INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Jeremy Clarkson

Enter here to talk about books, art, literature, film, TV and anything else to do with popular culture.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#21 Post by Dave B » December 3rd, 2011, 11:13 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

But ALL politics is bollox, Nick! So how could it be otherwise?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#22 Post by Nick » December 4th, 2011, 9:50 am

Dave B wrote:But ALL politics is bollox, Nick! So how could it be otherwise?
Sorry to be pedantic, Dave, but re-examine the sentence, and you'll see that the bollox refers to the attacks on Clarkson, not to politics.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#23 Post by Dave B » December 4th, 2011, 10:00 am

OK, Nick

But, if the attacks are politically motivated and thus bollox all my entry meant was that you are possibly guilty of tautology. In my perception the quality of bolloxness is inherent in the fact that politics are concerned. Thus, "The attacks are political" is consistent with, "The attacks are bollox."

However, on reflection I admit the qualifier is required, there is so much other bolloxiosity in this world and the inclusion of "political" does indicate the specific variety involved here.




:wink:
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#24 Post by Nick » December 4th, 2011, 10:32 am

Hi Petemster :)
petemster wrote:.Well, as a former public sector employee currently in receipt of a small pension,
I don't know your individual circumstances of course, but if your public sector pension is small it is likely to be because of the small period of time you spent in the public sector. It gets right up my nose when other people (you have not said this) claim that the average size of public sector pensions received has anything to do with the accrual rates of future pensions for current public sector employees.
and a wholly unrepentant "fuckwit",
I couldn't possibly comment.... :wink:
Let me explain my reasons for calling for Clarkson's sacking.

1. The least objectionable aspect of his performance was the fact that his comments were typically moronic and nasty
even if he himself considered them clever and amusing. No big deal.
I'm glad you think it no big deal, otherwise there would be no comments on TV, as everyone is found moronic, nasty or unfunny by someone.
2. More seriously, his comments were potentially dangerous. Too many public sector employees (pse's) are subjected
to abuse and violence in their daily jobs. Nobody knows if there are nutters out there who could be incited or
encouraged by Clarkson's rant. Let's just hope not.
As I've already said, I don't think anyone will be shooting any pse's in front of their families any time soon. Every day, TV portrays awful things in society in fact or fiction. Should we close all TV?

3. But my main reason for making a complaint against him was the fact that his remarks were politically motivated.
Oh come, come! Clarkson wasn't even expressing a personal view. He explicitly said so. He was just being an entertainer. You may not like him, but so what?
As a member of an undeserving group of super-rich individuals Clarkson was acting politically. His bosom buddy,
David Cameron, had to distance himself from Clarksons remarks because a politician would be held responsible for
his statements.
Undeserving? He is just exploiting his talent, just like anyone else.
But not so a media "celebrity" who abuses his privileged status to carry out the government's dirty work for them.
For a start, Clarkson is not doing anything on behalf of anyone. And as for "slebs", look around you. We are stuffed to the gills with lefty, lovey slebs who explicitly promote the Labour Party and the loony left. Tony Robinson? Bill Nighy? (2 O-levels and he think she should be advising the government on a Tobin Tax. Pillock.) Vanessa Redgrave? But so what? It's their freedom to do so.
It coincides with the government's campaign to alienate the public workers from the private employees.
Nonsense! The governemtns campaign is to correct the unsustainable structural deficit left behind by the previous government.

They claim that their revised "offer" - a reduction in income of maybe 12% instead of the original 15% - is "very
generous" while being fair to the taxpayer.
Indeed it is.
Are they implying that public sector workers don't pay tax, or that every single time they buy something, anything, they are not themselves contributing to private sector pensions ?
But they are not, are they? When they buy something, they are not accepting a future liability to fund inflation-proof pensions for the shop assistant, are they? But are they expecting the shop assistant to pay extra taxes to maintain their pension? Yup!
Of course not. It's all part of their deceitful political campaign, and Clarkson was just enthusiastically joining in.
Thir policy is explicit; Clarkson is just doing his thing. Gagging personal expression is a sure sign of totalitarianism.
If the government really want to show some true leadership, then I suggest that they volunteer to accept the same reductions in their own pension arrangements as they are planning for the little guys.
OK, I'm only joking. Don't want anybody to be offended.
The sooner MP's salaries and pensions are decided by someone other than MP's the better. And btw, the littlest guys are being protected in these changes.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#25 Post by Dave B » December 4th, 2011, 11:19 am

The sooner MP's salaries and pensions are decided by someone other than MP's the better.
In retrospect and in proportion for the amount they have achieved that actually did the country some good (in terms of general well being, health & education gains, increased GDP and balance of trade in our favour etc.) during each government. Trouble is they would probably never get a pay rise! :D

Something similar for the upper levels of bankers? Pay them anything over a basic salary proportionately on results, in retrospect, every five years or on leaving the company. If they did a good job and the company prospered (but not at the expense of its customers or low level employees) they get a reward, if they did a lousy job they do not.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#26 Post by animist » December 4th, 2011, 11:40 am

Nick wrote:Stephen Fry has just suggested, on QI, stabbing people in the stomach. I await, with baited breath, the 21,000 complaints from all those who think that people shouldn't be stabbed in the stomach.
I have not seen the Fry comment, but it sounds typically whimsical and not at all like the Clarkson one - so I would not be surprised if noone reacted to it.
Nick wrote:Oh come, come! Clarkson wasn't even expressing a personal view. He explicitly said so. He was just being an entertainer.
I don't quite get this - yes no doubt he was being an entertainer, but how could he say something and at the same time say that this was not his personal view?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#27 Post by Nick » December 4th, 2011, 12:05 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:Stephen Fry has just suggested, on QI, stabbing people in the stomach. I await, with baited breath, the 21,000 complaints from all those who think that people shouldn't be stabbed in the stomach.
I have not seen the Fry comment, but it sounds typically whimsical and not at all like the Clarkson one - so I would not be surprised if noone reacted to it.
Yes of course it was somewhat whimsical, but if Clarkson had said it.....
Nick wrote:Oh come, come! Clarkson wasn't even expressing a personal view. He explicitly said so. He was just being an entertainer.
I don't quite get this - yes no doubt he was being an entertainer, but how could he say something and at the same time say that this was not his personal view?
Easily. In a couple of breaths, he said the thought the strike was a good thing AND said it was a bad thing. He explicitly ribbed the BBC for having to be even-handed.

I'm sure he has a personal view, and he's probably not going to be a bleeding heart, but I'd have a small wager that he would say he is a lucky bastard who gets far more money than he "deserves". Though he says all sorts of things, he doesn't make serious policy or advocacy statements, does he?

Laugh at him or watch something else, but this witch-hunt is disturbing.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#28 Post by Dave B » December 4th, 2011, 12:51 pm

Laugh at him or watch something else, but this witch-hunt is disturbing.
Have to agree with you there, Nick. Treat him as more of a comedian with a penchant for petrolheadness who is playing up to his reputation for being an outrageous boorish oaf.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#29 Post by thundril » December 4th, 2011, 1:44 pm

Dave B wrote: Treat him as more of a comedian with a penchant for petrolheadness who is playing up to his reputation for being an outrageous boorish oaf.
Nailed! (Apart from being an insult to proper comedians.)

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#30 Post by animist » December 5th, 2011, 8:43 am

Nick wrote:Yes of course it was somewhat whimsical, but if Clarkson had said it.....
well he did not say this but something else. If he had said it (and I don't know the context) I dare say the whimsy would have been replaced by viciousness
Nick wrote:Easily. In a couple of breaths, he said the thought the strike was a good thing AND said it was a bad thing. He explicitly ribbed the BBC for having to be even-handed.
didn't he say that it was good as it made travel around London easier? So he was not undermining his own comments about the strikers, was he?
Nick wrote:I'm sure he has a personal view, and he's probably not going to be a bleeding heart, but I'd have a small wager that he would say he is a lucky bastard who gets far more money than he "deserves". Though he says all sorts of things, he doesn't make serious policy or advocacy statements, does he?
Laugh at him or watch something else, but this witch-hunt is disturbing.
if it deprives him of income to spend on stupid fast cars, it's worth it. We are probably catering to his ego by even discussing him at this length, so I am signing out now :laughter:

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#31 Post by Alan C. » December 5th, 2011, 7:14 pm

Nick
Stephen Fry has just suggested, on QI, stabbing people in the stomach.
Repeatedly and with a rusty knife,
I can't remember the context now, I might look it up later.

Edit.
He was referring to people who profess to having "good interpersonal skills"

I've never been a fan of Clarkson but I did enjoy this.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#32 Post by Alan H » December 5th, 2011, 9:19 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#33 Post by Dave B » December 5th, 2011, 9:43 pm

:pointlaugh:
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

petemster
Posts: 233
Joined: July 10th, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#34 Post by petemster » December 5th, 2011, 11:16 pm

.
Hi there Nick. Greetings from snowy Glasgow.

Let me try to answer some of your points.

You're right about the value of my works pension being related to the number of years I worked in the public sector.
The main point of my self-introduction, though, was to declare my interests, so to speak, when entering into the discussion.
That's what I thought Clarkson did not do when attacking the strikers. With politicians it's obvious where they're coming from, and with celebs it should be the same. I would not want to gag anybody, of any persuasion, and fully believe that
celebs have every right to influence events - just as long as they're up front about it. No gagging. OK. No gagging.

Which reminds of something about Clarkson. When I hinted that he is of the 'undeserving' rich I wasn't talking just about his lucrative TV contracts, but also about his marriage into considerable money, with his second wife.
Now, some might argue that a man who is divorced from a (rather attractive) first wife and then marries a ( much less attractive) second wife with lots of money - while at the same time (according to the lady herself) continuing a sexual relationship with the first one - well, such a clever man deserves to be rich. Good luck to him, I say.
But here's an interesting thing. Clarkson himself took out a court injunction - a gagging order - to prevent the first wife from talking about their relationship. He later abandoned it because it was too expensive to enforce and was useless anyway.
As I said. No gagging. It's not a good idea.

Now, you say that the government's policy is explicit. It most certainly is. (I said it was 'deceitful', referring to their use of the term 'generous' as applied to a possible 12% reduction in income). And you say that their campaign is to correct the unsustainable structural deficit left behind by the previous government. Now I know that you mean the government that happened to be in power when the crash came, and you wouldn't dream of implying that the 'mess' was the fault of the then Labour govt. You may remember that David Cameron made a public apology for the Tory Party's failure to 'spot' the looming crash - and then they all went back to blaming Labour for the mess, with no acknowledgement that the banks might have had a part in it. Well, they're politicians, aren't they; that's their job.

OK. So what about this deficit? Of course, nobody disputes that the deficit must be tackled. The disagreement is about how best to go about it - although there may not be as much option as the politicians on the different sides imagine.
The OBR, created by this government, forecasts that some 600,000 public sector jobs will have to be cut for the government to achieve its targets, while George Osborne boasts that this tough plan has saved £22 billion in debt repayments to the 'markets'. What he ignores are the costs of in terms of lost income tax, in increased welfare payouts, and the repayments for loans needed to finance the redundancy payment - all of which add to the structural deficit. In fact, if his Plan A were implemented, the economic result would be negative.
This is why he has miraculously found £40 billion to fund loans and guarantees for small businesses in an attempt to take up the slack, while simply hoping that demand will pick up. It looks like he will need a Plan B - which he will call Plan A, of course. Anyway, it just proves that the big campaign is really driven by political ideology rther than economic necessity.
And it totally ignores the effect it will have on all the people made redundant, and their families.

Of course, they could consider other approaches. Like all of us as individuals, when it's a struggle to pay the regular bills, it is a good idea to cut out the luxuries, in the government's case, things like that status symbol known as the nuclear deterrent, or those adventure holidays to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Falkland Islands, or maintaining troops in Cyprus, Germany, etc. . .etc. . .

Anyway. Enough wittering. Back to the Clarkson issue.
OK, how on earth, please tell me, can anybody say that they are outraged and appalled by calls for the sacking of one rich individual, Jeremy Clarkson, while themselves calling for the sacking of 600,000 ordinary individuals, without clear evidence that such a move is necessary, at least at a rate that simply pleases 'the markets'.
Is it an example of supercosmic hypocracy or am I just being naieve?

No, the fact remains that the rich, even in these difficult times, continue to get richer, while the ordinary folk get relatively poorer. And that's a fact.

Ah, that's better. By the way, can I suggest that if anybody intends to have a big political debate that they start a new thread.
I have to confess, though, that I personally am very likely to lose interest and fall asleep very swiftly.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#35 Post by Nick » December 6th, 2011, 2:23 pm

petemster wrote:.
Hi there Nick. Greetings from snowy Glasgow.
Thanks for the response. :D Hope the snow doesn't cause too much trouble!
Let me try to answer some of your points.

You're right about the value of my works pension being related to the number of years I worked in the public sector.
The main point of my self-introduction, though, was to declare my interests, so to speak, when entering into the discussion.
OK, thanks.
That's what I thought Clarkson did not do when attacking the strikers. With politicians it's obvious where they're coming from, and with celebs it should be the same.
Hmmm... I think all Jeremy Clarkson need say is "I'm Jeremy Clarkson- motoring marmite", but he effectively says that, just by being Jeremy Clarkson.
I would not want to gag anybody, of any persuasion, and fully believe that celebs have every right to influence events - just as long as they're up front about it. No gagging. OK. No gagging.
Good. :thumbsup: Except that I'd classify the threat of dismissal as a move towards gagging, wouldn't you?
Which reminds of something about Clarkson. When I hinted that he is of the 'undeserving' rich I wasn't talking just about his lucrative TV contracts, but also about his marriage into considerable money, with his second wife.
Now, some might argue that a man who is divorced from a (rather attractive) first wife and then marries a ( much less attractive) second wife with lots of money - while at the same time (according to the lady herself) continuing a sexual relationship with the first one - well, such a clever man deserves to be rich. Good luck to him, I say.
I didn't know his second wife was wealthy in her own right, but I think he earns enough himself for that not to be an issue. According to Wiki, it was his first wife who left him for another, rather than the other way round.
But here's an interesting thing. Clarkson himself took out a court injunction - a gagging order - to prevent the first wife from talking about their relationship. He later abandoned it because it was too expensive to enforce and was useless anyway.
As I said. No gagging. It's not a good idea.
Hmmm... I think there's a difference between not wanting personal information spread through the press, and being prevented from expressing an opinion on national items in the news.
Now, you say that the government's policy is explicit. It most certainly is. (I said it was 'deceitful', referring to their use of the term 'generous' as applied to a possible 12% reduction in income).
It is generous. Generous enough to be unaffordable in the private sector. The same private sector which is paying the lion's share of the increased cost.
And you say that their campaign is to correct the unsustainable structural deficit left behind by the previous government. Now I know that you mean the government that happened to be in power when the crash came, and you wouldn't dream of implying that the 'mess' was the fault of the then Labour govt. You may remember that David Cameron made a public apology for the Tory Party's failure to 'spot' the looming crash - and then they all went back to blaming Labour for the mess, with no acknowledgement that the banks might have had a part in it. Well, they're politicians, aren't they; that's their job.
Ok time to disentangle those points:
I am not blaming Labour for the credit crunch, which came from America. Nor for the Euro crisis. I do, however, blame them for the imbalance in the economy, in particular the netting off between asset prices of property and the decrease in other asset prices (clothing, technology etc.) Tragically, this, IMO, is the single biggest obstacle to the poor helping themselves. More importantly, and quite explicitly, I blame Gordon Brown for the structural deficit. He should have been fixing the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, he just blew it all. Prudence was buried in concrete. It meant that we were totally un-prepared for any downturn. He was lucky that the boom lasted as long as it did, but the awful consequence of that was that the Tories could no longer, electorally, claim that he was being profligate, and had to agree to match his spending plans. An ironic mirror image of New Labour's commitment to Tory spending plans in 1997-8.
OK. So what about this deficit? Of course, nobody disputes that the deficit must be tackled. The disagreement is about how best to go about it - although there may not be as much option as the politicians on the different sides imagine.
The OBR, created by this government, forecasts that some 600,000 public sector jobs will have to be cut for the government to achieve its targets, while George Osborne boasts that this tough plan has saved £22 billion in debt repayments to the 'markets'. What he ignores are the costs of in terms of lost income tax, in increased welfare payouts, and the repayments for loans needed to finance the redundancy payment - all of which add to the structural deficit. In fact, if his Plan A were implemented, the economic result would be negative.
Er... no. It is inconceivable that the Treasury has not included in its modelling the cost of redundancies and unemployment. He is hoping that the private sector will expand to fill the vaccuum (which it is having difficulty doing, for different reasons). But it does not add to the structural deficit, does it? It is reducing the structural deficit (that annual debt which, even in good times, does not go away). True, it may cost us dearly in the short term, but if it is not done, then more and deeper cuts will need to be done in the future. Plan A is being implemented, as far as possible. What's Ed Balls' Plan B? To cut VAT, and slow down the cuts, thus increasing the deficit without addressing the structural deficit. So we'll just be in more debt. How is that a good plan? Or even a plan at all?
This is why he has miraculously found £40 billion to fund loans and guarantees for small businesses in an attempt to take up the slack, while simply hoping that demand will pick up.
No,he has not miraculously found £40 billion. He is just using the government's good name in the market, ensured by sticking to PLan A, to act as a go-between from the wholesale markets to small businesses. The banks are unable to help as much as they would like because they are being told to increasetheir reserves, which stifles lending. Ed Balls' "Plan B" is just to spend the money. Crazy!
It looks like he will need a Plan B - which he will call Plan A, of course. Anyway, it just proves that the big campaign is really driven by political ideology rther than economic necessity.
Try telling that to the Lib Dems!
And it totally ignores the effect it will have on all the people made redundant, and their families.
Yes, that is awful, but there really is no alternative to reducing the structural deficit.
Of course, they could consider other approaches. Like all of us as individuals, when it's a struggle to pay the regular bills, it is a good idea to cut out the luxuries, in the government's case, things like that status symbol known as the nuclear deterrent, or those adventure holidays to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Falkland Islands, or maintaining troops in Cyprus, Germany, etc. . .etc. . .
I'd agree that a replacement for Trident has become unaffordable, and troops are leaving Germany. As for everything else, well, they have made deep cuts in the military budget too. And the present government can't be blamed for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anyway. Enough wittering. Back to the Clarkson issue.
Indeed! We've gone way off topic!
OK, how on earth, please tell me, can anybody say that they are outraged and appalled by calls for the sacking of one rich individual, Jeremy Clarkson, while themselves calling for the sacking of 600,000 ordinary individuals, without clear evidence that such a move is necessary, at least at a rate that simply pleases 'the markets'.
Is it an example of supercosmic hypocracy or am I just being naieve?
'Fraid so! :wink: There is a difference between sacking someone and making them redundant. If the BBC found Clarkson unaffordable, or Top Gear was losing viewers, then he could expect to lose his job. I have no problem with that. The 600,000 are not being sacked: they have become unaffordable. Very sad and distressing for them, but Labour would be doing the same thing. They have said as much, so it is very clear. And so long as we have a market economy, the government will need to access the markets. The signals given off by the markets are a sign of the health of the nation, which affects everyone, especially the unemployed.
No, the fact remains that the rich, even in these difficult times, continue to get richer, while the ordinary folk get relatively poorer. And that's a fact.
I agree that empowering the poorer sections of society has to be addressed. It grew steadily worse under Labour, and in some measure was made worse by them, though the internationisation of the world economy has had the biggest effect.
Ah, that's better. By the way, can I suggest that if anybody intends to have a big political debate that they start a new thread.
Now you tell me...!
I have to confess, though, that I personally am very likely to lose interest and fall asleep very swiftly.
Very wise! :D

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#36 Post by stevenw888 » December 7th, 2011, 1:17 pm

I'm with you, Nick! The bloated public sector is just that - bloated. It needs to be trimmed as soon as humanly possible. Did you know that in Wales, 50% of the employed workforce work in the public sector! This means that the other 50%, working in the private sector have to work to provide the profits to pay for the upkeep of the whole society. Criminal!
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#37 Post by Dave B » December 7th, 2011, 5:19 pm

The debloating of the public sector is, I agree, necessary. But we have to remember that this is at the cost of jobs and a consequent rise in the benefits bill (unless those made redundant find jobs in the ever crowded private sector.) Those that are left are doing two or three jobs - and I know from experience when that happens things begin to slide - services will possibly be reduced or take a lot longer to deliver. It is not the fact that they have got rid of staff, it is the type, quality and rank of staff that has left gaping holes in the whole system - only the younger and lower paid, and far less experienced, staff remain in some departments, and less of them.

My ex-council archaeologist friend has visited some of her ex-colleagues - the moral is very, very low and they are doing just enough to keep their jobs. No-one talks to anyone unless they have to and private incoming phone calls have been banned (outgoing ones always were.) Everyone feels as though the managers are looking over their shoulder for an excuse to sack them. The rules on employment protection have been effectively scrapped and there is no control on diversity or equal rights since all those who were trained in those fields have been got rid of.


Well, that's Gloucester, I wonder if it is much different elsewhere.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#38 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » December 8th, 2011, 3:20 pm

stevenw888 wrote:The bloated public sector is just that - bloated. It needs to be trimmed as soon as humanly possible.
From where? Where do you think the excess fat is?
stevenw888 wrote:Did you know that in Wales, 50% of the employed workforce work in the public sector!
No, I didn't. I thought it was around 27.5% (BBC News, September 2010). Can you provide a source for your figure?
stevenw888 wrote:This means that the other 50%, working in the private sector have to work to provide the profits to pay for the upkeep of the whole society.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mean that the other 72.5%, working in the private sector, have to work to provide the profits to pay for the upkeep of the whole society. It isn't profit that pays for the upkeep of the society. It's tax. Public sector employees also pay income tax, national insurance, VAT, stamp duty, council tax and various other taxes and duties. They also pay, directly and indirectly, for the products and services that they receive from the private sector. And part of what they pay contributes to the business rates and corporation tax paid by the private sector, and to the salaries and pensions of those private sector workers, including those at the very top.
stevenw888 wrote:Criminal!
Why is it criminal? And what would be less criminal? A greater level of unemployment in Wales, and other areas of the UK where employment in industry has shrunk? A greater reduction in public services?

Emma

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#39 Post by thundril » December 8th, 2011, 4:07 pm

I once had a job spreading tarmac on the streets of Leeds, as a direct employee of the council. Some time later I was employed by Tarmac, a private company, which was being paid by Leeds city council, to do the self-same job.
Can someone explain to me how one of these jobs was 'at the expense of' the taxpayer and the other wasn't?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#40 Post by Dave B » December 8th, 2011, 4:26 pm

There's the rub, it matters not in the fin(anci)al analysis whom is actually employed by whom - it is still the tax payer who forks out for public works.

Perhaps Nick can help but I have never understood how it is cheaper to hire a company to supply men and machines (as in refuse collection in our district), pay for the people and hardware & its maintenance, management fees etc. and make sure their share holders get their pocket-full, than it is to employ the people as direct labour and maintain the machines oneself? Whether it is a "cost-for-the-job" or "pay-by-the-hour" type contract might have a bearing here.

In our local hospital the changed from in house cleaning to contract, going out to tender every so often. This meant, basically, that the wages went down with each change because that was the way of cutting costs without cutting profits. Then the hospital had to employ their own domestic ward managers because the cleaning got skipped due to poor quality staff and short cuts to save even more costs. I noted the same bit of fluff under a corner bed for five so-called floor cleans in a row. When I pointed this out they did the old fashioned thing, actually move the furniture to the middle to clean the sides properly - just takes three times as long. Only this cannot be done in the cardiac wards because we are often hard wired/plumbed to monitors/oxygen outlets fixed to the wall.

There is a danger of getting poor services when one is playing the lowest tender game. The canteen manager at my last work-place said she could cut the catering bill by a third given full control, with no reduction in staff, wages or quality - just the freedom to chose her own suppliers and not to have to pay the management fee on top of all.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#41 Post by jaywhat » December 8th, 2011, 4:54 pm

You are not on your own, Emma, I agree with your viewpoint, but it wears me out getting into all this so I switch off. Very irresponsible I guess.

Post Reply