Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Duke Fame on February 27, 2011, 12:34:33 AM
-
Whilst council tax remains criminally high, at least SMBC haven't gone down the selfish political show boating of the awful Richard Leese over in Manchester. That man is a disgrace.
There is plenty more scope for cutting costs but well done for not increasing council tax this year.
-
at least SMBC haven't gone down the selfish political show boating of the awful Richard Leese over in Manchester. That man is a disgrace.
Manchester is being cut by £102 million of government funding over the two years 2011 - 2013, while Stockport is losing 'just' 16.5 million. Council Leaders have a job to do, which includes standing up for their area and its residents and businesses. If you were the Leader of Manchester City Council, Duke, I think you'd probably engage in a spot of showboating too!
There is plenty more scope for cutting costs
Such as?
-
at least SMBC haven't gone down the selfish political show boating of the awful Richard Leese over in Manchester. That man is a disgrace.
Manchester is being cut by £102 million of government funding over the two years 2011 - 2013, while Stockport is losing 'just' 16.5 million. Council Leaders have a job to do, which includes standing up for their area and its residents and businesses. If you were the Leader of Manchester City Council, Duke, I think you'd probably engage in a spot of showboating too!
There is plenty more scope for cutting costs
Such as?
The town clerk of Manchester & Town Clerk no 2 have an inflated opinion of their own importance.
Showboating as you call it is just not on, it’s the tax-payer’s services, it’s the taxpayer’s money, it’s not his! He’s not standing up for residents & businesses, he couldn’t care less about them (especially businesses – perhaps with the exception of a certain favoured property business) He’s playing politics with people’s lives. A local council has to supply a few core services, libraries, bin collection, sweep the streets and keep the roads moving by putting tar on them. There are other core services of course but these do not include spending £6m of a brochure about buses, trams and congestion charges. Not about event organization, not about promoting favoured events. Maybe it's just my preference and that's why my local authority wasn't the one I voted for. Maybe that's democracy but I would value a library network over and above a Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officer @ £37k, New Media Manager @ £38k, Link Worker - Indian and East African Asian on £25,940; a Cultural Regeneration Officer (1) @ a cool £30k; another Cultural Regeneration Officer on a mere £28,919, Assistant Specialist Market Manager on £ 27,016...well it is only an assistant post, Corporate Lead Officer, Lesbians' issues ( I kid you not ) on £38k, Corporate Lead Officer, Gay Men's Issues, another £38k, a 'Zest' Hub Co-Ordinator ( whatever that is ) on £30k, Climate Change Officer £37,206, Team Strategic Development on salary of £41,616, a Creative Director on a juicy £120,000, An Expressive and Performing Arts Technician @ £21,519, a Travel Change Team Policy Officer on £34,549, Recycling officers……………….the list goes on. Does a cushy role within a council, really demand a salary in excess of £40,000? I was told by a unison rep that salary should be higher as there are not the opportunities within the public sector that there are in the private sector! Should we really be paying people more because they are unambitious???
As I say, I didn't vote for that being the priority and perhaps it was made clear when the Richard Leese was being elected that some services were clearly more important than others. I don't recall reading it but more fool me.
-
Thank you, Duke, for your copy-and-paste from an ill-informed rant on the menmedia site.
Now let's take a closer look at just one of those jobs. Here's some information about ZEST: http://www.manchesterfallsservices.org.uk/falls-services/zest.html
ZEST provides a valuable service for elderly people (one day you and I will be elderly, Duke). It seeks to help them live independently, and by doing this, avoids (or postpones) their reliance on local authority social services and the NHS. In other words, it is the kind of commonsense scheme which saves money in the medium or long term.
But then, why allow common sense to spoil a good rant ;)
-
Thank you, Duke, for your copy-and-paste from an ill-informed rant on the menmedia site.
Now let's take a closer look at just one of those jobs. Here's some information about ZEST: http://www.manchesterfallsservices.org.uk/falls-services/zest.html
ZEST provides a valuable service for elderly people (one day you and I will be elderly, Duke). It seeks to help them live independently, and by doing this, avoids (or postpones) their reliance on local authority social services and the NHS. In other words, it is the kind of commonsense scheme which saves money in the medium or long term.
But then, why allow common sense to spoil a good rant ;)
It may be the best of a bad bunch, BTW this job get's a salary of £30K!!!! + holidays, pension etc.
Also it takes away personal responsibility, it's a hey nonny nonny role IMHO. Well done for Googling, it's fairly informed as faras I can see.
-
it's a hey nonny nonny role IMHO.
Oh dear. :-[ Duke, I hope for your sake that neither you nor your nearest and dearest are ever old and frail.
-
it's a hey nonny nonny role IMHO.
Oh dear. :-[ Duke, I hope for your sake that neither you nor your nearest and dearest are ever old and frail.
They are, my Mother had 36 social workers on her case. So many that none of them could decide on anything leaving her in hospital for 8 months deteriorating. Their solution suited them not my parents or the family. So much so my mother died in a social services imposed home with my father suffering from Altheimers having to foot a £2,900 monthly taxi bill to visit her. Social workers and social services are a self - serving waste of time in my book.
-
I do not wish show direspect to you or your mother, but 36 social workers is rather excessive in my book. your case sounds rather complex to me. £2900 00 per month on taxi fares?You could of bought the best private care for less than that. It must have been your choice not Social services. what have they to gain keeping your mother in hospital? If you are to tell this story. please state the facts.
-
I can speak only from my own experiences. My wife, who sadly died last year, spent her last couple of years severely physically and mentally disabled as a result of an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis. I can't speak too highly of the support we received from Stockport Social Services. We had exceptional support from two highly committed social workers who took every possible step to ensure that my wife received the level of home support and care she needed. My concern is that the type of support my wife received - which is essentially discretionary rather than any defined 'entitlement' - is likely to be one of the hidden casualties of cuts to local authority funding. I was also shocked by the already low levels of pay and poor employment conditions available to care workers - most of whom, in my experience, nevertheless displayed extraordinary dedication in their work. As someone who's spent my working life in the private sector, I could easily buy into a set of 'Daily Mail' prejudices about the supposed systemic failings of the public sector. But my own experience, in this and other cases, has given me a different view.
-
We had a very similar experience, Mike. My Mum died four years ago at the age of 85. For her last year, she had fantastic support from visiting carers, who enabled her to stay with dignity in her sheltered flat, living more or less independently. She only went into a care home for the last six weeks of her life, when it became unavoidable. Fortunately I think Stockport has been spared the worst of the cuts, so far, but as you say, that is just the kind of service which is being cut in other areas, such as Manchester. And the worst of it is that it's a false economy - it just means that people have to go into care or hospital earlier, and that ultimately costs a great deal more. ::)
'Daily Mail' prejudices
You've said it ::)
-
I do not wish show direspect to you or your mother, but 36 social workers is rather excessive in my book. your case sounds rather complex to me. £2900 00 per month on taxi fares?You could of bought the best private care for less than that. It must have been your choice not Social services. what have they to gain keeping your mother in hospital? If you are to tell this story. please state the facts.
Oh the naivety and assumptions in this post are painful. The social workers appointed themselves my love and made it complex. They lived in the country and his father as stated has Alzheimers so could not use public transport, the social services made the decision to move her so far away that a taxi for him to visit her was the only solution. We decided to keep her in hospital did we? how does that work when there are rarely enough beds. As for stating the facts, this is a free speech forum and we will disclose or not as we see fit.
Oh, and if you have self funding parents, you will find that the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you and then make you pay for it. They are very good at spending other peoples money.
-
I do not wish show direspect to you or your mother, but 36 social workers is rather excessive in my book. your case sounds rather complex to me. £2900 00 per month on taxi fares?You could of bought the best private care for less than that. It must have been your choice not Social services. what have they to gain keeping your mother in hospital? If you are to tell this story. please state the facts.
That is my point, 36 people working on the case meant none would make a decision. The doctors waned me that once social services get involved, the solution will not be what we want.
They allowed my mother to come home with a live in helper at a cost of thousands. As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us. THen, they decided to find a care home to place her miles away from home, they had the cheek to say my father could harm my mother!
As Cripes say, they are like all socialists, good with other people'smoney & minds.
-
The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you
I'm puzzled by this. We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything. You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time' as Duke puts it!
Duke, you write:
As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us.
....so presumably you want to pay less?
Whilst on another thread you write:
I vote for whomever plans to reduce spending & taxing
....which would mean you'd end up paying more. Which is it?
-
The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you
I'm puzzled by this. We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything. You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time' as Duke puts it!
They do, however in fairness this was in the South. There were 'best interest meetings' 12 interest parties meeting up and deciding what happened to them all the time. The social services put a care package together which was imposed on them and they then had to stump up for it, 24 hour live in help, another carer to cover for breaks, another one to help hoist my mother in law. Essentially they were paying for three carers a day. A long story, this failed for various reasons, which the social services then admitted that they never expected it to work. It was a sad, horrible time in our lives filled with frustration. My mother in law got stuck in a horrible system cycle that was heavily flawed and ultimately lead to her premature death.
-
The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you
I'm puzzled by this. We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything. You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time' as Duke puts it!
Duke, you write:
As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us.
....so presumably you want to pay less?
Whilst on another thread you write:
I vote for whomever plans to reduce spending & taxing
....which would mean you'd end up paying more. Which is it?
Dave, I would have gladly told social services where to get off, & that we'll make the decisions but we were threatened with legal action at the time if we didn't go along with thei plan.. Furthermore, naively we thought social services were there to help, it is only with hindsight that I realized that it’s a huge game of role justification.
WRT to paying more money, social services decided that instead of the one helper living in (at our cost) there needed to be more (you guessed it, at our cost). We had no control over this.
Your final point? The price of fish?
-
Anyone remember this case? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6169378.ece
-
I don't remember it - isn't it horrifying! Let's hope it's an isolated case of one local authority service which had become completely disfunctional. From time to time there are inevitably incidences of incompetence or worse in all public services - there are so many of them that there are always going to be a few which don't come up to the mark, whether they are schools, hospitals, police or whatever. And it's not confined to public services, of course. Ever heard of banks messing up.........
Certainly our own experience with social services here in Stockport, as I wrote above, was utterly different - they were fantastic!
-
I don't remember it - isn't it horrifying! Let's hope it's an isolated case of one local authority service which had become completely disfunctional. From time to time there are inevitably incidences of incompetence or worse in all public services - there are so many of them that there are always going to be a few which don't come up to the mark, whether they are schools, hospitals, police or whatever. And it's not confined to public services, of course. Ever heard of banks messing up.........
Certainly our own experience with social services here in Stockport, as I wrote above, was utterly different - they were fantastic!
I think its great to hear that you didn't have to go through anything similar to us or the above story, I do actually think there is a marked difference now we have moved my father in law up here, but really as we still have issues it almost appears to be apathy. I am really with Duke on a lot of the public sector, I haven't (sadly) had many positive experiences with them, although the charitable organisations that have helped us have been outstanding.
-
[sarcasm]
eugh, more public sector bashing,
Damn all of those teachers, nursery assistants, nurses, clinicians, doctors, social workers, dinner ladies, lollypop ladies, police men and women, forensic scientists, immigration control, etc etc. all worthless scroungers on £100,000 pa with gold plated final salary pensions.
[/sarcasm]
Its so easy to sit and guess what these people actually do, then draw the wrong conclusion but post it anyway and back it up with right-wing tosh.
What amazes me is that it is you lot who are the first to complain when there are no bobbies on the beat, you have to do a bit of recycling, or your held up in traffic because a youngster has been knocked over because the crossing patrol has been axed.
-
[sarcasm]
eugh, more public sector bashing,
Damn all of those teachers, nursery assistants, nurses, clinicians, doctors, social workers, dinner ladies, lollypop ladies, police men and women, forensic scientists, immigration control, etc etc. all worthless scroungers on £100,000 pa with gold plated final salary pensions.
[/sarcasm]
Its so easy to sit and guess what these people actually do, then draw the wrong conclusion but post it anyway and back it up with right-wing tosh.
What amazes me is that it is you lot who are the first to complain when there are no bobbies on the beat, you have to do a bit of recycling, or your held up in traffic because a youngster has been knocked over because the crossing patrol has been axed.
Not sure who you are directing this at, but it appears to be more than one with "you lot". Its about appropriate cuts, for example Howard Bernstein salary which has not been touched while they attempt to close libraries etc. And I competely stand by my point about not having very positive experience with the public sector. Ironically I have just been on the phone now to try and sort out the cardboard recycling for my business, they are supposed to close at five, but the switchboard have informed me they have all gone hom early.
-
MCC are a labour council and so have had a much inflated budget to "play" with where as SMBC (and other surrounding none labour councils)have had much smaller budgets to go on, there was a figure in the press a couple of weeks ago saying that MCC residents got approx £200 more per head than SMBC residents from central govt.
So now that a new govt are in power and have kicked the much over inflated budgets into touch MCC are crying about it. You reep what you sow. But I bet you that very few top managers will go, they pick on the low paid and they are the people we really need eg lolly pop people etc.
-
It is amusing to see how this topic about Manchester cuts seems to be more popular than the topic about Stockport. In part this seems to be the product of a lack of meeting of the minds by two of the posters in this topic. Also , as some 40% of the population seem to work in the public sector, it's not surprising to see their point of view being forcefully put. Of course a great many people in Public service do a good job and understandbly take issue with perceived attacks on their competence and the quality of their work. However, salaries in the public sector now match and often exceed those in the private sector. The usual reward for public service, ie a good pension , remains in place and is largely unfunded.
Just for the record , Neil, the formula grant used by central government per head is over £740 in Manchester and around £300 in Stockport. They get more because they have supposedly more deprivation and need the money to help combat poverty, crime, lack of opportunity and increased need. They have been receiving extra money for years and seemed to made little impact on these issues. They have undoubtedly created many jobs that serve little real purpose ( as listed by Duke Fame's post , regardless of where he found it ) and as such in these times of straitened public finance need to look at serious budget cuts.
-
Public sector bashing seems all the rage at the moment. We can all recall instances where we have been less than satisfied with the Local Authority, and other public bodies, many of which have been discussed on this forum, but lets not forget its the glue which holds the fabric of society together. The private sector can also make the odd costly error one of which we are all presently paying for.
-
MCC are a labour council and so have had a much inflated budget to "play" with where as SMBC (and other surrounding none labour councils)have had much smaller budgets to go on, there was a figure in the press a couple of weeks ago saying that MCC residents got approx £200 more per head than SMBC residents from central govt.
So now that a new govt are in power and have kicked the much over inflated budgets into touch MCC are crying about it. You reep what you sow. But I bet you that very few top managers will go, they pick on the low paid and they are the people we really need eg lolly pop people etc.
Point made very well.
-
Public sector bashing seems all the rage at the moment. We can all recall instances where we have been less than satisfied with the Local Authority, and other public bodies, many of which have been discussed on this forum, but lets not forget its the glue which holds the fabric of society together. The private sector can also make the odd costly error one of which we are all presently paying for.
I disagree, it's not the glue that holds society together. Society, haman instinct and Adam Smith's invisible hand holds society together. The state has a role, not to direct but to fill in the gaps where private enterprise, human goodwill and the market fails.
Your corporatist vision is all very well but the chap to try it came to a sticky end having created some sticky ends along the way. Ok I'm going all Godwin on this but you get the point
-
Ok I'm going all Godwin on this but you get the point
Not really. Even accepting that Godwin's Law tends to kick in at the point where rational argument fails, expressing qualified approval for the role of Local Authorities is hardly a 'corporatist vision', let alone a defence of totalitarianism.
-
@Duke.
You seem to contradict yourself, the activities that the public sector have a duty to do are the glue that hold society together, because - as you point out - there may be no commercial interest, human goodwill and markets do fail - yet those activities still need to take place.
If I read in between the lines, saying the only alternative to state sponsored capitalism, socialism, is a Nazi regime is a bit far fetched!
I may be more Keynesian when it comes to macroeconomics, and if we have adopted the bancor we may not have been in this mess, but hey ho, we need to deal with the situation as best we can. wholesale reform of the NHS, privatising education and other core functions of the state whilst laying off hundreds of thousands of people is not the way to go in my opinion.
I think the shock will come when the vast majority of people around this rather prosperous area realise that their pensions are not what they once were, fuel and subsistence prices are rising, property prices are falling and actually they are being kicked repeatedly whilst Bob diamond is taking a £9,000,000 bonus each year and the current government are allowing tax evasion from the likes of Phillip Green.
Vodaphones unpaid tax = £6bn. Cuts announced in the emergent budget = £6.2bn.
(does 'Nazi' invoke godwins law?)
-
They get more because they have supposedly more deprivation
You may want to actually have a drive around Manchester (the whole of Manchester, not just the city centre and the bits inbetween there and Marple) and then pass comment on the 'supposed' levels of deprevation. How easy it is to take pot shots when you live in an affluent area such as Marple.
-
Not sure who you are directing this at, but it appears to be more than one with "you lot". Its about appropriate cuts, for example Howard Bernstein salary which has not been touched while they attempt to close libraries etc. And I competely stand by my point about not having very positive experience with the public sector. Ironically I have just been on the phone now to try and sort out the cardboard recycling for my business, they are supposed to close at five, but the switchboard have informed me they have all gone hom early.
Aha, the 'Bernstein' argument (although in it's shorter format, ie not directly compared with the PMs salary whilst conveniently forgetting the PMs lifetime pension, housing etc). The 'Bernstein' is basically lazy shorthand/tabloid tactics in an argument about public finances by individuals/groups who doesn't get that even removing a £200k job, goes nowhere near touching the 10s of millions in cuts that cities all over the UK are facing.
;D
-
Public sector bashing seems all the rage at the moment. We can all recall instances where we have been less than satisfied with the Local Authority, and other public bodies, many of which have been discussed on this forum, but lets not forget its the glue which holds the fabric of society together. The private sector can also make the odd costly error one of which we are all presently paying for.
Yes its public sector bashing time, the private sector pulled in there belts ages ago due to them HAVING to earn there money (eg an engineering firm) but due to the public sector demanding taxes they seem to have the attitude of easy come easy go.
-
'Ok I'm going all Godwin on this but you get the point'
I certainly don't get it Duke, but i do know that we will only realise how important the whole cross section of public services were, when they are no longer at our disposal
-
You may want to actually have a drive around Manchester (the whole of Manchester, not just the city centre and the bits inbetween there and Marple) and then pass comment on the 'supposed' levels of deprevation. How easy it is to take pot shots when you live in an affluent area such as Marple.
Thanks for that suggestion, however , I have no need of your "advice" as I was born and brought up in North Manchester and am confident that I know a great deal more about the city then you probably do. If you had read the post properly , then you would have realised that the only "pot shots" were aimed at Manchester City Council and its leadership. it is my opinion that they have largely failed to help the deprived and vulnerable despite the greater amounts of funds they have been in receipt of for years. I would base this on my own experience as the areas I know best , Harpurhey, Moston and Blackley, are worse places to live than they were 30 years ago. The sooner the City and its legions of overpaid managers realise that their job is to help those people and not try to create some liberal,utopian Barcelona the better. Perhaps the cuts (which would have been made by whichever party won the election) will help them focus their minds.
Aha, the 'Bernstein' argument (although in it's shorter format, ie not directly compared with the PMs salary whilst conveniently forgetting the PMs lifetime pension, housing etc). The 'Bernstein' is basically lazy shorthand/tabloid tactics in an argument about public finances by individuals/groups who doesn't get that even removing a £200k job, goes nowhere near touching the 10s of millions in cuts that cities all over the UK are facing.
The reverse of this "argument" is of course,is the laughable canard that Public Service senior managers are only paid what they would get in the private sector. Of course simply cutting £200,000 will not address the tens of millions of cuts and it is risible to suggest that people think it might. But a substantial reduction in his salary AND many other senior posts might demonstrate a serious commitment to address the overspend issue. Not least to the 2000 people who are forecast to lose their jobs with the council. As for a comparison with the PM and his pension , are you suggesting that Bernstein will not get a pension? If you want a comparison try this: Peter Saville , Manchester's Creative Director , has been paid £120,000 a year for 5 years. His contribution is one stripey M on some signs. £600,000 would have been better spent on 12 carers for 5 years. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1409345_famed_factory_records_designer_peter_saville_axed_from_120000_council_contract
-
Perhaps the cuts (which would have been made by whichever party won the election) will help them focus their minds.
Alistair Darling did indeed plan to cut public expenditure, in the event that Labour were re-elected last May. But nothing like the 80 billion which this government has announced. You don't have to be a deficit denier to see that the depth and suddenness of the current expenditure cuts is an extremely risky strategy.
-
Labour planned to cut by 56 Billion according to a written parliamentary question last week. Thats not as much but still quite a bit like £80 billion !
-
Mmm. 56 billion is 70% of 80 billion. If you got paid 70% of your normal salary at the end of this month, would you just shrug and say 'ah well, never mind, it's quite a bit like what I ought to be paid'? ;)
-
My point was it's still a big number whereas your original statement gave no substanceto the size. Indeed you used phrase " nothing like". I would shrug and say thats quite a bit like what I ought to be paid if I was Howard Bernstein however ;)
-
Not sure who you are directing this at, but it appears to be more than one with "you lot". Its about appropriate cuts, for example Howard Bernstein salary which has not been touched while they attempt to close libraries etc. And I competely stand by my point about not having very positive experience with the public sector. Ironically I have just been on the phone now to try and sort out the cardboard recycling for my business, they are supposed to close at five, but the switchboard have informed me they have all gone hom early.
Aha, the 'Bernstein' argument (although in it's shorter format, ie not directly compared with the PMs salary whilst conveniently forgetting the PMs lifetime pension, housing etc). The 'Bernstein' is basically lazy shorthand/tabloid tactics in an argument about public finances by individuals/groups who doesn't get that even removing a £200k job, goes nowhere near touching the 10s of millions in cuts that cities all over the UK are facing.
;D
Its an example of where cuts would be better made, its not a lazy tabloid tactic, I have worked with him myself and I hardly saw anything to justify the inflated salary awarded to him.
-
@Duke.
You seem to contradict yourself, the activities that the public sector have a duty to do are the glue that hold society together, because - as you point out - there may be no commercial interest, human goodwill and markets do fail - yet those activities still need to take place.
If I read in between the lines, saying the only alternative to state sponsored capitalism, socialism, is a Nazi regime is a bit far fetched!
I may be more Keynesian when it comes to macroeconomics, and if we have adopted the bancor we may not have been in this mess, but hey ho, we need to deal with the situation as best we can. wholesale reform of the NHS, privatising education and other core functions of the state whilst laying off hundreds of thousands of people is not the way to go in my opinion.
I think the shock will come when the vast majority of people around this rather prosperous area realise that their pensions are not what they once were, fuel and subsistence prices are rising, property prices are falling and actually they are being kicked repeatedly whilst Bob diamond is taking a £9,000,000 bonus each year and the current government are allowing tax evasion from the likes of Phillip Green.
Vodaphones unpaid tax = £6bn. Cuts announced in the emergent budget = £6.2bn.
(does 'Nazi' invoke godwins law?)
No contradiction at all, Andy. Markets fail and that is where the state comes in. We pay a tax to ensure we don’t have freeloading, ensure everyone has access to the rule of law, some antisocial actions are discouraged but that is about it. Markets generally work brilliantly.
In Manchester the council were getting involved in areas that a local authority should not dabble. It’s received huge amounts of money in the past and it’s been wasted. The fact the some complain that Manchester has a lot of deprived areas suggests that after 18 years of receiving bumper sums of money from central govt, Manchester has failed to use it effectively. Not surprising when the leader is such a self-centred fool who’s been promoted way over his own ability.
Whilst I agree with Keynes in many ways, I do think his work sadly was interpreted very badly by the Scottish PM and that more than Kenynesianism perse is why the Scottish PM made such mistakes.
I don’t agree with the idea of a bancor, I suppose the Euro is as close as we’ll get to that and that’s been a failure. Economies need buffers, those buffers are currency, labour costs etc, take that away and only the richest areas will thrive.
Keynes I believe had a point, spend on infrastructural projects in times of depression, repay debt & create reserves in times of growth. The Scottish PM never understood this and hence spent regardless. The Scottish PM was not a stupid man but was terribly flawed.
I think what is misunderstood of Keynes is that whilst he did advocate spending in order to stimulate growth, there is not one page in the general theory that suggests we should spend money on unnecessary services that will not create future wealth or comparative advantage. That is why cuts to council services are acceptable when on the other hand investment soars in high speed rail projects, M1 widening, A1(m) extensions etc. This is proper Keynesian stimulus and the coalition government should be congratulated for this.
As for Vodafone, I’m not a tax accountant and am quite impressed at your ability to understand the intricacies of the way tax can be avoided. Having that sort of understanding must land you some incredible cases and earn a huge wage in doing so. All I can say, hats off to you, Andy, would you look at my tax returns?
-
Mmm. 56 billion is 70% of 80 billion. If you got paid 70% of your normal salary at the end of this month, would you just shrug and say 'ah well, never mind, it's quite a bit like what I ought to be paid'? ;)
I was for about 6 months. In fact many of the big accountancy practices were on 4-day weeks for 2009-10 perios, many other private sector businesses either did this or lost staff. The public sector were shielded from this reality.
-
As for Vodafone, I’m not a tax accountant and am quite impressed at your ability to understand the intricacies of the way tax can be avoided. Having that sort of understanding must land you some incredible cases and earn a huge wage in doing so. All I can say, hats off to you, Andy, would you look at my tax returns?
Does one need to have a qualification and understanding in HMRC's systems to know and recognise the moral right and wrongs of tax avoidance? - it just not cricket, its greed. Thats why we are in this mess - bailing out the banks, lets not forget that they gambled with all of our money and we are going to pay for it for a long time to come.
-
As for Vodafone, I’m not a tax accountant and am quite impressed at your ability to understand the intricacies of the way tax can be avoided. Having that sort of understanding must land you some incredible cases and earn a huge wage in doing so. All I can say, hats off to you, Andy, would you look at my tax returns?
Does one need to have a qualification and understanding in HMRC's systems to know and recognise the moral right and wrongs of tax avoidance? - it just not cricket, its greed. Thats why we are in this mess - bailing out the banks, lets not forget that they gambled with all of our money and we are going to pay for it for a long time to come.
My Appologie Andy, I assumed you were an expert on this and not just picked up a half story from the Morning Star.
-
Moorendman I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree on whether there is a significant difference between 80 billion and 56 billion. Personally I am in little doubt that 24 billion pounds is a great deal of money!
The real issue is 'will it work, and restore growth to the UK economy'. And what scares me is that clearly no-one knows - least of all the government. Other countries, such as the US, are adopting a more cautious approach, whilst here in the UK it looks horribly like 'sh*t or bust'...
-
Markets generally work brilliantly.
Except, of course, when they bring the economy almost to its knees and have to be bailed out by billions in state aid. Capitalism and the free market are the best engines we have to drive economic growth, but they do little or nothing to create or maintain an equitable or even stable society. State intervention can't simply be a matter of last resort when the markets fail (that's why we're in this mess) but should establish the social context in which capitalism operates. We can debate what that context should be (and I suspect that my views would be rather more interventionist than those of the delightfully-named Duke Fame) but I doubt that many of us would question its necessity. After all, even Alan Greenspan came to realise, finally, that we might have been better off with a little more financial regulation over the last decade or so.
As for misreading Keynes, well, yes, of course he believed that purposeful stimulus was better than the purposeless variety, but, if you're looking for one page in the 'General Theory' that 'that suggests we should spend money on unnecessary services that will not create future wealth or comparative advantage', what about its most famous passage? 'If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal-mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.'
(Although, in fairness, I accept that employing Peter Saville as your creative director is probably even less productive than digging holes and filling them in again. Hadn't anyone at Manchester City Council seen '24 Hour Party People'?)
-
Hadn't anyone at Manchester City Council seen '24 Hour Party People'?
Lots of them had seen it - the problem was they all wanted to cosy up to this image.
-
Markets generally work brilliantly.
Except, of course, when they bring the economy almost to its knees and have to be bailed out by billions in state aid. Capitalism and the free market are the best engines we have to drive economic growth, but they do little or nothing to create or maintain an equitable or even stable society. State intervention can't simply be a matter of last resort when the markets fail (that's why we're in this mess) but should establish the social context in which capitalism operates. We can debate what that context should be (and I suspect that my views would be rather more interventionist than those of the delightfully-named Duke Fame) but I doubt that many of us would question its necessity. After all, even Alan Greenspan came to realise, finally, that we might have been better off with a little more financial regulation over the last decade or so.
As for misreading Keynes, well, yes, of course he believed that purposeful stimulus was better than the purposeless variety, but, if you're looking for one page in the 'General Theory' that 'that suggests we should spend money on unnecessary services that will not create future wealth or comparative advantage', what about its most famous passage? 'If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal-mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.'
(Although, in fairness, I accept that employing Peter Saville as your creative director is probably even less productive than digging holes and filling them in again. Hadn't anyone at Manchester City Council seen '24 Hour Party People'?)
He was joking (perhaps only half joking) in order to make his point.
Moreover, there is no need to bury bottles, high speed train links, M1 / A1(m) extensions etc etc are all available to deliver benefits and competitive advantage so we shouldn’t have to employ people in local authorities’ wasteful roles when there are projects that will deliver instead.
As for private enterprise going wrong, the banks was a perfect storm but ideally, they should just go bump in the was BCCI did in the 90’s.
-
As for Vodafone, I’m not a tax accountant and am quite impressed at your ability to understand the intricacies of the way tax can be avoided. Having that sort of understanding must land you some incredible cases and earn a huge wage in doing so. All I can say, hats off to you, Andy, would you look at my tax returns?
Does one need to have a qualification and understanding in HMRC's systems to know and recognise the moral right and wrongs of tax avoidance? - it just not cricket, its greed. Thats why we are in this mess - bailing out the banks, lets not forget that they gambled with all of our money and we are going to pay for it for a long time to come.
My Appologie Andy, I assumed you were an expert on this and not just picked up a half story from the Morning Star.
So instead of answering the question you have chosen dodge it and instead suggest that anyone with any moral fibre has to be a member of the SWP.
Can’t say I have picked up a copy of the Morning Star for a good while, it’s getting harder to find these days – much like a LibDem supporter!
Pop quiz who said "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."?
-
Fish Brow stockport . ;)
-
As for Vodafone, I’m not a tax accountant and am quite impressed at your ability to understand the intricacies of the way tax can be avoided. Having that sort of understanding must land you some incredible cases and earn a huge wage in doing so. All I can say, hats off to you, Andy, would you look at my tax returns?
Does one need to have a qualification and understanding in HMRC's systems to know and recognise the moral right and wrongs of tax avoidance? - it just not cricket, its greed. Thats why we are in this mess - bailing out the banks, lets not forget that they gambled with all of our money and we are going to pay for it for a long time to come.
My Appologie Andy, I assumed you were an expert on this and not just picked up a half story from the Morning Star.
So instead of answering the question you have chosen dodge it and instead suggest that anyone with any moral fibre has to be a member of the SWP.
Can’t say I have picked up a copy of the Morning Star for a good while, it’s getting harder to find these days – much like a LibDem supporter!
Pop quiz who said "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."?
It was Adam Smith.
Why is tax avoidance immoral? I do so every day by driving economically or riding my bike to work. How about Pension contributions, ISAs etc.
What are the tax avoidance methods you object to? Were you horrified about Barclays last week bringing forward losses from the previous year in their tax return?
As for Lib Dems, there are plenty voting for Andrew Stunnel around here.
-
He was joking (perhaps only half joking) in order to make his point.
Well, yes. And so was I. But his point is an important one - namely, that economic activity, even if imperfect, is better than inactivity. Even accepting your argument about the benefits of high speed rail et al, there's an issue of timing. The proposed high speed rail link, for instance, won't even begin building till 2017, assuming it goes ahead, which doesn't do much to help the economy today. Looking at the Coalition's economic strategy, I just don't see where short- to medium-term growth is going to come from. The economist David Blanchflower recently commented of George Osborne: 'the only growth strategy he has right now is to hope for good news, such as a gold strike in the Welsh hills.' Not even a half-joke, that one.
-
He was joking (perhaps only half joking) in order to make his point.
Well, yes. And so was I. But his point is an important one - namely, that economic activity, even if imperfect, is better than inactivity. Even accepting your argument about the benefits of high speed rail et al, there's an issue of timing. The proposed high speed rail link, for instance, won't even begin building till 2017, assuming it goes ahead, which doesn't do much to help the economy today. Looking at the Coalition's economic strategy, I just don't see where short- to medium-term growth is going to come from. The economist David Blanchflower recently commented of George Osborne: 'the only growth strategy he has right now is to hope for good news, such as a gold strike in the Welsh hills.' Not even a half-joke, that one.
Hmmm, travel along the motorways and huge projects are going on employing people right now.
-
QUOTEThanks for that suggestion, however , I have no need of your "advice" as I was born and brought up in North Manchester and am confident that I know a great deal more about the city then you probably do.
Thanks for enriching me to the measure of 10 English pence moorendman...I had a wager with my (far) better-half that there would be a reply along the lines of "I'm a good old North / East Manchester boy who may live in an incredibly affluent suburb South of Manchester but whose heart lies in the gritty estates of Manchester". My good lady wife took on the bet as she said no one would be so cliched...yet I can face the austerity measures of the ConDems 10p better off.
My dad was born and bred in Wythenshawe..he can remember the 'good old days' when the airport was but a few sheds but he wouldn't claim to know anything about current day Wythenshawe, or its issues. Most people, unless their work directly involves them in said communities, admit that. No political group can claim fantastic success throughout the poorest wards in Manchester, and there are certainly no private businesses that can (assuming we're discounting Gregs and Bright House). However, I'm pretty sure the huge cuts, that are generally accepted will hit the poorest most, aren't going to help matters. As a good old North Manchester boy I'm sure you don't want to see what little social moblity there is in the UK grid to a complete halt?
-
Very clever, steptoe. However, I simply don't believe you. Why would you have made your first post about suggesting I drive around "real manchester" if at the time you thought that I was likely to be from that area?
Why is it generally accepted that the cuts will hit the poorest most? For example, those of us that live in our own houses in "incredibly affluent suburbs" ( do you have some sort of guilt complex about living in Marple ? ) can rejoice that council tax is frozen, whereas the poorest will have to continue to make do with it being paid for them, together with their rent etc. At the bottom end, it really doesnt matter which political party is in power.
Enjoy your day, which will no doubt be spent protesting about the cuts in Manchester today or showing your OH your latest witty posts on this forum.
-
QUOTEThanks for that suggestion, however , I have no need of your "advice" as I was born and brought up in North Manchester and am confident that I know a great deal more about the city then you probably do.
Thanks for enriching me to the measure of 10 English pence moorendman...I had a wager with my (far) better-half that there would be a reply along the lines of "I'm a good old North / East Manchester boy who may live in an incredibly affluent suburb South of Manchester but whose heart lies in the gritty estates of Manchester". My good lady wife took on the bet as she said no one would be so cliched...yet I can face the austerity measures of the ConDems 10p better off.
My dad was born and bred in Wythenshawe..he can remember the 'good old days' when the airport was but a few sheds but he wouldn't claim to know anything about current day Wythenshawe, or its issues. Most people, unless their work directly involves them in said communities, admit that. No political group can claim fantastic success throughout the poorest wards in Manchester, and there are certainly no private businesses that can (assuming we're discounting Gregs and Bright House). However, I'm pretty sure the huge cuts, that are generally accepted will hit the poorest most, aren't going to help matters. As a good old North Manchester boy I'm sure you don't want to see what little social moblity there is in the UK grid to a complete halt?
Hmmm, If you make a post along the lines of 'you don't understand because you've never known poverty' don't be surprised that you get a reply suggesting to the contrary.
If cuts are going to hit the poorest, it’s the fault of the person prioritising the cuts. Richard Leese has decided that some services are more important than others. Personally I think he is a nasty piece of work who’s playing politics with our money and people’s lives but the people of Crumpsall have voted hi m in and perhaps it’s all part of his master scheme to keep them uneducated so they carry on voting.
Manchester has enjoyed a bumper payout from central govt for years, Leese continues to build an ivory tower for himself along with Bernstein. As even you recognise, that money has done little for the poorest which suggests either money isn’t the answer or it’s completely mismanaged by Sirs (sic) Leese & Berstein.
-
Very clever, steptoe. However, I simply don't believe you. Why would you have made your first post about suggesting I drive around "real manchester" if at the time you thought that I was likely to be from that area?
Why is it generally accepted that the cuts will hit the poorest most? For example, those of us that live in our own houses in "incredibly affluent suburbs" ( do you have some sort of guilt complex about living in Marple ? ) can rejoice that council tax is frozen, whereas the poorest will have to continue to make do with it being paid for them, together with their rent etc. At the bottom end, it really doesnt matter which political party is in power.
Enjoy your day, which will no doubt be spent protesting about the cuts in Manchester today or showing your OH your latest witty posts on this forum.
It's irrelvevant where you hail from as far as I'm concerned moorendman...and less so whether you believe me or not. I simply took a punt that, after commenting on your statement about 'supposed deprevation', I'd get the 'I was born and bred there so don't you dare disagree with me' line. Don't worry about it, nowadays it seems to be an often used tactic to use a childhood experience in order to gain a little credibility.
Interesting comments about the poorer in our society. I would suggest they dont need you (or me, but I'm not) telling them it doesn't really matter what political party in in power. I would imagine it matters a great deal. Re. who the cuts will hit, let's take university fees. Whose chances of social mobility do you think will be hit hardest with the introduction of £9k fees...young people from Moston, or YP from Marple.?
As for this afternoon, I may see you in the golf club, not ;D