Forget who made the quote now, went on the lines “anyone with ambitions to be a politician should be automatically excluded”, but sadly if we don’t fund politicians we get a very limited selection.

‘Ideological’ cuts? Have a read of this BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6559929.stm

So 2007, before the global financial crisis, Labour government in power for ten years and not a ‘Tory’ in sight…

…and, apparently, the NHS is having the “life squeezed out of it by cuts”!

This isn’t really about ideology is it?

I don’t believe for one second that the Labour party are infallible, not by a long, long way, but still preferable to present selection supposedly running the country.

All politicians want watching, but Tories, particularly present gang have my total distrust, Put it this way, I spent 40 years in the motor trade, car salesmen have a reputation as a slippery bunch, as a rule car salesmen are considerably more honest and ethical than any of the present Government, I would have great difficulty in employing any of the present Government before any salesman I did employ.

Our Independent only just missed 51% on first count and so won very easily on second.

That says everything, given the chance, even on a low turnout the established political parties were not wanted on the PCC issue.

Just a couple of quick responses.

Firstly I infer that the PCC might well act against G4S’s proposals and in favour of what is right for policing in the area.

Secondly ““Maintaining a profit is not a burden that was on the police force when they maintained the services in-house.”, as that statement from a union official is stating the b****g obvious. Public service has no accountability to the tax payer who pays for it so over-employment is rife. Ancillary staff to the frontline police force should be as minimal as it needs to be and just the same applies to education, health, social care etc etc.

Come on, you know as well as anyone the whole damn operation will be cost driven, not requirement or need.

I see many arguments claiming private sector to be more efficient than public sector, reality, private sector takes over any public sector work, cuts staff and wages, service standards fall and the bosses take a bundle of taxpayers money of to some tax haven somewhere.

Brilliant solution.

Simple fact private sector is, indeed has to be profit driven, service is good when that is an essential part of producing that profit.

When private sector is glad handed essential services, that is a recipe for easy profit for the employers and increased prices allied to reduced services to all who need those services.

Public sector should supply the services we need, private sector the services we want, but crucially have a choice whether we use them or not.

I am all for any farming out which enables the police to spend their time catching criminals. Central government set the budget but it is up to the PCC to determine the spending priorities in their area.

That isn’t what actually happens though.

The PCCs can only determine spending priorities if they have any cash to spend, the way that budgets are being hacked many forces are struggling to maintain basic minimum services.

After the dust has settled, tears dried, it doesn’t really matter a rats a##e whether it’s a senior policeman or PCC in charge, the real budget is decided in Westminster, all that this pantomime does is move some other poor sod into the firing line, to take the flak off politicians.

Can just see it, shortage of police, no action on certain issues, all the MPs sit back smugly and divert the queries to the PCC, the fact that PCC has no budget is down to MPs, but they have very nicely got out of the way.

Yes, that’s the real problem. Despite so-called austerity the debt increases day by day.

That’s because we aren’t actually saving anything, most of the ideological cuts are costing just as much as ever, farm out jobs and work to the private sector, then pay even more for the same or poorer service.

Just one instance, look at the salary of a qualified nurse, lay of a good number of nurses we save a certain sum of money, wrong!!!!, what then happens the hospitals then fill shortages by hiring from the private agencies at a cost of 3/4 times that of employed staff.

Reading one report were one hospital Trust had spent £2.5m on temp nursing staff, that sum of money would have employed more than enough nurses to deal with all their requirements, but through Government, they had been instructed that their staffing levels had to be a reduced figure.

The fact that this was actually costing even more money was somehow acceptable as long as permanent staffing levels fell, the economics of the mad house.

For my sins I ran a rural Polling Station in deepest Sussex yesterday. With staffing fees, expenses, hire of facility etc I estimate the cost of my one little station must have been around £1,500.00 at the very least.

We had 71 voters through from opening at 7am (the first at 9.15) and closing at 10pm. (the last vote at about 9pm) This out of an electoral register of 1,185 eligible voters.

Of those, I am aware that a number (at least seven) deliberately spoiled their ballot papers. Of the other voters, a good many had no idea what they were voting for, who they were voting for…..or why! I would estimate that 75% of the voters all complained they had had no official information (aside from a poll card) and NOTHING from any of the five canditates.

I don’t think “shambolic” adequately sums it up. An obscene and farcical waste of money this country does not have to waste is part-way there, though.

Snap, I could have written that post almost word for word, only differences our electoral register was slightly bigger, the area a suburban/rural mix and we got 64 voters through the door.