Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Tytoalba

Oct 19 2014, 10:39 AM

Lewis

Oct 19 2014, 07:09 AM

RJD

Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM

Tytoalba

Oct 14 2014, 11:35 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I do not understand why you think morality can be weighed in such a way, surely it warrants some absoluteness? My claim is that the welfare reforms have a basis in morality, that the cost implications here are not paramount and as such it matters not whether this view is mouthed by a card carrying Trott or a Tory. Mr Smurf has a obligation on a debating forum to rise to the challenge and present his arguments to show that such reforms are immoral as he claims. Unfortunately he prefers to alley himself with the emotional ignoramuses, avoid the debate and seek to sully the reputations of those that do not follow his dogma. Not an unusual but none the less nasty trick we see far too often from those that wish to avoid reasoned debate.

Reasoned debate in your diatribes? I see no evidence of that. A great pity you put into practice little of what you preach.

Thats just confontational without a reasoned response, the bane of these boards, as Papa has discovered. Address the post not the poster is the ideal.

Lewis

Oct 19 2014, 07:09 AM

RJD

Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM

Tytoalba

Oct 14 2014, 11:35 AM

papasmurf

Oct 13 2014, 12:09 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Im a Tory party member Papa. raised a Christian with Christian values, and I think my morals are equal to your own, though my level of emotional involvement will never be the same as yours.
To accuse people who are Tories of immorality is to take a very narrow view on life itself, and taking into acount the numbers who support them or are members of the party makes the suggestion that they lack morality, irrational.
I just happen to think that individual good has to take second place to the common good, for without the one you cannot have the other.
That does not mean that considertion , care and asistance should not be given to all those in need of it, but we know from experience that the level given will never meet the needs or expectations of all.

I do not understand why you think morality can be weighed in such a way, surely it warrants some absoluteness? My claim is that the welfare reforms have a basis in morality, that the cost implications here are not paramount and as such it matters not whether this view is mouthed by a card carrying Trott or a Tory. Mr Smurf has a obligation on a debating forum to rise to the challenge and present his arguments to show that such reforms are immoral as he claims. Unfortunately he prefers to alley himself with the emotional ignoramuses, avoid the debate and seek to sully the reputations of those that do not follow his dogma. Not an unusual but none the less nasty trick we see far too often from those that wish to avoid reasoned debate.

Reasoned debate in your diatribes? I see no evidence of that. A great pity you put into practice little of what you preach.

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:07 AM

Lewis

Oct 19 2014, 07:09 AM

RJD

Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM

Tytoalba

Oct 14 2014, 11:35 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I do not understand why you think morality can be weighed in such a way, surely it warrants some absoluteness? My claim is that the welfare reforms have a basis in morality, that the cost implications here are not paramount and as such it matters not whether this view is mouthed by a card carrying Trott or a Tory. Mr Smurf has a obligation on a debating forum to rise to the challenge and present his arguments to show that such reforms are immoral as he claims. Unfortunately he prefers to alley himself with the emotional ignoramuses, avoid the debate and seek to sully the reputations of those that do not follow his dogma. Not an unusual but none the less nasty trick we see far too often from those that wish to avoid reasoned debate.

Reasoned debate in your diatribes? I see no evidence of that. A great pity you put into practice little of what you preach.

Of course you do not Lewis, neither were you expected to. You cannot even recognise the hypocrisy of your position wrt to public sector deficit and the national debt, so I guess one should not expect too much from you. But if for one moment you could decouple your mind from it,s addiction to blind dogma you might find a challenge, a moral one,worth addressing in my posting. Continued avoidance of the question by the left is telling, it is a sort of collective denial.

Lewis

Oct 20 2014, 07:12 AM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:07 AM

Lewis

Oct 19 2014, 07:09 AM

RJD

Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Reasoned debate in your diatribes? I see no evidence of that. A great pity you put into practice little of what you preach.

Of course you do not Lewis, neither were you expected to. You cannot even recognise the hypocrisy of your position wrt to public sector deficit and the national debt, so I guess one should not expect too much from you. But if for one moment you could decouple your mind from it,s addiction to blind dogma you might find a challenge, a moral one,worth addressing in my posting. Continued avoidance of the question by the left is telling, it is a sort of collective denial.

Yet the same old hypocritical insults, no change there then. Still no sign of any understanding of things relating to the economy. Typical blinkered attitude of the right wing extremist view. Do you think that I would ever take any notice of you anyway. Oh and who are you accusing of be of the 'left'. Can't be me of course, for politically I occupy the centre ground.

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:37 AM

there is nothing good in this Gov and all those that support them must be evil

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 12:41 PM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:37 AM

there is nothing good in this Gov and all those that support them must be evil

That does it for me!
Although I would have chose the word 'Ruthless' instead of evil .........

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ruthless

Having or showing no pity or compassion for others:

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 01:32 PM

the evil ones are those that do their level best to destroy the potential opportunities for real jobs for those unemployed.

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 01:32 PM

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 12:41 PM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:37 AM

there is nothing good in this Gov and all those that support them must be evil

That does it for me!
Although I would have chose the word 'Ruthless' instead of evil .........

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ruthless

Having or showing no pity or compassion for others:

Funny one can turn this completely upside down ......... Silly is it not?

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 03:40 PM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 01:32 PM

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 12:41 PM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 07:37 AM

there is nothing good in this Gov and all those that support them must be evil

That does it for me!
Although I would have chose the word 'Ruthless' instead of evil .........

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ruthless

Having or showing no pity or compassion for others:

Funny one can turn this completely upside down ......... Silly is it not?

Of course it is silly!
So why do you try to do it?
I have mentioned the Beveridge report several times. That report paved the way for what has become the Welfare State. Why it was conceived is entirely to contradict what you attempt to say when 'turning things upside down'.

The simple fact is that before that change unemployment, illiteracy, ill health, and homelessness were all rife in this Capitalist country.
They were called Giant Evils ...... and eradicated. The death of Evil, evil you will now deny was ever your motive.

I corrected a typo 'thongs', and no it wasn't a Freudian slip.

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 04:02 PM

Nobody is seeking the complete destruction of the welfare state.

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 04:02 PM

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 03:40 PM

RJD

Oct 20 2014, 01:32 PM

Affa

Oct 20 2014, 12:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ruthless

Having or showing no pity or compassion for others:

Funny one can turn this completely upside down ......... Silly is it not?

Of course it is silly!
So why do you try to do it?
I have mentioned the Beveridge report several times. That report paved the way for what has become the Welfare State. Why it was conceived is entirely to contradict what you attempt to say when 'turning things upside down'.

The simple fact is that before that change unemployment, illiteracy, ill health, and homelessness were all rife in this Capitalist country.
They were called Giant Evils ...... and eradicated. The death of Evil, evil you will now deny was ever your motive.

I corrected a typo 'thongs', and no it wasn't a Freudian slip.

I do not think anyone is claiming that today we have a Welfare State as envisaged by Beveridge far from it. Nobody is seeking the complete destruction of the welfare state. However, when the State itself gets to be so large and inefficient that it stands in the way of the creation of real jobs then it is time to make some adjustments. I really do not understand why the left cannot see that if the size of the State can be increased it can also be reduced. The search is for an optimum and we in the UL with our unbalanced economy where the size of the State is one of the largest in the EU cannot claim we are anywhere near such. Surely you do not subscribe to the view that the State can become the total economy?

RJD

Oct 21 2014, 11:31 AM

Hypothetical. IU do not have your crystal ball. All I can say is that NL increased State spending significantly placing 800,000+ people on the payroll none of which would help our balance of payments problems. During the same period we saw £44b of gross manufacturing value added disappear from our economy. Logically there is an optimum for State spending as a portion of GDP, it is not zero or 100% it is a number somewhere between and economists claim that that which is spent on the Public Sector cannot also be spent in the private one and that is why there is a detrimental effect on private sector job growth. I suggest you take a visit to France and see first hand what a large Public Sector does to an economy. Nobody is asking for the State to be scrapped only that we do not lose sight of the need for the private sector to be able to create real jobs and in order to achieve this we must reduce taxes.

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 10:48 AM

Tendering out does not always get more money for your buck. As I said before, cheaper usually means just that. How many govnt tenders have gone out to the lowest bidders from the private sector, only for the tender to turn round and say, "We can't do it for the money we quoted. We need to make cuts in the service for it to be viable at the price we quoted." Most things that G4 has ever had anything to do with has gone down this route.

I wasn't really talking about the sort of jobs you mentioned either. These are obviously non jobs. Certain people, the usual rhubarb merchants, are of the opinion that all public sector jobs are non jobs. Even to the extent that binmen working directly for the council are non jobs, but binmen working for the council, but working under a private tender, are suddenly real jobs. Same job, with essentially the same paymaster, but with a middleman thrown in. Surely that middleman is the real non job and really superfluous to needs?

ACH1967

Oct 22 2014, 07:14 AM

Is anyone suggesting that non job be privatised? If it is a non job then by definition it isn't required and just goes. The money saved can then be used in a more productive fashion.

Wealth creating service jobs are those that are paid for by people who are not the government.

Affa

Oct 22 2014, 12:49 PM

ACH1967

Oct 22 2014, 07:14 AM

Is anyone suggesting that non job be privatised? If it is a non job then by definition it isn't required and just goes. The money saved can then be used in a more productive fashion.

Wealth creating service jobs are those that are paid for by people who are not the government.

That excludes a hell of a lot of Private Sector Service providers, and no a few commodities/equipment suppliers too.

When Tories mention 'none jobs' they are never specific, so neither can I be .... but if we look at where the job cuts have been (coalition) can we say whether these were none jobs lost. Also those privatised jobs, NHS direct for example, where do those fit within this criticism that declares that Labour created a near million 'none jobs' in the Public Sector?

Is nursing a none job ? - over 4,000 nursing jobs lost. In fact the changes to the NHS have meant some 50,000 fewer jobs, many of them front line medical experts (and there are some Administration jobs included).

In total 631,000 public sector jobs have disappeared since the government was formed, over half of them in town halls.
It would be nice if there was some clarity about how many of these were 'non jobs'.

'None Jobs' is nothing more than a right-wing soundbite with which to try and avoid being seen as ruthless penny pinching minimalist incompetents. imo

ACH1967

Oct 22 2014, 01:04 PM

AFFA: 'None Jobs' is nothing more than a right-wing sound bite with which to try and avoid being seen as ruthless penny pinching minimalist incompetents. Imo

ACH: I gave an indication of what I considered to be non jobs. It is funny thought that you call it a sound bite then follow it with one of your own LOL

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 07:49 AM

I've never worked out where anyone gets the notion that jobs within the public sector are non jobs. I do understand that they don't create weath for a private individual. People working within the public sector provide needed services. Emergency services, leisure services, Binmen, Roadsweepers, Roadmenders, Craftsmen employed to maintain council housing. The list is endless. Does contracting such jobs out to private tender, (still paid for by the council), make them any different as regards worthiness? It's still Joe public who pays the wages via council tax, except a private company creams off something. This usually requires some cost cutting. Lower wages, a cut in hours, poorer service? Something has to give. At least if a job of work is "in house", any savings go back into the kitty to be used for other things, for the good of all, rather than a private company's bank account.

RJD

Oct 22 2014, 06:33 PM

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 07:49 AM

I've never worked out where anyone gets the notion that jobs within the public sector are non jobs. I do understand that they don't create weath for a private individual. People working within the public sector provide needed services. Emergency services, leisure services, Binmen, Roadsweepers, Roadmenders, Craftsmen employed to maintain council housing. The list is endless. Does contracting such jobs out to private tender, (still paid for by the council), make them any different as regards worthiness? It's still Joe public who pays the wages via council tax, except a private company creams off something. This usually requires some cost cutting. Lower wages, a cut in hours, poorer service? Something has to give. At least if a job of work is "in house", any savings go back into the kitty to be used for other things, for the good of all, rather than a private company's bank account.

Your choice of words "none jobs", the claim is that they do not create wealth in economic terms as they are focussed on consumption. Just stick to definitions established by Economist and you will be less confused. When I say "real jobs" I do not mean others are "none jobs" only that the former create the necessary wealth in order to afford the latter.

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM

RJD

Oct 22 2014, 06:33 PM

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 07:49 AM

I've never worked out where anyone gets the notion that jobs within the public sector are non jobs. I do understand that they don't create weath for a private individual. People working within the public sector provide needed services. Emergency services, leisure services, Binmen, Roadsweepers, Roadmenders, Craftsmen employed to maintain council housing. The list is endless. Does contracting such jobs out to private tender, (still paid for by the council), make them any different as regards worthiness? It's still Joe public who pays the wages via council tax, except a private company creams off something. This usually requires some cost cutting. Lower wages, a cut in hours, poorer service? Something has to give. At least if a job of work is "in house", any savings go back into the kitty to be used for other things, for the good of all, rather than a private company's bank account.

Your choice of words "none jobs", the claim is that they do not create wealth in economic terms as they are focussed on consumption. Just stick to definitions established by Economist and you will be less confused. When I say "real jobs" I do not mean others are "none jobs" only that the former create the necessary wealth in order to afford the latter.

In that case aren't hedge fund managers, derivative and high frequency traders, currency changers and other such occupations involved in unproductive non jobs?

Lewis

Oct 22 2014, 07:05 PM

Are hedge fund managers and such like really needed? It is not as though they produce anything that could be construed as being beneficial to most people. A hospital cleaner is of more benefit to society then any banker or for that matter politicians the other non jobbers, of note.

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 07:50 PM

Lewis

Oct 22 2014, 07:05 PM

Are hedge fund managers and such like really needed? It is not as though they produce anything that could be construed as being beneficial to most people. A hospital cleaner is of more benefit to society then any banker or for that matter politicians the other non jobbers, of note.

Indeed. Lord Turner whoever he is in real life said that a lot of the activity in the City was "socially useless", parasites would have been more accurate but at least it's a start.

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 09:42 PM

Are you sure you understand what hedge funds really are all about?

The recent Phones 4u fiasco looks rather putrid, load the business with debt pay the partners multi million pound dividends and starve the business of investment and watch it tank.

My favourite hedge fund story though is when several tried to take over Porsche a few years ago, the company let them speculate and try to undermine the business whilst at the same time keeping them at arms length whilst the German government changed the law on hostile takeovers but failed to tell the hedge funds, the locusts (German terminology for hedge funds) lost hundreds of millions to Porsche, they have spent years trying to sue Porsche but lost even more money in the process!

Good!

Affa

Oct 23 2014, 01:43 AM

Can we now say and all agree that the allegation "Labour created hundreds of thousands of public sector non jobs" is an exaggeration, not worth repeating?

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM

RJD

Oct 22 2014, 06:33 PM

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 07:49 AM

I've never worked out where anyone gets the notion that jobs within the public sector are non jobs. I do understand that they don't create weath for a private individual. People working within the public sector provide needed services. Emergency services, leisure services, Binmen, Roadsweepers, Roadmenders, Craftsmen employed to maintain council housing. The list is endless. Does contracting such jobs out to private tender, (still paid for by the council), make them any different as regards worthiness? It's still Joe public who pays the wages via council tax, except a private company creams off something. This usually requires some cost cutting. Lower wages, a cut in hours, poorer service? Something has to give. At least if a job of work is "in house", any savings go back into the kitty to be used for other things, for the good of all, rather than a private company's bank account.

Your choice of words "none jobs", the claim is that they do not create wealth in economic terms as they are focussed on consumption. Just stick to definitions established by Economist and you will be less confused. When I say "real jobs" I do not mean others are "none jobs" only that the former create the necessary wealth in order to afford the latter.

In that case aren't hedge fund managers, derivative and high frequency traders, currency changers and other such occupations involved in unproductive non jobs?

Steve K

Oct 22 2014, 09:53 PM

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 09:42 PM

Are you sure you understand what hedge funds really are all about?

The recent Phones 4u fiasco looks rather putrid, load the business with debt pay the partners multi million pound dividends and starve the business of investment and watch it tank.

My favourite hedge fund story though is when several tried to take over Porsche a few years ago, the company let them speculate and try to undermine the business whilst at the same time keeping them at arms length whilst the German government changed the law on hostile takeovers but failed to tell the hedge funds, the locusts (German terminology for hedge funds) lost hundreds of millions to Porsche, they have spent years trying to sue Porsche but lost even more money in the process!

Good!

Are you sure you understand the man bites dog analogy?

RJD

Oct 23 2014, 11:07 AM

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM

RJD

Oct 22 2014, 06:33 PM

disgruntled porker

Oct 22 2014, 07:49 AM

I've never worked out where anyone gets the notion that jobs within the public sector are non jobs. I do understand that they don't create weath for a private individual. People working within the public sector provide needed services. Emergency services, leisure services, Binmen, Roadsweepers, Roadmenders, Craftsmen employed to maintain council housing. The list is endless. Does contracting such jobs out to private tender, (still paid for by the council), make them any different as regards worthiness? It's still Joe public who pays the wages via council tax, except a private company creams off something. This usually requires some cost cutting. Lower wages, a cut in hours, poorer service? Something has to give. At least if a job of work is "in house", any savings go back into the kitty to be used for other things, for the good of all, rather than a private company's bank account.

Your choice of words "none jobs", the claim is that they do not create wealth in economic terms as they are focussed on consumption. Just stick to definitions established by Economist and you will be less confused. When I say "real jobs" I do not mean others are "none jobs" only that the former create the necessary wealth in order to afford the latter.

In that case aren't hedge fund managers, derivative and high frequency traders, currency changers and other such occupations involved in unproductive non jobs?

Many claim that such a zero sum game actually reduces overall risk and smooths out price variations. I see it as pure gambling and I do not approve of such. Never gambled on a horse or the Pools or the Lottery ever as well as not paying a single Penny in interest on a Credit Card. That said I have seen no reports that claim that the taxes delivered by this sector to HM Exchequer can easily be replaced by any other sector of business activity. So kill it off if you like, but you will be shooting yourself in the foot for a change.
Two things are very important to understand:
1). Service sector businesses can be up and running very quickly and tend to generate much higher profit margins than manufacturing.
2). Manufacturing is very slow to get started and the market place is generally crowded.

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 06:59 PM

Steve K

Oct 22 2014, 09:53 PM

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 09:42 PM

Are you sure you understand what hedge funds really are all about?

The recent Phones 4u fiasco looks rather putrid, load the business with debt pay the partners multi million pound dividends and starve the business of investment and watch it tank.

My favourite hedge fund story though is when several tried to take over Porsche a few years ago, the company let them speculate and try to undermine the business whilst at the same time keeping them at arms length whilst the German government changed the law on hostile takeovers but failed to tell the hedge funds, the locusts (German terminology for hedge funds) lost hundreds of millions to Porsche, they have spent years trying to sue Porsche but lost even more money in the process!

Good!

Are you sure you understand the man bites dog analogy?

Most men and even fewer dogs borrow large amounts of money to buy up businesses (rarely their own money) and gamble with said business to extract quick profits, the list of sliced and diced businesses grows yearly and to what final purpose other than vast profits for a tiny minority?

A hedge fund is about as socially useful as diarrhoea.

Steve K

Oct 23 2014, 07:13 PM

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 06:59 PM

Steve K

Oct 22 2014, 09:53 PM

Tigger

Oct 22 2014, 09:42 PM

Are you sure you understand what hedge funds really are all about?

The recent Phones 4u fiasco looks rather putrid, load the business with debt pay the partners multi million pound dividends and starve the business of investment and watch it tank.

My favourite hedge fund story though is when several tried to take over Porsche a few years ago, the company let them speculate and try to undermine the business whilst at the same time keeping them at arms length whilst the German government changed the law on hostile takeovers but failed to tell the hedge funds, the locusts (German terminology for hedge funds) lost hundreds of millions to Porsche, they have spent years trying to sue Porsche but lost even more money in the process!

Good!

Are you sure you understand the man bites dog analogy?

Most men and even fewer dogs borrow large amounts of money to buy up businesses (rarely their own money) and gamble with said business to extract quick profits, the list of sliced and diced businesses grows yearly and to what final purpose other than vast profits for a tiny minority?

A hedge fund is about as socially useful as diarrhoea.

you've never been in the export business then, or manufacturing using material sourced abroad

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 07:37 PM

Steve K

Oct 23 2014, 07:13 PM

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 06:59 PM

Steve K

Oct 22 2014, 09:53 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Most men and even fewer dogs borrow large amounts of money to buy up businesses (rarely their own money) and gamble with said business to extract quick profits, the list of sliced and diced businesses grows yearly and to what final purpose other than vast profits for a tiny minority?

A hedge fund is about as socially useful as diarrhoea.

you've never been in the export business then, or manufacturing using material sourced abroad

You don't specifically need the services of a hedge fund for any of those activities.

The Germans would happily ban the operations of hedge funds within their jurisdiction because of their track record and low esteem in which they are held, and take it from me Germans know a thing or two about making things and exporting stuff.........

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 07:37 PM

Steve K

Oct 23 2014, 07:13 PM

Tigger

Oct 23 2014, 06:59 PM

Steve K

Oct 22 2014, 09:53 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Most men and even fewer dogs borrow large amounts of money to buy up businesses (rarely their own money) and gamble with said business to extract quick profits, the list of sliced and diced businesses grows yearly and to what final purpose other than vast profits for a tiny minority?

A hedge fund is about as socially useful as diarrhoea.

you've never been in the export business then, or manufacturing using material sourced abroad

You don't specifically need the services of a hedge fund for any of those activities.

The Germans would happily ban the operations of hedge funds within their jurisdiction because of their track record and low esteem in which they are held, and take it from me Germans know a thing or two about making things and exporting stuff.........

disgruntled porker

Oct 26 2014, 08:57 AM

I thought you were the world's leading authority on all matters Swiss ReJinalD? Didn't realise it extended to Germany too.