Are the public sector employed middle classes sleepwalking into disaster?

[I1L2T3]

it is only 62% now.

 

Only 62%!

 

Phew, we can all relax then :loopy:

[Tony]

ISTR that it was around 40% in 1997.

[mossdog]

Easy to say isn't it. If you have a young family and you work in the public sector do you vote conservative, put yourself out of work and damage the future of your kids?

 

That is what people don't seem to be getting at all. Yes all parties will expect to make cuts but the conservatives will make savage cuts and they will be focused outside of conservative heartlands. Labour's planned cuts are pretty extensive, the liberals a little worse again. The conservatives, well.........

But what you don't seem to be getting at all, is that we do need savage cuts which ever party instigates them.We could start with the NHS. No doctor in my opinion is worth more than £50k pa,lots not even that,yet some are earning in excess of £500k pa.We can go on about bankers all day but there are thousands in the public sector that are of little value but are earning fortunes,and it is much more difficult to weed them out than it is the private sector.

[JFKvsNixon]

But what you don't seem to be getting at all, is that we do need savage cuts which ever party instigates them.We could start with the NHS. No doctor in my opinion is worth more than £50k pa,lots not even that,yet some are earning in excess of £500k pa.We can go on about bankers all day but there are thousands in the public sector that are of little value but are earning fortunes,and it is much more difficult to weed them out than it is the private sector.

 

You are joking are you? Why would someone train for 10 or so years to become a surgeon or an anaesthetist to then not get paid more than £50k for working 40+ hours a week?

[Michael_W]

You are joking are you? Why would someone train for 10 or so years to become a surgeon or an anaesthetist to then not get paid more than £50k for working 40+ hours a week?

 

The post was suggesting they were earning way in excess of 50k though, so exactly how much do you think the NHS etc should cost a nation of people who on average get paid probably less than half of that ! There are many people in the private sector who will not get and have not had a pay rise for some time, many have lost their jobs or took pay cuts they can not sustain the burden of the public sector, cuts will be made some justifiably some not, tough times ahead !

[Tony]

in 1997 GP's were paid just over £40k, the same as MP's.

 

They are now paid £125k for working less hours thanks to Labour's **** up in introducing GP contracts. MP's are paid half that.

 

Facts here

[Greybeard]

I noticed a couple of articles in the Torygraph today suggesting the Tories, if they win the election, should get the IMF in as advisers to sort out the mess Gordon Brown will be leaving us with.

 

This would solve two problems for David Cameron -

 

1. He would be absolved from keeping any rash pre-election promises he has made.

 

2. He wouldn't need to rely on George Osborne's dodgy arithmetic to calculate the savagery of his intended cuts

[Tony]

I've noticed that too. Who'd want this poisoned chalice of an economy full of dark corners and booby traps?

 

At face value it looks like a very good idea and by getting all the really bad news out in the open now it cold give them a blank slate and maybe even kill off Labour for the foreseeable future.

[JFKvsNixon]

I've noticed that too. Who'd want this poisoned chalice of an economy full of dark corners and booby traps?

 

At face value it looks like a very good idea and by getting all the really bad news out in the open now it cold give them a blank slate and maybe even kill off Labour for the foreseeable future.

 

Esescially so when you consider this chilling prediction from Mervyn King:

 

"I saw the governor of the Bank of England [Mervyn King] last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be,"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/29/mervyn-king-warns-election-victor

[Rupert_Baehr]

I noticed a couple of articles in the Torygraph today suggesting the Tories, if they win the election, should get the IMF in as advisers to sort out the mess Gordon Brown will be leaving us with.

 

This would solve two problems for David Cameron -

 

1. He would be absolved from keeping any rash pre-election promises he has made.

 

2. He wouldn't need to rely on George Osborne's dodgy arithmetic to calculate the savagery of his intended cuts

 

I've noticed that too. Who'd want this poisoned chalice of an economy full of dark corners and booby traps?

 

At face value it looks like a very good idea and by getting all the really bad news out in the open now it cold give them a blank slate and maybe even kill off Labour for the foreseeable future.

 

The last time Labour screwed up the economy the government had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF. Perhaps Cameron is merely being pragmatic. As for "Killing off Labour for the forseeable future' I wouldn't count on it.

 

Esescially so when you consider this chilling prediction from Mervyn King:

 

"I saw the governor of the Bank of England [Mervyn King] last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be,"

 

Thatcher's unpopularity stemmed from the cuts she was forced to make to get the country out of the hole Wilson and Callaghan had dropped it into.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to re-elect Labour. Whoever gets in is going to have to make savage cuts and may not be in power for very long.