To be fair, OT, someone picked on a comment made by ONE Conservative MP regarding Mrs Thatcher, and you replied with something along the lines of 'you can always find one dissenting voice'. So is it fair for you to pick out one dissenting voice here?s.
With respect, this was no dissenting voice. These words were spoken by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, explaining the level and depth of the cuts necessary when challenged by an interviewer.
.That's still vacancies that won't be filled which could be, which means the unemployment total won't fall. And it means that those that are still in the role have to work harder. We have a team of sixty-five which currently has eight vacancies (and that's without long-term sickness, which are not being recruited for. So, a workforce reduced by almost 15%, but expected to still perform all the same duties.
Vacancies are not the issue. What is the issue is these vacancies being dressed up in emotional Political language that disingenuously sends out the message that people are going to be pulled from the workplace and instantly dismissed.
To be honest I find many of your posts on here quite offensive (you'll come back with some rubbish about not wanting to hear the truth or some such). You have me down as a supporter of Brown when he was PM. To be honest I am/was no fan of Brown so perhaps you can withdraw that one.
You have all the traits of a rapid right winger who feel he can talk down to those who don't agree with him.
You quote various figures many of which will have come from the Con/Dems own propaganda. So forgive me if I ignore those figures in the same way you ignore mine.
Still tomorrow I will start a work to rule as instructed by my union. Perhaps you'll tell me about how little teachers work and have loads of holidays and the usual claptrap which papers like the Daily Mail come out with. Maybe you should try teaching?
I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that you have replied in the way that you have.
You have never once brought any single instance of fact to your arguments. I have merely pointed out the inaccuracies in your posts, and in every case shown them to be wrong.
If you brought factual figures, rather than the mythical "I shall be £100 per month worse off after these changes" and explained how you had reached this figure then fine, but you did not. I proved to you that you could never be that worse off even if you were on the highest teaching salary (outside London). I even explained that by using a 1/60ths rather than a final salary 1/80ths calculation most people (other than the high earners that is - maybe you are one of them ?) would be better of under the new proposals.
These are not "propoganda", they come from the DWP.
I have you down as a Brown supporter on the basis of arguments you have had with others both on here and at other websites over the longer term where you have openly made that assertion in the past. You clearly do not like the Lib Dems and definitely do not like the Conservatives so who do you like ? (Rhetorical question).
If you came back with a reasoned and factually based response then I would have been happier, but you have chosen not to. I can only conclude therefore that you do not have one.
I suggest we leave things at this point, it is not my intention to harrass you but simply to put over a counter-argument challenge to what you have said backed up by facts, mostly NOT from the Government but from sources including your own Union.
Oh I nearly forgot, its useless trying to brand me as a Daily Mail reader. The DM has for a long time gone downmarket under its present Editor who was a big friend of Brown and desperate for an Honour. In fact for most of the last few years, the DM has done much to support Brown, obviously something of which you are not aware but I am sure the many DM haters who live on here and read it avidly anyway will be aware.
I didn't imagine you would refer to Directly Operated Railways as an example of the Public Sector at work!
Somewhat disingenuous, my friend, given the context of the topic. That was in response to your post which stated
Interestingly I have just been looking at the 2010-2011 accounts of one public body. Of the four Directors, three made no pension contributions at all (despite receiving salary/fees varying from £25k to £88k). One rule for some...
May I refer you to the legal definition of a public body ?
- A public body is “essentially a reference to a body whose nature was governmental in the broad sense of that expression” (Aston Canlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] 3 All ER 1213).
How come that in at least one large government organisation, a voluntary exit scheme has been offered to employees to tempt them to leave in an attempt to reduce the workforce by a large number? If it was all being done through natural wastage, it wouldn't be necessary to have to offer severance package
The scare story being bandied about infers compulsory redundancies. In a voluntary redundancy situation, there is no compulsion, which surely goes to the heart of matters. Anyway if life in the public sector is SO bad then I am sure that everyone will be rushing to grab what would be a quite benficial package - based on the current public sector scheme which is generous in comparison to the private sector -so that thye can take advantage of all these so called better terms and conditions in the private sector. The fact that there are usually few people applying for these voluntary schemes says much about public sector employees willingness to go into the wide privatised world where they insist we are all rich I would suggest.
