The Budget

[Feedback]

I would take that seriously from some on here. but not from you.

I'm hiding the pain.

I took care in that post not to mention the Labour party and the only things I've said about them in my conversation with Elwood was to say that I don't rate the Shadow Cabinet very highly and that I think Starmer is "competent" and yet you talk about left wing politics. I voted Lib Dem in a general Election and can remember you telling me at the time of the 2010 election that they were a right wing party.

Firstly, I never mentioned the Labour party, i said you were left wing. Secondly, he libdems are a broad church but are pretty centre left overall. As my comment above to Hilts, parties ebb and flow. The libdems under Clegg were certainly more to the right than usual, whether I said they were right wing, I just can't remember so I'll take your word for it.

[Hilts]

parties ebb and flow in their policies. if the BNP revisited their policies regarding bigotry and hatred, and became more mainstream, then I'd consider voting for them based on their manifesto. But just to be clear, their current outlook doesn't resonate with me.

Fair enough . I know id never vote BNP myself.

[Feedback]

Fair enough . I know id never vote BNP myself.

So if the BNP discarded it's 1970s NF policies and suddenly adopted social democracy at its core you would still say no?

[jon1959]

I'll assume you read my post but failed to take on board that in the UK 1 in every 5 workers is a public sector worker, but in Wales this is 1 in 4. So we have 75k more public sector jobs than the UK average. If we do not collect more in taxes to pay for them, then either we lose those jobs or they are replaced by the private sector.

Yes I read your post and it took me back to many wasted hours arguing the toss with you years back.

You have an entrenched 'ideological' view of public and private sector jobs that is often unrelated to reality.

Basically you seem to think that: private sector = good = productive = tax generating; whilst public sector = bad = unproductive = tax consuming.

Years back I asked you how this applied to a Council plumber or a hospital cleaner who one day are tax paying, public sector, productive workers (one funded by local tenant rents and the other by general taxation) and the next day are TUPE transferred to a private sector contractor. They are still productive, tax paying workers doing essential jobs. They are both funded by tenant rents or general taxation (via a contract fee to the private sector company). The only difference is that (generally) their pay and conditions will be worse - if not immediately then after a few years - and any surplus in revenues will go to private sector shareholders and not into improved service.

So the answer is no - we don't need to replace public sector jobs with private sector jobs. It would be better if insecure private sector jobs were transferred (back) into the public sector.

[the other bob wilson]

So if the BNP discarded it's 1970s NF policies and suddenly adopted social democracy at its core you would still say no?

You're just being deliberatively argumentative now. I agree with you that nearly all political parties have ebbs and flows, but you're talking about a tsunami there!

[Tuerto]

Yes I read your post and it took me back to many wasted hours arguing the toss with you years back.

You have an entrenched 'ideological' view of public and private sector jobs that is often unrelated to reality.

Basically you seem to think that: private sector = good = productive = tax generating; whilst public sector = bad = unproductive = tax consuming.

Years back I asked you how this applied to a Council plumber or a hospital cleaner who one day are tax paying, public sector, productive workers (one funded by local tenant rents and the other by general taxation) and the next day are TUPE transferred to a private sector contractor. They are still productive, tax paying workers doing essential jobs. They are both funded by tenant rents or general taxation (via a contract fee to the private sector company). The only difference is that (generally) their pay and conditions will be worse - if not immediately then after a few years - and any surplus in revenues will go to private sector shareholders and not into improved service.

So the answer is no - we don't need to replace public sector jobs with private sector jobs. It would be better if insecure private sector jobs were transferred (back) into the public sector.

Maybe he thinks that we should all become sole traders and turn over 80 grand a year, no working rights, pension, holiday pay, sick pay etc I did it for 23 years, and i can honestly say that prices didn't really ever increase hugely, because the people paying you are on an income based on inflation and crappy pay rises. The notion of 'supply and demand' is bullshit when you're a worker, you can earn more money when it's busy, because you end up working more hours. It's that simple. I'm a plasterer, the price of putting up a ceiling and skimming it didn't double when the economy boomed. The only way i would have earned more money is if i ripped off other trades people and paid them shit money.

[life on mars]

£407 billion and counting, shall we crowd fund the country back to health.

[Feedback]

Yes I read your post and it took me back to many wasted hours arguing the toss with you years back.

You have an entrenched 'ideological' view of public and private sector jobs that is often unrelated to reality.

Basically you seem to think that: private sector = good = productive = tax generating; whilst public sector = bad = unproductive = tax consuming.

I've not indicated that at all in any of my post. What I did say was that if we don't have the tax base to pay for the 75k jobs, then the private sector will have to pick up the slack. No mention of whether the private/public sector was productive or not. You're creating a straw man.

Years back I asked you how this applied to a Council plumber or a hospital cleaner who one day are tax paying, public sector, productive workers (one funded by local tenant rents and the other by general taxation) and the next day are TUPE transferred to a private sector contractor. They are still productive, tax paying workers doing essential jobs. They are both funded by tenant rents or general taxation (via a contract fee to the private sector company). The only difference is that (generally) their pay and conditions will be worse - if not immediately then after a few years - and any surplus in revenues will go to private sector shareholders and not into improved service.

you say I'm dogmatic then immediately claim that pay will be worse in the private sector. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

So the answer is no - we don't need to replace public sector jobs with private sector jobs. It would be better if insecure private sector jobs were transferred (back) into the public sector.

more dogma. there is no evidence that the public sector or private sector can deliver all services that are required. The public sector will be more geared in certain situations, whereas the private sector will be in others.

what you cannot grasp is that my point is not about transferring jobs from public to private, is the fact that without the tax base to pay for it, we are going to lose 75k public sector jobs. If the private sector does not pick up the slack, then 75k workers - 5% of the workforce - will be unemployed.

[Feedback]

You're just being deliberatively argumentative now. I agree with you that nearly all political parties have ebbs and flows, but you're talking about a tsunami there!

agreed, I've used an extreme case to make the point.

[Feedback]

Maybe he thinks that we should all become sole traders and turn over 80 grand a year, no working rights, pension, holiday pay, sick pay etc I did it for 23 years, and i can honestly say that prices didn't really ever increase hugely, because the people paying you are on an income based on inflation and crappy pay rises. The notion of 'supply and demand' is bullshit when you're a worker, you can earn more money when it's busy, because you end up working more hours. It's that simple. I'm a plasterer, the price of putting up a ceiling and skimming it didn't double when the economy boomed. The only way i would have earned more money is if i ripped off other trades people and paid them shit money.

if we don't have the taxes to pay for the 75k public sector jobs, who is going to pay for them?

and i don't think we can all be self-employed, just to be clear.

[Feedback]

£407 billion and counting, shall we crowd fund the country back to health.

we have a shit storm coming between June and September when furlough ends. What would you have done differently if you were Chancellor?

[jon1959]

I've not indicated that at all in any of my post. What I did say was that if we don't have the tax base to pay for the 75k jobs, then the private sector will have to pick up the slack. No mention of whether the private/public sector was productive or not. You're creating a straw man.

I was referring to your long history of rubbishing the public sector and lauding the private sector - usually based on myths and false logic.


you say I'm dogmatic then immediately claim that pay will be worse in the private sector. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

You could try googling pay and terms of condition of health service staff transferred from direct NHS employment to Compass or Mitie or any of the other private sector contractors who have hoovered up NHS contracts in the past 25 years - the evidence of reduced pay and poorer conditions is overwhelming. Maybe that doesn't apply to accountants and other such key workers?

more dogma. there is no evidence that the public sector or private sector can deliver all services that are required. The public sector will be more geared in certain situations, whereas the private sector will be in others.

More dogma

what you cannot grasp is that my point is not about transferring jobs from public to private, is the fact that without the tax base to pay for it, we are going to lose 75k public sector jobs. If the private sector does not pick up the slack, then 75k workers - 5% of the workforce - will be unemployed.

Clearly I haven't grasped your point. Whatever it is. Seems the main issue is keeping the tax revenues up? But you seem to be saying that is jobs go in the public sector because the government has failed to protect the tax base then 'other' jobs in the private sector will be the only way former public sector workers will get jobs? That may be true - a lot of technicians, architects and even brickies lost their Council jobs in the 1980s and ended up flipping burgers or similar - but I wouldn't put that forward as a satisfactory solution to government mismanagement of the economy!

[Feedback]

i was referring to your long history of rubbishing the public sector and lauding the private sector - usually based on myths and false logic.

you are referring to something I may have said ten years ago. I'm sure you agree whatever was said then has no bearing on this discussion or the point made.

You could try googling pay and terms of condition of health service staff transferred from direct NHS employment to Compass or Mitie or any of the other private sector contractors who have hoovered up NHS contracts in the past 25 years - the evidence of reduced pay and poorer conditions is overwhelming. Maybe that doesn't apply to accountants and other such key workers?

you are equating some workers with all workers - you're cherry picking one set of circumstances and suggesting they apply to all. that is just not the case and you have no evidence to suggest it is.

More dogma

I'm not sure how saying the public sector is better at doing some things and the private sector is better at doing other things is dogma. Being dogmatic would be stating that only the public sector is better or only the private sector is better. I've not said anything of the sort. in fact, I've openly said that both will be better in different circumstances. If you want to see dogma, look in the mirror.

Clearly I haven't grasped your point. Whatever it is. Seems the main issue is keeping the tax revenues up? But you seem to be saying that is jobs go in the public sector because the government has failed to protect the tax base then 'other' jobs in the private sector will be the only way former public sector workers will get jobs? That may be true - a lot of technicians, architects and even brickies lost their Council jobs in the 1980s and ended up flipping burgers or similar - but I wouldn't put that forward as a satisfactory solution to government mismanagement of the economy!

you have missed the point. I'm not making comment on what jobs will be lost or what jobs will those workers go into. They may be better jobs or worse jobs, that is a different discussion.

My point is that the current tax base of the UK supports 1 in 5 working in the public sector. However in Wales we have 1 in 4, so that means if we were independent and used our taxes to fund 1 in 5 workers, that would mean 75k less public sector jobs. Its arithmetic, and not particularly challenging arithmetic at that. So, unless we increase the tax revenues (bearing in mind we already have a £15bn deficit to contend with), then we are going to lose at least 75k public sector jobs, as simply put, we could not afford to pay for them. as we don't have the tax receipts. This is nothing to do with private=good/bad or public=good/bad (delete as appropriate), its about what the number of public sector workers an independent Wales could afford to maintain.

To put some numbers on this, HMRC have around 100k employees, of which 10,000 or so are based in Wales. If Wales were to become independent, the Welsh Revenue Service would need around 5,000 employees, so around half of HMRC workers in Wales would need to find alternative employment. I'm using HMRC to show that overall, wales has more than its fair share of UK public sector workforce, and on our own we could not afford to maintain those levels of staff.

[Optimistic Nick]

if you're going to quote Ireland and its GDP, then be honest about it and explain that a significant portion of it is a result of the double Irish, meaning whilst the economic activity of the likes of Facebook, Google etc is nominally part of the Irish GDP, its hardly taxed in Ireland and it doesn't transpose to wealth for Ireland.

Irish tax policy is a disgrace. Has been for years, it's basically designed to base erode other economies. Agree that the corporate tax take is miniscule in Ireland for those companies but it does create good jobs there. Luxembourg too. And the Netherlands, Belgium. At least the channel Islands have the decency to be up front about haven status and don't hide behind a high headline rate.

[Feedback]

Irish tax policy is a disgrace. Has been for years, it's basically designed to base erode other economies. Agree that the corporate tax take is miniscule in Ireland for those companies but it does create good jobs there. Luxembourg too. And the Netherlands, Belgium. At least the channel Islands have the decency to be up front about haven status and don't hide behind a high headline rate.

It is a disgrace and whats bizarre is there are many left wing Welsh nationalists who laud the Republic of Ireland as an example to follow when looking towards independence.

By the way, Facebook, Google and Amazon employ less than 10k between them in RoI, albeit with higher than average pay. Whilst they contribute to GDP, it doesn't really add much wealth to the Irish economy overall in real terms.