Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Certainly in our company the leadership team (which includes sales, operations and central service directors) are targetted more or less equally.
So what revenue growth do you target the IT or HR Directors with? How do they achieve this?
[EDIT] I digress... see TJ's question below. That is the only one that needs answering [EDIT]
Zulu - that still is irrelevant to the point. And wrong - look at Godwin and compare to shoesmith. Payoffs for failure?
Why do we need huge salaries to attract the best into private sector senior roles but the same does not apply in the public sector.
will you please adress this simple point?
So what revenue growth do you target the IT or HR Directors with? How do they achieve this?
They don't directly carry revenue targets. They (excluding HR directors as I've never seen one of those with a seat at the top table) are however targetted on providing the necessary support for growth.
I'm an operational director and do have a revenue target although I'm not paid on it (I'm paid on growth of profits - no-one is all that concerned about the revenue number by itself).
Because, as I've already said to you TJ - private sector managers carry failure with them - if they fail, they get sacked, possibly prosecuted and more often than not they'll never get employed in the same field again, the penalty for failure and consequent risks are far, far higher. Higher risk, higher stakes, higher pay (as you may lose the chance to make money in the future)
In the examples of Shoesmith and Gibb - the fact that they have not (could not) be prosecuted, have received payouts (still at court) and I'll happily put money that they both get reemployed in another public sector role when the heat dies down shows that the stakes are a lot lower.
Quite simply, what would you rather choose? high pay with huge risk of failure, job loss and hard time, or lower pay with little risk of losing your job and no chance of prosecution if it does go tits up? - thats why the private sector pays more
So they're not responsible for delivering revenue or profit growth? Instead they are responsible for delievering the service necessary for operational areas to deliver their profit (or operating) targets. So in other words they are no different from their public sector counterparts?
Scarily I have seen a HR director at the 'top table', shortly after I left that particular organisation they were appointed to the role of CEO... shortly after that the company failed!
Zulu - you are simply wrong on that. And its irrelevant. Public sector senior managers are often sacked.
Compare shoesmith to Godwin
Shoesmith received no payout at all.
I'll try again. Why is a huge cash incentive needed to employ the best in the private sector but not in the public?
The excuse given for the huge remuneration of people like Godwin is " we need to pay to employ the best" Now I want to employ the best in the public sector. Why does this not apply? How can we get the best mangers into the public sector if they are all attracted to the private sector by the incentives?
So they're not responsible for delivering revenue or profit growth?
In our company they're paid on profit growth although everyone also has specific targets relating to their own specialism. All our leadership teams have two functions - one to do their day jobs (in my case it's running the delivery practices), and second to contribute to strategy etc.
TJ - do you really think Godwins pakage was reflective of the norm within the private sector?
Nope, didn't think so - so comparing to him is a fatuous argument!
Shoesmith's case is still at court under appeal, so its unfair to say she received no pay off, we simply dont know the outcome of that one yet.
Public sector senior managers are often sacked
well, no, they're not really are they TJ? They're normally moved sideways...
The prime minister as a yardstick is a bit of a red herring as well. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are thousands of public servants "earning" more than him. His salary for being PM is neither here nor there. What is his overall benefits package worth?
A grace-and-favour serviced townhouse in the middle of London for five years, a big house in the country, free travel anywhere and everywhere and guaranteed untold millions in lecture fees, consultancies and book advances if he manages to eke his way through five years on 142k.
So Zulu - you can't answer the question. I have asked it several times and you cannot come up with any explanation for why huge cash incentives are needed to attract talent into private sector senior roles but not public sector ones.
I for one want the cheapest doctors and nurses you can find when I need to go to hospital.
I think you need to learn to read TJ 🙄
My dad is just coming up to retirement as an NHS Consultant Paediatrian. He's been 'public sector' all his life (first as an Army doc, then a GP, then back into hospital medicine). Even with the pension, I suspect that bankers of equivalent [b]experience[/b] and [b]seniority[/b] would consider his salary to be mere small change. That for doing an [i]intensely[/i] demanding job - not least neonates and PICU.
IME, people who **** off about Ayn Rand and the beauty of competition are usually unable to explain how this actually works in areas like acute care. How does consumer choice operate in touch-and-go emergency situations, or [i]very[/i] high risk/high mortality interventions? And be quick, because ICU transfer teams generally need more than vague platitudes about the beauty of the market. To be frank, I [i]*ing laugh[/i] when square mile types bang on about risk, pressure and long hours.
Anybody listening to that R4 programme would agree that the NHS would benefit from some degree of de-centralisation. But it won't be the "market" that picks up the slack. Big teaching hospitals will [re]re-invent themselves as charitable institutions. And acute care will be concentrated in fewer (if larger) centres. Continental social-insurance type systems certainly aren't "pure" markets, though they do benefit from higher investment.
And Serco etc can * right off. 👿
Zulu - you have not explained why huge cash incentives is needed to recruit in teh private sector but not in the public sector.
You have gone off on all sorts of tangents with all sorts of irrelevance to the question.
Please answer the question
Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?
Only one thing for it:
TJ - simple question
If I offered you two jobs, both identical, both paying the same -
one had high risk and low security( ie. that if you did not reduce cost by 10% you would be sacked, there was a risk that the company could go under, and a chance that the shareholders could dismiss you at any point)
while the other was a long term guaranteed post, whereby you could only be dismissed for gross negligence (eg a civil service post) with no defined performance criteria and a guaranteed final salary pension backed by the state.
Which would you accept?
THAT is why private sector posts pay more 🙄
Now TJ - if the wages in the private sector are so much higher - why don't you work there?
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
Zulu-Eleven, answer this please.
Take into consideration that Chief Execs in NHS Hospitals are subject to criminal proceedings as individuals should infection control targets not be met...
Compare that with the way those financial wizards in the private sector managed to convincingly **** over our entire economy with absolutely no comeback at all...
[i]high risk and low security[/i]
Yes, if there's one thing we can say about the financial sector, it's that Banks cannot - and should not - expect any help from the taxpayer. Right?
Compare that with the way those financial wizards in the private sector managed to convincingly **** over our entire economy with absolutely no comeback at all...
Sorry, who [b]chose[/b] to put money in their high interest accounts, and who [b]chose[/b] to borrow more than they could afford to pay back - not the bankers! higher interest means higher risk, if you choose to invest in a dodgy bank that is clearly playing the markets, then you should risk losing it - don't blame the banks, blame the greed of the investors.
Yes, if there's one thing we can say about the financial sector, it's that Banks cannot - and should not - expect any help from the taxpayer. Right?
Hey, as a fan of the free market, I couldn't agree more! The banks should have failed, [u]and the people who [b]chose[/b] to invest in them should have lost their money [/u]- thats how the free market works!
but we're getting way off topic.
[i]but we're getting way off topic.[/i]
..and you appear to be still ducking the simple question...
how, I've answered it repeatedly? higher risk means more money - the way of the world.
Do you work in the private or public sector Crikey?
and if so, why?
[i]Sorry, who chose to put money in their high interest accounts, and who chose to borrow more than they could afford to pay back - not the bankers! higher interest means higher risk[/i]
..and, incidentally, I didn't put any money into high interest accounts, and I've never borrowed more than I can afford to pay back. As a public servant of some 20 odd years, I have seen my wage and my contribution to society treated like some piggy bank to prop up the actual banks who ****ed up in the first place....
Answer the question.
[i]thats how the free market works![/i]
Does it, my arse.
[i]not the bankers[/i]
Yes, the poor dears were actually [i]forced[/i] into arcane financial instruments. Like a fat kleptomaniac with an eating disorder in a sweet shop... it's society's fault, you know!
As a public servant of some 20 odd years
So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?
Yes, the poor dears were actually forced into arcane financial instruments
So who invested in them? why should the people who [b]greedily[/b] chose the accounts with the highest interest rates get off scott free without losing a penny?
[i]how, I've answered it repeatedly? higher risk means more money - the way of the world.[/i]
No you haven't.
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
This is the question.
Answer it.
High interest accounts?! No such thing (at the moment)!
Lots of our public sector clients are losing staff but it seems they are now using our services more and more.
We thought the new govt would be the end of some of our clients in terms of PR - quite the opposite!
[i]So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?[/i]
Because you don't get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector; it's too expensive....
Crikey - which part of not answering the question does this involve:
if I offered you two jobs, both identical, both paying the same -one had high risk and low security( ie. that if you did not reduce cost by 10% you would be sacked, there was a risk that the company could go under, and a chance that the shareholders could dismiss you at any point)
while the other was a long term guaranteed post, whereby you could only be dismissed for gross negligence (eg a civil service post) with no defined performance criteria and a guaranteed final salary pension backed by the state.
Which would you accept?
THAT is why private sector posts pay more
Because you don't get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector; it's too expensive....
Well, if its so good out in the real world, get another job!
Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries happy to recruit trained medical staff on good money where you [b]do[/b] get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector!
[i]So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?[/i]
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm waiting for Bob Diamond to come and do my shifts.
That's how the Big Society is gonna work, right?
[i]We thought the new govt would be the end of some of our clients in terms of PR[/i]
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years ]Cam loves PR![/url] 😀
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
Answer the question, instead of pretending to.
Crikey - learn to read, then answer
Which job would you accept?
[i]Well, if its so good out in the real world, get another job!
Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries happy to recruit trained medical staff on good money where you do get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector![/i]
Money money money money money money money.
Hmmm. You appear to be one of those lovely people who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
One day you, or someone you know will require the help of me or someone like me.
That makes me smile.
communism
its the only answer
Ah yes. Katyn massacre. Anyone who you don't like just neutralise them.
[i]So who invested in them?[/i]
Not me. Nor have I surfed the wave of the property boom. I own a tent, though.
[i]Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries...[/i]
Careful Z-11 - you might be in danger of suggesting that NHS ITU actually provides good value for money. Shocking, eh?
OK, so [b]now[/b] you accept that money isn't everything, you're coming round to my point of view.
So whats your problem?
You are giving a fantastic definition of [b]why[/b] we need to pay more to attract people to work in the private sector, because you [b]choose[/b] to work in a job that pays less than the private sector equivalent would, you could leave and go and work in the private sector in another country at any time but you [b]choose[/b] not to.
now, ask yourself [i]why[/i] you make that decision, and you see why I would need to pay a huge amount more to attract you to the private sector
we have a breakthrough 😀
Come on then Crikey - I run a private sector hospital, I have a vacancy that needs filling by someone with your exact skill set - what package would it take for me to attract you from your current job to come and work for me - name your price!
And the Liverpool City Council are £120,000,000 in debt!? WTF!!!
[i]in a job that pays less than the private sector equivalent would... I run a private sector hospital[/i]
The irony being - there's a healthy global labour market for experienced medical and nursing personnel. I mean, [i]why[/i] do we want them here? With their fussy notions of a reasonable, comprehensive level of care? And their ghastly habit of scooping ANY sick taxpayer off the pavement?
ps. Z-11 - you lack commercial acumen, old boy. Forget ITU cover and just site your plush private affair on a roundabout near a major teaching hospital. Saves dealing with anything more complicated than an elective procedure and the wine list. Cheaper, too. 8)
I see....
The reason private sector wages are high is my fault!
Because I'm so dedicated, you have to pay more to get me to work for you....
There isn't enough money in the world to make me: I do what I do because I love it.
Poor little money driven thing. You will learn as you get older that shiny pennies can't buy everything.
ou will learn as you get older that shiny pennies can't buy everything.
Wahey, you're cooking with gas now!
Come on then, play the game:
I run a private sector hospital, I have a vacancy that needs filling by someone with your exact skill set - what package would it take for me to attract you from your current job to come and work for me - name your price!
Because I'm so dedicated, you have to pay more to get me to work for you.... There isn't enough money in the world to make me: I do what I do because I love it.
Come on, everyone has their price!
Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?
You tell me Crikey! think about what you've posted above and answer your own question!
crikey - Member
As a public servant of some 20 odd years, I have seen my wage and my contribution to society treated like some piggy bank to prop up the actual banks who ****ed up in the first place....
How much of your income do you think has been spent on "propping up" the Banks?
Zulu. Zulu, zulu, zulu....
You've agreed that money can't buy everything, but then you insist that everyone has a price....
There is an essential contradiction there; can you spot it?
..and you still haven't answered the question; if you, a private sector employer can offer me a vast amount of money to do the job that you want me to do, why can't the public sector demand the same quality and match your offer?
Cost is not the same as value....
No, be accurate, I said you were cooking with gas, I didn't agree, however I did say that money isn't [u]everything[/u]You've agreed that money can't buy everything,
Yep! which is why [i]"huge cash incentives are needed to recruit the best people into the private sector"[/i]but then you insist that everyone has a price....
why can't the public sector demand the same quality and match your offer?
Because [b]theres no need to [/b] Crikey - in your own words, [u]you do it for the love of it[/u]!
Obviously, the only way to change that, is for you (and others) to be willing to leave and go to the private sector... of course, if more of you are willing to leave, then that removes the need for such [i]huge cash incentives[/i] - self regulating supply and demand, the way of the free market 😀
But if the people who work in the public sector were all money grabbing heartless bastards, as opposed to my shining altruistic self, your example would fall flat on its face.
Again, I find it somewhat surprising* that the reason for high private sector salaries is the good natured and helpful public servant approach.
*ie, I think it's bollocks.
...it would help the debate along if you didn't keep editing your replies; are you being paid by the word?
[i]Because theres no need to...[/i]
You are simply admitting that Crikey & the like punch well above their weight in terms of value. Besides, in your hypothetical private hospital, hiring [b]one[/b] ITU nurse, however experienced, isn't going to be much use without the extensive back-up provided by medical teams, imaging, resus, gasmen, porters etc, etc. It's why a major trend in emergency care (e.g. trauma) is towards centralising resources. But you continue to fantasize about some kind of happy supermarket future. 🙄
Apologies crikey...
But if the people who work in the public sector were all money grabbing heartless bastards, as opposed to my shining altruistic self, your example would fall flat on its face.
Yes, as I said above, supply and demand... the more people willing to leave, the less need for the huge incentive. the same applies in the private sector, headhunters offering significant incentives and companies fighting to retain staff.
Think about if the NHS pay settlements were not national - you would probably get paid less to work in the North than in London, as the cost of living/housing etc is lower, but like we said, money isn't [b]everything[/b] - you'd be [b]free to choose.[/b]
Noteeth - its an example to prove the rule, a microcosm of just [u]why[/u] senior private sector executives demand a higher wage than public ones.
I think this argument has probably run its course; it's essentially ideological, and your view and mine are probably different sides of the same coin...
But; you are also guilty of oversimplification with respect to me; yes, I could earn more by working elsewhere, even in the public sector, and could certainly earn more by moving to Saudi Arabia, or even Australia, in the private sector.
But oversimplifying; to get the length of service and therefore skill and experience that makes me who I am, I have had to work for a long time, which brings with it family.....
Essentially, I am not a 'free agent' able to move at will to the place that pays the best ( shades of Norman Tebbit and his bicycle related comment).
The whole free market thing begins to crumble when the real world is allowed to intrude; whatever you do, I suspect that you wouldn't move to the North Pole to earn 3 pence more an hour...
The fundamental point remains; public service jobs are not second best; it's about [i]serving the public[/i] and those jobs deserve to be renumerated as well as they can be; peanuts/monkeys springs to mind.
As I mentioned; at some point you or yours will encounter me or people like me; we do a good job for less than we could earn elsewhere....
[i]a microcosm of just why senior private sector executives demand a higher wage than public ones[/i].
Oh yeah? By and large, I'd say a large number just push to [i]see what they can get away with[/i], regardless of "value". IMO, the increase in CEO salary/bonus arrangements is in no way commensurate with, say, gains in pension funds. Indeed, top tier salaries far outstrip those of the shopfloor - usually on the basis of weak-ass excuses about attracting the "brightest and best" (who periodically threaten to leave, but invariably don't). I'd rather [i]some[/i] of our brightest and best minds went into Science, Medicine and Engineering - as opposed to bludy McKinsey and BarCap. That might be somewhat romantic of me, but I'd suspect it's what once made us leaders in many fields. Indeed, it's what made the NHS a great [i]teaching[/i] institution, once upon another time.
communism
its the only answer
No it's not why should everyone get the same regardless of what they do and how much efort they put in?
we do a good job for less than we could earn elsewhere....
Yes, you do, 100% agreed - but the question was [b]why[/b] private sector wages are so much higher - and you said it yourself "[i]I am not a 'free agent' able to move at will to the place that pays the best[/i] and that you [i]"do it for the love of it"[/i] - Quite often, the private sector [u]wants[/u] you to move at will to meet their business needs, so they [u]have[/u] to pay commensurately.
As you said [i]"whatever you do, I suspect that you wouldn't move to the North Pole to earn 3 pence more an hour..."[/i] - no, they wont, you'd probably have to offer some sort of [u]huge cash incentive[/u]
edit: You need to understand that saying that the private sector pays more than the public sector for very understandable reasons is [b]not[/b] an attack, or an attempt to belittle you as a public service worker, its a statement based on economic facts and human nature
As a parting thought, how would you feel if our soldiers chose to adopt that private sector money chasing mentality?
Would you be happy to see the SAS working for the highest bidder?
What value is duty, or honour in your brave new world?
Remember, not only the good guys have the most money...
Think about if the NHS pay settlements were not national - you would probably get paid less to work in the North than in London,
[url= http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=766 ]Ahem.[/url]
High Cost Area Supplements:Area
Level (1 April 2010)
Inner London
20% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £4,036 and a maximum payment of £6,217
Outer London
15% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £3,414 and a maximum payment of £4,351
Fringe
5% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £933 and a maximum payment of £1,616
Crikey, you've not seen whats happened in both US and UK special forces?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11355
Huge retention difficulties as men leave to become private security contractors on big money.
Ever heard of the Gurkha's? do you think they fight for us [u]purely[/u] for duty and honour? the same with a great many commonwealth soldiers?
Julianwilson, OK, london weighting - regardless, as its a standard formula rather than market competition - take another example, Liverpool versus Edinburgh...
All recent PM's have set their own salary, and for politcal/vote touting reasons they deliberately set their salary well below the market rate. If they allowed their salary to be set by the review body it would be close to double what the current PM is paid. However any PM, let alone a young one,is fully aware that a) they'll never have to put their hand in their pocket while they are in office and b) being a former PM is massively more lucrative than being they current one. Their future finances are not something they have to worry about. That makes it an utterly meanlingless bench mark to compare any other public sector salary to, i'd even go further and say its a deliberately deceptive benchmark to use.
It works though, 3 pages of internet banter hours before the show has even aired. Its the model of contemporary current affairs programming - encourage the audience (even the people who probably won't watch) to form and voice their opinions first, then possibly learn some facts later.
crikey - Member
As a parting thought, how would you feel if our soldiers chose to adopt that private sector money chasing mentality?
You mean if we paid the soldiers less, there would be fewer of them?
Would this be a [i]bad[/i] thing?
Julianwilson, OK, london weighting - regardless, as its a standard formula rather than market competition - take another example, Liverpool versus Edinburgh...
Gladly. They don't want you to know they do but they certainly try.
Plenty of nhs trusts have monkeyed around with their job (well knowledge and skills framework in HR-speak) profiles so you get a higher or lower pay band (or 'grade' in old money) for similar posts jobs in different trusts. Reason for this is supply and demand or retention of existing staff in areas with high turnovers. Conversely, empty posts are often re-banded to save money if they think local applicants are desperate enough to go for it rather than go elsewhere. In the old (pre-agenda for change 2004) days, trusts could start staff part way into a payscale in order to make a crap job more attractive to staff at the bottom of those payscales. Whilst doing this on a couple of service areas, my trust also always refused to pay 'psychiatric lead' (flat rate 'danger money' related to where you worked not what position you occupied) because they knew people would just work here anyway cos it was sunny Devon. (they had it dressed up in some faintly ridiculous blurb about 'lifestyle benefits' 😆 )
[i]Huge retention difficulties as men leave to become private security contractors on big money.[/i]
By your logic, then, mercenary armies should be a good thing. I suspect that's not the case, or indeed your personal view. Recession is good for infantry recruitment - is that enough to explain going the extra distance for yer muckers? Or enough to explain taking pride in the regimental goat?!
For Christ/Thatcher's sake, Z-11 - nobody here needs a lesson in basic Adam Smith. Is it so hard to grasp market principles [i]and[/i] the possibility that people - yer actual real people - aren't simple 2D economic actors? If you take the prescriptive view that everybody is guided entirely by self-interest, then you will end up with a equally reductive view of what constitutes "value".
In other words, Stoner may disagree with the views of TJ, but openly admits on 'ere that he couldn't do his job. [i]Ergo[/i], should we ask Stoner how much he would have to be paid in order to be a nurse - and use that as a basis for a national pay deal? 😉
So Julian - It appears you're saying that the system cannot function without some form of regulation for supply and demand?
Wouldn't it be better if it was simply open and honest freedom for trusts to set wages, rather than by subterfuge?
edit: Noteeth - TJ's original position was that
So that the NHS is outbid for decent managers by private companies? We all agree the NHS is not as well managed as it could be. Surely having the best possible managers in place will help and you need to pay them highly to attract the talent?
I think you'd have to agree, that the discussion above shows that its [b]not[/b] just down to the money.
For Christ/Thatcher's sake, Z-11 - nobody here needs a lesson in basic Adam Smith. Is it so hard to grasp market principles and the possibility that people - yer actual real people - aren't simple 2D economic actors? If you take the prescriptive view that everybody is guided entirely by self-interest, then you will end up with a equally reductive view of what constitutes "value".
Your speaking to someone who only has self-interest. I find it hilarious when he talks about "freedom" and "choice" for in his ideal world those values are only afforded to a wealthy minority.
Thought I'd repeat this from the first page as it seems you ignored it Z-11.
The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 for the average worker.As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1.
[b]Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis.[/b] Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record.
El bent, see my edit above.
regards your other point - Sorry, what is it? That you'd rather see the poor poorer as long as it meant the rich were less rich?
As they sit homeless, waiting for the next dole cheque, the poor can have the the satisfaction of knowing there are fewer rich people in the world?
I think we can answer that one mate:
😆
I think we can answer that one mate
So you were paraphrasing Thatcher ratty ?
😕 But surely Thatcher was considerably to the left of you ?
For example, unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care.
Amazing innit?............First we have a massive crisis of the capitalist system (not the first and for as long as this system continues, certainly not the last) provoked in this instance by finance capital (the banks)...........then we have the whole system being kept afloat by massive injections of public sector money worldwide (the Keynesian solution) with the aforementioned banks being bailed out and most of their jobs at the higher level saved...............and now we decide to forget all that and blame who??? The public sector, the very same public sector which ensured that the entire edifice didn't come tottering down and ensured that we were still able to get cash from holes in the wall and buy our bloody MTBs! Come on, you rightwing numb skulls, at least be honest - it's YOUR system which f****d up but oh no, it's not your system which will pay for it - let's blame it on the poor and the weak and on the very same public sector which only came into being because capitalism couldn't deliver a balanced society. Read history and learn - or you will indeed be part of the problem and not the solution.......and in the meantime, if your judgement of balance is that poor, YOU'RE GONNA FALL OFF!
unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care.
Ernie - I challenge you to show me a quote where Dan Hannan says he wishes to end 'free at the point of need' healthcare.
Here makes very clear indeed that he detests free health care in the UK :
You would [i]never ever[/i] have heard Thatcher slag off the NHS like that.
Nope, he says that the UK system of health care is flawed, cant say I disagree
However, I ask again Ernie - [b]a quote where he says he wants to 'scrap free health care' [/b]- which is the allegation you made.
Can't be bothered wading through all that twaddle because I've read it all before in some form or another, besides a lot of it appears to be Labrat/Zulu trying to impress just how right-wing he is to get attention as usual. He's never said owt of any real note before, so I doubt very much he's suddenly started now. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 😀
Plus, its against the Elfinesco - why do they need more money?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/a-modern-day-robin-hood/page/2#post-1806701
Dear oh dear oh dear. I see the Elfin[i]festo[/i] is a concept a little beyond your narrow-minded and blinkered way of 'thinking' (can you call it that?). Best leave it to the grown ups eh, sunshine? 😉
[b]kimbers[/b] - Member
communism
its the only answer
No, no, no- [i][b]Elfinism[/b][/i] is the only answer.
Dunno Elfin - I managed to make you go wibble enough to get yourself banned on the Lazytown thread, so I must have said something worthwhile 😉
I ask again Ernie - a quote where he says he wants to 'scrap free health care'
He says free health care is a disaster and that the Americans [u]should not[/u] adopt it.
He does not use the precise words [i]"it should be scrapped"[/i].....show me were I claim that he did ?
Obviously he wants to scrap it......why on earth would he want to keep free health care when he thinks it is a complete disaster and, quote : "a sixty year failed experiment"
And btw ratty, he is a liar.
He tells his American audience that the NHS was founded in 1944 during the war and at time of "general mobilisation" - not in "peace time".
That is a lie. The NHS was founded in 1948, in peacetime, and after Britain had demobbed.
Hannan knows that - he might be many things, but he is not stupid. Just a liar.
Did you? I must have missed it. Especially considering I din't actually get banned for that at all, it was something completely unrelated. So don't flatter yourself.
As you were. I've got some interesting looking mould developing on a bit of cheddar in me fridge. Must go and investigate.
X
No Ernie - he says the UK model is a disaster... you said "unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care" so, you really can't support your argument can you Ernie.
as regards 1944, well, that is the date of the white paper which led to the creation of the NHS proper!
Cmon Fred, do the pictures, do the pictures - wibble hatstand meltdown time, its gotta happen sooner or later 😀
regards your other point - Sorry, what is it? That you'd rather see the poor poorer as long as it meant the rich were less rich?
Erm, no. The point being that you subscribe to the survival of the fittest school of thought, a thought being impressed upon the less fit shall we say by those who are already fit. So how much choice you have in your world is based entirely upon how much money you have...or not. You're very American in your thinking, believing that freedom to chose shall set everyone free, where that kind of freedom is a prison to most who don't have the financial means to exercise it.
The public sector, the very same public sector which ensured that the entire edifice didn't come tottering down and ensured that we were still able to get cash from holes in the wall and buy our bloody MTBs!
While the financial sector of this country which caused large percentage of the economic problems has largely been forgotten about in all the fervent right wing bluster over the "problematic" public sector, it shouldn't be forgotten that the government debt was building up before the bailout. If the economic collapse hadn't happened when it did, it would of happened perhaps ten-fifteen years down the line if the spending, both Government and personal pre-credit crunch had continued.
Long term benefit culture, when the benefit system was only designed for individual short term use is part of the problem, (thanks for that link to her Ratty, very appropriate for this point)and can be resolved via Better education and job creation.
There is also the high cost of living to consider, which means the benefit systems customers have become more middle class so to speak. Nursery vouchers for instance. We also don't want to pay the appropriate tax rate for the services we want.
Back to the ratty link, It's great that you posted it ratty, she was someone who didn't quite share you elitist views of society because she turned the university system from elitist to an almost free for all. Shame that nowadays we have too many academics and not enough trades and engineers and the like, but hey you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.
[Burp] S'cuse I.
[img] 
[/img]
Oh and here you are ratty, in this clip the leader of the Tory Party David Cameron is denouncing Dan Hannan for attacking the NHS. And he reaffirms that despite what Hannan says, health care will remain free in the UK :
http://vodpod.com/watch/2053440-nhs-attack-by-mep-unpatriotic
Obviously David Cameron agrees with me, and saw what Dan Hannan said as an attack on free health care in the UK.
Clearly you and Hannan are considerably to the right of both Thatcher and Cameron.
So don't insult Thatcher by suggesting that she shares your views.
dekadanse - Member
Amazing innit?............First we have a massive crisis of the capitalist system (not the first and for as long as this system continues, certainly not the last) provoked in this instance by finance capital (the banks)...........then we have the whole system being kept afloat by massive injections of public sector money worldwide
That's funny, I didn't know that the public sector was actually generating [i]any[/i] money to enable it to be made available for the banking sector. Well, I guess that there must be one or two small operations which actually run at a profit.
FWIW, RBS alone generated pre-tax profits of over £45Bn for the years 2004-2008. That's quite a few schools and hospitals right there.
That's funny, I didn't know that the public sector was actually generating any money to enable it to be made available for the banking sector.
where did he say that it did?
I'm a public sector worker and I earn more than the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in question was Pitt the Younger.
😆
Very good...
Pitt the Younger was not Prime Minister.
He was First Lord of the Treasury.
Just thought I would clear that up.
Carry on .......
And the Liverpool City Council are £120,000,000 in debt!? WTF!!!
That's nothing; the football club are £280,000,000 in debt!
Man Utd are in debt by over £1 [i]Billion[/i], and Roman Abrahamovitch can call in the £726 Million the Chelsea 'owe' him at any time.
And these are football clubs. Private enterprises.
So where's all the money gone? Where's it all gonna come from to pay off these debts?
That is very pedantic Ernie as even the No 10 website calls him a PM, and somehow a thread title of "Over 9000 Public Sector workers earn more than the First Lord of the Treasury!!!!" would not have been quite so catchy.