Print Story Hmm, young people are apathetic
Diary
By jump the ladder (Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:00:44 AM EST) (all tags)
'Bout politics, I know let's give them the vote at 16. I'm sure most 16 year olds would prefer the abilty to drive or go to the pub rather than voting. Sort of tempted to join the Pro-animal testing march planned for London purely on the grounds that the ALF extremists go too far. Pragmatic view on animal testing in that I think it should be the last than first resort if at all possible.

Poll: give 16 year olds the vote?

 



Life on Mars

I reckon that there were two endings for this, one that the Sam character goes back to today if the series  bombed and another to keep him there in 1973 to justify another series. Last episode was good apart from the ending which seemed to be contrived for this reason. Enjoyed the series despite the odd weak episode though.

Moi

Went along to the Chelsea-Barcelona match and Stamford Bridge. Wicked atmosphere and a very good game even if it was marred by the contreversial early dismissal of Del Boy and the result. Chelsea has a mountain to climb in the away leg.

Went to Planet Angel at the new venue on Friday night. Much classier place although the drink prices were steep at £4 for a bottle of beer as opposed to £3 for a pint in the old place. Admission was the same so I suppose they had to make up the money somewhere. Excellent night and saw some people who I hadn't seen for years down there.

SLD: not much. Benign neglect will most likely pay results in the end and if it doesn't, shrug.
 

< Anyone know the legal status | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Hmm, young people are apathetic | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
WIPO by komet (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:09:36 AM EST
apart from giving 16 year olds the vote, how about taking it away from old people? The bulk of their lives will have been influenced by past policies rather than future ones.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
How about we drop agism altogether by lm (4.00 / 1) #4 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:16:50 AM EST
And simply have poll tests. If you can't name all the branches of government or your current MPs name, you can't vote.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
How about.. by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:42:09 AM EST
..we drop agism, poll tests, and all other discrimination all together and just go for universal enfranchisement? You know, as if democracy was supposed to be by the people, for the people or something.

--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
Because unfettered democracy is not a good thing by lm (4.00 / 1) #34 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:49:39 AM EST
Universal, direct democracy is not the government of the people, but the government of the brute majority of the people. I, for one, like the idea of inalienable rights that are rather difficult to take away rather than being at the mercy of 50% + 1 vote.

Which is why I like the way that the US legislature is set up with a House of Representatives to represent the people and a house of pseudo-aristocrats (the Senate) to moderate the impulses of democracy. While the role of the Senate as an aristocratic mechanism has been somewhat lessoned by the move to popularly elect US senators, the Senate has largely kept to a view of itself as such a body.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I didn't say direct democracy. by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:11:50 AM EST
I said universal enfranchisement. I see no reason to limit who can vote, other than the belief that you're somehow better/more competent/qualified/etc than them to vote (read: you disagree with them, and therefore they're stupid). And if that's your way of looking at people, then why are you bothering with democracy in the first place?

--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
a functional democracy by lm (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:22:16 AM EST
... assumes a literate and aware public. I see no contradiction in both supporting democracy and limiting voting rights to those who have a certain level of political understanding.

Look at it another way, why don't most countries immediately give the right to vote to immigrants? Why restrict naturalized citizenship to those who can understand something about the political process of the new mother country?


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Service by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #41 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:01:34 AM EST
Despite the fascist claims, I still think Heinlein had the germ of truth. I say that anyone can have the vote, but they have to spend a week of hard labor every time they use it.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I'm more partial to universal conscription by lm (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:20:56 AM EST
And only those that have an honorable discharge get the right to vote, but that isn't a very popular viewpoint hereabouts. My ideal situation would be something like a blend of Americorps, the Peace Corps and the various armed services where everyone had to serve for at least two years straight out of high school building bridges, reconstructing homes, flying into battle, helping inner city schools, etc.

But with my fever still going strong, I don't really feel like arguing about it today. So that is all that I'll say on the matter for now.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Also by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 2) #6 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:17:21 AM EST
their bodies could be used in the hydroponic gardens.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Interesting idea by herbert (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:20:05 AM EST
Made me wonder if you should retrospectively cancel people's votes on death - if enough supporters of the government die during its term of office, it could be kicked out.

You'd have to store how people voted though.

Or: allow people to vote on their 16th/18th birthday and every Nth birthday after that.  Count all the votes from the last N years at the end of every day, and change the MP for that constituency if necessary.


[ Parent ]
You plug your ID card into the voting machine by Vulch (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:52:26 AM EST

And can vote for whoever you like, as long as they are happy to stand. The top 635 become MPs. At any time after (say) three months you can change your vote. If a sitting MP drops below 1000th place they are replaced by whoever is highest on the list.

You probably also need to make it compulsory for a sitting MP to attend Parliament, and forbid all outside activities while they are elected and for a year afterwards to avoid the "'Er off Eastenders would make a good MP" vote and media luvvies getting elected and then doing bugger all.

[ Parent ]
really by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:13:26 AM EST
There aren't that many available options for reining in the electoral clout of the older generations that aren't inherently unfair and undemocratic. The US still suffers the effects of the kids who enjoyed their sex, drugs, and rock and roll, only to sell out for lower taxes as Reagan Democrats. The legacy of which cynical betrayal of ideals lies at the root of young people's apathy. Any step that potentially reduces the influence of the reactionary and moderate liberal aged establishment is a positive one.

[ Parent ]
The problem... by NoMoreNicksLeft (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:16:04 AM EST
Is that people between the ages of 18 and death have the ability to vote. If we could somehow remove that, we'd be off to a start...
--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
This plan is sure to put the trains back on time! by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 2) #7 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:18:36 AM EST


---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
See, I'm not a fascist. by NoMoreNicksLeft (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:29:57 AM EST
Nor a wannabe tyrant.

The problem with fascist tyrannies, is that effectively, only a few high-ranking officials get to "vote". They do, you see, even if it's not a formal election, even if only one ballot is cast (theirs).

The problem is still they same, they get to vote/make decisions... they're just as stupid as the rest. That's why I propose that no one over the age of 18 be allowed to vote, even as we leave the under 18 voting prohibition in effect.
--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.

[ Parent ]
I'd raise the age of voting to 25 [nt] by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:16:22 AM EST

----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
Stuff by DullTrev (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:16:53 AM EST

Life on Mars - I think you're spot on with the two endings theory. Now I'm left wondering what happened to his girlfriend in 2006 - she was abducted in the first episode. It would have fit weel to have him rescuse his bit of stuff in '73 before going back to rescue his bit of stuff in '06. I can only assume she's dead, now...

Apathy in politics. "People aren't paying attention to our exciting debates on whether we should spend x% or (x+1)% of GDP. This must be their fault!" - politicians.


--
DFJ?
The idea is by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #9 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:25:56 AM EST
They won't be so apathetic if they have a say in things.

I think they should have the vote. For a start they pay income tax if they're working which makes it a bit unfair if they don't have a say. Secondly, let's face it things are pretty crap at the moment and it make shake the major parties up a bit. Thirdly, any 16 year olds who are apathetic just won't vote, so I can't see it doing that much harm.

I think it'll benifit fringe parties but probably not people like the BNP, which I personally think is a good thing but is a point to be argued.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

That is an old one by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:39:49 AM EST
No taxation without representation!

[ Parent ]
I prefer by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #14 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:45:22 AM EST
No representation without taxation.

[ Parent ]
Hypothetical question by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:55:56 AM EST
Given the choice, would you pay income tax or have the vote?

I'd like to take the money, but would be in the knowledge that I was contributing to the collapse of society. Hmm, tough one.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
No tax by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #27 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:12:20 AM EST
Of course unless my vote actually meant something more than a wasted vote in safe Labour consituency...

[ Parent ]
Curiously enough by lm (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:58:05 AM EST
There is a very strong correlation between liberal democracy and the income tax. For some reason, those regimes that are funded almost entirely by income taxes tend to be the most liberally democratic.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Experience does not bear that out by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #30 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:30:20 AM EST
The (US) voting age dropped from 21 to 18 in the 70's. The 18-21 year olds are just as apathetic as ever and are one of the groups with the lowest turnouts.

It's not an argument against enfranchisement, but there you are.
--
Would you rather battle Klingons or trolls?

[ Parent ]
Seriously now. by komet (4.00 / 2) #11 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:30:24 AM EST
16, 18, what difference does it make when the fundamental problem is that once you've voted for your MP you have no say in government for the next 5 years. There is no way for the populace to force a specific issue like there is in Switzerland.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
Oh and also by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #12 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:36:35 AM EST
The apathy only extends to party politics, 16+ yr olds are very active in single issue and pressure group politics, where they are given a say - which suggests that if they had a say in party politics they could become very active in that too.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

Representative democracies aren't. by Rogerborg (4.00 / 4) #15 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:55:44 AM EST
Some beard stroking Liberal Intellectual Elitist got stuck into Baroness McPrissyPants on the wireless over this.  Apparently 80% of 18+ are against giving 16-18 the vote, and there's no clear majority among 16-18 for it either if you run a fair poll instead of listening to "teen" pressure groups, who one might imagine are actually directed by angry "young" Grauniad devouring 30-something graphic artists with pony tails and polo-necks.

He also raised the interesting point that the problem is one of perception, and that there's no grounds for believing that simply changing the workings of Westminster will actually be perceived as an improvement.  I don't think McPrissyPants was quite able to grasp the significance of that, but I'm sure she can have a spin doctor clear it up for here.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

Pro animal testing by squigs (4.00 / 4) #17 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:08:18 AM EST
The thing is, most people aren't pro animal testing so much as against dying from curable disieases.

The problem with a "pro-animal testing" march is it makes it sound like they actually want to test drugs on animals for no reason other than it's a fun. 

Well by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:12:39 AM EST
Some people here like testing drugs on themselves and claim it's fun so why leave out the animals.

[ Parent ]
That's right. We do. by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #19 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:13:09 AM EST

"Squeel like a pig, pig"


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Eating meat is fun by dmg (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:16 AM EST
If its OK to kill and eat animals, why shouldn't we experiment on them for fun too?
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
That may be okay for husites... by squigs (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:37:49 PM EST
And all the other wasters and fundamentally disturbed people on the interweb, but in general, people in the real world are a little less psychotic.

[ Parent ]
What? by dmg (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:55:48 PM EST
Millions of people eat meat.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but... by squigs (4.00 / 1) #51 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:51:05 PM EST
Most of us are sane enough to feel morally conflicted about our right to eat versus the animal's right to life with every bite.  Only psychopaths enjoy eating.

[ Parent ]
In fact by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:14:05 AM EST
They should be seeking to reduce the number of voters, not increase it.

Bliar and Gordon "Texture like sun" Brown between them have inflated the numbers and remuneration of the government sector workers to preposterous levels.  Which is effectively a bribe; you're not going to see any of them voting to save them from this workplace menace that has a culture of early retirement, massive absenteeism (40 days a year off sick public sector vs 6 days in private sector) and jobs for life. 

And the jobless.  If you ain't kicking in to the economy, you're not eligible to shape policy.


If it's such a good deal in the public sector by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:16:01 AM EST
Why aren't you and I working in it then?

[ Parent ]
To be honest by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #29 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:27:07 AM EST
I've only just realised what a sweet deal it is. 

Pay scales are rapidly hitting par with public sector, and you don't have to worry about pension.  You're practically unsackable and you get 40 extra holidays a year!


[ Parent ]
Its the way forward!!! by dmg (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 10:54:29 AM EST
I know at least one person who quit a large investment bank to go and work for some lefty north london council. He does a 35 hour week, with all sorts of benefits, and zero stress.

There's no point working too hard, if the marginal increase in salary comes at the price of an early grave...
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.

[ Parent ]
egads, bribery! by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:37:56 AM EST
Won't somebody look at the poor starving elites
Enslaved by the fat cats cleaning the streets?

[ Parent ]
IHBT by Canthros (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:23:31 AM EST
The idea behind removing the vote from those whose income is derived entirely from a government paycheck is based on the simple observation that things about government that benefit its employees do not necessarily benefit the broader society, which government and government employees (i.e. public servants) are supposed to serve. A broad bloc of government employees can probably be expected to favor a large government, higher tax rates, broader government welfare, and so forth, as such would generally contribute their job security income levels. This reasoning also follows for groups such as welfare recipients, which derive their subsistence from living on the government dole. In the situation that this were actually done (and I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a bad, honestly), it would seem fair to exempt this same segment of the population from various and sundry taxes upon their income (actually, I would favor this already!).

However, any move to more narrowly construe the body electorate would probably be highly unpopular (it may also not have anything like the desired effect!), so is almost certainly doomed to failure from the outset.

ObDisclaimer: I've based my comments on what I know of the US situation; large portions of this post may entirely irrelevant to matters in Britain (though the central point probably still stands).

--
I'm not here, man.


[ Parent ]
i think by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:08:12 AM EST
You see bribery where you want to see bribery. If public school teachers are being bought off by government largesse in exchange for their votes, what of the corporate masters who reward favorable trade agreements and anti-labor policies, not only with mere votes but with generous campaign contributions?

Horror stories of greedy postal workers steering the government to do its bidding are plainly not reflective of reality. They are fantasies designed to distract from the very real ongoing collusion between the political and business elites, always to the detriment of the people.

[ Parent ]
That's a different argument by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:22:00 AM EST
I was talking about the ruling political party creating generously rewarded jobs to it's own, to increase votes and keep them in government.


[ Parent ]
Bribery is such a crass word. by Canthros (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:02:09 PM EST
I'm actually not alleging any sort of misconduct or vote-buying, per se, or any fantastic stories of the government being run by appointed bureaucrats. Just that people tend to vote for representatives who most closely represent their interests as they see them. If government employees and others who get by directly on government money vote, it is logical (though, I will concede, not necessarily correct) to assume that they will vote primarily for representatives who will preserve and further their status quo. (In truth, I am less concerned about the influence of government employ on such individuals than I am on the influence of groups like public service unions and the NEA on same.) Conversely, individuals working in the private sector will tend to vote for representatives who favor policies beneficial to the private sector.

--
I'm not here, man.


[ Parent ]
i guess that makes sense by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:09:25 AM EST
In that you won't see teachers' unions supporting the abolition of public schooling. OTOH, neither will you see many in the private sector (except for owners of charter schools) supporting it.

Really, I think the idea of "policies beneficial to the private sector" needs some more analysis. There are tons of policies (like the bankruptcy bill practically written by big credit card companies, Disney's perpetual copyright extensions, or handouts to agribusiness and Big Pharma) that benefit a handful of corporate entities at the expense of a lot of other people, including most individuals in the private sector. In general, the interests of private sector workers are in conflict with the interests of company bosses the same way the interests of public employees are in conflict with small government types in Washington, and it's the exception rather than the rule that there is any real policy conflict (at the worker level) between public and private.

I see what you mean, and I concede that in theory you could have a world where a huge public sector could always vote to hold the rest of society at their mercy. In the real world, that effect appears minimal relative to the corporate welfare handed out to bloated corporations in uncompetitive industries.

[ Parent ]
Ahem by DullTrev (4.00 / 5) #26 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:44:46 AM EST

Bliar and Gordon "Texture like sun" Brown between them have inflated the numbers and remuneration of the government sector workers to preposterous levels.

<insert hollow laugh>

Random factoids: A quarter of all civil servants earn less than £15,000. Average civil servant starting salary is £11,700.

Jobs for life? A government that announced a cut of 100,000 jobs (out of a circa 550,000 workforce) in Parliament, before any discussion with staff, is hardly promoting a feeling of security in its workforce, now, is it?


--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]
*cough* by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:42:15 AM EST
A quarter of all civil servants earn less than £15,000.
And how many of them are straight out of school?  How many are doing low-skill jobs? 
How many are part time?

Average civil servant starting salary is £11,700.
And average final salary is...?

And do you really think that the government is going to go through with the job cuts?  UNISON and the rest of the leftist rabble will be having days off picketing over that one and I bet you a pint that they don't bin the entire 100,000 as a result.  And even of the ones that do go, I bet they're looking forward to their generous severance package and full pay pension.  Not including the ones that'll be shipped off to the newly created Lentil Equality Focus Group, with their severance package still in hand and a golden hello to look forward to.

And a stat right back at you:
39 per cent of local government officers take early retirement (before age 60).  On full pay


[ Parent ]
*cough-cough* by DullTrev (4.00 / 2) #33 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:36:24 AM EST

How many are straight out of school, I have no idea, nor on skill levels. However, the statistics for pay are based on Full Time Equivalents - for the purposes of comparison, part-timers have their salary multiplied to what it would be for someone doing full-time hours. I also do not know the average salary when people finish.

However, the average (median) salary for all civil servants is £18,890. For the purposes of comparison, the average (median) salary in the UK is £22,900. 13.3% of civil servants are paid more than £30,000.

Local government officers are not civil servants and are not paid by the government. If you have a problem with them, talk to your local authority.

And the cuts are going through, sadly regardless of effect on the services. Look to the budget for an announcement on how many have gone now, but by last year's (March) budget 12,500 jobs had already gone, which was on target. It's hard to get accurate figures for how many have gone now, but DWP alone has cut 15,000 - 37.5% of the jobs they are targetted to cut.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not a bed of roses in the public sector. Your job is at risk from the whims of politicians, rather than the markets. The aims and objectives of your role change on a regular basis, to fit with government policy. At the lower end, you are liable to physical assault from the general public. Everything you write can be requested under the FOI act. In general, you do get paid less than equivalent private sector jobs.

And in return, you get offered a more generous pension settlement than elsewhere, true. But that's the deal you sign up to - worse pay, better pension. You accept your pay is essentially deferred until a later date.


--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]
Thank you by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:09:27 AM EST
I could never be arsed looking up the stats, but that's my job right there, including the assaults from the public (got a death threat today).

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
death threats LOL! by dmg (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 10:57:59 AM EST
Was it a serious one? On the whole people who are going to kill you don't annouce it first...

When I used to frequent a now defunct but nonetheless controversial website, I was constantly amazed at the willingness of the general public to issue death threats. Its almost like we have a 'death threat' culture these days.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.

[ Parent ]
Nah by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #52 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:53:58 PM EST
Not serious, just someone losing their cool. I'm used to it now, but when I started out in this job it was really unsettling. It takes a while to suss out how seriously to take it.

Every time though there's always the risk that for once they mean it...

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
*sputter* by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #42 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:18:31 AM EST
However, the average (median) salary for all civil servants is £18,890. For the purposes of comparison, the average (median) salary in the UK is £22,900. 13.3% of civil servants are paid more than £30,000.

Woo, a 4K average paycut for a mandatory 35 hour week, full pension, all those sick days.  Sounds great!  And don't forget that the average median salary in the private sector is nicely bumped up by that 5% top ender fat cat percentage.

Local government officers are not civil servants and are not paid by the government. If you have a problem with them, talk to your local authority.

Which, by and large, are Labour run.  Who are inflating the salaries and packages of their employees, which in turn leads to Tory/Liberals LA's having to bump theirs up to attract people.  Whilst I've no doubt that your definition of civil servants vs government officers is correct, to me they are the same.  In that if they are being paid from the taxes I have wrung from me, then they are all part of the same amorphous group "civil servants", of which one branch is government. 

And the cuts are going through
Or is it a shift in governmental policy - offload all that bureaucracy to the LA's so Westminster can be "the party that cuts red tape" whilst silently getting the rouge bunting out elsewhere?  Cushy severance packages for the bureaus, the straight into the same job but for a "different" paymaster.

Your job is at risk from the whims of politicians, rather than the markets.
Who are unlikely to disenfranchise such a body of folk if they can get away with it.

The aims and objectives of your role change on a regular basis, to fit with government policy.
Really?  I thought most civil/govt jobs were "move paper from tray A to tray B".  Of course the jobs are going to change over time. 

At the lower end, you are liable to physical assault from the general public.
For which there are even stiffer penalties doled out to the perpetrators than to the general public suffering similar assaults.

In general, you do get paid less than equivalent private sector jobs.
Equivalent private sector jobs that you generally work a fair bit of unpaid overtime rather than regimented 35 hour weeks, get called to the beak's office if you're having too many days off sick...  And the average discrepancy is 4K/year which supports my previous argument that public sector jobs are heading towards par of private.  Also, are you honestly claiming that public sector workers don't get a few under the counter bennies as well?  Cheaper gym membership, discounted rail travel, better benefits advice and processing...

you get offered a much more generous pension settlement than elsewhere, true.
(I added the much there BTW).  And you also get to retire early to enjoy it, wheee!  Ooooh, I can hear music - it's that Ozzy song, "Gravy Train".


[ Parent ]
I don't know where by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:14:11 AM EST

you're getting this 35 hours a week figure from (it applies to temps, but that's about it). It's quite simply not true. The figure I worked-to was forty-five. People in senior (i.e. non-administrative, not necessarily "well-paid") positions don't even have their hours specified in their contracts. Do you know why? Because the hours most of them work are technically illegal. Trust me: They do a fuck sight more unpaid hours than you.

I've worked in both sectors. You get more money in business. You get more job security in Government. They are both relative measurements. The highest earner I know in Government work clocks £70K and most senior staff clock on the low side of 40. That's nothing compared to the corporate world. Put your financial situation where your big mouth is.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
35 hour week by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #53 Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:24:45 AM EST
From the European Working Time Directive.

How long ago was it that you worked in the public sector?

Put your financial situation where your big mouth is.
I'm not actually sure what you mean about that one, are you asking me to lay my finances out for you to dissect?  Or are you off singing again?


[ Parent ]
Hmmm. by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #54 Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:44:16 AM EST

Let me see ...

What are the key features of the EWTD?

The main features are:

- No more than 48 hours work per week (averaged over a reference period)
- 11 hours continuous rest in 24 hours
- 24 hours continuous rest in seven days (or 48 hrs in 14 days)
- 20 minute break in work periods of over 6 hours
- four weeks annual leave
- For night workers an average of no more than eight hours work in 24 over the reference period.

Department of Health - European Working Time Directive FAQ

OMFG! They're taking the piss!

What I meant was very simple: If you think it's so easy, shut up and do it. Then we can roffle at you when you come back complaining about the workload, the unbudgeted hours, the shitty working conditions and the woeful pay. Good Luck!


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Oh, my mistake. Not 35. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #55 Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:05:24 AM EST
37 hours
37 hours
37 hours

the workload, the unbudgeted hours, the shitty working conditions
I can get that in the private sector too, don't forget.  Only in the private sector I don't get to fuck off and retire at 50; the Man wants me to slave until 67.


[ Parent ]
The specific proposal by yicky yacky (4.00 / 2) #23 Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:27 AM EST

to give 16-yr-olds the vote (which, in fairness, was only one out of many) has the inherent problem that it doesn't actually solve the problem the report sets out to solve. The report was dealing with problems of democracy as practiced now; with voter disaffection and low turnout as observed now; with destructive mechanisms for distancing the voting public from the business end of the decision-making process as are in use now; with current practice which marginalizes parliament as is being used now; as applied the spectrum of eligible voters we have now.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that increasing the range of eligible voters doesn't help with these problems at all. In fact, some might argue that it's an expert piece of showboating smoke-and-mirrors political gamesmanship to shift the vociferous debate into an area (the voting age) which politicians are much happier arguing about than reforming the way in which they wield the power which they currently have.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
Hmm, young people are apathetic | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback