Johnny Bognor

The vast majority, I am sure. BTF, you don't honestly believe that the public sector are going to bear the brunt of job losses in this recession, do you?

There, that's better :-)

....and I was not disagreeing with that point of view. I do, however, disagree that the private sector have it pretty cushy. If anything, you have managed to convince me that the total opposite is the case - better pensions and better job security,

Maybe this is the problem with the public sector. The consultants responsible for getting VfM from the councils are spending too much time on internet forums????? :-):-):-):-):-)

That merely supports my point that the public sector has it pretty cushy. Hundreds lose their jobs in the Public Sector whilst hundreds of thousands lose their jobs in the private sector. Most people in the private sector are nervous, a significant percentage of which are extremely worried. Whilst in the public sector, it's business as usual. In general, when there is a monopoly supplier for goods or services, the service is usually **** - because it can be. However people cite privitisation as the answer - which despite my political affiliations - I don't necessarily agree with in all situations. With BA, privatisation was a good thing, they were forced to truly compete and have developed as a company . BT is another excellent example where privatisation has worked. Both of these companies are innovative and well respected - far better than when they were under government control. On the other hand, privatisation of the railways has not worked. Although the railways are private, Southern who cover our area are a monopoly supplier, and therefore it is not subject to true competition. With Utilities we have a cartel of private suppliers, which again is no better than a monopoly as we are not getting real value. Local Government contracting out guarantees the work for the winning private enterprise. As long as they perform to their contract, they keep the work. There is no need for them to continually improve, innovate and add value - because the 'demands' of the 'customer' are unlikely to change. The private company effectively has a monopoly on the service they provide during the tenure of the contact - therefore the service they provide is likely to be no better. As said before, privatisation can only only really work where there is true competition. So for me, it is less about privatisation being the answer to all our ills as many examples of privatisation involve monopoly supply, where competition is stiffled. With local government, many of the services cannot be provided by multiple suppliers at the same time - it is not economically or practically feasible to do so. Therefore, you can't privatise everything, local government being a good example. Does this help?

.....whilst the government who are in the position to ACTUALLY do something (rather than PRETEND to like the opposition) achieve the square root of **** all. Having said this, I am schocked by the tories reponse - this was a massive opportunity to move into pole position when it comes to financial management, and they have failed spectacularly. The problem is that these career politicians (tory and labour) have never really worked in a commercial context and therefore cannot think commercially. Our own PM, whilst Chancellor, once said ....... I did maths for a year at university. I don't think I was very good at it. And some people would say it shows. Gordon Brown April 2007.

Oh come on, unemployment is going to rise to 3m. Of those 1.2m who are losing or have lost their jobs, how many of these will come from the public sector? I don't know if you noticed, but Woolworths and MFI went down yesterday - how many councils have gone bust in the last week?

But that is just playing politics, to sure up support amoungst their core support. The intake for the 45% tax band will supposedly raise 1.5bn - that is like trying to empty the pacific ocean with an egg cup. It will have virtually no impact on the economy whatsoever. Got any other bright ideas???? There are many things that could have been done to protect small businesses at little or no cost to the taxpayer. For example........ changing the VAT payment timescales to ease the cashflow of smaller businesses A reduction (not an increase) in employers in NI would save jobs Zero employers NI on all new jobs for the first 6 months of employment to encourage companies to take people on. Better tax relief on capital investment There are many more, but can't be arsed to list them. Unfortunately, this government are more concerned with playing politics than they are with saving the economy.

Unfortunately it would not be possible to privatise local government (which you seem to be suggesting), and the system we have is the only way. I just wish public sector workers would stop moaning and accept that they have it pretty cushy. Pehaps they feel guilty for their molly-coddled cotton-wool-wrapped world and by moaning, makes the suffering masses in private employment feel a little better?????

I was being sarcastic, which raised a response from the usual suspects. But since we are on the subject, a freeze in council tax would be better than an increase in council tax, would it not? Freezing a tax, is a tax cut in real terms. It would leave people with more money to spend rather than taking more out of their pockets. Can you explain how a rise in employers NI is going to help employment prospects?

Sorry, have to pick you up on that one..... Bloody hell, that is twice in a week that I have referred to the Lib Dems to back up my argument (I must be going soft :-))

Public Sector Vs Private Sector Pensions The PPI have recently published the results of research they have undertaken into the impact of the Government’s latest reforms of the public sector pensions in the UK. This new research looks at the overall effect of those changes and compares the schemes with their private sector counterparts. Headline figures coming from this research include: The schemes for the police, the armed forces and the fire service have reduced the average value from around 37% of salary to 33% of salary. Typical private sector defined benefit schemes are worth 20% of salary. Typical private sector defined contribution schemes are worth 7% of salary. Public sector employees are more than twice as likely as private sector employees to be members of an occupational pension scheme. 85% of public sector employees are members of an occupational pension scheme. 40% of private sector employees are members of an occupational pension scheme. Most members of public sector schemes are in defined benefit schemes. Only around 15% of private sector employees are members of defined benefit schemes. Employers contribute around £4,000 a year per employee in the public sector. Employers contribute around £1,600 a year per employee in the private sector. BTF, I admire your one-woman crusade to defend the Public Sector, but at the end of the day, when it comes to pensions, the public sector have it pretty cushy. For a private employer, to raise pension contributions would need to come from an increase in profit (which doesn't include price rises in a competitive market). For a Public Sector employer, they just raise taxes, simple as that. Without competition, the public sector pass on the cost of this to customers - a luxury that the private sector cannot afford.

Freezing coucil tax is not a bad idea, the councils are so awash with cash that they can gamble tax payers money by investing in Iceland (and I don't mean the frozen food company).

The thing is, it is not 2.5p per pound - it is 2.1p per pound. If a product is £85.11 +VAT then .......at 17.5 % VAT, the price becomes £100.00 .......at 15 % VAT the price becomes £97.88 The reduction of 2.5% on VAT saves £2.11, which is a reduction in the overall price of 2.11%. Dulling and G Clown are quite happy to let everyone think that they are saving 2.5%, when this is not the case. There are plenty of things that could have been done at little or no cost, but the career politicians do not see it (and I include the tories in this too). Unfortunately, when you allow amateurs to run your economy, what else can you except. Vince Cable is one of the only ones who knows what he's talking about (and I am not a Lib Dem by any stretch of the imagination).

.....and an increase in NI contributions for those on £40k+ (which is by no means 'rich') means they have got it half wrong - once again, middle england is going to pay. In addition to this, the increase in NI for employers means that those businesses that are struggling at the moment are going to struggle even more. Surely a reduction in employers NI would reduce the cost of emoployment for small businesses and be better for employment prospects? The 2.5% reduction in VAT equates to 2.1% drop in real prices which will make little difference to consumer spending, when most retailers are discounting by 20-30% and things aren't improving. The big 'risk' to the economy is that of deflation, so what does Gordon Clown and Dulling do? Reduce prices - total irresponsible headline grabbing bull**** - the sooner these two fools are put to the sword (democratically speaking), the better!

I'm lovin it

Do you think he would take a spider as payment? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5333 It's got to be worth at least a quid!

Excelent point. Those of the lefter persuasion on this board are quick to bash the fascists (something that I do not oppose), but are they as keen to bash the communists to the same degree? Extremism is the enemy, whether political or religious.

Although fascism is far right and communism is far left, if you look at examples from the past, there is very little difference between the two..... The Nazi's may have had a witch hunt against those with a differing political view, but this is no different to the way the Soviets (with the KGB taking out opposition) and the Chinese (butchering up to 3000 students not that long ago) dealt with people of a different political persuasion. Both types of regime are totalitarian, supress freedom, excercise fear and intimidation to control their populations. Are the people of North Korea really happy? In my view, both fascists and communists are enemies of the people.

I am neither pro or against, but Brighton did ground share with Gillingham, which is bloody miles away. For them it was needs must..... Having said this, would it have worked if they had ground shared with Palace????? (which would have been much easier to get to). Rivals sharing grounds works OK when they are based in the same city - they share the city and so why not share the ground? Rival clubs from different cities is harder to make work. If pompey smash up their own town after a local derby, imagine what 20,000 would do to Southampton after being "defeated at home".

I am with you on this one BTF, if people want to join the Labour Party, it is their right One day we could have (heaven forbid) an extreme left wing government who could persecute the "publicly available" membership of right wing parties. Joking aside, an extreme left wing party is as distasteful as an extreme right wing party. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it's that extremism (in any form) is the real enemy - not left or right. Although I disagree with the BNP, should they not be allowed to flourish and as their ranks grow with more moderate people (most people are actually moderate in their views), this will influence their policies in the future and bring them back into the mainstream? (That's exactly what Blair did with Old Labour)

Don't you think that is a bit negative?

Perhaps if the Germans in the late 1930's questioned their leaders' motives, there would not have been a world war. If they had have questionned the Nazi's, it would have made them no less patriotic. Therefore, blindly following your leaders is not patriotism. Wanting what's best for your club, cricket team or country is what counts. Therefore, those that feel a change of leadership is required (whether or not they are right or wrong) is no less loyal than those who blindly follow. Shame, I had you down as a leader, not a follower......

...and how many taxes were introduced by the "no more boom and bust" Gordon Clown?????

63p tax of the total pump price 95p is 70% of the total paid. However, the fuel cost is 32p and the tax is 63p, therefore levy on the cost of fuel is actually 200% (i.e. the tax is twice as much as the cost of fuel). You can dress it up however you like, but Gordon Clown (see what I did there?) is screwing the tax payer rotten!