Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    No they don't.
    They are nurses, and teachers, and lecturers.
    The people who "have jobs that shouldn't exist" will not be sacked, or have their wages cut, because they are fat cat Tory voters.
    £200k to head up a council? Really?
    £181,000 to head up Rhondda Cynon Taff? really?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For those who complain about how much public sector workers get, how much do you think private sector jobs with responsibility for the same amount of workers would get? A damn slight more is the answer so STFU.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    For those who complain about how much public sector workers get, how much do you think private sector jobs with responsibility for the same amount of workers would get? A damn slight more is the answer so STFU.
    We dont pay the private sector through tax, I dont care what they pay themselves. We are the shareholders of the public sector, and like private sector shareholders we have the right to demand the best value for our money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    We dont pay the private sector through tax, I dont care what they pay themselves. We are the shareholders of the public sector, and like private sector shareholders we have the right to demand the best value for our money.
    Exactly, we do have the right to demand value for money, which is why we need the best people. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I just don't agree with the mantra that the numbers of such people should always increase.
    When the area you are talking about is understaffed, then you do need to increase numbers.

    (Original post by Renner)
    My negative comments about nurses may have been made in poor judgment and I apologise. But teachers are fair game in my eyes. My school had too many of them, it lacked the power to sack the bad ones so had to employ more to cover them, which is wrong.
    As for schools, its a hard one. We don't have a shortage of teachers, but we do have a shortage of good teachers. Cutting funding / numbers will not help bring in the good teachers, or get rid of the bad ones.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    £181,000 to head up Rhondda Cynon Taff? really?
    Where did I say that was justified?
    As I keep saying, they are pretty much all as bad as each other.
    But why are these kind of salaries not being looked at, when we have huge cuts that will hit front line services hard?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Because of course, that has anything to do with the topic in hand :rolleyes:
    Its called an example. And if you didn't want to discuss this why quote me?
    Look, in our democracy we vote for the candidates in our constituency who represent our views and interests. If the candidates mis-represent those views, then how on earth is our democracy legitimate?
    When a candidate puts forward his views, it is the job of the voters to identify the credibility and the practicality of those views. In the case of the Lib Dems, too many voters just took the "we will abolish all tuition fees" on face value without once considering whether this was actually going to be possible or not and voted Clegg in based on how many good sound-bytes he produced in the TV debates, and once the Lib Dems got in they were simply forced to turn back on the pledge they ran on because their proposals were impractical(which is why there is a feeling of split within the Lib Dem party atm).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Exactly, we do have the right to demand value for money, which is why we need the best people. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
    Funny how this argument is being made to defend the public sector, I doubt you would use it to defend bankers' bonuses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Its called an example. And if you didn't want to discuss this why quote me?

    When a candidate puts forward his views, it is the job of the voters to identify the credibility and the practicality of those views. In the case of the Lib Dems, too many voters just took the "we will abolish all tuition fees" on face value without once considering whether this was actually going to be possible or not and voted Clegg in based on how many good sound-bytes he produced in the TV debates, and once the Lib Dems got in they were simply forced to turn back on the pledge they ran on because their proposals were impractical(which is why there is a feeling of split within the Lib Dem party atm).
    Basically the TV debates were like X-factor for politicians.

    While in Opposition, you can trumpet whatever policy you like, safe in the knowledge that you probably won't have to put it into practice. When you're in charge, its a different matter.

    Which is why we get all this "unnecessary cuts" crap from Miliband, him conveniently forgetting Alastair Darling's comments just before the election.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    18,988,026 people did not vote for the Conservatives. So yes, the majority of people did not get who they wanted.
    You've missed my point. Collectively the electorate has got what it voted for. The rejection and removal of a labour government without a full majority for the conservatives, and an increased say in government for the liberal democrats.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Exactly, we do have the right to demand value for money, which is why we need the best people. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
    Which is why the top private sector executives, like bankers, are paid top dollar in salary and bonuses.

    This is what you seem to have a problem with, but you can't have it both ways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Funny how this argument is being made to defend the public sector, I doubt you would use it to defend bankers' bonuses.
    Bankers serve themselves, the public sector serve the public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Bankers serve themselves, the public sector serve the public.
    So the criteria for which part of the public sector should be paid top dollar is what garethDT on TSR thinks "serve the public"?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    So the criteria for which part of the public sector should be paid top dollar is what garethDT on TSR thinks "serve the public"?:rolleyes:
    No, it's the system which is already in place, the more responsibility you have, the more money you earn.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Care to justify your reaction?
    I honestly don't see how you can consider intimidation and violence an acceptable part of politics. Do you have any friends or family living in a country where political violence is the norm? Turns out it's not a bunch of happy go lucky rogues standing up for themselves, it's just brutal, horrific and ****ing dehumanising.

    Here in the UK we have a democracy where we can distribute power as fairly as we can manage. No, it's not fair and there are many things wrong with it. It's the worst system, aside from all the others.

    Obviously, different people want different things. This is resolved through the democracy. So why is it that when you don't get what you want, you feel it's acceptable to use violence? How is that remotely constructive? Imagine what would happen if every time somebody lost out, they decided to use violence. Not pretty.

    It's ok to justify violence when it's you against THE MAN in the banks and the government. Where do you draw the line on what's ok? Perhaps somebody who voted conservative deserves to be beaten up? How about a minor shareholder in the banks?

    You're no better than the EDL, perhaps you're sympathetic to the tactics of the National Front, maybe you're ok with the Red Army Faction. Please think again :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Bankers serve themselves, the public sector serve the public.
    Actually I think bankers serve money.

    Not that I criticize them for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    I honestly don't see how you can consider intimidation and violence an acceptable part of politics. Do you have any friends or family living in a country where political violence is the norm? Turns out it's not a bunch of happy go lucky rogues standing up for themselves, it's just brutal, horrific and ****ing dehumanising.

    Here in the UK we have a democracy where we can distribute power as fairly as we can manage. No, it's not fair and there are many things wrong with it. It's the worst system, aside from all the others.

    Obviously, different people want different things. This is resolved through the democracy. So why is it that when you don't get what you want, you feel it's acceptable to use violence? How is that remotely constructive? Imagine what would happen if every time somebody lost out, they decided to use violence. Not pretty.

    It's ok to justify violence when it's you against THE MAN in the banks and the government. Where do you draw the line on what's ok? Perhaps somebody who voted conservative deserves to be beaten up? How about a minor shareholder in the banks?

    You're no better than the EDL, perhaps you're sympathetic to the tactics of the National Front, maybe you're ok with the Red Army Faction. Please think again :/
    The difference between us and the EDL is that we know who the real enemy is, it's not even the politicians or the bankers, it's the people above them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    Collectively the electorate has got what it voted for.
    This means nothing in terms of satisfying the people when you remember that 49% of the voting population did not vote and that out of those who did, a minority voted for a coalition. I would even argue that many people who did vote for a coalition did not get what they wanted because some of the key policies they voted for were forgotton.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    You've missed my point. Collectively the electorate has got what it voted for. The rejection and removal of a labour government without a full majority for the conservatives, and an increased say in government for the liberal democrats.
    Or you could say that collectively the electorate voted against a tory government.
    Or that the electorate voted against hard and fast cuts (because despite what they are doing now, that is what the lib dems campaigned about).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    From a left point of view, it is extraordinarily sad that a few hundred idiots seem hell-bent on undermining what is an anti-cuts movement of millions. I'm not referring to UK uncut here - they did not smash up shops - but black bloc et al.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    The difference between us and the EDL is that we know who the real enemy is, it's not even the politicians or the bankers, it's the people above them.
    You think people who collect seeds are trying to starve us all to death to somehow get rich, I don't think you have any idea of what is going on in the real world.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.