better tax collection will help, but it will come nowhere near to the figure required.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think you may be confusing government debt with the government's annual deficit.

The government's economic plan will not lead to a single penny of reduction in debt over the next 5 years. The debt is going to increase. What the argument between 8 or 5 years is about is the timescale over which the annual deficit (the annual increase in our debt) will be reduced to zero.

As the debt increases, the annual amount of tax paid in interest on that debt also increases. I don't want any ever-increasing amount of my taxes going on that.

I haven't seen anyone arguing against cuts come up with a taxation plan which will balance income with expenditure. Better tax collection will help, but it will come nowhere near to the figure required.

you could well be right, thanks for that.:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why did Brown not round on the bankers before the election? Or is that a stupid question?