Our three major parties have now managed to agree the terms of the Indian Bicycle Marketing-fest, and spend their whole time bickering about something relatively trivial, whether to increase National Insurance by 2% or not
This, the parties hope, will distract voters from the fact that the £6 billion extra tax that might or might not be collected is anything more than a drop in the ocean compared to a current deficit of £170 billion.
Towards the end of more yadda-yadda-waffle on the topic on the BBC is this:
As campaigning enters its fourth day, the Tories are to make other announcements about curbing excessive public sector pay and tougher sanctions for benefit cheats.
Under plans for a "fair pay review", the salaries of public sector senior managers will be linked to the lowest paid workers in their organisation and capped at a multiple of 20 times those at the bottom of the pay scale. Mr Cameron told the Guardian that requiring public bodies to publish details of their best-paid staff was "not enough" and further action was required to tackle pay inequality.
Can you guess whether that's a NuLab, BluLab or a LibLab proposal? Click and highlight the excerpt to reveal the answer.
As an afterthought, and having re-read the BBC article, one does wonder on which planet these people live. The Tories reckon they can get rid of £12 billion unnecessary public expenditure, and 'experts' said that this could lead to 40,000 (public sector) job losses. This works out a saving of about £300,000 for every (public sector) job culled. Sounds good to me!
Friday, 9 April 2010
NuLab BluLab LibLab
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Certainly the pay and conditions of public sector workers have to come more in line with the private sector and their efficiency has to be made to rise not to continually fall as it has been doing. Turning over large swathes of the public sector to the private sector and paying for it's services by private public partnership instead of solely by the taxpayer is paramount. Coupled with rolling back of legislation that allow government to determine and scrutinise every citizens daily life will cull all the non jobs and unnecessary quangos. There is so much waste and inefficiency in the public sector that if tackled the savings that could be made would no doubt allow substantial reduction of the national debt and could even lead to reduction of taxes.
Could it be an effect of:
1) All parties are essentially the same. All policies are fundamentally the same. It is only a label now that represents them. A word.
2) The real power lies elsewhere, though probably not malevolently but surely latently
3) 1 suits 2 very nicely indeed
4) Both 1 and 2 are classes of people fast asleep and unable to move due to either the drudgery of mortgage, rent or bankruptcy. Or utter confusion about who your constituents actually are
Not sure if anyone has noticed. It would seem all 3 parties are fighting the election on a policy of asset price inflation. All the other tiny bits and pieces are irrelevant. That they recognise this is not clear. Ideologically they are all blind to it being a problem evidently anyway.
A, yes of course.
RS, also yes of course. Home-Owner-Ism is not run for the benefit of yer 'hard working family', is it?
Sorry, not correct. The Tories reckon they can save £2 billion by axing 40,000 jobs (that's £50,000 per job - sounds about right).
The rest of the £12 billion savings are from the other measures they've proposed like renegotiating contracts and cancelling IT projects. Whether you believe that is possible is up to you, but that other £10 billion is not from the 40,000 headcount reduction.
AC, I am very much correct. If all the fakeprivatecompanies and 'consultancies' lose £10 billion of income, then 'jobs will be lost' at fakeprivatecompanies and 'consultancies'.
In that you are indeed correct. Of course the full saving ultimately will be in headcount somewhere - but that's not part of the 40,000 and the Tory sums do add up.
Post a Comment