Why are only public sector jobs sacred ?
I ask this as we are still having the infantile argument about taking less out of the real economy leading to destroying that same economy by removing the support of the state spending it rather than those who earned it spending it. ( Which is what the National Insurance tax reduction debate comes down to. )
On #R4Today this morning we had an academic telling us efficiency savings would mean job cuts ( indeed savage cuts - though he did at least confirm that the planned Conservative savings were indeed feasible. )
If state spending was such fabulous a solution why don't we borrow more money to "take action to prop up the economy". The answer is obvious - and once you've thought of it you realise it applies to the current over spending also.
I used to work for a number of small engineering firms and all the employees knew if we stopped getting work then within about a month people would start losing their jobs. But for some reason this world only applies to the wealth creating sector.
The private sector has lower pay, far poorer job security, and non of the wonderful gold plated pensions their special friends in the state sector ( who they pay for ) enjoy.
This is an unacceptable state of affairs. It only continues due to the deep dishonesty of Labour and their Lib Dem friends.
Sent from my HTC
10 comments:
Hmm, lets see, if your employed by the government, and there is an election, who are you going to vote for? Those to are going to keep your job? Or those who are going to cut your job?
The larger the public service is, the more likely you are going to stay in power...
http://www.change2010.co.uk/forums/
Plumbers are a Front Line Service as are people who provide our water supplies. I could go on, e.g. food supplies. There are a lot of private sector activities that are critical.
Now lets see who we can throw out of work first. Lets start with nurses, then policemen and prison officers followed by, oh yes soldiers are in the public sector aren't they, not to mention teachers,social workers, immigration officers, customs officers, coastguards etc etc. Perhaps we had better stick to the girls who work in the job centre. Bet they're looking forward to a comfortable retirement on their gold plated pensions.
@Anon - your really missing the point ( I suspect deliberately ).
The question is why should highly paid public sector workers who have wonderful pensions be immune to the economic realities that those who pay their wages and pensions have to live with ?
I'm guessing you have no answer.
Because they're unlikely to vote for a Party that's talking about culling their numbers. Gordon wants to keep or even increase his core voters & he doesn't give a tinker's curse who else suffers over that decision.
A cunningly crafted question indeed and worthy of a politian. The popular categories of public servants like nurses and policemen and the nice lady next door who works for the council are never mentioned in the context of public sector pay and pensions reform. Only the “highly paid” ones. Presumably Civil Service permanent secretarys, judges and the like who are easy targets because you are unlikely to meet one (because they are so few)or have more than the foggiest idea of all that they do.
@Anon - Of course you have a point about how within the world of civil servnats people are catagorised differently by the media etc.
But the truth remains that:
1) The money ran out years ago, and we have been borrowing for many years to keep up appearances.
2) This can't go on.
3) Bleeding the already battered private sector has to stop or else the whole economy will collapse.
So given all that why is the public sector sacred - when those who work to pay for it aren't ?
Thank you for that small concession. Of course the public and private sector are all in this mess together. However, it doesn't help those who have served their country in hot and cold places or in prisons or on the streets or in hospitals or just in the planning office to come to terms with the prospect of tightening their belts, as no doubt they will have to, when they are then accused of parasitism. Especially when it is orchestrated by the Bullingdon set.
@Anon we're going to disagree about this. As it happens I suspect David Cameron's background makes him less likely to cut hard rather than more, as he'll be worried about how it looks.
There's a good article in the left of centre leaning Economist which I hope doesn't need subscription to read called "Farewell free stuff" - I'd recommend reading it. It puts the current situation nicely.
What has happened is that as Labour refused to do the prudent things in 2005 ( like reforming public sector pensions ) we now have a savage crisis on our hands.
What is certain is that the private sector has born its share of the pain alone for far too long.
The Economist article sums up the situation perfectly and we can agree on something at last. I've enjoyed our exchange.
Post a Comment