Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?

[alicia_fan_uk]

The postcode lottery is a product of allowing local control - Labour got panned for controlling from the centre, whilst others claimed those at the coalface know what's best for local communities. So we need to accept some sort of trade off somewhere, surely? I agree with you are tatt removal and such non-essential services.

The public sector DOES benefit the economy, but not in the same way as most private entities. Also, the companies you mention are amongst the several hundred that hoover up graduates in the annual milkrounds, and they don't complain then. Further, Tesco et al love people with minimal qualifications as they are prime candidates as shelf-stackers, seasonal workers and the like, on which such companies thrive. Is everyone who goes through the public education system a genius? No way. However, without the public education system we have we would be a far less educated populace than at present. Everything is relative.

Like days of the empire, we skim and pinch / "attract" good medical professionals from elsewhere, usually less economically developed countries. The issue is largely one of supply and economics, not of an inability with the NHS/UK public sector's ability to train them up.

Your final point about democracy. Yes, fair point. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government....except for all the others. Seriously, though, you don't need to be elected to become a manager in a health board/council/educational institution/central government agency. You just need to have the education, skill and/or experience to get in, work your way up and prove you can do the job better than others who want to do that same job. Easy? No. Worth it? Well, that's up to you.

[Essex Lad]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> Your final point about democracy. Yes, fair point. As
> Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of
> government....except for all the others. Seriously, though,
> you don't need to be elected to become a manager in a health
> board/council/educational institution/central government
> agency. You just need to have the education, skill and/or
> experience to get in, work your way up and prove you can do the
> job better than others who want to do that same job. Easy?
> No. Worth it? Well, that's up to you.

But are not most of those jobs already allocated? Jobs for the boys and the like... The LGA boasts it has to pay local CEs high salaries (some larger than the PM's) to attract good candidates but all the people who get these jobs seem to be on a roundabout of public sector jobs - CEO of one local council, to COO of a NHS Trust then back to "running" a council. None of them seem to have had experience running a private sector company. I used to work for a private company that had an NHS contract which they lost. The NHS was its main if not only client but rather than shut down the company, the government awarded them another contract as a sop for losing the other one. Surely that cannot be right? Government money is not meant to be dolled out as a gift after someone is found not to be up to the job. It wasn't to keep people in jobs because most of them were taken on by the new company... In any case, it is not the government's responsibility to employ people (something that Gordon Brown never seemed to understand) - except police, nurses, teachers, dustmen, etc - it is their job to create an economy where private employers can flourish and create jobs and wealth.

[alicia_fan_uk]

There's not actually a huge amount of cross-sector moves. It stands to reason, though, if you have experience of running a local authority in place X, then place Y may be interested in what you have to offer. That's just common sense, surely? Ideally, you want someone with rounded experience, but people generally tend to specialise in particular industries/sectors. The same "roundabout" happens in the private sector, too, be it Non-Exec Directorships or "career CEOs/Chairmen".

I can't comment on the specific circumstances of the "sop" contract case you mention (although I can confidently say it's a shitty business model, being so reliant on one customer). I accept that this can and does happen, though. If you want to stop dolling out public money to companies who have fucked up government contracts, you're striking out a huge chunk of private-sector household names and some massive multi-nationals right there. They balls up, too, just like government does. And it would fuck up the FTSE no-end.

Finally, it is government's responsibility to employ people if that is the mandate on which they are elected. Granted, you may not believe that to be ideologically sound, but that is the current rules of our game.

alicia_fan_uk

[Essex Lad]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> There's not actually a huge amount of cross-sector moves. It
> stands to reason, though, if you have experience of running a
> local authority in place X, then place Y may be interested in
> what you have to offer. That's just common sense, surely?
> Ideally, you want someone with rounded experience, but people
> generally tend to specialise in particular industries/sectors.
> The same "roundabout" happens in the private sector, too, be it
> Non-Exec Directorships or "career CEOs/Chairmen".

But is it more difficult to run a local council than a country? How is it that councils used to be run by Town Clerks on about ?60,000-a-year but now have to be run by Chief Executives on ?200,000? Councillors used to get expenses and did not style themselves "cabinet member" for this or that. They used to do it as a public service in their spare time not as a career move.

> Finally, it is government's responsibility to employ people if
> that is the mandate on which they are elected. Granted, you
> may not believe that to be ideologically sound, but that is the
> current rules of our game.
>
But Labour did not say in their manifesto in 1997 that they would employ and extra 400,000 in non-jobs such as walking to school co-ordinators to give but one example. They were elected because people were fed up with John Major and the Tories and "things can only get better". They didn't - no one voted for an explosion in public sector jobs, no one voted for a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, no one voted for a complete mismanagement of the economy (and before you say there is a world recession - there is but Britain was the last of the major players to come out of it and we are still teetering on the brink of a double dip recession.

[alicia_fan_uk]

I have no desire to defend anyone earning more than the PM - either in the public sector or private sector. "A couple of days a month" NED in the private sector can get a remuneration package that dwarfs the PM's salary - that doesn't seem right either. I also happen to believe that being PM must be one of the hardest, most thankless jobs in the world.

"(Labour) were elected because people were fed up with John Major and the Tories"
All opposition governments tend to get in because people want a change/are sick of the current guys - grass is always greener and all that. Also, you seem to have a lot of faith that manifestos:
(i) will reflect every single action a govt will take over a parliament, even where you would need a crystal ball to forsee the choices to be made in the future, and
(ii)get implemented in full.

Most people are aware that Tory ideology prefers a smaller state than that of Labour and cast their vote accordingly. It is hardly surprising when the state grows under a Labour Govt and shrinks under and Tory one...

[Essex Lad]

Mrs Thatcher has been quoted as saying, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Yes, the state would grow under a Labour government but did anyone expect such an explosion of non-jobs? Don't you think that most lifelong Labour supporters (such as me!) are disgusted by the way the party wasted millions and millions of pounds of public money? If you had worked as a miner in Yorkshire and lost your job through unnecessary pit closures, had voted Labour all your life do you think you would be happy to see Camden Council, for example, hiring a "Climate Change Co-Ordinator" on ?30,000-a-year?

[alicia_fan_uk]

I'm quite happy for my taxes to fund a "non-job" such as having someone to minimise waste and environmental impact. Often being greener can lead to spending less and being more efficient with what you've got, too. Double bonus. Oh, and such roles help them to monitor and meet their statutory targets on the environment; quite an important point that.

I will never argue that Labour didn't waste millions of pounds, in the very same way I'd never argue that the Tories didn't waste millions of pounds. We dealing with hundreds of billions, waste is inevitable. There is also the issue of exactly how you (the royal "you", not you in particular) define waste, which is something people can - and do - argue over until the cows come home.

Also, as an aside, I've noticed many people refer to "Mrs Thatcher", but never really Mr Blair, Mr Cameron, Mr Brown etc (unless often in mock deference to the latter). Is is a male/female thing or what!?

alicia_fan_uk

[Essex Lad]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> I'm quite happy for my taxes to fund a "non-job" such as having
> someone to minimise waste and environmental impact. Often
> being greener can lead to spending less and being more
> efficient with what you've got, too. Double bonus. Oh, and
> such roles help them to monitor and meet their statutory
> targets on the environment; quite an important point that.
>
If cuts must be made, who would you prefer to go: policeman or climate change co-ordinator? You also assume (as do many millions) that something that mankind does has an effect on the climate or the weather as we used to call it. I don't believe that for one second - the whole climate change malarkey is the biggest hoax of the 21st Century, as the Millennium Bug was the biggest hoax of the 20th.

> I will never argue that Labour didn't waste millions of pounds,
> in the very same way I'd never argue that the Tories didn't
> waste millions of pounds. We dealing with hundreds of
> billions, waste is inevitable. There is also the issue of
> exactly how you (the royal "you", not you in particular) define
> waste, which is something people can - and do - argue over
> until the cows come home.
>
I would argue that Labour didn't waste millions of pounds - they wasted billions.


> Also, as an aside, I've noticed many people refer to "Mrs
> Thatcher", but never really Mr Blair, Mr Cameron, Mr Brown etc
> (unless often in mock deference to the latter). Is is a
> male/female thing or what!?
>
I suspect it's the way people were brought up, to be polite to women. I also I went to an all-boys' school where surnames were de rigeur. I think that she was probably the worst, most divisive politician of the 20th Century but Mrs Thatcher slips easily off the keyboard.

[alicia_fan_uk]

I think both a policeman and climate change co-ordinator have important roles to play, but who is more important depends on a whole host of factors - some objective, some subjective - and, vitally, the context in which the question is asked. For example, if a policeforce decides it needs 2000 officers but has 2100, but a climate change dept of a large council has no staff and needs 1, my vote would be in favour of the latter.
(Also, my views on climate change are supported by the vast array of scientific studies and evidence to support it; it is up to you if you want to accept alternative evidence as being more persuasive or more factually robust. PS - Climate does not equal weather).

My reference to "millions" was picking up on your previous post that Labour "wasted millions and millions". I was just following on from what you had said.

"Mrs Thatcher slips easily off the keyboard".
But not so easily from the memory of millions across the country....

alicia_fan_uk

[Essex Lad]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> I think both a policeman and climate change co-ordinator have
> important roles to play, but who is more important depends on a
> whole host of factors - some objective, some subjective - and,
> vitally, the context in which the question is asked. For
> example, if a policeforce decides it needs 2000 officers but
> has 2100, but a climate change dept of a large council has no
> staff and needs 1, my vote would be in favour of the latter.
> (Also, my views on climate change are supported by the vast
> array of scientific studies and evidence to support it; it is
> up to you if you want to accept alternative evidence as being
> more persuasive or more factually robust. PS - Climate does
> not equal weather).
>
The problem is that much of the funding is only available to those people who already agree with the hypothesis that climate change exists. Most of the scientists whose names get put forward are not actually meteorologists. Check out Christopher Booker's excellent book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Global-War ... 419&sr=8-1 or Nigel Lawson's http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appeal-Reason-C ... y_b_text_c

> My reference to "millions" was picking up on your previous post
> that Labour "wasted millions and millions". I was just
> following on from what you had said.
Okay.

>
> "Mrs Thatcher slips easily off the keyboard".
> But not so easily from the memory of millions across the
> country....
>
True