Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Hatter The Mad]

I did as you asked and went straight onto the tax payers alliance website.

'Working to REDUCE TAXES' .. it is VERY clearly and obviously a right-wing organisation -- LOOK AT THEIR LIST OF HAND-SELECTED NEWS PIECES -- look at the newspapers they chose to quote.

They are a pressure group that gets the Government to be more efficient, and therefore pass on efficiency savings to everyone. That doesn't mean "right wing". If you really believe that, you must think that "left wing" people want higher taxes, all the time, which is stupid (although I'd expect nothing more from you).

Their alignment of their blog postings (it takes in articles from 100s of people) is questionable, but their reports are factually sound.

If you are put off by the blog, read a book like Squandered, or the PAC site. Or the National Audit office.

 

[britboy4321]

Surely you're not advocating paying someone a full time salary for doing 10 minutes work a week just because the government will be down on 10 minutes of "productivity"?

no I was making it clear that it is virtually impossible to reduce money from a part of the public sector without it suffering because of it. Even with an example I made up of an absolute dosser -- a real no-brainer to get rid of him -- the public sector will STILL suffer slightly.

All I'm saying is either vote for 'lower taxes, worse public services' or 'higher taxes, better public services'. Anyone that tells you they can do much different is basically lying -- and I'd hate to see you vote under false information.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

no I was making it clear that it is virtually impossible to reduce money from a part of the public sector without it suffering because of it. Even with an example I made up of an absolute dosser -- a real no-brainer to get rid of him -- the public sector will STILL suffer slightly.

Not true.

One of many examples:

National Patience Safety Agency - NPSA - founded by Labour - 2001. Annual budget of over £30m, tasked with protecting patient safety. Average salary of the staff is £55k per year . Public Accounts Committee found that it made ‘insufficient progress’, and said that on the face of it it does not seem to present and value for money to the tax payer whatsoever.

 

[britboy4321]

They are a pressure group that gets the Government to be more efficient, and therefore pass on efficiency savings to everyone. That doesn't mean "right wing". If you really believe that, you must think that "left wing" people want higher taxes, all the time, which is stupid (although I'd expect nothing more from you).

Their alignment of their blog postings (it takes in articles from 100s of people) is questionable, but their reports are factually sound.

If you are put off by the blog, read a book like Squandered.

For the record, going off the information on the website, do you think 'The Tax payers allowance' is a politically biased towards the right or not.

I am legitimately interested in your answer before we continue ..

 

[Luseac]

no I was making it clear that it is virtually impossible to reduce money from a part of the public sector without it suffering because of it. Even with an example I made up of an absolute dosser -- a real no-brainer to get rid of him -- the public sector will STILL suffer slightly.

All I'm saying is either vote for 'lower taxes, worse public services' or 'higher taxes, better public services'. Anyone that tells you they can do much different is basically lying -- and I'd hate to see you vote under false information.

I honestly and truly believe that if I attend a hospital and the government of the day has saved £75,000 by not employing a diversity manager and a diversity managers P.A. AND made huge savings by not having to contribute to their final salary pensions my service will not suffer.

 

[britboy4321]

Not true.

One of many examples:

National Patience Safety Agency - NPSA - founded by Labour - 2001. Annual budget of over £30m, tasked with protecting patient safety. Average salary of the staff is £55k per year . Public Accounts Committee found that it made ‘insufficient progress’, and said that on the face of it it does not seem to present and value for money to the tax payer whatsoever.

If it ceases to exist, the public sector will provide a slightly worse, and cheaper, service. Even if ONLY ONCE A YEAR ONE EMPLOYEE HELPS AN OLD PERSON ACROSS THE ROAD, AND THAT'S IT NO-ONE ELSE DOES A SODDING THING!! - the public sector would provide a slightly slightly slightly worse service.

Tell me you understand!! I'm losing the will to live!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

For the record, going off the information on the website, do you think 'The Tax payers allowance' is a politically biased towards the right or not.

Going off the information on the site, which includes the blog, it is centre-right. However, that does not change the facts turned up by TPA reports.

 

[britboy4321]

I honestly and truly believe that if I attend a hospital and the government of the day has saved £75,000 by not employing a diversity manager and a diversity managers P.A. AND made huge savings by not having to contribute to their final salary pensions my service will not suffer.

If those people do a single useful thing, once a year - even make 1 person a coffee - than by definition, by them not being there, someones service will suffer. The public sector will be slightly worse than it was.

It's simple!

 

[Luseac]

If it ceases to exist, the public sector will provide a slightly worse, and cheaper, service. Even if ONLY ONCE A YEAR ONE EMPLOYEE HELPS AN OLD PERSON ACROSS THE ROAD, AND THAT'S IT NO-ONE ELSE DOES A SODDING THING!!

Tell me you understand!! I'm losing the will to live!

Cost/Benefit. Is it worth paying £30m to help someone cross the road? No.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

If it ceases to exist, the public sector will provide a slightly worse, and cheaper, service.

I disagree.

If those people do a single useful thing, once a year - even make 1 person a coffee - than by definition, by them not being there, someones service will suffer.

You talk a crock of ****.

You think this money is magiced from somewhere. The money spent on this person making one coffee could be used somewhere else. Therefore, it has a negative impact everywhere else, despite having a slightly positive impact in the isolated case.

It is not a one way scale.

Just because they provide a minor benefit to a tiny case does not outweigh the damage to the public service by that money not being else where.

The public sector will be slightly worse than it was.

What if that manager was fired, and her annual £75k was used to save the lives of 5 more cancer patients that year. Or to hire three more bin men for a year? Or to hire 4 more street cleaners? Or two more police officers? Public service still slightly worse, eh?

 

[britboy4321]

Going off the information on the site, which includes the blog, it is centre-right. However, that does not change the facts turned up by TPA reports.

No, but it certainly decides which facts they decide to highlight, and add into their super-duper reports -- and which ones they decide 'get ommitted'.

As Flavor Flav once said .. Don't believe the hype!

 

[Luseac]

If those people do a single useful thing, once a year - even make 1 person a coffee - than by definition, by them not being there, someones service will suffer. The public sector will be slightly worse than it was.

It's simple!

I think we might have to agree to disagree here. I can't comprehend how it is worth while paying someone a full-time salary on the basis that they might do one good thing a year. The country is in a financial mess, we cannot afford these non-jobs.

It's simple!

 

[britboy4321]

Cost/Benefit. Is it worth paying £30m to help someone cross the road? No.

Of course not. but it's a really simple question now -- will the public service being offered be worseby an extremely, unbelievably small amount, or the same?

Worse, or precisely, EXACTLY the same?


I am not saying it's worthwhile -- I am saying the public service would suffer. It's correctly suffer as the guy is not worth employing. BUT IT'D STILL SUFFER. The Tories do not want you to believe this simple truth .. they pretend it won't suffer. Don't believe the lie.

 

[britboy4321]

I disagree.

You talk a crock of ****.

You think this money is magiced from somewhere. The money spent on this person making one coffee could be used somewhere else. Therefore, it has a negative impact everywhere else, despite having a slightly positive impact in the isolated case.

It is not a one way scale.

Just because they provide a minor benefit to a tiny case does not outweigh the damage to the public service by that money not being else where.


What if that manager was fired, and her annual £75k was used to save the lives of 5 more cancer patients that year. Public service still slightly worse, eh?

It's either in the public sector or not. The tories are going to TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR .. not 'stir it all around a bit'. We are not remotely talking about 'stirring the money all around a bit' -- we are talking about 'JUST TAKE A LOAD OUT ALTOGETHER'

 

[Hatter The Mad]

...

 

[Mercutio]

While my folks have always been and I fully accept the Tories aren't currently a lot better I do think they are being somewhat forced to fight on Labours terms with the usual spin and pointless "vote winning" policies.
I'd say for anyone wanting to keep a fair chunk of their wage and use it where needed a conservative vote is probably good.
For doley chav's Labours looking likely to keep you infront of the telly on Stella for a good while yet.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

It's either in the public sector or not. The tories are going to TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR .. not 'stir it all around a bit'.

So will Labour. So will the Lib Demds.

At least the Torys will make efficiency savings by cutting fat, which Labour by definition cannot, because they have added most of the fat in the last decade.

They will not go back on their past. That is the problem with a stale Government - they cannot be seen to be correcting mistakes all the time. It is too embarrassing for them.

We, the tax payer, can only gain by cycling Governments this reason. Now is the time to cycle.

 

[britboy4321]

While my folks have always been and I fully accept the Tories aren't currently a lot better I do think they are being somewhat forced to fight on Labours terms with the usual spin and pointless "vote winning" policies.
I'd say for anyone wanting to keep a fair chunk of their wage and use it where needed a conservative vote is probably good.
For doley chav's Labours looking likely to keep you infront of the telly on Stella for a good while yet.

For anyone who wants to keep a lot of their wage I agree whole-heartedly -- vote conservative. Their cornerstone ideology is that of lowering taxes with the pros and cons that come with it ...

 

[dante6491]

Of course not. but it's a really simple question now -- will the public service being offered be worseby an extremely, unbelievably small amount, or the same?

Worse, or precisely, EXACTLY the same?


I am not saying it's worthwhile -- I am saying the public service would suffer. It's correctly suffer as the guy is not worth employing. BUT IT'D STILL SUFFER. The Tories do not want you to believe this simple truth .. they pretend it won't suffer. Don't believe the lie.

As mentioned above there is a cost benefit. That useless patient safety agency, which lets say saves 40 lives a year is cut. The £30million that is saved is then reinvested into lets say 100 more doctors, who save 400 lives. I think I know which I would prefer.

 

[britboy4321]

So will Labour. So will the Lib Demds.

At least the Torys will make efficiency savings by cutting fat, which Labour by definition cannot, because they have added most of the fat in the last decade.

They will not go back on their past. That is the problem with a stale Government - they cannot be seen to be correcting mistakes all the time. It is too embarrassing for them.

We, the tax payer, can only gain by cycling Governments this reason. Now is the time to cycle.

There is certainly a common mindset that rotating governments is healthy ... (I think they call it the 'pendulum effect'.)

Some analysts also state that it in inevitable that governments will eventually fall in a democracy as they inevitably make more and more mistakes .. and of course whoever is in opposition has no real opportunity to make any mistakes at all!

And people that go back to the last time the opposition could make mistakes are seen as a been 'fuddy duddy'.