...is in desperate need of reform

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:12 pm

DLA - no it isn't, it's difficult enough to get as it is and has fraud substantially lower than 1% - it is possibly the least fraud-heavy of benefits

Public sector pensions - no they aren't. They will cost progressively less as time goes by as they stand and no scheme covering them is in the least bit Maxwelled.

MPs salaries and pensions - 650 self-awarding pricks whose salary and pension sky rockets if they spend as little as ten minutes in a Cabinet post. Despite the paucity of numbers, John Hutton didn't review them when he reviewed other public sector pensions. John Hutton will one day take a ministerial pension.

This government is manned by dickheads who'll make a pronouncement but have absolutely no grounds for it. It's appalling, they'd be dismissed in any other walk of life. Slaphead Dave said a day or so before the strikes on Thursday that they would be "wrong". He expanded on that by saying fuck all further. The government shit out of facing C4 News on Thursday afternoon and also Newsnight several hours later. What an example.

"We're ssending troops to Libya and they might die"
"Do I have to go?"
"No, minister."
"Libya is in desperate need of reform"

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:22 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:23 pm

so I guess what Ed is saying is, they are wrong then ...is in desperate need of reform 189864

o Put aside the rhetoric

o Suggest that the government have acted in a reckless and provocative manner

o The strikes are wrong

o Mention the negotiating table

o Consider how the parents feel?!

o Stop it happening again

o *BONUS POINTS* Mention BOTH sides

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:36 pm

Yes, he's wrong, Kit. Were you expecting me not to say that or something?

Did you see QT on Thursday? They asked the question about whether Miliband should be supported because he got in on a union vote. The Gen Sec of the NUT on looked blank and said that it wasn't an issue for her as her union does not affiliate. PCS were a third of the numbers quoted on Thursday, they don't affiliate either. The ATL have never balloted for strike in 122 years of existence, I'm pretty certain they won't affiliate.

Totally inappropriate question because it appears no-one out on Thursday supported Miliband because the unions out on Thursday recognise we have the worst labour laws in western Europe and that dickhead's party were responsible for maintaining and worsening them.

Ed Miliband doesn't speak for the public sector. It's churlish to insinuate he does.

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:39 pm

I'll say the same as well - public sector workers are also taxpayers and parents. The kids didn't just disappear on Thursday and petrol doesn't cost 12p a litre for them.

I won't listen to Miliband as well because I don't find him relevant. The entire politic show is brothers and sisters, husbands and wives setting up their own troughs and miraculously ducking the swingeing cuts. Funny that.

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:42 pm

I was just making the point that people can bang on about the Tory's all they want , but there is no support for strikes from any mainstream political party.

Its like Libya , I can perfectly accept people banging on about how its unjust or whatever. But as soon as people add a Tory aside to the comment , then your mind has to start clicking about the illegal war in Iraq , and the 100's of 1000's of innocent people dead. Give Dave ten years of killing, and getting people killed and i'll start to listen to partisan rhetoric from the left, and not a day before!

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:45 pm

NotBert wrote:I'll say the same as well - public sector workers are also taxpayers and parents. The kids didn't just disappear on Thursday and petrol doesn't cost 12p a litre for them.

I won't listen to Miliband as well because I don't find him relevant. The entire politic show is brothers and sisters, husbands and wives setting up their own troughs and miraculously ducking the swingeing cuts. Funny that.

Did the unions put Milliband in charge or did I miss something?

If the answer is 'yes they did' then he is very relevant. Even if his relevance is he has now stuck up two fingers to his little gift horse!

More fool the unions who were taken in by his politicking

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:45 pm

Amusing point on Thursday's QT was that that greasy-haired shareswapper Hammond said that Labour were in the thrall of the unions "by definition" because 85% of their funding comes from the same.

Polly Toynbee, who looks like your nan, chimed in with "by that token, the Conservatives are in the thrall of big business, then". That's poor of Hammond to set that up because I telegraphed that response from my front room. Dimbleby and Hammond behaved appallingly as well - it seems to be a Cabinet prerquisite to not let anyone talk. Hansard shows they are uncommonly rude bastards as well, any other public sector worker would be sacked for the level of braying abuse they churn out.

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:47 pm

Kit wrote:
NotBert wrote:I'll say the same as well - public sector workers are also taxpayers and parents. The kids didn't just disappear on Thursday and petrol doesn't cost 12p a litre for them.

I won't listen to Miliband as well because I don't find him relevant. The entire politic show is brothers and sisters, husbands and wives setting up their own troughs and miraculously ducking the swingeing cuts. Funny that.

Did the unions put Milliband in charge or did I miss something?

If the answer is 'yes they did' then he is very relevant. Even if his relevance is he has now stuck up two fingers to his little gift horse!

More fool the unions who were taken in by his politicking

The unions who were out on Thursday? No, they didn't. I said that above, Kit. They don't affiliate to Labour.

You might as well be talking about Sarkozy being installed by the Tufty Club. Ed Miliband wasn't on strike and the unions out on Thursday are not connected with him. You might as well have had a soundbite from George Michael

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:50 pm

I'm uncertain as to what you know and what you've been forcefed to believe, Kit. The latter would surprise me, though, if it were above nil.

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:00 pm

Kit wrote:I was just making the point that people can bang on about the Tory's all they want , but there is no support for strikes from any mainstream political party.

Its like Libya , I can perfectly accept people banging on about how its unjust or whatever. But as soon as people add a Tory aside to the comment , then your mind has to start clicking about the illegal war in Iraq , and the 100's of 1000's of innocent people dead. Give Dave ten years of killing, and getting people killed and i'll start to listen to partisan rhetoric from the left, and not a day before!

Left? Support from mainstream political parties?

I fail to see the point. The unions involved are not the "left". They're they people who teach your kids and look after national security and welfare. That's not a party political issue.

As for support from mainstream parties, if you're saying that as there's no support from the three main parties, the 750,000 quoted on Thursday are less important than the 650 unsackables with their self-awards, you're wrong.

And in October, when 4 million go out, the same heads will go up to the media and cry and (I'm going to say it) piss whine about everything except the issue in hand. They say "unions" when the "unions" are the very fucking people they are trying and failing to convince by saying "IT'S WRONNNNNNG" and then not saying why.

The government treats us like filth, Kit. It's time we stopped revelling in it and stood up. You know your Orwell. You remember what happened to Boxer.

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:08 pm

Kit wrote:I was just making the point that people can bang on about the Tory's all they want , but there is no support for strikes from any mainstream political party.

Its like Libya , I can perfectly accept people banging on about how its unjust or whatever. But as soon as people add a Tory aside to the comment , then your mind has to start clicking about the illegal war in Iraq , and the 100's of 1000's of innocent people dead. Give Dave ten years of killing, and getting people killed and i'll start to listen to partisan rhetoric from the left, and not a day before!

You forget, Kit, that in my case I never discriminated. I had no time for the last lot and no time for this lot. People will do what they can on wider issues but on a narrower field, you'll find concerted action in distinct groups. Miliband is as irrelevant doing whatever it is he does in his party as Cameron was when he was visiting Georgia when the other dickheads were still in power.

At that point, he's just a bloke.

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:18 pm

I cant see how the public sector is being treated like shit by the Gov?

I mentioned the other day that the average public sector wage is £20 a week higher than in the private sector.

The private sector lost their equivalent pensions 10 years ago.

Its a case of 'crying poor' and Unions trying to justify their fees , much of which is used to pay the fat cat salaries of the union bosses.

At this point, some militant cock nose usually pipes up that "its not a race to the bottom" , well it fucking is when I am the one paying !

The public sector needs to be cut MORE , reduced by 50% AT LEAST, and thats just a start.

Small government , low tax , small public sector market Libertarianism is the only way forward.

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:27 pm

Chill Winston
...is in desperate need of reform 2832364394

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:36 pm

Kit wrote:I cant see how the public sector is being treated like shit by the Gov?

You can't change a pension scheme without negotiation and agreement.

None done. It's that simple, Kit.

I could talk about pay freezes on staff for up to 8 years but you won't believe it. The country wants better policing, quicker service and shorter waiting time and queues but it wants less people doing it as well. It doesn't add up. The DWP as an example survives on goodwill and the minute that goes, the arse will fall out of it. I've already pointed out that civilian staff in a war zone were about to go on to a sub-minimum wage.

If you want to go down the road of privatisation, then there are elements of public services that broken down and broken down, will end up with dollar (sic) signs all over them and an odd component part that is massively unprofitable. That means the state will give up its revenue to maintain a loss leader? That creates a deficit.

If you don't believe me, compliance officers acrossseveral government departments will yield beyond three times their annual salary in a given year with average to good statistics. These are well trained staff with a wealth of experience. Rather than spend (and I'll go low end) one to make three, the current and previous government simply closed down the one. Net loss of two minimum and permanently so. Who benefits? The non-compliant. That would be the private sector, then.

Everyone's fastened on pensions. If there had been negotiation on pensions because they were unsustainable, that'd be an issue. But there hasn't and they're not - the tens of thousands that they are imposing on public sector workers are simply going into treasury coffers to pay off debt. Not shore up failing funds. It's to pay off debt.

That's taxation, plain and simple. The thing is, if they'd gone for a pay cut, then you'd have had your 4 million out already. So they went for pensions, a pay cut by the back door and thought they could force it through except that same provision applies - you can't just fucking do it, you have to negotiate.

Frankie Maude wouldn't even go in front of a camera after noon on Thursday and on BBC4 was berated by the presenter (savaged on BBC4, legendary) for espousing on a report he clearly hadn't read. These people shouldn't be in charge of an apple and they think they can run the country. Fucking muppets to a man.

NotBert Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:44 pm

Incidentally, if anyone wants a Past twat/Current twat comparator, remember this

"There should be a General Election, Brown has no mandate to govern, we never voted for him"
"No Conservative absolute majority"

I'd have let neither take charge. And when Blair got in on 22% when there was a non-turnout of 39%, they should have converted Parliament into a hotel and let them play parliament in some fucking gym in the Midlands and installed them all in dormitories.

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:48 pm

You can't change a pension scheme without negotiation and agreement.

Why not? The Gov decide what they want to do , they make legislation. Game over.

I guess there may be a number of people who decide that the changes in contract no longer suit their life needs and leave. They are then replaced from the unemployed , and lets face reality here , you can probably train up your average 'community liaison officer' in about 20 minutes.

Job done.

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:51 pm

NotBert wrote:Incidentally, if anyone wants a Past twat/Current twat comparator, remember this

"There should be a General Election, Brown has no mandate to govern, we never voted for him"
"No Conservative absolute majority"

I'd have let neither take charge. And when Blair got in on 22% when there was a non-turnout of 39%, they should have converted Parliament into a hotel and let them play parliament in some fucking gym in the Midlands and installed them all in dormitories.

Bit like the PCS union vote being carried by 18% of members!

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:18 pm

the government supports that sort of voting kit, it's what votes them in after all

the government has done a good job of making out the civil servants to be the bad guys, on a good screw, even though most of them earn £80 a day or less and will retire on a pension that is today on average about a hundred a week - proper gold plated eh?

the government has said the strike had little effect, presumably when the unions announce more strike over more days, the government will say "go on then, we don't notice anyway"

i'm still expecting/hoping to be gone by the new year and i will endeavour to drop off the radar, maybe be a bit like you, mugging innocent people for large sums of money for doing a few minutes worth of point/click/print and becoming a proper tax dodger

it's all about going for the easy targets, the public sector are easy targets, when it's been properly fucked up by governments people will notice the effect on them and won't like it but it will be too late

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:26 pm

The difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£554 per week) and the private sector (£473 per week) widened over the year to April 2010, following annual increases of 3.0 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:29 pm

the average may be higher kit because of the top earners but everyone over 21k a year has had a pay freeze (0.00 fucking percent) for 2 years

the gov have just announced that again, the pay freeze doesn't apply to those on less than 21k which is more than half

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:30 pm

It just dispels the myth about public sector earners being on lower wages, and thus needing better pensions than private sector

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:30 pm

also, you can't just compare public with private, compare the jobs - office worker to office worker, manager to manager, specialist to specialist, etc

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:31 pm

Kit wrote:It just dispels the myth about public sector earners being on lower wages, and thus needing better pensions than private sector

no it doesn't it just shows how easy a target the public sector is because it is that easy for the gov and media to pull the wool over your eyes

Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:32 pm

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

which figure do you consider incorrect abdul?

Sponsored content

...is in desperate need of reform

...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform

Re: ...is in desperate need of reform