Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

She was a fan of the EU I believe. But take your time and answer my question.

She was a fan of the EU I want - a free trade agreement with little else. I'd actually have been happy to settle for the EU we had without paying in or out of work benefits to immigrants and with the ability to trade freely with the rest of the world.

If you want a more detailed answer I can tell you how socialism and workshy unionists were killing the country, about how we embraced the entrepreneurial spirit and encouraged business. I could talk about how the country's terrible post-WWII decisions left us with a dependent public and a bloated state. But it can all be summed up with "Thatcher" so I saved us both the bother.

 

[the dza]

Why do we have private companies building houses for the military? Are they more efficient, even when they go bust? No.

The government will end up stepping in to some of these projects that Carillion can't do anymore. So why bother with outsourcing it in the first place? We don't outsource the army, why outsource the people who build their houses?

The government have said they will stand behind the wages of public service employees in the wake of Carillion's collapse. Why not just employ them in the first place and have complete control over the operations, rather than leaving this parasite company to run things badly, go bust, but pay out a brickload of dividends and CEO pay-offs in the meantime.

All bullsh1t, this right-wing ideology that everything is better outsourced and privatised and then when it goes wrong, the government have to step in and clean it up. We can do without the "talent" of the CEOs who oversee the collapse of these companies and we can do without the dividends paid to shareholders that ultimately come at taxpayer expense.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The Government are professionals in tinkling money up the wall. On the face of it its cheaper to tender these things and have private companies competing for it.

In theory its sound, but of course in practice this sort of brick happens.

Id have no issue at all with the Government employing these people and running these services - IF they did so efficiently. As if they were a profit making organisation.

What do you suppose the chances are of that?

 

[Gutter Boy]

Why do we have private companies building houses for the military? Are they more efficient, even when they go bust? No.

The government will end up stepping in to some of these projects that Carillion can't do anymore. So why bother with outsourcing it in the first place? We don't outsource the army, why outsource the people who build their houses?

The government have said they will stand behind the wages of public service employees in the wake of Carillion's collapse. Why not just employ them in the first place and have complete control over the operations, rather than leaving this parasite company to run things badly, go bust, but pay out a brickload of dividends and CEO pay-offs in the meantime.

All bullsh1t, this right-wing ideology that everything is better outsourced and privatised and then when it goes wrong, the government have to step in and clean it up. We can do without the "talent" of the CEOs who oversee the collapse of these companies and we can do without the dividends paid to shareholders that ultimately come at taxpayer expense.

This is a good opportunity to start taking things back into permanent public ownership. PPPs are evil.

There can't be another bailout of a disastrously run corporation, like with the banks. Let the shareholders deal with the liabilities and then take over the assets.

Won't happen though sadly.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The Government are professionals in tinkling money up the wall. On the face of it its cheaper to tender these things and have private companies competing for it.

In theory its sound, but of course in practice this sort of brick happens.

Id have no issue at all with the Government employing these people and running these services - IF they did so efficiently. As if they were a profit making organisation.

What do you suppose the chances are of that?

They could run them as arms-length charities. Where they have to be financially self-sustaining, but dividends get reinvested

 

[the dza]

The Government are professionals in tinkling money up the wall. On the face of it its cheaper to tender these things and have private companies competing for it.

In theory its sound, but of course in practice this sort of brick happens.

Id have no issue at all with the Government employing these people and running these services - IF they did so efficiently. As if they were a profit making organisation.

What do you suppose the chances are of that?

I'd say the government can at least match the efficiency of a company that runs itself to collapse. That's just a theory though.

 

[the dza]

This is a good opportunity to start taking things back into permanent public ownership. PPPs are evil.

There can't be another bailout of a disastrously run corporation, like with the banks. Let the shareholders deal with the liabilities and then take over the assets.

Won't happen though sadly.

There is a change vote out there. People don't have to agree with all of the policies of Corbyn's Labour, but they will at least TRY to change things for the better.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I'd say the government can at least match the efficiency of a company that runs itself to collapse. That's just a theory though.

Id want them to do better than going bust.

And Im yet to find a government service that isnt bloated and unnecessarily poor with finances.

I love the idea in theory, no issue at all. The practice though has never matched it, has it?

 

[Gutter Boy]

There is a change vote out there. People don't have to agree with all of the policies of Corbyn's Labour, but they will at least TRY to change things for the better.

I'm pretty sure it will happen in 2022. My only reservation is the Fascist Left he brings with him - the anti-Semitism and misogynism typified by the likes of Jared O'Mara and co.

 

[the dza]

Id want them to do better than going bust.

And Im yet to find a government service that isnt bloated and unnecessarily poor with finances.

I love the idea in theory, no issue at all. The practice though has never matched it, has it?

That's just a bullsh1t, right-wing talking point. There are some things that are better to be owned and run by the state i.e. the citizenry of the country. If you don't believe that, then I hope you are calling for a privatised military in the name of "efficiency."

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That's just a bullsh1t, right-wing talking point. There are some things that are better to be owned and run by the state i.e. the citizenry of the country. If you don't believe that, then I hope you are calling for a privatised military in the name of "efficiency."

Im not right wing. Im not saying everything should be privatised.

Id appreciate you reading the post before launching into your bias.

I have no political affiliation, frankly I wish more people were the same.

We were talking about the NHS just last week. Its a money pit. A cash black hole. THAT is a major problem.

I love the NHS, Im proud of it, but it needs major and drastic reform. Particularly in how it is run and managed.

What Im saying is I have no problem with a lot of the work done by Carillion being taken in house, no issue at all - as explicitly stated already.

I just dont want it to happen and become another bloated government agency that burns through money for no reason.



Im glad you mention the military though, they are one that seems to be about as right as it gets - a good example.

But seriously, have a word with yourself - you take a post about not wanting to create more bloat in the public sector to my wanting a privatised military? Lay off the coffee mate!

 

[the dza]

Im not right wing. Im not saying everything should be privatised.

Id appreciate you reading the post before launching into your bias.

I have no political affiliation, frankly I wish more people were the same.

We were talking about the NHS just last week. Its a money pit. A cash black hole. THAT is a major problem.

I love the NHS, Im proud of it, but it needs major and drastic reform. Particularly in how it is run and managed.

What Im saying is I have no problem with a lot of the work done by Carillion being taken in house, no issue at all - as explicitly stated already.

I just dont want it to happen and become another bloated government agency that burns through money for no reason.



Im glad you mention the military though, they are one that seems to be about as right as it gets - a good example.

But seriously, have a word with yourself - you take a post about not wanting to create more bloat in the public sector to my wanting a privatised military? Lay off the coffee mate!

Apologies, I didn't mean for my post to come across as attacking you personally, but rather what I deemed as right-wing talking points. I didn't say you were right wing, I said that what you were talking about is a bullsh1t, right-wing talking point -- I don't phrase these things very well.

Even in the face of a collapsed company that will require the tax-payer stepping in to cover workers and projects, privatisation and out-sourcing is always better? Come on.

Why do the Europeans manage to have publicly owned rail and energy firms that are so good, they even manage to buy the ones our government sells off? They also provide a cheaper and more efficient service for their citizens.

Why do the USA have a highly privatised healthcare system, yet spend miles more per capita on healthcare than we do, and manage not to provide healthcare to millions of their citizens? The NHS is, in the bigger picture, very efficient -- we get good healthcare coverage for the money we spend. There are of course terrible inefficiencies within it (like your spreadsheet example in a previous post) but, compared to the US system, it provides fantastic value for money. The reasons it is now struggling we have debated previously, so no need to go over that again.

The military get it right, yet they can't have a department taking care of the accommodation of their soldiers? That's what the current political ideology of the day is saying to us.

And I need more coffee!

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Mate, youre still answering points I just havent raised. Im not even really arguing against you here. Look:

The Government are professionals in tinkling money up the wall. On the face of it its cheaper to tender these things and have private companies competing for it.

OUR government are very wasteful with cash, just look at the NHS. In theory, having private entities competing for that money should lead to the Government paying less and those companies running as efficiently as possible to be able to profit. The theory is sound, on the face of it.

In theory its sound, but of course in practice this sort of brick happens.

But of course, theory and practice are not always the same, and things like Carillion folding happens. Additionally, look at the nonsense about train fees a few pages back, the theory doesnt always play out, does it?

Id have no issue at all with the Government employing these people and running these services - IF they did so efficiently. As if they were a profit making organisation.

What do you suppose the chances are of that?

And here we are, I have no issue with the Government taking these services on themselves rather than outsourcing. Genuinely, not problem at all - I am not opposed. And, just to drive the point home - I really dont mind.

However, a caveat for me is that I am absolutely opposed to those services/agencies becoming bloated money pits that end up costing, not serving, the tax payer. Which isnt uncommon with our government, is it?


As you point out, other nations seem to manage it, so in theory we should also be able to (that word again!). Perhaps we can rip them off and copy their model, I wouldnt mind - but as it stands do you honestly think we would pull it off?

 

[the dza]

@nayimfromthehalfwayline

That's fair enough.

Acknowledging that there are very well run state services in other countries, I also think that our state can run certain things better than private entities and are not allowed to, not because of inefficiency, but ideology. I'll give you an example.

In 2009, the Eastcoast Mainline rail service was returned to public ownership after National Express was forced to hand it back due to financial difficulties. National Express themselves took over from another firm, GNER, who had to give it up due to their parent company getting into financial trouble. As a government owned entity, EastCoast mainline achieved record levels of customer satisfaction, won an award in 2012 for being Britain's best employer AND made £200m for the Treasury. Better for passengers, better for employees, better for the taxpayer.

So, of course, The Tories flogged it off and it was privatised again in 2015. Nothing to do with inefficiency, everything to do with ideology.

Our public servants CAN run things well in this country, just as others in Europe can also. It is only political ideology preventing us from being more like those European countries.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That situation? Appalling, Id have liked to have seen it maintained, perhaps used as a use case for further, similar, enterprises. Ive no issue with that sort of thing at all.

Something like transport should be run for and by the country, IMO. If it was effectively not for profit it would serve the movement of people/commuting etc wouldnt it? Providing, of course, it was reasonably priced and well run/maintained as it went.

However, Im not sure one example makes the entire case. Take the NHS, while I dont want to see it privatised Ill laugh in anyones face who tries to tell me its well run.

Its not just ideology. Take Labour, they get in at the next election and set about re-nationalising things, and that might be great. But there is no guarantee they could manage their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone an entire infrastructure like a rail network, so there is no guarantee it would actually even remotely be a success (while, of course, recognising it may work well like the Eastcoast mainline).

 

[the dza]

That situation? Appalling, Id have liked to have seen it maintained, perhaps used as a use case for further, similar, enterprises. Ive no issue with that sort of thing at all.

Something like transport should be run for and by the country, IMO. If it was effectively not for profit it would serve the movement of people/commuting etc wouldnt it? Providing, of course, it was reasonably priced and well run/maintained as it went.

However, Im not sure one example makes the entire case. Take the NHS, while I dont want to see it privatised Ill laugh in anyones face who tries to tell me its well run.

Its not just ideology. Take Labour, they get in at the next election and set about re-nationalising things, and that might be great. But there is no guarantee they could manage their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone an entire infrastructure like a rail network, so there is no guarantee it would actually even remotely be a success (while, of course, recognising it may work well like the Eastcoast mainline).

There are no guarantees with anything of course. But that example (which was done under a Labour government) shows that it can be done, that being publicly owned/run doesn't automatically equal bad, and that state run enterprises can outperform their private equivalents at times. I don't think the state should own/run everything, but things done for the public good, as in other countries that are comparable to ours in terms of size and development (eg France, Germany -- not that these countries are entirely perfect either).

If there are examples of it working and if it works in those other countries on a bigger scale, then I think it can obviously work here. But the example of EastCoast Mainline is as much about the privatisation of it, as much as the successful running of it by the state. There was absolutely no reason to sell it off again, other than ideology.

Then you can look at these firms like Carillion, who have failed. 400+ government contracts; how many of those -- such as house building/maintenance for the military -- could have been done in-house just as efficiently, but are not due to ideology?

The government end up on the hook anyway when these firms fail , and they often do when it comes to rail (franchises fail and have to be bailed out, or remember Railtrack?), or in general like this firm Carillion. So it's not a great risk for the government to start directly running these kind of services again, because they end up paying twice when these firms fail anyway. How much more of privatising the profits and socialising the losses do we have to put up with before we decide to change how things are done?

 

[Gutter Boy]

All infrastructure should be in public hands - electricity, gas, water, sewage, transport, phone and internet. There are better ways of managing these than old 1940-70s monoliths, but they should be non-profit making (and non-loss making).

 

[Gutter Boy]

This is great news - Iceland supermarket to be plastic free by 2023: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42692642
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-on-all-own-branded-products?CMP=share_btn_fb

Hopefully others will now have to follow suit

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

All infrastructure should be in public hands - electricity, gas, water, sewage, transport, phone and internet. There are better ways of managing these than old 1940-70s monoliths, but they should be non-profit making (and non-loss making).

Absolutely agree.

We should also be looking to be self sufficant on energy needs and aiming high on food from UK.

I was and am a little right wing in so many ways but I will be voting Corbyn because he actually wants to try something new.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Conversely, existing Government agencies need to be more 'competitive', efficient, innovative...