On 16 Oct 2010 at 8:30am Pedant wrote:
According to the Taxpayers' Alliance unnecessary jobs survey Lewes District Council has three climate change officers who are paid 104,984 pounds a year between them. I can't decide whether that's a good thing or a stupid thing.
On 16 Oct 2010 at 11:17am Peter Byron wrote:
It is madness Pedant, nature does the job not them. Best Peter
On 16 Oct 2010 at 12:27pm jrsussex wrote:
Pedant - If your information is correct, and I assume it is, it demonstrates a part of the reason we are all going to have a hard time for 2/3 years. The unwarranted job creation, coupled to exorbitant salaries, practiced by local authorities throughout the UK places them in a position whereby, in my opinion, the authorities, their employees and their union really cannot but expect to be hit hard by the forthcoming cuts. The attitude of local authorities since 1997 in respect of job creation is almost beyond belief until you remember that many of the first time MP's elected at that time had councillor backgrounds. My interpretation of that is "look after your own" and they will look after you.
On 16 Oct 2010 at 3:06pm MC wrote:
2/3 years? Dream on jrs.
On 16 Oct 2010 at 3:32pm jrsussex wrote:
MC - You are of course correct, however being a nice Tory I didn't want to spoil people's weekend by spelling it out as it is.
On 16 Oct 2010 at 4:50pm Clifford wrote:
I took a look at the Taxpayers Alliance report and noticed that East Sussex CC are even worse: 3 'European officers' (£124,600), 9 'diversity officers' (£385,000) and 1 'climate change officer' at an incredible £51,068. I'm no Tory (as you know JR) but I think you may be right.
On 16 Oct 2010 at 11:33pm Newmania wrote:
Grief, is that Clifford worrying about the tax payer? You need a nap Clifford. Cup of tea?
Mr. J R Sussex is such a nice fellow, but I have to disabuse him of the notion we can expect the Conservative Party to zap the green parasites.
Sir Paul Judge in the Telegraph this week lacerated Cameron`s big lie. Spending is going up from £697 billion pa to £757 billion in 2015-16. This includes real rises in spending on edukashun, NHS protected, defence only scratched and a 15% increase in credits and social security.
Meanwhile deficit reduction will not be done but cutting but by a 34% hike in taxes thats about £7000 per household .Its is in black and white in the June budget. So the climate change leeches will keep their sinecures, no-one dares take on their Union.
There is only one thing left to do ...
Dear Lord I humbly beseech you to bring back Maggie
On 17 Oct 2010 at 10:47am Clifford wrote:
What a strange deluded world you live in Newmania. Of course I am concerned where my taxes go. If you had read my posts a bit closer (and obviously you do read them) you'll have noticed that I have no time for any of the parties that work to rob us and to help their corporate friends rob us.
On 17 Oct 2010 at 11:05am Newmania wrote:
You mean the Labour Party I assume and yes I agree. Aside from their cosy deal with private equity and bankers , however, they hoed money on the unionised public sector, solved unemployment in Warsaw , created the worst deficict in the OECD and continued the madness right up to commissioning two new aircraft carriers which cannot be cancelled and for whihc we cannot afford the aircraft.
Nice to have you on the team Cliffy baby
I love the way the army have hung onto 3000 horses... honestly we live in a mad house.
On 17 Oct 2010 at 4:57pm Clifford wrote:
While we're on the subject Newmania, why was it Cameron said the Tories would match Labour's spending plans while everything you write about was happening?
On 17 Oct 2010 at 9:33pm Newmania wrote:
Same reason Thatcher promised to match Callaghan`s spending plans and Blair commited ( and locked into) Major`s spending plans. It's a largely rhetorical position adopted by most incoming administrations which means vastly less than you would think
In Cameron`s case it reflected a bid for the centre voter after years of Conservative failure warning about spending levels. It was a short lived gesture swept away by events and as a weapon was swiflty dropped by the Labour Party lacking any traction.
Noone thinks that state spending would have rocketed to 48% of National income during a period of brisk growth. No-one thinks it would have increased by 55% in adjusted money , no-one thinks we would be in the state we are had we voted Conservative.
On 17 Oct 2010 at 10:00pm Clifford wrote:
Cameron was still saying it in 2008. Hardly a short lived gesture. By the way, public spending as percentage of GDP - 2007 38.89, 2008 - 39.75, 2009 - 45.23, 2010 - 45.53. I wonder what happened to cause that jump?
On 17 Oct 2010 at 11:33pm Independent thinker wrote:
Clifford, good point, but the problem is, in politics, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. And the Tories will keep claiming that our current financial crisis had nothing to do with Freddie Mae, and sub prime mortgages, and toxic debts and the world wide banking system nearly collapsing, and everything to do with local councils hiring too many environmental officers, and Gordon Brown throwing our cash away on public services and foreign aid. And sadly their tactic will probably work, because it's so much easier for people to blame benefit cheats, and immigrants, and public sector workers, than it is to understand the complexities of the global financial system.
On 18 Oct 2010 at 1:45pm Newmania wrote:
I was quoting Oliver Kamm on the figures / years and the correction is fair enough but from 35% of GDP as we moved into to the good years to nearly 40% was madness according to Gordon Brown who thought 40% was the maximum over a cycle .
It was of course the central insight of Keynes that markets are unstable and that is why he advocated buillding up a surplus in a boom. That we actually increased debts during an over heated frothy property value boom is not exactly what old Maynard had in line( and that is a 55% real money increase).
Unless you truly believed that boom and bust had been 'cured' the spending under New Labour was grossly irresponsible
Independent thinker - You have it the wrong way round . No-one thinks markets are reliable predictable or universally benign, that is precisely why fiscal conservatism is required.
On 18 Oct 2010 at 6:03pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Wasn't the jump caused by the world-wide economic contraction, which reduced GDP, so that the percentage which was borrowing increased?
On 20 Oct 2010 at 7:09am TC wrote:
Correction: the Tax Payer Alliance assertion on the number of staff working for LDC on climate change is incorrect. There is a half post dedicated to climate change not three. That said the current administration believes in joined up thinking and the issue of climate change permeates a lot of posts, thankfully. Incidentally the TPA also states that Brighton City Council has three or four officers working on climate change not zero as reported. The TPA is like the US Tea Party movement, disgruntled right wing Conservatives who in many instances have left the party. Beware they are also maliciously inaccurate with there information.