S
Squiggles
Guest
Whoever won this election was inheritting a poisoned chalice. I think Labour have a decent chance of getting into power providing they find a charasmatic leader and conduct themselves in the right way.
Poll 6CM Voting Poll
- Thread starter Piedro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Prefix for Poll Threads
- Status
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40111.msg1103734#msg1103734 date=1273654698]
Whoever won this election was inheritting a poisoned chalice. I think Labour have a decent chance of getting into power providing they find a charasmatic leader and conduct themselves in the right way.
[/quote]
If Labour choose David Miliband IMO it will dent their chances in the next election. I find him very dislikeable and very self-centred.
Whoever won this election was inheritting a poisoned chalice. I think Labour have a decent chance of getting into power providing they find a charasmatic leader and conduct themselves in the right way.
[/quote]
If Labour choose David Miliband IMO it will dent their chances in the next election. I find him very dislikeable and very self-centred.
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=40111.msg1103739#msg1103739 date=1273654987]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40111.msg1103734#msg1103734 date=1273654698]
Whoever won this election was inheritting a poisoned chalice. I think Labour have a decent chance of getting into power providing they find a charasmatic leader and conduct themselves in the right way.
[/quote]
If Labour choose David Miliband IMO it will dent Labour's chances in the next election. I find him very dislikeable and very self-centred.
[/quote]
They won't get anywhere with Ed Balls either.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40111.msg1103734#msg1103734 date=1273654698]
Whoever won this election was inheritting a poisoned chalice. I think Labour have a decent chance of getting into power providing they find a charasmatic leader and conduct themselves in the right way.
[/quote]
If Labour choose David Miliband IMO it will dent Labour's chances in the next election. I find him very dislikeable and very self-centred.
[/quote]
They won't get anywhere with Ed Balls either.
A couple of weeks ago I put a bet on Alastair Darling as next Labour leader. I figured that he is probably the one with the most "bottom" of the various alternatives and is a person who rival factions could agree on as a compromise - as happened in the case of John Major who was selected in preference to bigger beasts like Portillo and Heseltine.
Darling announced yesterday that he wouldn't be standing for the leadership, but I don't feel that this is any kind of threat to my bet! ;D
Darling announced yesterday that he wouldn't be standing for the leadership, but I don't feel that this is any kind of threat to my bet! ;D
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1103748#msg1103748 date=1273655856]
A couple of weeks ago I put a bet on Alastair Darling as next Labour leader. I figured that he is probably the one with the most "bottom" of the various alternatives and is a person who rival factions could agree on as a compromise - as happened in the case of John Major who was selected in preference to bigger beasts like Portillo and Heseltine.
Darling announced yesterday that he wouldn't be standing for the leadership, but I don't feel that this is any kind of threat to my bet! ;D
[/quote]
Its not. They always say that. Harperson has ruled herself out already too.
The one thing the Labour party need to avoid is the trap the Tories fell into for years. Elected leaders based on who they weren't.
Much as I like him John Major clearly just got the job because he wasn't Hezza (and because Thatch went around behind the scenes getting people to support him thinking she could still conttrol things - she was wrong of course)
Hague got the job because the party couldn't accept Ken Clarke (again, Thatch stuck her unwelcome oar in because she didn't like Fat Ken)
The walking disaster that was IDS got in because they couldn't accept Michael Portillo, even though Michael was clearly the best man for the job at the time (by this time Thatch had lost it totally but other nutters like Widdy and that cunt Tebbit voiced their opinions)
By the time Cameron was elected, although he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, at least it meant the party had stopped looking inwardly, put personal feelings aside and finally started thinking about what the public might think. Correctly as it turned out.
The Labour party need to think about who might appeal to voters and have a sensible contest without in-fighting and bickering.
A couple of weeks ago I put a bet on Alastair Darling as next Labour leader. I figured that he is probably the one with the most "bottom" of the various alternatives and is a person who rival factions could agree on as a compromise - as happened in the case of John Major who was selected in preference to bigger beasts like Portillo and Heseltine.
Darling announced yesterday that he wouldn't be standing for the leadership, but I don't feel that this is any kind of threat to my bet! ;D
[/quote]
Its not. They always say that. Harperson has ruled herself out already too.
The one thing the Labour party need to avoid is the trap the Tories fell into for years. Elected leaders based on who they weren't.
Much as I like him John Major clearly just got the job because he wasn't Hezza (and because Thatch went around behind the scenes getting people to support him thinking she could still conttrol things - she was wrong of course)
Hague got the job because the party couldn't accept Ken Clarke (again, Thatch stuck her unwelcome oar in because she didn't like Fat Ken)
The walking disaster that was IDS got in because they couldn't accept Michael Portillo, even though Michael was clearly the best man for the job at the time (by this time Thatch had lost it totally but other nutters like Widdy and that cunt Tebbit voiced their opinions)
By the time Cameron was elected, although he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, at least it meant the party had stopped looking inwardly, put personal feelings aside and finally started thinking about what the public might think. Correctly as it turned out.
The Labour party need to think about who might appeal to voters and have a sensible contest without in-fighting and bickering.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1103761#msg1103761 date=1273657527]
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
It was very very silly that they became so fixated upon it. Problem was that they didn't have many MPs but a sizeable chunk were the Euro-sceptics who took their chance to bring it to the top of the agenda, even though the other parties rightly didn't see it as a huge issue with the electorate.
Cue the absurd 2001 campaign with Hague banging on about keeping the pound the whole time while Labour could quite happily get on with talking about other issues. Not really William's fault as he had to campaign on something but it was pretty irrelevant at the time.
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
It was very very silly that they became so fixated upon it. Problem was that they didn't have many MPs but a sizeable chunk were the Euro-sceptics who took their chance to bring it to the top of the agenda, even though the other parties rightly didn't see it as a huge issue with the electorate.
Cue the absurd 2001 campaign with Hague banging on about keeping the pound the whole time while Labour could quite happily get on with talking about other issues. Not really William's fault as he had to campaign on something but it was pretty irrelevant at the time.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1103730#msg1103730 date=1273654382]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=40111.msg1103707#msg1103707 date=1273652791]
You're always fucking wrong. About everything. Always. Because you're not very clever.
And Campbell/ Mandelson aren't "undignified losing cunts" - their machinations have had EXACTLY the outcome they wanted; Cameron and Clegg in a doomed coalition that may well fuck the Lib-dems for a long time, and will push through voting reform that will screw the Conservatives forever.
Labour Opposition to a Con-Lib coalition in charge of a fucked economy is precisely what they were after all along, given nobody thought Brown could win the election.
Cameron was so desperate for No 10 that all Labour had to do was maneouvre him away from forming a minority government into forming one that has acceded policies, and filled his own cabinet with an opposition party, not to mention a deputy PM who isn't a Conservative either.
They'll be dancing jigs of fucking delight from now until the next election. Which they will win.
[/quote]
First part is an interesting theory bit not necessarily one I agree with
I don't think they will necessarily win the next election either. This election has left them needing a significant swing to get an overall majority. A lot of the previous marginals are now safe Tory seats.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=40111.msg1103707#msg1103707 date=1273652791]
You're always fucking wrong. About everything. Always. Because you're not very clever.
And Campbell/ Mandelson aren't "undignified losing cunts" - their machinations have had EXACTLY the outcome they wanted; Cameron and Clegg in a doomed coalition that may well fuck the Lib-dems for a long time, and will push through voting reform that will screw the Conservatives forever.
Labour Opposition to a Con-Lib coalition in charge of a fucked economy is precisely what they were after all along, given nobody thought Brown could win the election.
Cameron was so desperate for No 10 that all Labour had to do was maneouvre him away from forming a minority government into forming one that has acceded policies, and filled his own cabinet with an opposition party, not to mention a deputy PM who isn't a Conservative either.
They'll be dancing jigs of fucking delight from now until the next election. Which they will win.
[/quote]
First part is an interesting theory bit not necessarily one I agree with
I don't think they will necessarily win the next election either. This election has left them needing a significant swing to get an overall majority. A lot of the previous marginals are now safe Tory seats.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[quote author=Asim link=topic=40111.msg1103843#msg1103843 date=1273667293]
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out.
[/quote]
A week ago they were bitter enemies chucking bricks at each other, today they are friends ..... or perhaps just colleagues.
That's politics. It's called professionalism. These things have to be done to make the political system work and I think many people fail to understand and call politicians dishonest.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out.
[/quote]
A week ago they were bitter enemies chucking bricks at each other, today they are friends ..... or perhaps just colleagues.
That's politics. It's called professionalism. These things have to be done to make the political system work and I think many people fail to understand and call politicians dishonest.
[quote author=Asim link=topic=40111.msg1103843#msg1103843 date=1273667293]
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[/quote]
Because if marginal seats swing so far the other way it suggests that those voters are really not very happy with Labour and are more willing to give the new government a chance.
In my constituency for example there was a 700 Labour majority and now a 11,000 Tory one. That kind of thing doesn't swing all the way back in just one term.
It would take something like a 5% uniform swing on the new figures in order for Labour to form a majority. That's not small.
Also you are assuming that the Tories will come in and just act in the same way they would if they had won a majority (quite ignoring the fact that you are very clearly taking as read every line the Labour party has fed you about the 'howid, howid fings them evil Tories will do', most of which are without any basis).
That is clearly not going to be the case. For one, the Tories will have made some concessions to the Liberal Democrats and policy will be adjusted accordingly. We are already seeing it with the income tax changes and the probable shelving of the plans to lower the inheritence tax thresholds.
Also, Cameron will be more than aware of the limitations of the current position. Anything that will be controversial or potentially tough on people will either be modified or also shelved. He won't want to be a one term PM constantly making excuses for having to make tough choices.
I suspect certain savings will still be made but it won't be done as quickly as maybe they intended previously.
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[/quote]
Because if marginal seats swing so far the other way it suggests that those voters are really not very happy with Labour and are more willing to give the new government a chance.
In my constituency for example there was a 700 Labour majority and now a 11,000 Tory one. That kind of thing doesn't swing all the way back in just one term.
It would take something like a 5% uniform swing on the new figures in order for Labour to form a majority. That's not small.
Also you are assuming that the Tories will come in and just act in the same way they would if they had won a majority (quite ignoring the fact that you are very clearly taking as read every line the Labour party has fed you about the 'howid, howid fings them evil Tories will do', most of which are without any basis).
That is clearly not going to be the case. For one, the Tories will have made some concessions to the Liberal Democrats and policy will be adjusted accordingly. We are already seeing it with the income tax changes and the probable shelving of the plans to lower the inheritence tax thresholds.
Also, Cameron will be more than aware of the limitations of the current position. Anything that will be controversial or potentially tough on people will either be modified or also shelved. He won't want to be a one term PM constantly making excuses for having to make tough choices.
I suspect certain savings will still be made but it won't be done as quickly as maybe they intended previously.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1103761#msg1103761 date=1273657527]
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
While I agree that the issue of the euro was over-emphasised in relation to the others, I don't agree with the implication that it could simply have been left on the back burner. Whether or not a majority of the public can be fagged to think about it, it's actually a defining issue of our time and deserved at least some prominence. I also suspect there are more votes in it than you or Richey believe.
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
While I agree that the issue of the euro was over-emphasised in relation to the others, I don't agree with the implication that it could simply have been left on the back burner. Whether or not a majority of the public can be fagged to think about it, it's actually a defining issue of our time and deserved at least some prominence. I also suspect there are more votes in it than you or Richey believe.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1103870#msg1103870 date=1273668517]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=40111.msg1103843#msg1103843 date=1273667293]
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[/quote]
Because if marginal seats swing so far the other way it suggests that those voters are really not very happy with Labour and are more willing to give the new government a chance.
In my constituency for example there was a 700 Labour majority and now a 11,000 Tory one. That kind of thing doesn't swing all the way back in just one term.
It would take something like a 5% uniform swing on the new figures in order for Labour to form a majority. That's not small.
Also you are assuming that the Tories will come in and just act in the same way they would if they had won a majority (quite ignoring the fact that you are very clearly taking as read every line the Labour party has fed you about the 'howid, howid fings them evil Tories will do', most of which are without any basis).
That is clearly not going to be the case. For one, the Tories will have made some concessions to the Liberal Democrats and policy will be adjusted accordingly. We are already seeing it with the income tax changes and the probable shelving of the plans to lower the inheritence tax thresholds.
Also, Cameron will be more than aware of the limitations of the current position. Anything that will be controversial or potentially tough on people will either be modified or also shelved. He won't want to be a one term PM constantly making excuses for having to make tough choices.
I suspect certain savings will still be made but it won't be done as quickly as maybe they intended previously.
[/quote]
So he's going to fudge it, in other words?
[quote author=Asim link=topic=40111.msg1103843#msg1103843 date=1273667293]
I'm not sure how previous marginals are now 'safe Tory seats', if Torys mess up they will become marginals again and could shift the other way again.
Lib Dems and Clegg have really messed up imo, they were desperate to have some sort of say and some will say compromised on a number of issues while others will probably say they sold out. They have now accepted a cap on immigration and a renewal of the Trident programme both they were heavily opposed to.
They would have had a huge number of votes from people who voted tactically to keep Cons and Cameron out and now that hasnt happened could have lost lots of votes.
[/quote]
Because if marginal seats swing so far the other way it suggests that those voters are really not very happy with Labour and are more willing to give the new government a chance.
In my constituency for example there was a 700 Labour majority and now a 11,000 Tory one. That kind of thing doesn't swing all the way back in just one term.
It would take something like a 5% uniform swing on the new figures in order for Labour to form a majority. That's not small.
Also you are assuming that the Tories will come in and just act in the same way they would if they had won a majority (quite ignoring the fact that you are very clearly taking as read every line the Labour party has fed you about the 'howid, howid fings them evil Tories will do', most of which are without any basis).
That is clearly not going to be the case. For one, the Tories will have made some concessions to the Liberal Democrats and policy will be adjusted accordingly. We are already seeing it with the income tax changes and the probable shelving of the plans to lower the inheritence tax thresholds.
Also, Cameron will be more than aware of the limitations of the current position. Anything that will be controversial or potentially tough on people will either be modified or also shelved. He won't want to be a one term PM constantly making excuses for having to make tough choices.
I suspect certain savings will still be made but it won't be done as quickly as maybe they intended previously.
[/quote]
So he's going to fudge it, in other words?
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40111.msg1104027#msg1104027 date=1273681386]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1103761#msg1103761 date=1273657527]
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
While I agree that the issue of the euro was over-emphasised in relation to the others, I don't agree with the implication that it could simply have been left on the back burner. Whether or not a majority of the public can be fagged to think about it, it's actually a defining issue of our time and deserved at least some prominence. I also suspect there are more votes in it than you or Richey believe.
[/quote]
Well there clearly wasn't!
William went strong on 'Keep the Pound' in 2001 and it got him nowhere.
In 1997 Jimmy Goldsmith put up Referendum Party candidates across the country and more often than not they lost their deposits.
UKIP are essentially a one-issue party on the EU yet have no MPs and no chance of getting any anytime soon
The EU is an issue for the public for sure but the fact is that they clearly consider the Euro elections as the time to make that point rather than Westminster elections.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1103761#msg1103761 date=1273657527]
I agree with all of that Richey, and I think that it's a shame that the Tories did so much damage to their party by fighting about the Euro, i.e. destroying themselves over something which might never happen (and becomes more remote with every year that passes).
[/quote]
While I agree that the issue of the euro was over-emphasised in relation to the others, I don't agree with the implication that it could simply have been left on the back burner. Whether or not a majority of the public can be fagged to think about it, it's actually a defining issue of our time and deserved at least some prominence. I also suspect there are more votes in it than you or Richey believe.
[/quote]
Well there clearly wasn't!
William went strong on 'Keep the Pound' in 2001 and it got him nowhere.
In 1997 Jimmy Goldsmith put up Referendum Party candidates across the country and more often than not they lost their deposits.
UKIP are essentially a one-issue party on the EU yet have no MPs and no chance of getting any anytime soon
The EU is an issue for the public for sure but the fact is that they clearly consider the Euro elections as the time to make that point rather than Westminster elections.
I see Spain has cancelled the baby cheque system which surely DC will do as well.
Spain has also cut public sector pay by 5% like ireland and Greece have. Can the govt really get away with that one in this country without massive strikes ETC?
In the news today as well financial experts saying they cannot see how the govt cannot put VAT up. Surely after all the arguments over this they won't do it even though it probably makes perfect sense to help with the reduction.
Tough decisions
Spain has also cut public sector pay by 5% like ireland and Greece have. Can the govt really get away with that one in this country without massive strikes ETC?
In the news today as well financial experts saying they cannot see how the govt cannot put VAT up. Surely after all the arguments over this they won't do it even though it probably makes perfect sense to help with the reduction.
Tough decisions
Freezing pay is one thing but cutting it is another thing entirely. Can't see that happening.
They can't and won't cut pay for people already in their jobs. I don't think that is even legal is it?
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1104364#msg1104364 date=1273743657]
They can't and won't cut pay for people already in their jobs. I don't think that is even legal is it?
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
[/quote]
That's similar to what the Tories did to nursing throughout the 1980s. They created a number of nursing *assistant* roles to undermine nurses, and drive the pay down. They also sought to recruit from the commonwealth, as they knew they could offer them less pay for the same jobs. The result was the 'deskilling' of the profession as a whole, and the broadening of qualified nurses roles, to include jobs that should be performed by doctors. All in all, a great way to get more for your money.
They can't and won't cut pay for people already in their jobs. I don't think that is even legal is it?
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
[/quote]
That's similar to what the Tories did to nursing throughout the 1980s. They created a number of nursing *assistant* roles to undermine nurses, and drive the pay down. They also sought to recruit from the commonwealth, as they knew they could offer them less pay for the same jobs. The result was the 'deskilling' of the profession as a whole, and the broadening of qualified nurses roles, to include jobs that should be performed by doctors. All in all, a great way to get more for your money.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1104379#msg1104379 date=1273745234]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1104364#msg1104364 date=1273743657]
I don't think that is even legal is it?
[/quote]
If it was against UK law, the government could change the law. If it was against EU law, Greece and Spain wouldn't be doing it now!
[/quote]
In theory I suppose but that would be an unbelievable amount of hassle that would end up costing them more than they would hope to save, both financially and certainly politically, as it would mean that the contracts between all public sector employers and employees would be rendered null and void.
All they would do I suspect would be something similar to what I said in my earlier post
The public sector savings IMO in the first instance will more than likely involve private contractors than directly employed staff.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1104364#msg1104364 date=1273743657]
I don't think that is even legal is it?
[/quote]
If it was against UK law, the government could change the law. If it was against EU law, Greece and Spain wouldn't be doing it now!
[/quote]
In theory I suppose but that would be an unbelievable amount of hassle that would end up costing them more than they would hope to save, both financially and certainly politically, as it would mean that the contracts between all public sector employers and employees would be rendered null and void.
All they would do I suspect would be something similar to what I said in my earlier post
The public sector savings IMO in the first instance will more than likely involve private contractors than directly employed staff.
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1104380#msg1104380 date=1273745337]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1104364#msg1104364 date=1273743657]
They can't and won't cut pay for people already in their jobs. I don't think that is even legal is it?
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
[/quote]
That's similar to what the Tories did to nursing throughout the 1980s. They created a number of nursing *assistant* roles to undermine nurses, and drive the pay down. They also sought to recruit from the commonwealth, as they knew they could offer them less pay for the same jobs. The result was the 'deskilling' of the profession as a whole, and the broadening of qualified nurses roles, to include jobs that should be performed by doctors. All in all, a great way to get more for your money.
[/quote]
And this kind of thing hasn't happened under New Labour? Have New Labour not restructured the NHS over and over and over again during the time that they were in power, creating many different roles, grades, organisations and beaurocratic processes?
Incidently the example I gave earlier of this kind of thing happening in the place where I worked was during a Labour government, in a Labour established Quango
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1104364#msg1104364 date=1273743657]
They can't and won't cut pay for people already in their jobs. I don't think that is even legal is it?
What they could do in theory is lower the pay grades so that new staff to those positions will start on lower pay than those in the same jobs who are already there. I have been in public organisations that have done that before.
[/quote]
That's similar to what the Tories did to nursing throughout the 1980s. They created a number of nursing *assistant* roles to undermine nurses, and drive the pay down. They also sought to recruit from the commonwealth, as they knew they could offer them less pay for the same jobs. The result was the 'deskilling' of the profession as a whole, and the broadening of qualified nurses roles, to include jobs that should be performed by doctors. All in all, a great way to get more for your money.
[/quote]
And this kind of thing hasn't happened under New Labour? Have New Labour not restructured the NHS over and over and over again during the time that they were in power, creating many different roles, grades, organisations and beaurocratic processes?
Incidently the example I gave earlier of this kind of thing happening in the place where I worked was during a Labour government, in a Labour established Quango
Yes, unfortunately, it's a trend New Labour continued.
One policy I strongly support which the Tories announced during the campaign, and which they're now apparently going to put into effect, is that of undoing the wasteful and damaging nonsense of Labour's amalgamation of local councils' Education and Children's Social Services Depts.into "Children's Services" . Whatever the motives behind it, it was a spectacularly ill-conceived change which has ended up diverting millions from front-line services and making these areas of work massively more bureaucratic. Frankly, and even more importantly, this huge mess made scandals like the Baby P tragedy more likely rather than less. I'm much less impressed with some of the Tories' other education proposals, but this at least is a clear step in the right direction.
- Status
