Winter of Discontent --- Part Two

[ewerk 31221]

I heard on the radio the other night Ireland's credit rating has been downgraded because their austerity measures have led to a lack of growth. Oh the irony.

 

Ireland didn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the UK is much better equipped to resist such massive cuts (should we choose to).

 

Well no, but the point being all that austerity and self-flagellation might not have done any good whatsoever. Mind I hear the Irish are partial to a bit of self-abuse.

 

The majority in Ireland continue to agree with the measures being taken too and support the government.

 

Public opinion really has no place in dictating the precise art of macro economics tttt.

 

Really? I haven't seen any opinion polls specifically on the subject but the Taoiseach's rating is through the floor.

[Happy Face 29]

I heard on the radio the other night Ireland's credit rating has been downgraded because their austerity measures have led to a lack of growth. Oh the irony.

 

Ireland didn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the UK is much better equipped to resist such massive cuts (should we choose to).

 

Well no, but the point being all that austerity and self-flagellation might not have done any good whatsoever. Mind I hear the Irish are partial to a bit of self-abuse.

 

The majority in Ireland continue to agree with the measures being taken too and support the government.

 

Public opinion really has no place in dictating the precise art of macro economics tttt.

I hope you're not taking a swipe at the coalition's 'suggestion box' politics there.

 

More a swipe at CTs suggestion that only a quarter of people realising the Tory's are fucking things up must mean they're doing a good job.

 

...either swipe does me though.

[Happy Face 29]

I heard on the radio the other night Ireland's credit rating has been downgraded because their austerity measures have led to a lack of growth. Oh the irony.

 

Ireland didn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the UK is much better equipped to resist such massive cuts (should we choose to).

 

Well no, but the point being all that austerity and self-flagellation might not have done any good whatsoever. Mind I hear the Irish are partial to a bit of self-abuse.

 

The majority in Ireland continue to agree with the measures being taken too and support the government.

 

Public opinion really has no place in dictating the precise art of macro economics tttt.

 

Really? I haven't seen any opinion polls specifically on the subject but the Taoiseach's rating is through the floor.

 

Probably June or July I was reading about it. Can't find the article but thought it might be Krugman.

 

EDIT: Not the one I read, but this story mentions how tough measures increased popularity....

 

Crucially, the public looks to have reluctantly accepted the measures, including public sector pay cuts of between 5 and 15 percent. Fears the ruling coalition could collapse and spark elections have receded.

 

Indeed, polls suggest the government has received a modest popularity boost for its tough approach and few expect a repeat of last year's national strike. There has been little public sympathy for a work-to-rule protest from public servants against pay cuts.

 

"Ireland is seen as having done well," said Nomura political analyst Alastair Newton.

 

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6131GW.htm

 

Back in Feb that one though.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[ewerk 31221]

I'm no expert on the matter but from what I gather, Ireland has placed more emphasis on across the board pay cuts rather than putting thousands out of work, seems a more sensible approach to me.

[Renton 22007]

I'm no expert on the matter but from what I gather, Ireland has placed more emphasis on across the board pay cuts rather than putting thousands out of work, seems a more sensible approach to me.

 

Agree. I think most people would begrudgeonly accept a pay cut over having the prospect of losing their jobs hanging over them.

[Happy Face 29]

I reluctantly agree too.

 

I always thought wages had been driven way down in recent decades as it was, and accepting cuts was daft. But all the real value graphs I've just looked at suggest the total opposite.

 

I'll complain to anyone who'll listen that if my dad had had my job when he was my age he could single handedly support his family wheras my lass has to work and we don't even have kids.

 

But then i suppose collectively in this country we pay for ridiculous amounts of shit we don't need in comparison....sky/cable tv, internet, mobile phone, more than one car per household, international holidays, brand names sewn onto our clothes, contact lenses, restaurant meals, xbox live.....I suppose i could support a wife and family if I didn't bother with all of the disposable shite we're convinced we need.....or that actually makes life worth living.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Happy Face

[trophyshy 7084]

The tory cunts are ensuring their private sector buddies benefit from the Feed in Tariffs for renewable energy, ensuring that 8-10% returns on investment are not going into the hands of communities or the cash strapped public sector. Promoting it via DECC's website FFS. Green Deal also going to be private sector lead, another way to bleed cash out of the proles.

 

They look after the rich; themselves. Cunts to a man.

 

Anyone can claim FITs. But if the govt want us to all to produce renewable energy, then there is an up-front cost that has to be met. That can be public, private, charity, individual, whoever.

 

I'm aware of that, but rather than enabling and assisting the public to procure their own the tories are promoting the private sector directly on government websites offering free solar panels, lowering energy bills slightly and 100% of the feed in tariffs going to their mates companies. Stinks imo.

[ChezGiven 0]

I reluctantly agree too.

 

I always thought wages had been driven way down in recent decades as it was, and accepting cuts was daft. But all the real value graphs I've just looked at suggest the total opposite.

 

I'll complain to anyone who'll listen that if my dad had had my job when he was my age he could single handedly support his family wheras my lass has to work and we don't even have kids.

 

But then i suppose collectively in this country we pay for ridiculous amounts of shit we don't need in comparison....sky/cable tv, internet, mobile phone, more than one car per household, international holidays, brand names sewn onto our clothes, contact lenses, restaurant meals, xbox live.....I suppose i could support a wife and family if I didn't bother with all of the disposable shite we're convinced we need.....or that actually makes life worth living.

 

Nice post.

[Matt 0]

The tory cunts are ensuring their private sector buddies benefit from the Feed in Tariffs for renewable energy, ensuring that 8-10% returns on investment are not going into the hands of communities or the cash strapped public sector. Promoting it via DECC's website FFS. Green Deal also going to be private sector lead, another way to bleed cash out of the proles.

 

They look after the rich; themselves. Cunts to a man.

 

Anyone can claim FITs. But if the govt want us to all to produce renewable energy, then there is an up-front cost that has to be met. That can be public, private, charity, individual, whoever.

 

I'm aware of that, but rather than enabling and assisting the public to procure their own the tories are promoting the private sector directly on government websites offering free solar panels, lowering energy bills slightly and 100% of the feed in tariffs going to their mates companies. Stinks imo.

 

I dislike Tories as much as the next man, but the whole scheme went live in April and was a Labour-era project.

 

I don't think it's as bad as you are making out- the current return is a bit of a 'sweetener' to get as many companies as possible putting in renewable sources sooner rather than later- thereby reducing the overall burden on UK power stations (albeit marginally), with a number of coal-fired stations scheduled to go offline 2012-2020 and not much to replace them. The tariff drops over time as the technology is expected to get cheaper.

[trophyshy 7084]

The tory cunts are ensuring their private sector buddies benefit from the Feed in Tariffs for renewable energy, ensuring that 8-10% returns on investment are not going into the hands of communities or the cash strapped public sector. Promoting it via DECC's website FFS. Green Deal also going to be private sector lead, another way to bleed cash out of the proles.

 

They look after the rich; themselves. Cunts to a man.

 

Anyone can claim FITs. But if the govt want us to all to produce renewable energy, then there is an up-front cost that has to be met. That can be public, private, charity, individual, whoever.

 

I'm aware of that, but rather than enabling and assisting the public to procure their own the tories are promoting the private sector directly on government websites offering free solar panels, lowering energy bills slightly and 100% of the feed in tariffs going to their mates companies. Stinks imo.

 

I dislike Tories as much as the next man, but the whole scheme went live in April and was a Labour-era project.

 

I don't think it's as bad as you are making out- the current return is a bit of a 'sweetener' to get as many companies as possible putting in renewable sources sooner rather than later- thereby reducing the overall burden on UK power stations (albeit marginally), with a number of coal-fired stations scheduled to go offline 2012-2020 and not much to replace them. The tariff drops over time as the technology is expected to get cheaper.

 

I know all of that, I am working to assist local public bodies to procure their own and benefit from the FiTs themselves. It is a fantastic opportunity for anyone to get good returns, the private sector was obviously always going to do well out of it, I find it distasteful that the tories are promoting the private sector model when the money from FiTs could be recycled in communities, support schools, accelerate low carbon transition etc. Not go towards some fat cat's yacht. Idealistic I know.

Edited September 14, 2010 by trophyshy

[Tooj 17]

England is mine and it owes me a living.

[Park Life 71]

England is mine and it owes me a living.

 

"Shoplifters of the world unite and take over"!

[Rob W 0]

we should re-unite with Jormany

 

we'rea all Saxons of some sort eh?

[JawD 99]

More than 9,000 public sector employees are earning a higher wage than the prime minister, who has previously questioned pay levels in top jobs.

 

New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000.

 

David Cameron took a 5% pay cut when he took office and earns £142,500.

 

Details from 2,400 public bodies puts the number of high earners far above previous estimates.

 

The salary details come as the government warns that public spending needs to be drastically curbed.

 

The government has already revealed that pay for the top 5% of earners in the public sector has risen by 51% in the past 10 years.

 

The prime minister and his cabinet took the 5% pay cut when they formed the government at a time of record deficits and a sluggish economy.

 

In collaboration with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Panorama requested pay details from most of the UK's publicly funded organisations, including local authorities, schools, universities, the BBC, the NHS and the government agencies known as quangos.

 

Across the UK, the NHS has the highest number of high earners, with more than 26,000 people on more than £100,000. Of those, nearly 6,500 earn more than Mr Cameron. The top NHS earner is a GP on at least£475,000 and seven out of the top 10 in the NHS are GPs.

 

PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

 

* 38,045 earn over £100,000

* 1,000 earn over £200,000

* 9,187 earn more than PM

* 10 GPs earn over £300,000

* 1 GP in Hillingdon PCT earns £475,000

* 17 teachers earn more than PM

* 331 BBC managers earn more than £100,000

* 362 local council employees earn more than PM

 

The database, compiled from both public records and freedom of information requests, excludes some major publicly owned corporations, including Royal Mail, Network Rail and Channel 4 because they operate largely as commercial concerns.

 

The BBC's salaries were included because the BBC is funded by the £145.50 licence fee paid by UK households. There are 331 managers at the BBC earning more than £100,000.

'Challenging, rewarding'

 

Lucy Adams, the head of BBC People, said the corporation needs to compete with the private sector for top talent in the media and entertainment industries. She said the BBC is dealing with the issue of executive pay.

 

She added that Director General Mark Thompson - who for the year 2009/10 received a total remuneration of £838,000 including base pay of £668,000 and £7,000 in benefits in addition to a £163,000 pension payment - and other senior managers at the BBC had taken pay cuts: "We have given up, all the executives have given up two months' pay. We have had a pay freeze for the next four years."

 

At the local council level, the chief executive of Tory-controlled Wandsworth Council in south London, Gerald Jones, is the highest earner on £299,925, leading a list of 362 local council employees earning more than Mr Cameron.

 

In light of the new research, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister, called for a return to a more "old-fashioned" public service ethos.

 

Mr Maude said he questioned the sweeping pay rises in the wider public sector under the former Labour government and the idea that they were necessary to attract qualified people.

 

"You're sort of blithely told you cannot fill the job unless you paid this amount and actually I think often that's too easy, it's a lazy view and actually getting the right people is much more about exciting them with the sense that it's a challenge, that they will find it rewarding."

 

Mr Maude's own department has 22 people earning more than the prime minister and the Department of Communities and Local Government, headed by Eric Pickles, has nine.

 

Some argue that the delivery of top quality public services commands high wages.

 

FIND OUT MORE

 

* Panorama, BBC One

* Monday, 20 September at 2030BST

 

Consultant Stephen Taylor, who has advised government agencies and the Cabinet Office, said for positions such as running a large local authority, there were not many people with the qualifications - especially at a time when the job would require implementation of deep cuts - and they commanded high wages.

 

"I'd want to attract the best people in the country to be interested in doing that job," he said.

 

Iain Overton, editor at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, said the database - collated between February and September - was very relevant ahead of anticipated widespread public service job cuts.

 

"There is a challenge ahead for government - how can you justify the top salaries of the people running the system while making swingeing cuts that are most likely to affect the lowest paid in the public sector?"

 

Panorama: Because We're Worth It - The Taxpayers' Rich List, BBC One, Monday, 20 September at 2030BST and then available in the UK on the

[NJS 4411]

I can see how the head of a hospital employing 100s of people could "justify" that level of salary but teachers and to some extent GPs seems a bit much imo.

[JawD 99]

I can see how the head of a hospital employing 100s of people could "justify" that level of salary but teachers and to some extent GPs seems a bit much imo.

 

Also local councillors.

[Renton 22007]

I can see how the head of a hospital employing 100s of people could "justify" that level of salary but teachers and to some extent GPs seems a bit much imo.

 

Also local councillors.

 

Council employees - not councillors - which could be anything. GPs are an odd one because they are essentially independent of the NHS, but I agree some GP partners are paid way too much.

 

There certainly are many people employed in the public sector on far too much money, but I suspect overall it is low compared to the private sector, and they would argue you need to compete with the private sector.

 

Personally I think MPs and the PM in particular are massively underpaid as well.

[NJS 4411]

Personally I think MPs and the PM in particular are massively underpaid as well.

 

The system seems to be caught in the middle between the old days when you had to be rich to be in public service (ironic given the present mob) and paying a decent salary compared with how much they could earn in London given some of their qualifications.

 

As a former contractor I still resent the way what is essentially a 4/5 year contract has full employee benefits - I'd be happy to see them as contractors (at a decent rate) which would also allow timesheet based scrutiny of what they actually do.

[The Fish 10972]

Whenever I see the "Find Out More" bits, I hear the voiceover from Starship Troopers asking "Would you like to know more" and then my mind wanders away from over paid public sector workers and into a fascist future war of men versus bugs...