On 20 Sep 2010 at 10:31am jrsussex wrote:
I have just been made aware that the Citizens Advice Bureau distribute all their information in the following: English, Welsh, Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Punjabi and Urdu. Surely any proposed cuts should begin with matters such as this before cutting essential services. I have live and worked in other countries and cannot recall any such service in any of them when I had form filling to be carried out. Please do not label this as racist, I am not a racist. But given successive Governments, in stating that they want immigrants to speak English, it can heardly be seen as conducive for immigrants to do such things in their own language.
In another country when I was stopped by the police for having committed a traffic ofence I was atken to the police station and had to wait for the compnay I worked for to send an interpretor, no police officer spoke English and they had no intention of paying for me to have the services of a tranlator.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 11:31am Down and Out wrote:
You might be right in principle JRS but to be honest, posts like this sort of annoy me. Lots of people will say, 'Oh, we could save money if we didn't do X', and avoiding waste is always good, but the fact is that the total of all these little things probably add up to 0.5% of the s**t that's about to hit the fan.
The question is whether or not there'll still be a CAB at all, not what languages leaflets are printed in. It's like if you're about to have your house repossesed when you owe a million quid, and you think you've achieved something if you buy Tesco Value beans instead of Heinz.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 11:56am Newmania wrote:
Down and out even after the hugely increased cost of interest is taken into account the Coalition plans involve reducing spending over a term to the levels of Gordon Browns day one level and way above Blair`s.Interest now accounts for the same amount as spending on education and defence btw.
Don`t over dramatise.
Cutting the translation budget would be a good signal to send to migrant communties whose pitiful efforts to intergrate show contempt for the country that has accepted them. They can learn English and we can lose another few pointles bureaucrats and their pensions. Its all good
On 20 Sep 2010 at 12:29pm Newmania wrote:
I was watching the Lib Dem conference a bit yesterday and where I part company with them is over International Aid. By all means,if you are feeling fat and Western, pop your cash in the Oxfam box, but don`t extract charity from me on pain of imprisonment.
Last year You-Gov asked the question, "If the government did decide to cut back on its plans for spending which two or three of these would you like to cut"
The results were as follows (top of the pops ):
Overseas AID 67%
Projects to avert climate chnage 39%
Subsidies to farmers , industry and the PO 18 %
by contrast ( bottom of the pops)
Child benefit 7%
So there is no support for ring fencing ¬£9 billion for overseas aid , 0.7% of GDP, whereas universal benefits and services are overwhelmingly supported.
I therefore ask the question why the hell are we wasting money on China (¬£50 million) and India both of whom themselves not only compete with us for jobs but give money to other countrties in international Aid?!!!
Meanwhile so called middle-class benefits, like child benefit are under threat when the recipients have pay the taxes to fund them for their working lives.
It is grossly unfair and could be avoided by cutting International AID taking pressurre off hard working families whose real disposable income is often very low despite everyone working.
Hope ¬£9 billion counts as worth saving Down and Out
On 20 Sep 2010 at 12:33pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Bloody annoys me when you get anything from a council or the police from Wales and it comes in English and Welsh. makes you laugh when only about 5% of the Welsh can speak it. All these forms in other languages are a complete waste of money and coincidently cost a lot more than the difference between Heinz and Tesco Value beans.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 1:04pm jrsussex wrote:
Down and Out - Know where you are coming from but think you are wrong. There are collectively many millions being wasted on the type of action I have highlighted. Across the board if these matters were investigated, and those that were unnecessary identified, many of the cuts that will inevitably happen to the NHS and other similar essential services would not be as drastic. Would you not agree with that as a policy?
On 20 Sep 2010 at 1:15pm queequeg wrote:
When will people appreciate that the government does not give it's own money away, it has none to give. This budget deficit of ¬£155 billion means they borrow it on our behalf for us to pay the interest on forever more. If the budget was not cut and 155 billion was added to our debt year after year then the debt will exceed our annual income in only a few years. At the moment this debt is relatively cheap to service but is still costing us the amount of the Education and Defence budget combined. When interest rates rise this cost will be more than half of all government income, in other words taxation will have to raise twice as much from us as it needs to just to run the everyday business of government. This is immoral to load future generations with such huge debt. It is the equivalent of the debt built up to fight the 2nd World War which we only paid off about 5 years ago. We paid that bill happily because we all new what had been achieved with the money. Will our children be so forgiving of us when we are building up this debt to protect our own standard of living at the expense of theirs.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 1:40pm stan wrote:
regarding foreign aid.
Maybe if you look at it as a slush fund in order to allow bribing key officials in foreign countries it looks more attractive. Has someone run an investigation into the reciprocal trade with those receiving aid from us. That would be interesting. Also, for those who oppose immigration,would you support payment to governments in return for them restricting emmigration? All I mean is that the context in which aid is given is important. Little is given without strings attached.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 2:19pm Newmania wrote:
If it was anything to do with trade Stan we would giving it to eachother 80% of trade is internal. Actually its a bourgeois hobby paid for by other people. As for immigration I support coalition policy which is a cap on the grounds of social coherence .The effect on prosperity of immigration is about neutral (So concluded the HOL).
On 20 Sep 2010 at 4:17pm grunge wrote:
In the past few years we have received many immigrants originating from new members of the EU. How far is this reciprocal? Do they have jobs to offer us, or is it one-sided?
On 20 Sep 2010 at 4:30pm Newmania wrote:
We have cured unemployment in Warsaw which has depressed wages increased the housing problem and had long term bad effects on the structural Economy . Compared however to the immigration of Sumalians, however, it has been an undiluted boon
On 20 Sep 2010 at 4:49pm stan wrote:
The repatriated funds of the polish workers have led to their economy booming. So, have we all been learning Polish so we can go over there and reap the rewards? No, thought not. We all need to wake up. The value of most of our skills are declining in the world marketplace. The idea of a national economy is becoming obsolete as capital,both monetary and intellectual is free to find lowest costs and finest skills worldwide. It is pretty frightening really.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 7:50pm Matt Kent wrote:
Where are the incentives to train home grown talent given the remit of the private sector to make things as cheap as possible so that shareholders are kept happy eh? Take companies like Dyson / HP / Cadbury that have moved manufacturing out of the UK because they want to make things cheaper elsewhere.
There are fewer companies out there that are willing to see the bigger picture of reskilling the 'British' workforce, simply because they have little loyalty to a sustainable British workforce.
At this moment in time, there are currently hundreds of thousands of under grad and post grad students that are struggling to find jobs (1 in 5 under 25's is out of work).
This is compounded by the fact that unemployment is about to soar under the coalition governments ignited public sector recession, and doesn't even take into account the proposed cuts in Higher Education.
Immigrant workforces always tend to favour the UK in the good times, and not so in the bad, simply because the UK is a unpredictable, unsustainable, service sector based economy with no realistic skill base that is rarely reinforced by an ever changing senior school curriculum.
Having worked in Romania for a good few months in the past, I also see why both skilled and unskilled workers flock to the UK to work. They are well educated, and want to do well from themselves financially, like the next man. And as average salaries in the old eastern blok are usually four figures, you can understand why the UK has been swollen by non-UK workers, whether at McDonalds or Microsoft.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 9:09pm Newmania wrote:
What are you suggesting Matt ? World government , protectionism , nationalisation, a planned Economy ? I see you favour the continued impoverishment of the working people of the country so as to feed the greedy maugh of the least productive and most privileged , the Public Sector .
The Public sector are more than adequately protected by Trade Unions ( In the public sector, 4.1 million public sector employees in the UK were union members in 2009 thast 60% as opposed to 15%of the private sector )
Almost half of trade union members have a degree or other higher education, compared to under a third of non-member. Union members are now more likely than non Union members to be owner-ocupiers. Their salaries are higher , their pensions obviously incomparable.
It is not true that there is no incentive to invest, including in skills. In fact the competitive market in capital is always prowling for opportunities. The reason for the floods from the EU was the rank incompetence of New Labour who underestimated the demand many times over and failed to have staged processes as much of the rest of Europe did.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 10:16pm Matt Kent wrote:
What do you suggest then Newmania? I'm all ears.
On 20 Sep 2010 at 10:29pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
So anyway...when are the banks going to repay all that money the taxpayer used to bail them out ? Anyone know when the debt will be called in and what rate of interest they are paying ? Seems like everyone has forgotten what led to this massive debt and decided to follow the Tory line of blaming hardworking public sector workers - like doctors, nurses,teachers, police,firemen and trying to nick their hard earned pensions.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 8:56am MC wrote:
Can anyone find the figures for the size of UK National debt before the banking crisis and after? I can't. Any pointers appreciated. A non-partisan source would be preferable.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:04am Newmania wrote:
MC -The National debt is not the point or the problem the structural annual deficit is the problem . For what its worth the National debt was hovering around 40% in accordance with the now risible so called "Golden Rule" . You may have forgotten but that was the level at which a prudent country should remain , said idiot one eyed Brown. Its over 50 % now and rising not sure about today lok at the National Debt Clock
Matt -The answer is not a plan.It is simply for the govemnent to foster decent trading conditions by controlling debt ( and therefore interest rates) reduce impediments to business and keep taxes as low as possible , this means reducing the passengers in the public sector .
The market will then send resources to the things we are good at which are high end services Phamaceuticals design and the like . We cannot and should not compete in ultra low wage jobs which are the ones which are outsourced . to continue to keep artificial jobs alive would obviously
be witless and to borrow even more so as to do it lunatic .
Brixton Bell .- the central insight of Keyenes was that markets are inherently unstable he therefore recommended building a surplus in a boom so as to acrt counter cyclically on demand . We did the opposite and it is no-ones fault but New Labour and Gordon Brown. As for the suppsed sufferings opf the Public Sector thats only what its like fro evryone else all the time .We cannot molly coddle this lazy elite forever we cannot afford to , they have to do more with less just like everyone else ( In fact the tax payer will make a profit out of its guarantees to the banks but that is really rather misleading.It is hardly a commensurate retrun for guaranteeing an entire global industry)
Matt Btw -Looking at the Green Party agenda of protectionism it is oddly reminiscent of the BNP`s wierd cocktail. Just a thought , you know Moseleys black shirts were preceded by the Green shirts , very popular in their time , back to nature , that sort of thing ......just saying
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:18am MC wrote:
Obviously Brown was far from prudent and it is plain that it is necessary to save for the bad times during the good times. I also understand "structural annual deficit", thank you.
Nowadays a country's economy is at the mercy of hedge funds and market neuroses. The *inherent instability* of the market is grossly magnified by trading and financial conditions which encourage unbridled and unprincipled speculation. In general humans are too inclined to be short-termist, selfish and greedy (the current unhealthy state of our planet is testiment to this) . Markets, as well as business need to be regulated to put the brakes on this inclination (there is no doubt at all that financial deregularisation was the father of the recent banking crisis). This requires a state and taxes.
I'd still welcome any answers to my original question:
"Can anyone find the figures for the size of UK National debt before the banking crisis and after?"
Even this wonderful site does not seem to have the answer:
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:53am Brixtonbelle wrote:
Newmania - I wasn't talking about The National Debt. This is my question from above:
"When are the banks going to repay all that money the taxpayer used to bail them out ? Anyone know when the debt will be called in and what rate of interest they are paying ?
And you also need to be pulled up again on your insulting way of describing people so disrespectfully. Brown may be an idiot in your view, but using the term 'one-eyed' is just completely unnecessary and repugnant.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:56am Down and Out wrote:
The things that all these 'destroy the public sector' types miss out on is this: at least half the money which enters the public sector goes ultimately to the private sector; whether it's construction, consultancy, office furniture or toner for the photocopier. Obviously, debt will be repaid by revenue - ie tax. What the coalition will now be looking for are the things which they can cut whilst causing the least upset. In my experience it's very easy to say, 'We won't build the extra operating theatre or classroom for a couple of years' because, at first glance, no-one misses something which isn't yet there, and no-one loses their jobs. However, over the next year companies employing thousands will go to the wall if the cuts are too aggressive. The likes of Balfour Beatty and WS Atkins earn a fortune for the UK taxpayer from overseas business and if that revenue ceases because those companies get into trouble, our debts will never be repaid. As it stands, much of the UK construction industry is already being bought out by foreign companies (as with many other sectors), and the risk, if UK companies are damaged, is that when the economy recovers it will be foreign-owned companies which benefit because they are working from a more stable background.
I'm not saying that there do not need to be cuts, I'm just saying that it's not as simple as saying 'slash everything and lower taxes to encourage the private sector', because the private sector could not possibly adapt overnight to the loss of all current public sector expenditure. If the cuts are the wrong cuts, things will get a lot worse than they need to, before they get better.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 12:33pm MC wrote:
The cuts have not yet been introduced with a vengeance but already many private companies are feeling the pinch (mine included). The upcoming drastic reduction in the size of the state will inevitably cause further and huge damage to the private sector. I'm not at all optimistic that private sector will be left in a good enough shape to keep the economy out of recession and power it back to health in the near or intermediate future, whether or not the government oils the wheels with lower corporate taxes/red tape etc.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 1:13pm Newmania wrote:
Aint so D and O .Public Sector salaries pensions and welfare are the overwhelming bulk of the dead weight .Obviously any income to some extent is recycled through the Economy but actual works are a small part of it . Our problem is the drop off in revenue combined with the increase in calls on welfare , thus far employment has been relatively un affected given the dire straits we are in and that is because we have veered dangerously towards high borrowing.
The argument you are advancing is essentially that the Government should tax us and subsidise certain favoured inefficient sectors to the detriment of others who pay their own way. Good plan...
God knows why you should feel the government knows which winners to pick or which losers to condemn , are we back to Callaghan?
We are not slashing anything , the coalition has accelerated New Labour`s plans by three years and delivering it in a term is an aspiration highly unlikely to be met. Spending will , it is hoped, approach 2006 levels then deemed vertigenously high
B Belle - I recall Jeremy Clarkson using the phrase one -eyed Scottish idiot on National State TV but if you don`t like it no offence intended . Much respected former PM ? Blimey can we not be rude about politicians any more . Sod that.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 1:24pm Matt Kent wrote:
Amazingly I agree with Down & Out.
I work as an architect for a privately owned practice that specialises in Schools and Hospitals. As soon as the plug was so catastrophically pulled on the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) Programme (thanks Mr Gove), architectural offices were closed and highly skilled workers (hundreds to thousands) were thrown onto the scrap heap, along with the many other millions. Local authorities had spent tens of millions of pounds (which some Local Authorities are taking Central Government to Court on to claw back the money) on feasibility studies to ensure that their schools estates were at least fit for purpose (i.e. not falling down). That was just a taster back in the summer.
Currently NHS Estates managers (probably on more wages than the PM) are not planning to spend on new projects that the construction and design industry rely on heavily. Projects such as Crossrail in London, need to be built also, so that people get to work (or in Newmanias world, continues to oil the wheels of capitalism), but most importantly maintains a healthy skills base to reduce unemployment and increase opportunity for children and students that aspire to a vocation or a profession. Simples.
@ Newmania. You're not the first to suggest that the Green Party sound like the BNP when it comes to sustaining a localised skills based economy. The slight difference (only a small one mind you) is that the Green Party aren't bloody racists!
On 21 Sep 2010 at 2:04pm Grunge wrote:
I would have suggested that the vast army of administrators in the public sector could be dispensed with, at least in part. In my experience they seem to spend their time having meetings and lunches (for which they do not pay, and which are generally overcatered). This would at least leave more money for the Poor Bloody Infantry on the chalk face, and for their clients/pupils/patients. However, someone much more knowledgeable than me will probably point out that this is the mere tip of the iceberg, and I'm sure they're right, so I'll shut up!
On 21 Sep 2010 at 2:10pm Newmania wrote:
Localised skills based Economy eh. I`m sure the predominantly black Asian people whose living you destroy will be grateful for your good intentions. There was nothing racist about the Italian Facsists until quite late on, you know , its not a necessarry part of national socialism. I not suggesting anything ,but...... a mixture of paleozoic socilaism and romantic twaddle does have a bit of previous ..started in Germany the Green movement didn`t it ? ...Just saying....
BTW-I am loving the idea of a red rimmed square spectacled man-bag touting floppy fringed Cold Play -sucking graduate actually arguing that ordinary people should be taxed into penury so he can continue in an occupation which cannot survive unless we treat it like the National Opera . Not very fraternal is it brother Kent ?
On 21 Sep 2010 at 6:12pm Clifford wrote:
Well known Christian Newmania has a good word to say for the Italian fascists. Now there's a surprise.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 6:56pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
People are very quick to slag off public sector pensions, but even quicker to forget that in almost any professional discipline, staff in the public sector tend to earn less than their private sector counterparts, and the "generous" pensions (to which staff in much of the public sector contribute, out of their salaries) are what makes it possible for them to attract decent staff.
And the average public sector pension is ¬£3k pa. Hardly a prince's ransom. My father got more than double that in the private sector, and he retired over 12 years ago.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 7:02pm Clifford wrote:
Hear, hear ACT. And if workers in the private sector had the courage to join a union and insist on forcing their employers to recognise it they might find themselves with better conditions. What has happened over the last 30 years is that the share of wealth going to owners has risen and the share going to the workers who produce the wealth has fallen. So who do the workers blame? The owners? No, that take some courage.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 8:51pm Newmania wrote:
ANCT- They only earn less than their Private Sector counter parts if you judge every Tom Dick and Harry in a non competitive situation against the winners in a competitive industry. The Public Sector know they could not hack it perfectly well or they would leave . Or perhaps I am wrong.Perhaps these highly valuable personell will be snatched up the second their skill become available . As if ...
Clifford- If the entire country behaved like the Unionised Public Sector there would be no money to hose down friends of New Labour with at all so I `d be careful what you wish for .
15% inflation, uncollected dead bodies ,the miners running the country and the IMF in ie the 70s . Is that what you recommend ?
On 21 Sep 2010 at 9:10pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
With reference to the OP, CAB are mostly staffed by volunteers and have no direct central govt. funding, but gain funding from local authorities, business, grants and charitable donations.
I would hope that a non-English speaker, whether their issue relates to employment, housing, debt or whatever, should still be made aware of their rights and responsibilities, which is the aim of the CAB.
Maybe pick on a less worthwhile organisation.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:06pm MC wrote:
I know many people who have moved from the public sector to the private sector and been successful. I'm surprised that you don't Newmania.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 10:54pm Clifford wrote:
Tell us a bit more about Mussolini Newmania.
On 21 Sep 2010 at 11:42pm brixtonbelle wrote:
I work in the private sector for a very profitable multinational. It's stuffed full of people who used to work in the public sector, many of them former teachers. And all of them say the same thing - working in the private sector is piss easy compared to teaching or nursing or social work and better paid. Many in the private sector are bitter though because their companies sold out their final salary pension scheme so inevitably feel the public sector pensions are somehow unfair.
On 22 Sep 2010 at 11:52am Down and Out wrote:
Back to the OP - it's a bit of a silly comment anyway when you think about the process: Govt gives money to local authority; LA gives money to CAB; CAB decides to print multilingual leaflets.
As far as I can see, the whole Tory ethos is (allegedly) about decentralising control and responsibility: give money to schools to manage their own budgets; give money to GPs similarly.
So what, JRS, do you want to see happen? Do you want a Nanny State Tory Party which says 'Here's your cash, and here's exactly how you will spend it'? Or do you want a special new law which makes it illegal to spend public money on multi-lingual leaflets? I thought the Coalition were supposed to be set on rolling back Nulab's ultra-authoritarian tendencies, not expanding them.
Ultimately, the CAB get their grant (whether it is reduced or not) and it's up to them to decide what they spend it on.
On 22 Sep 2010 at 12:28pm Newmania wrote:
And all of them say the same thing - working in the private sector is piss easy compared to teaching or nursing or social work and better paid.
Brixton Belle -My brother left Paribas and qualified as a teacher about five years ago .He tells me its like working part time .The hours certainly bear no comparison , nor do the holidays and nor do the pressures .Its not as if you can lose a client is it.
I should imagine that working for some monster corporation is a lot like working for the government , but 80% of the country work for SME s .
Anyway I`ll take your word for it and stop worrying about all these super motivated teachers finding alternative employment at the same levels of remuneration. In fact I am glad we shall have the opportunity to release them from their self imposed virtuous penury .
Good luck with your new successful careers and no need to thank me for all the extra money you will be earning.
On 22 Sep 2010 at 12:56pm Clan D Stein wrote:
Newmania is a complete bell end!
On 22 Sep 2010 at 1:17pm Matt Jent wrote:
Vince Cables Pretend Attack of the Banking System
On 22 Sep 2010 at 1:38pm MC wrote:
I know lots of teachers and easy it ain't. They are some of the hardest working, conscientious and undervalued people I know. You'd not catch me being a teacher. Give me the private sector any day.
I have trouble believing your brother's comment. I can't imagine he is a full time teacher in a standard state secondary school. If so, when does he prepare his students work, mark it etc? All teachers I know do this, and administration, during the evenings and weekends. On top of that my wife (who is a head of department) starts work at 8, finishes at 6 and has no breaks whatsoever. She also works a fair bit if her holidays.
Newmania, the world you inhabit seems to have little to do with most people's reality. Where do you get your experiences from?
On 22 Sep 2010 at 1:38pm Clifford wrote:
Interesting your brother worked for Paribas Newmania as they seem to be a little bit lax with other people's money: 'In 2010 the French government's Autorit√© de la concurrence fined BNP (that's BNP Paribas) and 10 other banks 384,000,000 Euros for colluding to charge unjustified fees on check processing.'
On 22 Sep 2010 at 2:04pm Newmania wrote:
I can't imagine he is a full time teacher in a standard state secondary school. If so, when does he prepare his students work, mark it etc?
He is head of Economics at an Inner City Comp, his wife also teaches its as full time as it gets ( Part time ). Personally I am really hoping for an NUT strike , they will have to aim it carefully to coincide one of the brief periods of work they endure .Should be fun
On 22 Sep 2010 at 2:19pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Well if your brother is as slack as he claim to be, it can't be a good school. Care to name it ? I know inner city schools and they are NOT easy rides. Even part time. If it's such a doss why don't you try it ? Anyone I know who has tried teaching realises pretty quickly that it is not the easy job it's made out to be.
Newmanis said "Its not as if you can lose a client is it." No. You can just f*** u p someone's educational life, that's all. Maybe your brother is one of those slacker teachers the Daily Fail is always complaining about...
On 22 Sep 2010 at 2:55pm MC wrote:
I'm beginning to think it best not to feed the trolls. Newmania is clearly on a wind up and his comments and opinions are not based upon what he believes but only expressed to raise the temperature of others.
On 24 Sep 2010 at 10:49am Billy Goat Gruff wrote:
I reckon Newmania's brother finds him just as boorish as we do and only agrees with his silly prejudices for the sake of an easy Christmas dinner.