The Election

[Brats]

Of course there is some crossover with the private sector but very often in the private sector those roles are actually policies that are handled by a multi skilled departments, not discreet roles.

That's simply not true. I know someone who is a Climate Change officer working in the private sector. I went back and checked the details of the first four pages of jobs and they all exist in the private sector. It's easy to search for them in career websites.

A lot of the jobs are brand/relationship builders which are very much a part of large corporations, particuarly when it comes to working with communities (which is what a large percentage of the public sector does). Roles specific to areas like Climate Change, Diversity and Polution control are also specific jobs in large organisations (there are more and more qualifications for these roles).

Fundamentally it's basic business sense to employ qualified people to specialise rather than have a number of unexperienced people fudging a specialist role. The private sector realises this which is why they do it.

The questions I have 'avoided' have been due to the tripe nature of them rather than an inability to address them.

That's your argument? You can call them tripe if you like, but all you've done is sidestep the questions rather than give any kind of meaningful answer. You've clearly got a massive agenda against the public sector, but rather than debate it, any possible argument against it is dismissed with a non-answer.

Your ludicrous assertion earlier in the thread that the UK has largely been in economic turmoil since the second world war (aside from the Thatcher years) bares this out, despite the clear evidence that GDP has increased substantially (and relatively consistently) over the last sixty years, to which, again, you completely ignored.

[abigsmurf]

Great Repeal Bill.

-The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
-Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
-The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
-Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
-The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
-The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
-The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
-Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
-Further regulation of CCTV.
-Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
-A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

**** yeah!

Joint Policies in full

Pretty good stuff so far. Best of both worlds?

[Dirty Sanchez]

Read my post. I said 'some' and 'often'. You know someone in the private sector and you read that as all, as I said, not even close.

You hang onto that ideal that those roles are worthwhile and worthy of public expenditure, I and many others disagree and see them as waste and excess.

My agenda on public services is that in many cases they do not provide value for money and do not have a culture of pursuing excellence. What is there to debate there? Those who work in the public sector tend to agree, see earlier in the thread for an example.

My non answer will continue on the turmoil/GDP growth. I stated certain facts and you moved the goalposts to counter them, great work but pointless debating. If you beleive there has been no turmoil and the only factor worthy of measurement is GDP then knock yourself out, the phrase you might want to look up is boom/bust cycle.

A few other gems of wisdom including we do not have a debt problem, despite all three parties agreeing there will be substancial cuts to bring that debt under control, make any debate a waste of time.

[Brats]

You're being hugely selective with your answers. You've answered my anecdotal response about someone I know, but typically you've completely ignored the other (much more lengthier) part of my answer. Brilliant.

I never said those roles are worthwhile and worthy of public expenditure, I merely said that they exist in the private sector and from that, you can't necessarily draw the conclusion that the public sector is wasting money because the point is not unique. These roles might or might not be worthwhile, but neither you, I nor the Taxpayers Alliance can do anything other than make the most basic of assumptions.

I never said we didn't have a debt problem, I merely countered the argument that it is so bad that our grandchildren will be paying for it.

I never said there has been no turmoil or boom and bust during the past 60 years, I merely said that our we had done very well during our long years of paying off the WW2 debt, which demonstrates that history shows that a large debt is not a block to growth. You can reference one sided and very basic facts about the economy and quote boom and bust (which I'm well aware of having studied economics for four years) all you like, but the primary figure used by nations and economists all over the world to measure the health of an economy (growth) clearly show that overall substantial growth did occur in the UK during a period of large debt.

In fact, you seem to be constantly arguing against points which I never said. So there is one point you did get right: I agree any debate with you is a complete waste of time.

[Jebus]

"The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners. "

Saw that one coming though I wonder what they class as "higher earners".

[egparadigm]

Supposedly people on £50k or more. I think that's right – it's been a while since the election! It basically affects people between 50 and 60k, because it tapers off at that point.

Labour claimed during the election that the Conservative savings identified in the manifesto would actually require it to hit earner on around 30 or 40k. Whether this was true will be born out by events. Perhaps the added economic experience of the Lib Dems will add credence to economic policy; the Lib Dem manifesto actually had sum in it!

One for stat-fans: the baserate for the top 10% of earners is £39k (that figure is from 2008, I think – it may have changed). That means 90% of individuals earn less than £39,000 per annum.

[merf]

last I saw national average salary was £20k, £30k was London average and for the City its £60k

£100k puts you in the top 1%

[dataDave]

I'm on £23,753. Not bad for Burnley.

I think economics stink anyway. All money does is breed poverty, war, pollution, debt, stress, drug abuse, depression, greed, murder, fear and hatred.

[Dirty Sanchez]

You're being hugely selective with your answers. You've answered my anecdotal response about someone I know, but typically you've completely ignored the other (much more lengthier) part of my answer. Brilliant.

I never said those roles are worthwhile and worthy of public expenditure, I merely said that they exist in the private sector and from that, you can't necessarily draw the conclusion that the public sector is wasting money because the point is not unique. These roles might or might not be worthwhile, but neither you, I nor the Taxpayers Alliance can do anything other than make the most basic of assumptions.

I never said we didn't have a debt problem, I merely countered the argument that it is so bad that our grandchildren will be paying for it.

I never said there has been no turmoil or boom and bust during the past 60 years, I merely said that our we had done very well during our long years of paying off the WW2 debt, which demonstrates that history shows that a large debt is not a block to growth. You can reference one sided and very basic facts about the economy and quote boom and bust (which I'm well aware of having studied economics for four years) all you like, but the primary figure used by nations and economists all over the world to measure the health of an economy (growth) clearly show that overall substantial growth did occur in the UK during a period of large debt.

In fact, you seem to be constantly arguing against points which I never said. So there is one point you did get right: I agree any debate with you is a complete waste of time.

Not sure where to start with this but I can guarentee you'll whine about what I do or don't comment on. I didn't realise I was bound by forums rules to address your posts to your satisfaction. You filled your last couple of posts with chaff, your point that the public and private sector have similar roles is laughable. If you thought that through a little you may get somewhere, as for trying to back it up with the claim there are courses for those roles is laughable.

As for our grandchilden not being affected by the debt that is a fact, with a growing public service and public promises with an aging population someone at some point has to pay for it. Stick your head in the sand all you like and dismiss it as false and display your ignorance of the issues.

Your counter the debt/turmoil was to quote GDP as the single factor of measurement. Now either you are just ignorant or so badly educated/advised on this element of modern economics it undermines your Top Trumps play of the subject. I'll assume the 4 years were 2 years O level and 2 years A level, otherwise you would have said you read econmics for 4 years. I'll drop to that level - I gained the same qualifications in 2 years. Kapow.

I've read many of your debates, they all go the same pig headed way, your irk posts lately were a hoot.

[dataDave]

I think you're both talking tit-for-tat and aren't addressing the real issues I'm presenting.

One day, if things don't radically change, a nuke will go off and the thought of politics will vanish just as fast as whatever is hit first.

I'd be more worried about explaining to my grandchildren how they're dying from radiation sickness rather than why they're paying off any debt.

[SmokeMeAKipper]

I saw a programme on the BBC about money and earnings a while ago (it prompted me to start the "How Much Do You Earn" thread on here afterwards, might be a year or two ago now) the top 10% earnt above £46k - something like that anyway. I always imagined it would be more but apparently not.

[SmokeMeAKipper]

What is your department/job?

http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf

Page 92, top line

[Brats]

Not sure where to start with this but I can guarentee you'll whine about what I do or don't comment on. I didn't realise I was bound by forums rules to address your posts to your satisfaction.

Obviously not, but much that you have claimed I have said I clearly haven't. I'm not looking for you to agree with me or be bound by any 'rules', but I not going to accept someone putting words in my mouth.

A good example is your most recent post. You talk about "a growing public service and public promises with an aging population" and then say I "dismiss it as false" which just simply not true. I have never said that. I have never even talked about the ageing population in this thread.

To clarify what I just said that the debt (and purely the debt) isn't as bad on its own own imo to affect our grandchildren and I believe that. I was responding to Team Andromeda's point purely about the debt and you joined in the debate. By all means join in, but don't then keep claiming I have said things that I haven't. For the record I agree that an ageing population is a problem for our grandchildren, but that was not the point being made. And that's just one example.

You have continued to call my points 'tripe', 'ignorance' and 'pig headed' whilst failing to put forward an alternative. If you believe that some of the public service jobs are nothing like private sector jobs then argue it, instead of just calling my points 'chaff' and 'laughable' or ignoring the point completely.

[toythatkills]

http://twitter.com/edforever/status/13904477858

[merf]

http://twitter.com/edforever/status/13904477858

Clegg will suggest taking the C of Cameron and the legg from his name for their Jedward style moniker