CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   The Politics Forum (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   Tory Party (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=279419)

Wolfnipplechips 30-09-2019 04:33 PM

Great to see the conference being completely taken over by scandal.

dogstar721 01-10-2019 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evvo111 (Post 14931693)
That is very true. Universal Credit has not helped people, who are on low incomes or unemployed, with their rent as I am finding out.

The mystery to me is why anyone thought that Conservative Welfare policys would help people out on low incomes or who are unemployed, given they've never actually done this in my 48 years under this sun.

Universal credit represents a classic Conservative policy. It makes sense in theory, but in reality its application is entirely designed towards cutting costs, looking to be 'considerate of the least in society' and appealing to their base (tough on welfare). In no way has any attempt been made to even consider how it would affect those on the recieving end (or if it was, its been largely ignored).

dogstar721 01-10-2019 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst (Post 14931702)
400-500 a day?

Itís plenty more than that.

that was about average on most of the projects I worked on, but yes, it can and does go higher per person. The most frustrating point was how this was essentially a 'permanent' job for a large number of ex-Military staff who had absolutely no idea what they were really doing (and anywhere else, as contractors would have been permanent employees or earning maybe 200-300 a day).

Bear in mind in my section, there was 65 people earning an average of 400-500 a day, with another 80 or so development staff earning 350-450 a day - all being charged out at more than that (but in fairness most of the dev staff were not military)

The irony here, was that this was a project entirely about changing the military way of thinking about IT, by adopting approches and ways of working from outside of the military. Out of the 65, there were five of us, who had not served more than 10 years in the armed services (and most of those who had, were officers of 20 years). Unsurprisingly everything was an uphill battle to get things done in a manner that was even remotely approching anything best practice (like conducting testing for example).

LSEagle 01-10-2019 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nth Kent Eagle (Post 14931640)
In reality a government can just focus on a few spending priorities. Blair did it quite well in 2001. He said to a journalist at the election that "our priority is the NHS and school age education, so there will have to be tough decisions elsewhere". He was right though about the tough decisions because some of what that entailed such as outsourcing of the jobs of cleaners and public sector support staff was brutal.

I think both Labour and Conservative have pretty much been doing that for years, prioritising the NHS over everything else. The link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42572110 is a bit out of date but I think recent commitments have just increased the % of Govt expenditure that goes on the NHS.

13thsasquatch 01-10-2019 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nth Kent Eagle (Post 14931640)
In reality a government can just focus on a few spending priorities. Blair did it quite well in 2001. He said to a journalist at the election that "our priority is the NHS and school age education, so there will have to be tough decisions elsewhere". He was right though about the tough decisions because some of what that entailed such as outsourcing of the jobs of cleaners and public sector support staff was brutal.

You don't always have to make those tough decisions though. As someone who works in the public sector one of the biggest barriers to truly holistic and funded public services is political short termism and silo thinking. Services are all interrelated - if you spend less on one area it can create costs elsewhere, and spending money in one area can reduce costs in another. It should all be about the net position of value. But if the Tories want to be seen as tough on crime, for example, they'll just increase offences and sentences, without regard to the cost burden on prisons, justice system etc. There's offences for which community service or rehab would make a ton more sense than prison and cost a lot less as well, but, y'know, Tories gonna Tory.

There's also a lack of long term thinking because of election cycles. Obviously I'm biased but there are actually a lot of really good ideas in public sector thinking, but they can't gain traction politically because they're long term projects and politicians like things that give results yesterday (even if most of the time they acrually don't give results and cost more - see workfare).

We seem to be stuck in this idea of every area - crime, education, health etc - as its own contained silo, with the notion of government spending as a zero-sum game where one area has to be cut to increase spending in another, when that is not necessarily the case.

Maz 01-10-2019 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13thsasquatch (Post 14932174)
You don't always have to make those tough decisions though. As someone who works in the public sector one of the biggest barriers to truly holistic and funded public services is political short termism and silo thinking. Services are all interrelated - if you spend less on one area it can create costs elsewhere, and spending money in one area can reduce costs in another. It should all be about the net position of value. But if the Tories want to be seen as tough on crime, for example, they'll just increase offences and sentences, without regard to the cost burden on prisons, justice system etc. There's offences for which community service or rehab would make a ton more sense than prison and cost a lot less as well, but, y'know, Tories gonna Tory.

I'm not entirely sure that is true ; sentences tend to be set by the Sentencing Council which is largely apolitical.


But your point about silo thinking holds well, but your point about sentences is also (to take it to the extreme) also part of silo thinking. By which I mean the real way to be tough on crime is to invest heavily in social and youth services, not the justice system. Better upbringings, better education and better care would all result in the long term in less crime.

cockneyrebel 01-10-2019 11:01 AM

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...ained-20343761

Sickening tosser

Stellavista 01-10-2019 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel (Post 14932244)

I met him a few times back in the late 80s. Was a bit of a twat then.

Spindle 01-10-2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evvo111 (Post 14931556)
Why is it never the rich people that have to bear the brunt during austerity? He would rather millions suffer than thousands do without a third holiday, a new car, a new boat, a second or third home, ridiculous bonuses and pay rises, shooting trips etc.


Those people aren't the 'rich' people...........

davech 01-10-2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evvo111 (Post 14931693)
That is very true. Universal Credit has not helped people, who are on low incomes or unemployed, with their rent as I am finding out.

As I have said on a few occasions, Universal Credit is an affront to the welfare of ordinary people in need.

They never paid me the full amount I was due for rent, and they also wanted me go for one of their assessments (somewhere in Battersea - I live the paradise of South Norwood) the day I was undergoing a quadruple bypass. I had to ring them the day before the op and they said my decision not to attend had been noted and I would be contacted in due course. THREE MONTHS later, they wrote and said my 'excuse' had been accepted and no further action would be taken. Words fail me.

Big Blue Eagle 01-10-2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel (Post 14932244)

Bit like Katie Hopkins then....

If Boris had squeezed my upper thigh 20 years ago I still wouldnít have showered.

Better to be grabbed by the pussy than have a pussy as Prime Minister

Spindle 01-10-2019 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogstar721 (Post 14932134)
that was about average on most of the projects I worked on, but yes, it can and does go higher per person. The most frustrating point was how this was essentially a 'permanent' job for a large number of ex-Military staff who had absolutely no idea what they were really doing (and anywhere else, as contractors would have been permanent employees or earning maybe 200-300 a day).

Bear in mind in my section, there was 65 people earning an average of 400-500 a day, with another 80 or so development staff earning 350-450 a day - all being charged out at more than that (but in fairness most of the dev staff were not military)

The irony here, was that this was a project entirely about changing the military way of thinking about IT, by adopting approches and ways of working from outside of the military. Out of the 65, there were five of us, who had not served more than 10 years in the armed services (and most of those who had, were officers of 20 years). Unsurprisingly everything was an uphill battle to get things done in a manner that was even remotely approching anything best practice (like conducting testing for example).

This wasn't in Reading (Atlas project consortium) doing stuff for the places like Abbeywood by any chance was it?

little al 01-10-2019 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel (Post 14932244)

Terry Wogan was molested on camera loads, round them up.

cockneyrebel 01-10-2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by little al (Post 14932270)
Terry Wogan was molested on camera loads, round them up.

Why do you think itís ok to make a joke about sexual assault?

evvo111 01-10-2019 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindle (Post 14932257)
Those people aren't the 'rich' people...........

They are a lot richer than people who have to choose whether they or their children eat, can't afford tampons for their daughters, have to put their children in care as they become homeless etc.

If they can afford a third holiday or a third car or have a second or even third home then they can afford to pay more tax so the above situations can be alleviated during a period of austerity. If they say they aren't rich then allow an appeal to a reverse means test.

Adlerhorst 01-10-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evvo111 (Post 14932315)
They are a lot richer than people who have to choose whether they or their children eat, can't afford tampons for their daughters, have to put their children in care as they become homeless etc.

If they can afford a third holiday or a third car or have a second or even third home then they can afford to pay more tax so the above situations can alleviated. If they say they aren't rich then allow an appeal to a reverse means test.

The amount of tax paid by someone earning £250k and putting £100k into a pension between 2008 (start of all this) and today has changed dramatically.

In 2008 someone in those circumstances would pay about £51k in tax, today they pay nearly £100k (£93.6k to be precise).

So they are paying more tax. Shit tons more tax.

Wolfnipplechips 01-10-2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst (Post 14932318)
The amount of tax paid by someone earning £250k and putting £100k into a pension between 2008 (start of all this) and today has changed dramatically.

In 2008 someone in those circumstances would pay about £51k in tax, today they pay nearly £100k (£93.6k to be precise).

So they are paying more tax. Shit tons more tax.

Good.

Adlerhorst 01-10-2019 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips (Post 14932328)
Good.

Providing they continue to pay it, sure. But we’re now at the point where behavioural change is occurring.

Also, rather hilariously, it was the Tories that forced these people to pay more tax.

GreatGonzo 01-10-2019 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst (Post 14932318)
The amount of tax paid by someone earning £250k and putting £100k into a pension between 2008 (start of all this) and today has changed dramatically.

In 2008 someone in those circumstances would pay about £51k in tax, today they pay nearly £100k (£93.6k to be precise).

So they are paying more tax. Shit tons more tax.

[Mainly in agreement and in response to evvo111]

Someone earning £110-150k a year is also paying a lot more tax, but then that is why they started reducing the amount they work and why you now wait longer for an operation.

Doctors, Surgeons up and down the country are reducing their work commitments because of the increased tax they are paying (linked a lot to pensions) showing that if you try and tax the rich more, their behaviour changes. You don't get the increased level of tax anticipated and it often has knock on effects.

Maybe we should just tax the accountants and lawyers and not the useful people! ;)

Spindle 01-10-2019 12:44 PM

So they are putting it in, their behaviour has them shopping at Lidl, and that extra money has been used for what? To cut tax for the very richest, because it's certainly not used for anything else. Tories are total *****.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.