Cheering in Parliament after motion to melt firefighters pay freeze...

[anobium]

Don't work for the council, or ever have or ever will.

Fair enough

What do you mean by good? You have examples

Yes the case in question regarding redundancy, Friend of mine in private sector was made redundant after 22 years and received less than £10k. What I am trying to say that redundancy payments should be the same for both the public and private sector. If the company can't afford it the government should pick up the tab just like local authorities.
I believe that redundancy payments should be the same for both the public and private sectors.

Are you arguing that the public sector employees have an easy time compared to the private sector? If that was the case then wouldn't we see zero vacancies for the public sector as people would be queuing up to take the jobs?

By and large yes, When did you ever see a public sector employee sacked for incompetence. Yes I know that some do lose their jobs but its usually due to theft violence, etc, and then they are usually suspended for months on full pay pending the investigation
Regarding vacancies in the public sector, are you saying that pro-rata the vacancies are greater in the public sector? You have the figures?

.

 

[SirGalahad]

Yes the case in question regarding redundancy, Friend of mine in private sector was made redundant after 22 years and received less than £10k. What I am trying to say that redundancy payments should be the same for both the public and private sector. If the company can't afford it the government should pick up the tab just like local authorities.
I believe that redundancy payments should be the same for both the public and private sectors.

Are you arguing that employers should raise their standards to meet that which we find in local and central government when it comes to pay and redundancy?

As the current and previous governments have made it a policy pledge to cut regulation and making it easier to hire and fire employees.

I understand where you are coming from but you are not comparing like with like. Public services need to be provided because they meet the standard test of being non excludable and non rival or the government can provide the services at a lower level and quantity than if they were provided privately for example - council housing or healthcare .

Having people in less secure contracts when aggregated leads to sub optimal use of resources and thus lower GDP. For example, if we were all in the Gig economy - planning long term or even getting a mortgage would be difficult.

There are inefficiencies and waste in government but then also in the private sector - we just need to be sensible about dealing with it.

 

[anobium]

Are you arguing that employers should raise their standards to meet that which we find in local and central government when it comes to pay and redundancy?

Yes

I understand where you are coming from but you are not comparing like with like. Public services need to be provided because they meet the standard test of being non excludable and non rival or the government can provide the services at a lower level and quantity than if they were provided privately for example - council housing or healthcare .

Not quite sure what you mean but if by excludable you mean we can't do without it, why stop at council housing, healthcare, why not include agriculture and all construction, hell it worked in the former USSR.not.

Having people in less secure contracts when aggregated leads to sub optimal use of resources and thus lower GDP. For example, if we were all in the Gig economy - planning long term or even getting a mortgage would be difficult.

Pass

There are inefficiencies and waste in government but then also in the private sector - we just need to be sensible about dealing with it.

So you agree the public sector workers have it easier? What about all the job vacancies in the public sector,

 

[JohnD]

Boris wants Theresa's job.

Boris is shifting his position too fast to keep up with himself:

"And now, with no hint of irony, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has thrown a monstrously large onion in Theresa May’s foul-tasting ointment by suggesting the PM should engage in yet another u-turn by accepting Corbyn is right about scrapping the 1% public sector pay cap.

But – I hear you ask – wasn’t there a vote on this just a few days ago?

The very same Boris Johnson that voted against Corbyn’s proposal to scrap the unfair and unjust wage cap on our heroic emergency service workers and public sector staff has now, miraculously, changed his mind."

The Guardian reports that:

"“The foreign secretary supports the idea of public-sector workers getting a better pay deal and believes the findings of the pay review bodies should be respected,” a senior government source told the Guardian.

His intervention follows a similar call from Michael Gove, the environment secretary – whose entry into the Conservative leadership race last summer thwarted Johnson’s own bid – and from the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Justine Greening, who has demanded £1bn in extra schools funding.

It is fresh evidence that collective cabinet responsibility, which usually keeps major disagreements between senior ministers behind closed doors, has all but collapsed since the Conservatives’ majority was wiped out in last month’s general election."

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lift-1-ceiling-on-public-sector-pay-increases

"May’s official spokesman repeatedly insisted that “the policy has not changed”."
hahahahaha!

 

[JohnD]

"Johnson’s majority in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency was cut in half – to just over 5,000 – at the general election and he is the target of an “unseat Boris” campaign by Labour activists, as the party seeks to capitalise on Conservative disarray and gear up for an early general election"

 

[motorbiking]

Uxbridge has a big University, with free tuition fees paid for by the money tree - I'm surprised they didn't manage it.

 

[JohnD]

free tuition fees paid for by the money tree

No, you're wrong, it's in England, and this is the 21st century.
https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/new-fulltime-students

What planet do you live on, where graduates don't pay taxes?

Are you young enough to have had a Student Loan? Or old enough to have had a Grant?

If you are studying in Scotland, and live in Scotland or the other 27 European countries (but not England) life is easier.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/student-funding/undergraduate/uk-eu/loans-grants

 

[motorbiking]

I was providing a possible explanation as to why Boris' majority was cut.
- Uxbridge has a big University - Brunel
- Students would likely vote labour to get free tuition fees
- Corbyn said 95% of people would pay less tax. I'm assuming the top 5% would pay more.

I went to Uni in the 90s, got my fees paid, but no grant (it was means tested even then).

I'm assuming Corbyn's magic money tree is the 5%. Top rate tax payers etc.

I'm in favour of free tuition fees (not maintenance grants) for at least subjects that are in demand for the country. e.g. engineering, computing, science, professional services etc.. as like me you'll pay it back 10 times over.

I don't see that hard working people should pay for other people to study subjects that will not result in those people getting highly paid jobs and therefore paying higher taxes.

 

[JohnD]

a big University, with free tuition fees paid for by the money tree

I can't see "hoping there would be free tuition in future years"

 

[JohnD]

I don't see that hard working people should pay for other people to study subjects that will not result in those people getting highly paid jobs and therefore paying higher taxes.

So low-paid nurses, for example, should pay for their own education? Teachers? Librarians? And it should be free to people hoping to get into professional football or reality TV? Or double-glazing sales? Plumbers? Merchant Bankers?

Can't see the justification myself

 

[motorbiking]

which bit of subjects that are in demand for the country was confusing?

If you are going to study at the tax payers expense, it needs to be a subject that adds value to society - i.e. in demand for the country and/or will lead to a highly paid job with high taxes.

Perhaps its easier to list those which should not be funded. Art History, theology, Philosophy.. I'm not saying they are worthless, just that if you wish to study them you fund them. It should not be difficult to correlate, jobs that pay well and jobs in demand for the country and cut the bottom 1/3rd from the list which would be eligible for fee grant.

btw - corbyn's manifesto promise was free tuition fees from next year, so if you are year 1 or 2 that meant you, should your vote get him in - or did I miss something?

A lot of people don't go to Uni and still pay decent amounts of tax, so they should not have to fund someone else's academic navel gazing.

 

[SirGalahad]

which bit of subjects that are in demand for the country was confusing?

If you are going to study at the tax payers expense, it needs to be a subject that adds value to society - i.e. in demand for the country and/or will lead to a highly paid job with high taxes.

Perhaps its easier to list those which should not be funded. Art History, theology, Philosophy.. I'm not saying they are worthless, just that if you wish to study them you fund them. It should not be difficult to correlate, jobs that pay well and jobs in demand for the country and cut the bottom 1/3rd from the list which would be eligible for fee grant.

btw - corbyn's manifesto promise was free tuition fees from next year, so if you are year 1 or 2 that meant you, should your vote get him in - or did I miss something?

A lot of people don't go to Uni and still pay decent amounts of tax, so they should not have to fund someone else's academic navel gazing.

So much logic fail and bad reasoning. The argument that you should only have direct taxation because you should only pay for services you use does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for Policing as I have never called or used the police in my life. I shouldn't have to pay for Defence as we are not currently at war?

 

[JohnD]

I don't see that hard working people should pay for other people to study subjects that will not result in those people getting highly paid jobs and therefore paying higher taxes.

Which part of "highly paid jobs" are you pretending you didn't type?

 

[motorbiking]

it either adds value or it doesn't. If it doesn't, fund it yourself. - clear?

 

[SirGalahad]

it either adds value or it doesn't. If it doesn't, fund it yourself. - clear?

I think I may understand where you are going with this. You are arguing STEM degrees should be funded? What about economics, management, business degrees?

What is adding value? Do you have a clear definition or just a notion?