Looks like the battle of ideas is far from won
Judging from this opinion poll at least:
"[a] survey of 1,000 adults revealed that fewer than a third agreed with the Government's decision to axe 100,000 Civil Service jobs."
"Only one in four said services in areas such as tax and benefits were not affected by the loss of jobs, while fewer than a third believed that private firms could do a better job than the public sector". (My emphasis)
While the poll was conducted by a reputable organisation, I can find no detail as to the phrasing of the questions etc, and it was commissioned by the PCS, which is led by Mark Serwotka, an individual I have featured before.
"[a] survey of 1,000 adults revealed that fewer than a third agreed with the Government's decision to axe 100,000 Civil Service jobs."
"Only one in four said services in areas such as tax and benefits were not affected by the loss of jobs, while fewer than a third believed that private firms could do a better job than the public sector". (My emphasis)
While the poll was conducted by a reputable organisation, I can find no detail as to the phrasing of the questions etc, and it was commissioned by the PCS, which is led by Mark Serwotka, an individual I have featured before.
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 1:49 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
if it means delays in benefit payments to illegal immigrants then I'm in favour.
they probably wont be affected it'll be some poor pensioner who suffers
804 ...sorry can't help it
Fine piece of numbering you are doing...
dont forget out of that 1000 statisticaly if they are in work 20% will probably be on the state payroll , plud many are clients of the state(pensioners etc)
But see la Une of the Times.
Amities de Sutton.
I don't see the point of such a survey, if the jobs have been axed, then that's that, who cares what the public think? Are there views going to make any difference?
Hope you had a cool Yule, btw.
You may not like the trot Serwotka but he is right on one thing.
Why are thousands of jobs being cut and workers being faced with ompulsory redundancies when we are spending so much on private sector consultants?
These people have to work somewhere and sacking them is not going to make the service better.
I have borrowed my cousin`s daughters lap top to say hallo.
I know you will all be missing my incisive commentary and wit . Never fear I will be back to tell you whats what soon.
I claim the prize for saddest git in the universe against stiff competition and the poll is clearly balls. Can`t get into the link.
BTW She is doing media and IT A levels and is very pretty and apparently an EMO . What is an EMO ?
Every time the Trots surface,( with all their lying pretence to moral and political purity) brings this to mind:
“The accursed power that stands on Privilege
And goes with women, and champagne, and Bridge
Broke: and Democracy resumed her reign
Which goes with Bridge, and women, and champagne”
As if they have really cut or are going to cut 100,000 public sector jobs...
CU - indeed. Airborne bacon alert...
N - Hello mate. We're missing you, meanwhile hope all is well.
Adele - it is far too late to get into those issues, but hello and thanks for dropping in.
Ellee - to the point, as ever,
S - what was in la une?
N - hi mate, hope all is well. EMO is apparently a music style previously known as "emotional hardcore" or "emocore" or a slang term to describe a wide range of fashion linked to EMO music. Teenagers - don't understand them & pointless trying to.
To add a gloss to Mr R's comment, think Joy Division with fewer belly laughs and more teenage angst. And dyed hair cut asymmetrically.
C that is a super one, Joy Division with less belly laughs. Trust you had a fun night out.
Adele writes: "Why are thousands of jobs being cut and workers being faced compulsory redundancies?". Because large swathes of the public sector are parasites?
They produce nothing. They create no wealth. They are baggage on the train of life. At least 100,000 should go, and I have said more than once that public workers should be disenfranchised. Their choice, "work" in the public sector and enjoy a public sector pension that is not available to the worker in the private sector, but you can't vote. Or get a normal job and be enfranchised.
Which choice do you think they would make? Hein?
Well said, Ellee.
City Unslicker - Precisely. Axe the jobs of 100,000 Labour voters? As Croydonian says, "Airborne bacon alert!"
I strongly suspect a lot of people would trade the franchise for blue folding stuff today...
Exactly my point, Croydonian! It should be a clear choice! The money and the pension, or the vote!
Of course they would jettison their franchise, meaning hundreds of thousands of passengers wouldn't have the right to decide when the train leaves the station. This would free any government to make decisions that were good for the country, not their party. All public sector workers are interested in is voting themselves a rise. This should be denied them.
Oh, dear, I just put Jacques Brel on and played Marieke (correct spelling) and I'm practically in tears. I just can't believe he is dead. You shouldn't play Marieke after two whiskies. I'm a nervous wreck. Oh, well, heigh-ho, I'll have a glass of Chilean white.
Oh, dear. Wrong thread.
One of the themes of Cash Nexus the New Con bible ( or so it would appear from Con Home Book Choices ) is the growth of the tax enfranchised tax beneficiary as a class and how this has changed the conception of a democracy
.Broadly it has morphed from an expression of "interest" to a sort of uneasy negotiation sat upon on shifting moral underpinning.
The bankruptcy of the whole thing is very clear is small housing developments where Leaseholders pay personally for the votes in consultation of the "majority" benefit collectors.
"What will they do next one said to me" Vote that I build them a swimming pool"
That is exactly what they do and in the housing surcharge context; a playground usually .
The position would have been improved sosmewhat by moving to housing associations but it has been fudged and in any case the "tenants " vote against it .
As an ongoing issue ,the amount of money borrowed by PFI`s nationally which does not appear as national debt (why?) is a new and scarey development .This debt is guaranteed by the public purse.Using your momney twice ? The last time I recall hearing this was at Lloyds about the time the Insitution collapsed
''They produce nothing. They create no wealth. They are baggage on the train of life. At least 100,000 should go''
Right so sacking people is going to make a service more efficient? Not sure I understand the logic . . .
Adele - "Right so sacking people is going to make a service more efficient? Not sure I understand the logic . . . "
OK, I'll explain it to you. When you run a tight ship, everyone is forced to become more efficient or become part of the jettisoned effluvia.
Bloated organisations like, for example, the British public sector, are never efficient. That is spelled n-e-v-e-r.
maybe its time for soylent green?
I wouldnt fancy eating a bin man but maybe a five fruit and veg a day lesbian advisor ?
No. Get them all shovelled into the N Sea to become food for the fishies, which we will later eat after we have gunboated the Spanish interlopers.
» Post a Comment