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

[Luseac]

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.

The services that matter to me: Seeing a good doctor quickly, having my bins collected regularly, not falling down a chasm of a pothole in the road etc etc. Would not be effected by a cutting the excess fat by getting rid of the non-jobs.

Going by your rationale of "but however small a benefit an employee brings it is still a benefit". Who is to say Labour haven't over-employed and in fact that cup of coffee or whatever could be done by another bone idle thumb twidler?

 

[britboy4321]

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.

Me too. But you're talking about 'stirring the pot of public expenditure' rather than 'Cutting public expenditure'.

It really is a simple point -- I'm just saying .. for right or wrong .. when you cut public expenditure altogether, to SOME UNKNOWN DEGREE, public services will suffer.

That's all I'm saying. It really isn't giving anything up just to agree to that fact .. it's not even a pro-labour or conservative statement -- it's just a fact we can agree on so we can take the debate forward reasonably ..


If you want to vote for less tax NO PROBLEM WITH ME. If you think no part of the public sector will suffer .. I'm sorry -- this is not correct. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with your opinion. But thinking you can have EVERYTHING if you vote right-wing is just, simply not true. It can't be.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

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

And it is true.

The Government will cling onto mistakes, such as the billions squandered on semi-autonomous bodies that provide little to no value for money (according to the PAC) to the tax payer. They need to do this to save face.

We have to cycle. The only option is Tory.

 

[dante6491]

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 ...

You know lowering tax does not always result in a lower standard of public service? They could cut income tax by 1% across the board which would lose ~£2.50b (going by income tax revenue being approx £250b). That difference could then be made up by getting rid of a stack load of middle management pencil pushers. The 1% saving in income tax is then spent by consumers which results in private sector growth and more jobs...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

If you want to vote for less tax NO PROBLEM WITH ME. If you think no part of the public sector will suffer .. I'm sorry -- this is not correct. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with your opinion. But thinking you can have EVERYTHING if you vote right-wing is just, simply not true. It can't be.

It is laughable you still refer to the Torys and "right wing", as if we're talking about the BNP as opposed to the Socialist Party.

LibLabCon are centrists. Get over it. This is not 1980.

 

[britboy4321]

You know lowering tax does not always result in a lower standard of public service? They could cut income tax by 1% across the board which would lose ~£2.50b (going by income tax revenue being approx £250b). That difference could then be made up by getting rid of a stack load of middle management pencil pushers. The 1% saving in income tax is then spent by consumers which results in private sector growth and more jobs...

Read above. your statement would only be true if the 'pen pushers' didn't ever, EVER do a single useful thing.

If they make some person one cup of coffee, per year, and that's it the rest of the time they doss around.. then the standard of public service is reduced slightly when you fire them. It's WORTH getting rid of them -- but the standard of public service would be worse slightly - not the same.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

If they make some person one cup of coffee, per year, and that's it the rest of the time they doss around.. then the standard of public service is reduced slightly when you fire them

Not true. The (or a fraction of) money could be used elsewhere to improve public service to a greater extent.

 

[britboy4321]

Not true. The (or a fraction of) money could be used elsewhere to improve public service to a greater extent.

No, you're thinking of 'reinvesting the money elsewhere in the public sector'. We're talking about something completely different 'taking the money out of the public sector altogether and putting it into the private sector via tax cuts, or paying off government debt - and whether the public sector service will be the same, or worse'.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

No, you're thinking of 'reinvesting the money elsewhere in the public sector'. We're talking about something completely different 'taking the money out of the public sector altogether and putting it into the private sector via tax cuts,

We can do both - 50% of the money can be reinvested elsewhere, 50% in tax cuts.

or paying off government debt'

Uhh, paying off debt is a public service. It would lower the interest we'd have to pay the next year, meaning more public money for public services.

Money doesn't come free, britboy4321. There is a massive cost to money, and a massive cost to us. Learn that. We're 29 pages in. How do you not have your head around this yet?

 

[britboy4321]

We can do both - 50% of the money can be reinvested elsewhere, 50% in tax cuts.


Uhh, paying off debt is a public service. It would lower the interest we'd have to pay the next year, meaning more public money for public services.

No it's not. The debt is owned by the government/treasury, not the public. Honestly!

If you reduce the money going into the public sector to do whatever -- the public sector will inevitably become worse until you start re-investing.

We're 29 pages in .. and you don't get that yet? The thing is -- if you refuse to budge an inch -- then I just say blatently obvious stuff knowing you'll disagree and look silly.

It makes my life very easy in discrediting you when I know you won't even accept that a lower budget into public services will affect the public services!!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

No it's not. The debt is owned by the government/treasury, not the public.

lol

(I have regressed - I am trying to match my audience).

 

[britboy4321]

lol

(I have regressed - I am trying to match my audience).

Thats OK. Just ask anyone whatsoever, not me of course, if the treasury paying off a government loan is the same as the government putting money into the public sector, or providing a 'public service'. Ask ANYONE if it is a public service. Economics .. I dunno ... 11+ level? ... The treasury either gives money to the public sector, gives it to the private sector, keeps it, invests it, loans it or pays back loans with it.

Ask your missus. Even ask your 8 year old child - they should know at their age really.

Lol indeed. I told my wife you thought money spent paying a government loan was the same as money being given to the public sector and considered providing a 'public service' and she just said 'OMG, I don't think he's serious. He's yanking your chain. The internet is full of dippies you shouldn't bother' .

I'm sorry, I'm also going to have to just presume your not serious. The alternative is depressing! ASK ANYONE ELSE SOMEONE YOU TRUST NOT ME what the truth is!! er .. please?

HINT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_services. Oh man -- it's in the very first line. The very first sentence mate! The very first bit and you don't know it oh dear .. don't know where to go from here .. we've reached rock bottom and you've started to dig .... And now -- you being you .. you STILL won't be able to admit your wrong -- so you've got no choice but to dig further

HINT 2 -- Look up ANY definition of 'public service' -- kind of anywhere. As I said .. please do it .. it's kind of annoying -- like someone saying 'LOL' when I say 'London is in England'. Then you show him the proof it is and he answers 'Hahaha London isn't in England hahaha'. A little annoying as I said .. I should have learnt by now about internet kiddies ..

 

[robgmun]

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 have read your ramblings over the last 3 pages, but this one takes the biscuit, i can only conclude one thing...

...you're utterly insane

 

[britboy4321]

I have read your ramblings over the last 3 pages, but this one takes the biscuit, i can only conclude one thing...

...you're utterly insane

OK, I'll go as slow as I humanly can. As simple as I can possibly explain like when I told you what the government 'putting money into the economy' means -- remember? When I went 'uber-simple-as-I possibly-could you and 2 others FINALLY got it, hence the huge silence that followed and the quickly changed subject!!

Here we go .. READ SLOWLY, TWICE. THEN READ ONCE MORE.

Let us imagine that there is 1 person who likes biscuits and the government has a 'feed everyone that likes biscuits a biscuit a week' program.

The government hires a biscuit-helper for £1m per week, to feed that single person his single biscuit per week as his job description. The person they hire is no good. He only feeds the guy 1 biscuit a year!

The government fires the helper, and THEY DO NOT PUT HIS WAGES BACK INTO THE PUBLIC SECTOR INSTEAD THEY DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT - PAY OFF SOME DEBTS THEY OWE OR BURY IT IN A MINE OR SET FIRE TO IT OR SOMETHING -- repeat -- do not put it back into the public sector -- do NOT hire anyone else -- do NOT give the money to anyone performing any public service not a doctor not a cancer patient ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE -- USE THE MONEY FOR SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER. Read this sentence 4 times. In fact write it down a couple of times.

Now, read very slowly, 1 word at a time ... is the person who got fed the biscuit receiving a worse public service because his pretty useless helper was fired and now he gets fed no biscuits at all, or the same level of service that he previously got?

JUST SAY A SINGLE WORD .. 'YES', or 'NO'. IS HE GETTING A WORSE PUBLIC SERVICE? I bet you a cookie you can't even answer the question! You can't even answer 'YES' or 'NO' to the question can you! Lol. We ALL know the biscuit helper SHOULD have been sacked that's obvious. The fact is in this example No-one's public service is getting better -- therefore ALTOGETHER, BECAUSE OF THIS SERVICE NOT HAPPENING the public service level has been reduced. But you and your jolly tory friends SERIOUSLY ARE ARGUING the guy who wants the biscuits isn't getting a worse public service! That the public service in this example has NOT been reduced! . That's what you're saying. Sounds retarded when it's spelled out slowly and simply doesn't it!

Answer yes or no. Go on, I dare you. I Double-dare you .. I bet you can't either type 'Yes' or 'No'. Bet you can't.



The thing is -- you know the answer -- I know the answer -- everyone reading knows the answer --- but you can't SAY the answer .. which is, of course, the beauty of it all .. as all neutrals reading will be thinking 'These tory voters .. don't they even understand that? Jees! It's obvious'. Well yup neutrals -- if you vote tory -- seriously -- you're throwing your hat in with these lot ... this is honestly the logic they are arguing for! Read above if you don't believe me -- they actually, seriously believe this.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

You aren't Alistair Darling's financial advisor per chance are you britboy ?

 

[britboy4321]

You aren't Alistair Darling's financial advisor per chance are you britboy ?

No.

 

[robgmun]

Now, read very slowly, 1 word at a time ... is the person who got fed the biscuit receiving a worse public service because his pretty useless helper was fired and now he gets fed no biscuits at all, or the same level of service that he previously got?

No, double no, thrice no, they can get someone else to do his duty as part of his job and reward him accordingly

That fact you cannot and stubbornly will not understand this just baffles me, nobody in their right mind would keep someone on that is not effiant at their job, because it drags everybody down, if he is slow at his job, then it will have a knock on effect on others doing their duty. I have seen it time and time again in the places I have worked (including the orthodontist department in a NHS hospital).

You are advocating government waste, not even Labout party supporters would agree with you, i don't take using these words lightly, but i seriously have concerns about your metal state

 

[britboy4321]

i seriously have concerns about you metal state[/COLOR][/FONT]

I don't think I'm too metal. Guns and Roses is about my limit. Thanks for the concern though ..

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I thought about responding for the benefit of anyone just tuning in. However, my signature serves to discredit all of your inane rambling.

 

[britboy4321]

No, double no, thrice no, they can get someone else to do his duty as part of his job and reward him accordingly

That fact you cannot and stubbornly will not understand this just baffles me, nobody in their right mind would keep someone on that is not effiant at their job, because it drags everybody down, if he is slow at his job, then it will have a knock on effect on others doing their duty. I have seen it time and time again in the places I have worked (including the orthodontist department in a NHS hospital).

You are advocating government waste, not even Labout party supporters would agree with you, i don't take using these words lightly, but i seriously have concerns about your metal state

I just said this to my 5 year old neice ..



'There are 2 men -- one get as a service a biscuit every year. The other one does not. Do they end up with the same number of biscuits?'

She actually disagreed with your answer of 'They end up with the same'.


Kids eh?