the TUC says the public won't stomach the cuts because they are regressive, unfair and let the rich off the hook

I will be more pissed off with those on strike than the government - some stupid feckers in this country do not see what a huge mess we are in and striking and expecting the tab to grow bigger rather than pay it pack will not work.

I changed for banking to working for the NHS a year ago and it is a bloody money pit with people thinking it their divine right to go off sick for god knows how many days a year - half the people where I work would have lost their job due to their bloody sickness record! And cannot believe how much you get paid - loads more than anywhere else for working locally - and your pension much better for public sector workers.

The maths is simple. The UK Govt spends more than it collects in taxes. That creates a Budget deficit or Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. The major part of Govt spend is people.

We can raise some taxes but the cost of public sector workers has to be cut more, either by reducing numbers or reducing wages.

There is no choice. Why will the public sector and unions not see this logic? The international bond markets will not lend the UK unlimited amounts of money. Just look at Greece and Ireland. We are at the Keynsian Endpoint. Do you really want to have indiscriminate austerity cuts forced on the country by foreign investors? Do you not remember the IMF rescuing the UK in the 1970s?

People need to get real.

THERE IS NO MORE MONEY!

"However, there are far too many who are (often, but not always, those most interested in union activities) - and far more than in the private sector, where they would get promptly sacked."

You realise that sounds delusional don't you?

You have dealt with a few people at a planning office who probably just didn't do as you demanded and that is it

Have you ever dealt with incompetence at a call centre?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence in a shop ?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence on transport?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence with your utilities?

I am presuming the answers are all no to those questions

Really really really LFN, you need to learn the art of rational decision making and critical thinking.

LadyBlaBla and pocketmonster - of course not all public sector workers are bone-idle.

However, there are far too many who are (often, but not always, those most interested in union activities) - and far more than in the private sector, where they would get promptly sacked.

I don't currently "have" a company in terms of owning it outright - though I have done in the past - but I am in a sufficiently senior management position in my current job that I can make hiring decisions. I don't want to talk about my work on MN because I value my anonymity, so will leave it there!

Err, because the pain that you talk about is not shared. One example (and there are many) would be that the cuts unfairly impact women - although I am sure you know this, it's just you chose to ignore it.

It's called the Confirmation Bias - the systematic error you are falling for - you should look it up, but in general terms it just means selecting information that suits your argument and ignoring all other information because it throws your opinions up the wall.

THere has been report after report, analysis after analysis that shows that the cuts unfairly impact the most vulnerable in society - that's why people keep saying it is unfair and they are regressive. That's why it is funny when you say "cut public services, share the pain"

So I raise Ladyblahblah's LOL to a ROFL at your 'the pain has to be shared'!

Beenbetta I don't think you are talking fact, you seem to be repeating things you have read or heard but don't actually have any proof of.

There have been thousands of staff cuts in the civil service over the last 5 years. Not the broader public sector necessarily but the civil service has lost literally thousands of jobs due to the last governments 'efficiency savings'. Contrary to the spin of this government, Labour were already making quite significant cuts.

Why LOL?

LOL @ shared pain

In that case it wil have to be job cuts and not pay cuts. Sorry but the country cannot afford it. I know there wil be personal hardships and that does not make me feel happy but there is hardship already in the private sector with huge job losses. The pain has to be shared.

Sorry, I should have said 'for comparable jobs'.

Beenbett and yet the gap between civil service pay and private sector pay is still huge - with the private sector receiving between 20% and 97% more pay than the civil service (with the biggest disparity between senior private sector jobs and senior civil service salaries)

So whilst your post sounds great - it just isn't true.

LFN - do you realise how ignorant you sound?

Just a thought - if the merseyside fire fighters are so 'bone idle' (and of course they must be because they are all public sector workers) how have they cut fire deaths with less of them?

Surely that is a contradiction

How pleasant of you LFN - all public sector staff are bone idle. That really highlights your blinding ignorance and false superiority

Do you even have a company?

No matter

I have a company and I wouldn't employ anyone with such delusions of grandeur and blatant narcissism.

I used to think that public sector wage cuts were better than public sector job cuts - but having seen the dinosaur union leaders and their public sector defenders up close recently, I am no longer so sure.

The head of Liverpool Fire Services halved the number of firemen, and at the same time, cut the number of fires and fire deaths massively.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8003478/The-trouble-with-the-public-sector-is-bone-idle-staff.html

He said that the trouble with the public sector is "bone-idle staff" - and having had the misfortune to interact with some union infested council planning staff over the last few weeks - I am completely in agreement! I wouldn't recruit a single one of them for my company.

Absolutely Xenia just what I would expect - but that is because you are (or at least claim to be) quite well off and so cuts to vital public services, mainly aimed at vulnerable and lower income people won't impact you at all.

Nice...

As was the case in the 1970s, it is the unionised public sector that has continued receiving pay rises and not losing jobs while the private sector has taken all the pain so far. It really cannot go on. The public sector has to share the pain - either through job cuts or wage cuts.

I might march for more cuts but not fewer.

To the OP

I'm not sure there will be civil disobedience (I believe only one general secretary has advocated this and it wasn't the general secretary of the TUC).

I believe there will be strikes aplenty and demos.

Yes, I'll be marching (prob not strking though as I don't see my union going on strike).

The new 50% tax-band aside, the fundamental rates of income tax may not have risen but the old Labour government were kept very busy removing a lot of the old tax-breaks and allowances that used to be available, especially to higher-rate tax-payers. My disposable income (or at least my spending power) has certainly been eroded over the last 10 years as a result. I've also noticed that when things are proposed like the £10k personal allowance before tax there is a quiet caveat on the side but not if you earn more than £x.

I'm sure the next Labour leader, like the last one, will keep very quiet about increasing taxation for manifesto pledge purposes but, should they get the chance, will find ways to shaft working people out of more money nevertheless.

So..I guess it's 'optimistic' to expect a Tory Government (even with a LibDem influence) to increase income tax at a time of economic hardship - when a Labour Government couldn't even do it during our recent economic growth.

It's an opportunity for the next Labour leader though.

"I would rather pay more in tax than see lots of valuable services axed. Lots of people are still quite well off and could easily pay a bit more in tax which would mean fewer cuts."

An interesting point made by the Evan Davies program was: why Labour didn't raise taxes to pay for increased public services when the economy was pretty healthy.

The answer - Labour considered raising income tax to be too unpopular with the electorate (having been burned by proposing income tax rises in 1992). So they increased borrowing......!

I think the cuts are needed - but over a longer term. I think drastic cuts are counter productive. And I think deep cuts mean whole departments get thrown away without any regard to the value of the work they did.

I would rather pay more in tax than see lots of valuable services axed. Lots of people are still quite well off and could easily pay a bit more in tax which would mean fewer cuts.

I am fearful that things that are important for the future of the country (like scientific research, adult education etc) are likely to be starved of all funding which will affect our long term prospects.

I also think it is unfair to make the public sector pay for the mistakes of the private sector, and banking in particular.

ivykaty -the Tory party isn't in power. The Tories and the Lib Dems are in power. Lib Dem voters voted for the party in the knowledge that it might form an agreement with either one of the other two parties.