Charity begins at home or it would do if we all had any say in it

Many things have and will be said about the rights or wrongs of teachers going on strike because of changes to their work and pension conditions. On the one hand the government claim is that we do not have the money to finance such lavish pensions in these times of Austerity because of the Debt. On the other hand the report they so proudly quoted actually showed the exact opposite of what they said as the pension scheme is getting cheaper year on year for the next 50 or so years.

So where does the truth lie in the governments desire to make all public workers work longer pay more and receive less?( I say all but do not mention the fact that politicians pensions are not included in this.) Some say it is within the Conservative psych that Big public sector = bad while private sector = good. It is easy to say that public sector workers are indeed well paid and looked after while they do very little to enhance the wealth of the country as they do nothing tangible that can be seen to make a profit. Trouble is that without them the infrastructure needed to provide help and to make accommodation for private enterprise to flourish would not be there.

A Private company needs its workforce to free from such things as worry about child care whilst they are at work, they need a workforce willing to work for minimum wages to allow a profit on whatever they are producing, without the tax and revenue offices to run such things as child benefit claims and working tax credits none would want the jobs available. Exporters need management at ports capable of processing much needed paperwork to allow easy and safe passage of their goods . Similarly the importation of goods gets nowhere without a dedicated team checking all is in order.

The safety of our streets(not so much I admit these days)depends on police officers being able to get out from behind desks and interact with the public which can not be done without the help of civilian public sector workers manning the phones. Those unemployed for whatever reason would have no one to turn to for help if not for the public sector. Refuse would cause a stink within weeks without the public sector giving rise to disease and infestations nationwide.

Of course the Tories would (and do) argue that all of these services could and should be done through the private sector. Many having experienced the private sectors way of doing things will disagree, the care homes scandal for one where the care and well being of the elderly depends on some landlords being generous and charitable to a company which blatantly asset stripped the firm took the profit and sold out without a care for any left to rot in their own excrement. Private Prisons have a not too kind reputation for losing prisoners on a regular basis whether on the way to court or just for the weekend while they go home for a party before returning on a Monday morning. Cost cutting councils have trouble with refuse collections having sold the contract to private companies who are unable to maintain a stable workforce due to the piss poor wage structure and the desire of the private firms to maximise profit rather than to uphold health standards.

Next line of attack from this condemnation coalition of liars fraudsters and tax avoiding traitors is that it is just not "fair" that public sector workers get bigger pensions than the private sector. What an incompetent lot they are. The reason so many pension equations from the public sector outweigh the private sector is the inclusion of all the political pensions included such as £350,000 for chief executives of the council no matter what political persuasion they may be whilst the private sector pensions having been robbed blind by the last shower of shite in power are quoted inly from the workers point of view and do not include such things as Bankers and chief executives of larger corporations whose pensions are worth £Millions.

So again we come back to MONEY. Part of the argument about pensions and pay in general is that we can not afford it while we have a deficit of some £80 billion why then do they insist on paying overseas aid to the tune of £3billion to countries who quite frankly could be giving us some of their surplus to help out as we have so many of their countrymen living here(many tax free).

An £80 billion debt created not as they would have you think entirely by the last lot but by bankers who have now returned to their natural ways and are giving out £7billion a year in bonus to loyal workers(not much need of a pension there)£3billion overseas aid,£1billion or their a bouts by the end for the Liberation of Libya £xxx billion before the troops are home from the poppy control war not forgetting £100 billion for trident now what else is costing us so much money we can not afford? AH yes Europe contributions £15billion per annum gross £10billion per annum net (soon to increase to pay for more expenses within Brussels)

Let us assume that the bankers themselves are only doing what they do because of the pay structure and we allow them to keep their bonus structure but only after they have paid back the £x billion(say windfall of £10billion total) loaned to get them out of the mire. Then let us assume we get out of Europe and stop trident along with overseas aid. What would that do for our country?

Over ten years we would of course save the £100billion on trident along with £150billion from Europe and £30billion from overseas aid so near enough £300billion to pay back the deficit. Many would now say but what about our commitment to overseas aid. Lets try another way, instead of giving billions of pounds/dollars to corrupt governments of countries in Africa for instance why not subsidise British companies to manufacture affordable tools for the people of these countries to learn to look after themselves? Indeed instead of giving money away to the corrupt political elite of the world how about channelling the money through the likes of children in need and the live aid foundation whose infrastructure is far more down to earth and efficient than our upper class twat laden embassy staff.By doing this Britain could still be a leader in overseas development but not in the way of bombs and bullets that "Dave " so much likes. To change a country takes a consensus of the people working together, it is not a case of one party dominating the other and telling it like it is.

Yes my views are simplistic but within these words I believe there is a chance for change or at least a chance for debate for a different outlook. If you agree then please recommend to your friends. At the moment these ramblings reach about 50 on average if you all told 50 of your friends and they in turn....well you get my drift. Till next time.....