But if we're going to discuss suggestions (I haven't had my bin-filler yet to send it officially)
1) Better controls on the stupidly overpaid; Noone is worth being paid millions a year, while those who work on the 'frontlines' of the business get paid national averages or less (currently about 24k if I recall?), especially those who work in the financial sector, which is largely responsible for this mess in the first place. A manager should not be able to give themselves a half a million bonus, while those who earn't him that money get, if they are lucky a couple thousand.
Having a minority of rich people and a majority of poor people is bad for the economy. If instead of 1 man earning 1 million a year, and 100 people earning 20,000 a year making him that profit, He could be paid 100k, which is still a very good salary, and everyone else is then paid 9-10k more per year.
Can you imagine what you could do with another 10,000 per year, for the same work/time? How much happier would you be with your work, and how much more willing would you be to hang around?
Investment in employers instead of Exploitation.
2) Scrap pointless testing, assessments and league tables on rubbish. We don't need to know and shouldn't have to know which school has the best score in science, or which hospital "Is the most uberest of them all." They should all be of the same standard.
Spend the money on training those who are lacking instead; even within the field of IT techies, the disparity in level of service is huge, let alone within teaching, hospital care, or otherwise.
3) Directly tied to government manifesto etc, scrap the ridiculous Trident project. The only ones who will benefit from that will be the company managers who designed/planned it. More rich people getting richer, for a government funded project that noone benefits from.
The ability to drop a nuke on someone causes more trouble than it's worth, and I shall not go into a discussion on nuclear arms deterrent.
4) When facing major unemployment on a national scale, cutting budgets on the countries primary employer (the government itself) affects those at the bottom already, not those at the top. When you tell a government dept (or any company for that matter) they have to cut their expenditure by 10-15%, that cut will come by cutting services on the frontline, not from the management.
Combine this with increase in costs (VAT), freezes on existing salaries for those who were lucky, and a reduction in support for those who are unemployed, and we're in for more than a rough time.
But after all this, what's the point anyway. The government comes up with what they want to do, and we agree with them. It ought to work the other way round, but that hasn't happened for a long time. This whole scheme is nothing but a gimic in my mind, and my suspicion is they'll do what all those who have power will do.
Ask people for their thoughts, opinions, and ideas, listen to them all, and then do whatever the hell they were going to anyway.
I'd like to think that they will listen to our suggestions on this matter, but my instinct tells me what I said in my previous post: they'll use it to source 'evidence' for their own ideas anyway.
Oh, and I'd like to see tighter controls on more workers from other countries coming here for work.
In a time where we have high unemployment of those who are already here, shipping people in still from other countries to fill the few jobs we have is downright idiotic.
LosOjos (25th June 2010)
I really hope that when this new law that allows communities to "recall" their MP if they have acted in an inappropriate way comes in somebody finds a loophole that lets you sack an MP who says one thing in a manifesto and then does another thing. Hopefully if that is the case, the residents of Sheffield Hallam will remember Cleggy saying he wouldn't raise VAT.
So this is what will happen. NOTE. They are only asking for ONE idea (singular).
All ideas considered by cross-government team
Hands up those who think each idea will be read.
- Serious ideas go to 'champions' team in Cabinet Office/Treasury<LI class=alt>Most promising ideas sent to departments and Treasury spending teams to be worked up
- Selected ideas reviewed by Ministers
- Spending Review announced October 20th
NB. I will be putting a suggestion forward, apart from getting someone to send emails and letters from No.10 in proper English instead of the 'hipspeak' this was written in.
I think this is one of those cases where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The number of times you hear on here "What they should do is.." and now people get their chance they say "Ohh they shouldn't do that." If you are happy to blindly vote an MP in and sit back then don't feel you have any right to complain when things go wrong. Democracy is an interactive process but we seem to have forgotten this and think everything should be laid on a plate for us to pick and choose and not have to do anything.
I will be going there and asking they cut back on consultants and following the current big trend in business normally once business has dropped it as a bad thing. Maybe they will all go to the big spam filter in the sky and it will be a pointless exercise. But just imagine they take your idea, run with it and save the country x million?
Sorry, I'll go back to my cell now.
You do realise they'll be employing consultants to go through all this
Just a small note, the guy who I want as my local rep, is not necessarily a member of the party I want to run to run the country
*Cue broken-record style discussion on alternative voting etc*
Sometimes I long for the Discworld style of management. At least that way we'd have a viable option when we have a madman on the driving seat...
So when do those people who pay taxes to its Government and have to live with whatever they decide, but don't happen to be publicly paid, get a chance to make suggestions on possible cuts to public spending? General Elections are disproportionate enough as it is, without now making decision on public spending - which affects EVERYONE - based the opinions of a small sub-set of people.
And in the most cases, those who work in the public sector are paid less than their private counterparts, regardless of other 'perks' or differences there may be in pensions/benefits etc.
In other words, this smacks as a conservative attempt to win over those from the below-average side of the salary fence, in the hope of gaining favour should there be a new vote any time soon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)