The Good News Keeps On Coming

[Glyn_Wigley]

I ask you a question Glyn.  On the local authorities;

Do they get the best value for money they could possibly obtain?

In Doncaster, is a political adviser something that should be paid out of public money?  I'd argue the new mayor should pay the political aspects out of her part money, not the money the taxpayer provides.

Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.

Don't know, I was talking about HMRC as Mick was. Having worked for several years for them myself rather than just having 'a friend' I'm waiting to see what his next line of uninformed hilarity is.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?

You're missing one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. Throwing more money (that we'd have to borrow) at a problem is not a solution.

It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Glyn, you've got it totally wrong. Spending money is NOT the answer. That's why the richest in society don't spend a fortune on sending their kids to top private schools. What's the point? Spending big money on education isn't the answer so there's no point them spending huge sums to send their kids to Eton or Winchester.

Similarly, the very richest don't spend a fortune employing the very best tax accountants to squirrel their money away in places where it can't be found and they don;t have to pay their rightful tax on it. What's the point? A handful of over-worked third-rate HMRC tax officials will be able to find it at the drop of a hat. If they just stop having coffee breaks all the time and releasing prisoners.

Spending money on services is clearly not the right way to go. That's why the richest in society choose not to do it.

Or have I missed something blindingly obvious along the way here?

[IC1967]

It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Are you seriously saying that for every pound spent on the public sector it generates ten pounds? Sounds to me that you may have been put through the education system on Labour's watch when they dumbed down mathematics.

[IC1967]

No Glyn, you've got it totally wrong. Spending money is NOT the answer. That's why the richest in society don't spend a fortune on sending their kids to top private schools. What's the point? Spending big money on education isn't the answer so there's no point them spending huge sums to send their kids to Eton or Winchester.

I'm sorry but you've got that one wrong. The richest in society do spend a lot of money educating their kids in private schools because despite spending on education doubling under Labour they still daren't send their kids to state schools because they have got worse not better.

You got one bit right though. Spending money is NOT the answer. Spending money WISELY is the answer as stated in Labour's 1997 manifesto. Shame they didn't act as they preached.

[IC1967]

Similarly, the very richest don't spend a fortune employing the very best tax accountants to squirrel their money away in places where it can't be found and they don;t have to pay their rightful tax on it. What's the point? A handful of over-worked third-rate HMRC tax officials will be able to find it at the drop of a hat. If they just stop having coffee breaks all the time and releasing prisoners.

Spending money on services is clearly not the right way to go. That's why the richest in society choose not to do it.

Or have I missed something blindingly obvious along the way here?

Yes you have. HMRC officials do not release prisoners.

[The Red Baron]

Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.

BFYP

I agree 100%. So do Labour and the Lib Dems. It's the Tories who are set against it, as the following article in the Daily Shit Rag by the Education Minister points out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2401563/Militax-Ed-wants-pick-pockets-fund-party-says-Michael-Gove.html

I'm totally against. Why should the taxpayer fork out to keep in existence a bunch of political parties that have by and large failed this country. And who will set the criteria? No doubt it will be existing "mainstream" parties who will ensure that they continue to receive state funding while new parties will get nothing.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It is the solution when it brings in ten times the amount you spend, you berk.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Are you seriously saying that for every pound spent on the public sector it generates ten pounds? Sounds to me that you may have been put through the education system on Labour's watch when they dumbed down mathematics.

I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.

So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.

So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.

[IC1967]

I'm totally against. Why should the taxpayer fork out to keep in existence a bunch of political parties that have by and large failed this country. And who will set the criteria? No doubt it will be existing "mainstream" parties who will ensure that they continue to receive state funding while new parties will get nothing.

Totally agree. I'm thinking of starting a party for right-minded, decent, right wing extremists. I'm quite happy to fund the venture myself. If red Ed had his way I'd never get off the ground.

[IC1967]

I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.

So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.

So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.

I'm glad you've clarified that. I was getting a bit worried. At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment. I still think though that you could make better use of your existing resources. For example if you cut your holidays down to the private sector average you would free up a lot of man hours that are currently going to waste on paid leave.

[Marydene Rover]

I've been off the forum for a while but I heard Mad Mick was back so thought I'd have a look. Can't find him can any one help.

[RedJ]

I've been off the forum for a while but I heard Mad Mick was back so thought I'd have a look. Can't find him can any one help.

Try using your other log in then mate. One of em anyway.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I have this vision of Chez Mick being like Kenneth Williams' place in Carry On Screaming. Every once in a while a more-or-less human form wakes up, trolls around causing trouble for a while, then goes back into a coma, while the boss of the house screams about his plans for world domination. 

Does your missus look like Fenella Fielding Mick?

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

1) I'm interested that you think that our politicians have failed this country (and Mick: don't answer this. I haven't the slightest interest in your opinion. I'm talking to an intelligent grown up.) We are still the 5th or 6th strongest economy in the world. We have a generally well-educated, well-fed, well cared-for population. Our society is generally robust and tolerant. We don't murder thousands of our fellow citizens or casually mow down several thousand on the roads. The overwhelming majority have a decent roof over their heads and food in the pantry. We don't have sweatshop factories that casually kill or main the workers.  We have reasonable levels of equality (albeit that this measure has slipped over the past generation). So I'm genuinely interested in why you think our political class had failed us and what they should have done better. None of which is to say that I think they are perfect. Far from it. As it happens, I think politicians reflect the society that they represent. Ours are generally exceptionally hard-working, well-meaning, decent and principled, albeit human and fallible.

2) I fully take on board your opinions on state funding of parties. But in that case, you have to accept that there will be well-funded pressure groups or individuals who will fund the parties. And expect something in return. To me, THAT is a far bigger problem for a democratic system.

[coventryrover]

It is the lawmakers responsibility to ensure that the law is adhered to, otherwise what's the point of making a law in the first place?

Regarding party funding, I believe there should be one pot of money, possibly taxpayers, that is equily shared between the parties to use for campaigning etc.  No outside donation permitted which would negate any outside inlfuence on policies etc

[Glyn_Wigley]

I am not talking about the public sector as a whole and you know it. I'm talking about tax gathering by HMRC, a subject started by you so stop trying to move the goalposts.

So you actually think I was on a salary equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of pounds I brought in every year? What fantasy land do you live in? I was bringing in much more than ten times my salary every year, and the sector of HMRC I worked in was one of the small specialist teams with one of the smaller collection ratios compared to Direct Tax and VAT. Employ more officers and you'll bring in much more money than you'll spend and it'll help heal the deficit you keep banging on about.

So please, stop spouting b*llocks about subjects you know nothing of.

I'm glad you've clarified that. I was getting a bit worried. At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment. I still think though that you could make better use of your existing resources. For example if you cut your holidays down to the private sector average you would free up a lot of man hours that are currently going to waste on paid leave.

Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.

Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It is the lawmakers responsibility to ensure that the law is adhered to, otherwise what's the point of making a law in the first place?

I agree. Which is the point Glyn is making. Laying off hundred of tax inspectors makes it more difficult to enforce tax law. Basic logic really, but it appears to evade many.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP

I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.

Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.

As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.

There actually already has been a FOI request.  The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request.  Here is what the mayor herself had to say on that subject;

"Mayor Ros Jones, said: “Despite these challenges we still need to drive economic growth, create jobs and protect vital services.

“In order to make the right decisions for residents and businesses the support of a political assistant and a strong cabinet is crucial to our success.”

I've an idea for her, how about her political advisers could be her fellow party members or here's a notion, what about her labour majority councillors, perhaps they could do a job to help her out or how about the deputy mayor she has, just a thought though?

[BillyStubbsTears]

There actually already has been a FOI request.  The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request.

I'm surprised at that. You got a link to the request and response?

[The Red Baron]

BST

Yes, I suppose if you compare the UK to a Third-World dictatorship then we're not doing too badly. However, we are falling behind our competitors all the time in terms of education, healthcare and industry. We have huge levels of debt- both public and private- and most of our major companies are owned by foreigners. These problems didn't start yesterday, or even in the last decade. They go back to the aftermath of WW2. And if you compare some of the key measures in this country with Germany, which was on it's back after being defeated and invaded, then we have performed very badly indeed.

Of course the people must take responsibility, but I believe our party system must take a lot of the blame. We have two major parties, one which grew up to represent the landed gentry and the other which represented industrial workers. over the years they've grown into two organisations which are simply two sides of the same coin, and which pursue the same old failed ideas when in Government.

We will not get the radical thinking this country needs until we get rid of two/ three party politics, adopt a genuine form of PR (not that alternative vote nonsense) and fund political parties through mass memberships. That to me is the way forward, not relying on large donations or state funding. Both of these methods entrench the current, failed, system.

[IC1967]

Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.

Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.

If you think your leave entitlement is comparable to the private sector you are living in fantasy land. Many people in the private sector are lucky to get 20 days a year. Many get a lot less. You on the other hand start off with a minimum of 25 days and then get an extra 5 days after you've been there 10 years.

You also typically work less hours. You also get a final salary pension. You also earn more. You get sick pay at the drop of a hat. Maternity leave, funeral leave, job security, I could go on. You don't know you're born.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2200888/State-workers-enjoy-advantage-private-employees.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick's Law.

"As the length of one of Mick's threads increases, the pribabity of him posting a link to MoneyWeek, This is Money or some other source of unrefined right-wing sewage tends towards 1."

[IC1967]

The article refers to a report from Reform who are an independent   charitable, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. Labour MP Frank Field is on the board. Hardly right wing. You always revert to dissing anything you can't argue against as right wing drivel.

You probably don't like the fact that they have published research  that shows that the extra spending on public services between 2000 and 2006 has not shifted the trend performance of those services.

You'd do better trying to disprove the excellent points I make. Sounds like you are also from the public sector. I'd keep quiet about all the perks and benefits you enjoy before you are rumbled by the general public who don't realise how badly they are being ripped off. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick's Law II

As the length of one of Mick's thread increases, the probability of him going off onto an unfocused, unsubstantiated rant about the public sector approaches 1.

[IC1967]

Billy's Law

When IC1967 continues to show him up for what he is, a hardline leftie that believes that the solution to everything is increased public spending, he reverts to slagging off right wingers, instead of engaging in political debate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You've lost me Mick. How many times have you shown me up as a hardline lefty? Can you point to the posts?

[IC1967]

Hahaha. That's the best laugh I've had for ages.

[BillyStubbsTears]

When you've stopped laughing, you can point to the posts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

If you're comparing us with Germany then in many respects I'm right on board. If we had a political system that would encourage higher taxes, higher social spending, less of an obsession with property ownership, finance that sees long-term collaborations with companies rather than immediate shareholder return as key, legislation for union representatives on company management committees, all like Germany does, then I'd be delighted.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Proof positive, if such proof has ever been needed, that Mick doesn't read things thoroughly but is so unable resist the urge to spout another postful of guff that he doesn't take the time to comprehend things properly.

Also, leave entitlement is on a sliding scale dependent on time in post, just as it is in most private sector areas, so an 'average' is completely meaningless. More ill-though out guff, as usual. Not to say incredibly desperate. Mind you, I suppose it's penetrated even Mick's skull that talking about the actual job with someone who does know what he's talking about is just going to show up his ignorance even more.

If you think your leave entitlement is comparable to the private sector you are living in fantasy land. Many people in the private sector are lucky to get 20 days a year. Many get a lot less. You on the other hand start off with a minimum of 25 days and then get an extra 5 days after you've been there 10 years.

You also typically work less hours. You also get a final salary pension. You also earn more. You get sick pay at the drop of a hat. Maternity leave, funeral leave, job security, I could go on. You don't know you're born.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2200888/State-workers-enjoy-advantage-private-employees.html

Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.