• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
My argument is that nationalisation doesn't reduce taxes. It invariably costs a fortune in purchase costs, reduces inward investment (massively) and causes inefficiency that lands in the lap of the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

And mine is that done the right way, silent Exchequer ownership of the private utility companies would not change anything. The profits generated today, would be the tax savings of tomorrow. Ironically it would probably need a Conservative or Blair-like politician to do it. We agree that the old school communist nationalisation model is not fit for purpose. I am unsure what exactly Labour are proposing now. Something more progressive, or something as ill-thought-out as communism.
 
scaramanga said:
He shared the stage with 3 people caught up in accusations of anti-semitism at the launch of his own ‘race and faith manifesto’.

Do you really think those actions are those of someone who cares whether his party is anti-semitic? It's gone beyond him being too naive, stupid or feeble to have noticed what's going on - there's no way he lets those three anywhere near that event unless he chooses to make clear he doesn't give a fudge.
Click to expand...

Its politics calm down, it will be over soon enough and you then can 'relax a little' and devote your time to you other passion Sissoko!
 
SpurMeUp said:
And mine is that done the right way, silent Exchequer ownership of the private utility companies would not change anything. The profits generated today, would be the tax savings of tomorrow. Ironically it would probably need a Conservative or Blair-like politician to do it. We agree that the old school communist nationalisation model is not fit for purpose. I am unsure what exactly Labour are proposing now. Something more progressive, or something as ill-thought-out as communism.
Click to expand...
It can't be done the right way in the public sector - the public sector can't do what the private can.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Why not? If the companies are run in exactly the same way. Only the dividend payments bank account changes. That is all.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Without the risk of shareholders fudging off elsewhere, where is the drive to succeed? You can't match private sector against public sector because to make them match, you have to make the public sector private.
 
scaramanga said:
Without the risk of shareholders fudging off elsewhere, where is the drive to succeed? You can't match private sector against public sector because to make them match, you have to make the public sector private.
Click to expand...

You simply replace 'share price' with 'profitability'. CEOs are already judged on how profitable a company is. Their bonuses and pay are heavily linked to the comapny's performance.

In France, some companies are partially state-owned. So only a % of profits go back into the french exchequer. The rest goes to shareholders and the shares are traded with a share price.

There are many non-listed private companies. Are you suggesting that all of them are ineffectual because they don't have a share price!?
 
SpurMeUp said:
You simply replace 'share price' with 'profitability'. CEOs are already judged on how profitable a company is. Their bonuses and pay are heavily linked to the comapny's performance.

In France, some companies are partially state-owned. So only a % of profits go back into the french exchequer. The rest goes to shareholders and the shares are traded with a share price.

There are many non-listed private companies. Are you suggesting that all of them are ineffectual because they don't have a share price!?
Click to expand...
No, they all have shareholders. Just because they're not listed, it doesn't meant that there are not overall owners who can put their money elsewhere should they choose.
 
I agree with @SpurMeUp - if they operate 100% identically as now then no real issue who the owners are but it's clear that this won't be the case and I don't think anyone can really believe it would be.

I'm guessing part of what Labour want is to reduce wages at the top level to a multiple of the average salary or similar, they'd also own 100% of the shares so could basically vote down all the remuneration reports etc as a starter. I also don't believe they'd pay full market rate for these companies which would hurt pensions and ISA's etc and start a downward trend in faith in the UK economy.
 
scaramanga said:
Without the risk of shareholders fudging off elsewhere, where is the drive to succeed? You can't match private sector against public sector because to make them match, you have to make the public sector private.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that shows an, understandable, lack of awareness of the public sector.
There are two key drivers - public duty (yes, people actually can care and take value out of something other than just money) and performance related pay. I know that doesn't sit easily with capitalist model, but it does still work.
 
monkeybarry said:
Unfortunately that shows an, understandable, lack of awareness of the public sector.
There are two key drivers - public duty (yes, people actually can care and take value out of something other than just money) and performance related pay. I know that doesn't sit easily with capitalist model, but it does still work.
Click to expand...

How you measure "public duty" is a really interesting question. The simplicity of capitalism is black or red. A profit or a loss. Such a binary measure of success makes things simple. A company makes a profit and survives, makes a loss and fails. Public duty or public good needs some metrics (imo) for civil servants. What do they use at the moment? Or what could one use to outline/measure "public duty" actions?
 
SpurMeUp said:
How you measure "public duty" is a really interesting question. The simplicity of capitalism is black or red. A profit or a loss. Such a binary measure of success makes things simple. A company makes a profit and survives, makes a loss and fails. Public duty or public good needs some metrics (imo) for civil servants. What do they use at the moment? Or what could one use to outline/measure "public duty" actions?
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, it works on the basis a profit is the key business driver - which of course it is in capitalism.
But there is no requirement for a profit when delivering a service (and I would argue no justification - people pay for the consumption and R&D, no more.). Good management measures via KPI and central scrutiny, as is the case in most areas of where no profit is generated. That is literally my job.
The point re; public service is a character trait, in the same way working to generate profit/sales etc is a character trait. Public duty was in response to drivers on a personal level. I understand it is difficult to quantify, but should not be dismissed. It should, in fact, be welcomed. It's people prepared to work for less, but getting satisfaction in different ways. (For me, I have a very pension - therefore good security; more flexibile working than Vs private sector and great support. But, most importantly, I get the satisfaction of knowing my skills, which are hardly unique, is creating a positive impact on our society).
 
monkeybarry said:
Unfortunately that shows an, understandable, lack of awareness of the public sector.
There are two key drivers - public duty (yes, people actually can care and take value out of something other than just money) and performance related pay. I know that doesn't sit easily with capitalist model, but it does still work.
Click to expand...
As you've mentioned in your later post, public service is a character trait.

I've met with a lot of public servants, I did a lot of consultancy for them whenever they needed to get rid of a pile of money really quickly. I've yet to meet one that would be of much use at the pointy end of the private sector, and most have been of the spendy persuasion (selection bias possible as they were employing me).

Edit:
That's not quite true. I have an old school friend who works for 5 and he's one of the brightest and best I know. He's a little different though as he doesn't have to work - he just does it to avoid boredom as far as I can tell.
 
scaramanga said:
As you've mentioned in your later post, public service is a character trait.

I've met with a lot of public servants, I did a lot of consultancy for them whenever they needed to get rid of a pile of money really quickly. I've yet to meet one that would be of much use at the pointy end of the private sector, and most have been of the spendy persuasion (selection bias possible as they were employing me).

Edit:
That's not quite true. I have an old school friend who works for 5 and he's one of the brightest and best I know. He's a little different though as he doesn't have to work - he just does it to avoid boredom as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

He is exactly the kind of person that the younger (by that I'm talking 40 and below, so not really young. Grew up Thatcher & Blair - those generations) are too. Not in for an easy life, and could go earn loads more privately, but do it because they want to.

Spending is an interesting point, because it's a "use it or lose it" approach with budgets only done yearly, it can be tricky to plan anything than requires longer term investment. Which is why anything brought back into public ownership should be run independent of any minister.
 
The best poll, that got the last election result correct, suggests Boris will get a 68 seat majority. Massive. Should have no excuses to 'get Brexit done'. :rolleyes: What is the UK in for over this next government?

Boris fudging and leaving the nation in limbo, as brexit drags on, and the economy continues to suffer. The irony of brexit is we'd have much more to spend on NHS etc if we hadn't had all this brexit nonsense. Hopefully we'll see a new Labour leader who people can believe in as a credible alternative. But we'll have to wait until 2024 for them to have a shot!

I think Boris will win, maybe not by as much as predicted.
 
monkeybarry said:
Agreed. However, it works on the basis a profit is the key business driver - which of course it is in capitalism.
But there is no requirement for a profit when delivering a service (and I would argue no justification - people pay for the consumption and R&D, no more.). Good management measures via KPI and central scrutiny, as is the case in most areas of where no profit is generated. That is literally my job.
The point re; public service is a character trait, in the same way working to generate profit/sales etc is a character trait. Public duty was in response to drivers on a personal level. I understand it is difficult to quantify, but should not be dismissed. It should, in fact, be welcomed. It's people prepared to work for less, but getting satisfaction in different ways. (For me, I have a very pension - therefore good security; more flexibile working than Vs private sector and great support. But, most importantly, I get the satisfaction of knowing my skills, which are hardly unique, is creating a positive impact on our society).
Click to expand...

I agree public service should definitely not be dismissed! How we quantify it as successful is what I am interested in. Doctors all pledge the Hippocratic oath. Is there a code or aims CS sign up to?

I feel like civil servants need more benefits recognition, and better defined aims. What is success in civil service - not now - but in terms of serving people? And how can that be better defined?

Sadly, currently, too much of the civil service is about keeping your head down. Not being progressive. Not causing an issue. Doing less that could draw public attention or criticism. That all makes a lot of our arms of government highly ineffective.
 
scaramanga said:
He shared the stage with 3 people caught up in accusations of anti-semitism at the launch of his own ‘race and faith manifesto’.

Do you really think those actions are those of someone who cares whether his party is anti-semitic? It's gone beyond him being too naive, stupid or feeble to have noticed what's going on - there's no way he lets those three anywhere near that event unless he chooses to make clear he doesn't give a fudge.
Click to expand...

The son of one of my best mates is a Nazi and I have associated with him, despite calling out his nut job ideology, does this make me a Nazi?
 
General election 2019: Tory and Labour spending plans 'not credible' - IFS

Neither the Conservatives nor Labour are offering "credible" spending plans ahead of the election, an influential research group has said.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said it was "highly likely" the Tories would end up spending more than their manifesto pledges.

Labour, it warned, would be unable to deliver its spending increases as it has promised.

Neither was being "honest" with voters, director Paul Johnson said.

He said that the Conservatives were continuing to "pretend that tax rises will never be needed to secure decent public services".

Labour, he added, "pretends that huge increases in spending can be financed by just big companies and the rich".

It is "highly likely" that Labour would need to raise taxes beyond what it is promising to pay for its proposed £80bn a year in extra spending, he said.

"In reality, a change in the scale and the scope of the state that they propose would require more broad-based tax increases at some point."

He criticised a Tory pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT over the next five years as "ill advised", adding the government would "regret" it.

He also added that the party had "failed to come up with any kind of plan or any kind of money" for social care services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back