Forum menu
The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.
I'm constantly amazed by the inability of apparently intelligent people to see this. How much worse does it have to get? 🙄
Rather than just saying growth is being stifled, what are your suggestions for developing long term sustainable growth?
Easy to criticise and all that...
Some people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them
Are there any minimum wage workers in Shropshire council (I'd presume there would be some)? Seeing as these people can't be reinstated on less pay how is it unilateral?
The core issue is nicely summed up at every recent demo/march
"NO CUTS" on banners demonstrates how far removed many people are from reality
Everything that follows is just consequence
The gravy train needs derailing
what about constructive dismissal, it's definitely that?
No it's not constructive dismissal - they are not leaving their employment because of the behaviour of their employer. They are leaving because they have all been sacked.
firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say.... erm..... I don't know... a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs
Oh..... hang on a minute....
This happened to Mrs-g and every single person that works at the company on a temp contract about 2 years ago, only it was a 10% cut.
And the notice given was about 10 days, not 2 or 3 months, so the chances of find another job were a bit smaller too.
Thought about it, the sensible thing to do was accept the cut and keep working. Simple
Secondly, give the banks a damn good kick up the arse to ensure that instead of hourding the cash they've been bailed out with, they actually encourage investment from business to create jobs.
If only they were somehow dependent on taxpayer guarantees, or maybe even largely taxpayer-owned. If only eh?
Oh well....
As long as people are happy to pay extra for every service the council provides (bins, street lights, etc) I can't see this going wrong at all.
The economy is ****ed, so making more people redundant and screwing public confidence is just going to add wood to the fire.
The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.
I could go on
firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say.... erm..... I don't know... a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs
And who will use these new fangled railways to make them profitable?
ourmaninthenorth - thanks for the link, it makes more sense now.
The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.
I think high inflation and interest rates were pretty much a certainty once the the first QE program began (not that I'm sure there were any alternatives), now we're just waiting to see who ends up holding the parcel when the music stops...
The rail travel sector increases year on year. Hence Thameslink (I believe it services a little Hamlet darn sarf
Hence this:
[url= http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/06/16-bombardier-wins-key-15bn-thameslink.html ]Yay for German engineering[/url]
and then this:
[url= http://www.bearsdenherald.co.uk/news/bombardier_job_losses_provoke_anger_1_1715607 ]But not British stuff. Its rubbish[/url]
That's 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!
portlyone - MemberSome people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them
Over to you portly.
[i]And who will use these new fangled railways to make them profitable?[/i]
Zee Germans.
/edit Binners beat me too it.
The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or...
?Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the Thameslink contract procurement process was started by the previous Government, adding: "Under the criteria that the previous Government set out in the contract, Siemens were the winner of that competition and under European procurement law we had no choice but to announce them as the preferred bidder."
But not British stuff. Its rubbishThat's 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!
A fair amount of those directly affected (1,200?) were already marked out for redundancy due to other projects finishing weren't they? Not that I disagree with your point.
and further don simon's post (which is absolutley correct, gov tenders must go thorugh OJEU and cannot be awarded on grounds of nationality except for specific security reasons I believe)...
... chap from railway magazine (yep, I m sure he owns a Thermos) on the Today programm said that the Siemns trains were just BETTER than the bombardier ones. Do we deserve to buy shite trains just because theyre british? Also, bombardier had said that they would still have made some 1,000+ redundancies EVEN IF THEY HAD WON THE CONTRACT becuase other contracts were completing anyway.
EDIT: retro beat me to it.
Good job we have European partners who won't hear of any of this protectionism nonsense, like France! Nope - its the same level playing field for everyone.
And going back to the banking point. The capital for Kraft's leveraged buyout of Cadbury was supplied by taxpayer-owned RBS. So we lent an American company billions of quid provided by thee British taxpayer to buy a British company, close the plants, make the workforce redundent and move production abroad
With decisions like that we'll be sailing out of recession in no time, I'm sure
Yeah we facing similar problems at work Don, where we have long term relationships with certain external companies, but now rather than just giving us the contract and knowing that we will deliver, they have to put it out to European tender, and buy the cheapest tender, with the hope that they will deliver what they want (which they won't)
Alas such transparency in procurement sounds lovely in principle, but in practice. hmm.
There was a strike last week with less justification than this.
The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say 'no'. Why wouldn't that work? Because they would not all stand together.
The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say 'no'. Why wouldn't that work? Because they would not all stand together.
I think that would a be superb idea. Then youd find the proper market value of the roles on offer as it would be opened up to the entire unemployed labour force of the county! Knock out!
😉
The "private sector = generates wealth" and "public sector = doesn't" thing really bugs me:
If I opened a shop selling widgets to British people, and I import all those widgets from China, how much wealth have I generated for the country? As I see it, I've just moved some wealth from here to China. Or, have I got my economics arse-backwards?
The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or...
According to a chap on Radio Derby who was from the rail industry press - Bombardier probably lost the contract because...
a) they were more expensive
b) Siemens were offering a better service at the lower price
c) Bombardier have been late by many years on their current contracts which isn't inspiring confidence in the company.
My neighbour also worked in the rail industry in Derby for thirty odd years (latterly in working out worldwide maintenance contracts for Bombardier), and he was saying Siemens have far better working practices.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Bombadier management had proposed a cut in salary and an increase in productivity and improved working practices (which I understand to be more for less to help win the contract?
Of course instead of kicking the public sector yet again we could just make rich people/companies pay the tax they owe. Crazy idea I know.
Simon - I'd say, given the situation ,and the alternatives, everything would have been on the table. It certainly would have been if it were me.
dismissing and re hiring is not uncommon practice a customer of mine and his wife have bothe gone through the same process she lost 15% him nearer 30% but as they both agreed it was either that or possibly one or both be out of work.
large businesses like Tesco do much the same virtually every dau by making roles redundant but retaining staff in different roles on a pay scale that reduces over 2 - 4 years to the new level, mrs tts had this happen 18 months ago shes still the pharmacist but with a new title and over 36 months her 'reward' is adjusted to the lower level ( ie her pay remains the same until the rate catches up and or she loses 25% of the difference every year) and no one every bats an eyelid. Tesco is the countries largest private sector employer with 120k union members..
C'mon - award it to a British firm, coz its gotta be better for the economy - it'll be like the old days again!
[img] 
[/img]
And if it was on the table, binners, what went wrong?
I don't know if it was on the table. You'd have to be pretty daft not too really. You'd think. Turkeys and christmas, and all that
TJ - GDP has dropped, therefore state spending must decrease to maintain the status quo, its quite logical really, thats how %ages work!
The opposite is true. Read your Keynes.
Didn't state spending increase while GDP was increasing?
Do people on here realise how much of the private sector is subsidised by the public sector?
Get your heads out of the sand!
Didn't state spending increase while GDP was increasing?
State spending (as % of GDP)under Labour was consistently lower than the previous Conservative government.
"I applied for this job thinking I was doing one thing (well several really) and now the goal posts have changed umpteen times since and now I am doing lots of different demanding roles which is quite common across the council. Quite a stressful environment here at Shirehall."
Welcome to the real world. In the private sector most if not all of us do exactly this, chipping in to get done whatever needs doing, because if the company does poorly, it goes under, and we all lose.
My Mother worked in the public sector, my partner has just started, both have many horror stories to tell of the unending red tape, gross inefficiency, and under performing (yet tolerated) staff.
State spending (as % of GDP)under Labour was consistently lower than the previous Conservative government.
You haven't answered my question. Did the actual amount of state spending go up or down?
My Mother worked in the public sector, my partner has just started, both have many horror stories to tell of the unending red tape, gross inefficiency, and under performing (yet tolerated) staff.
Guess what, I could tell you lots of similar tales about private sector companies too. But keep buying the Tory tabloid propaganda, there's a good boy.
erm no, private sector is generally cash generator, public sectors cannot/do not create any 'new' money,
Well the NHS section I work in generates cash, so your wrong there.
mrs tts had this happen 18 months ago shes still the pharmacist but with a new title and over 36 months her 'reward' is adjusted to the lower level ... and no one every bats an eyelid
Aye, but she's on a fair chunk more than if she worked in the NHS, and if I may be so bold, doing fair less difficult work.
Guess what, I could tell you lots of similar tales about private sector companies too.
Aye, but its not public money, nor public money at risk (unless it's a bank ... 🙄 )
You haven't answered my question. Did the actual amount of state spending go up or down?
Oh, we spend far more than we used to. To pay for fripperies such as schools, roads, pensions, hospitals and so on.
Clearly, most sensible people would look at how much we spend as a percentage of our total wealth. It was lower under labour than the previous tory government.
Well the NHS section I work in generates cash, so your wrong there.
Whilst we're on the subject: how much of the private sector actually generates wealth? As opposed to shifting it from one part of the economy to another.
to generate wealth is to value add. i.e. take an input, apply knowledge and skill to it and receive payment for it in excess of the costs of production. Whether it be crossrail trains or hairdressing.