Public vs Private...

[popgoestheweasle]

Because the outcome has been determined.....the wolves will feed from the sheep till the destruction of capitalism ...so the sheep try to vote for the less shitter of the 2 wolves.....the wolves want to remove the sheeps vote...the only power they have...so the wolves setup in play a backup plan to eliminate the sheep vote through te--orist policies.....mobbing and stalking in the workplace ....the sheep are isolated and powerless ...the wolves deliver a final blow "martial law" all undesirable sheep eliminated by the mass.....global overpopulation reduce to 1/4....new world o---- new growth for a next hundred years

the end

 

[B_crackoff]

I really dont know how this is a justification of private industry. More an example of its failures. They were more than happy to take the money for something which retrospectively they claimed was impossible!

Um, private sector failure?

It's an example of government ineptitude. For at least 7 years before they lost the election they were told STOP THE IT PROJECTS. They wouldn't even had owned the intellectual property. Dickheads.

It was all only to spy on us anyway you know!


Your saying quinetiq should have stayed in public ownership? Im afraid all this smacks of forced outsourcing, this time by a labour government. Both sides are pursuing this chimera that private sector is better.

No this was selling a third to their mates at a massive discount to a Bush/Cheney company Carlyle, & 13% to the managers. There was a hoohah even at the time of sale - value of Qiniteq only £125M

The day after sale, the MOD awarded it an annual contract of £500M/ann!!!! Guaranteed for 25 years!

Now even someone shit at Maths can see what a rip off that was. The investment @ even 10% return paid for itself in 2.5 years. The return was 40%/annum!!! RISK FREE. Some of the managers made £20M, & Carlyle didn't pay a penny tax because Labour allowed them to operate through a "Box Company"(think India & Vodaphone now!) in Jersey

This simply couldn't happen in the private sector because of the diclosure requirements i.e it would rip of shareholders, in this case - us!

There are quite a few companies trying to break into the state education system which are definitely in it to make money. What do you reckon, this will inevitably mean they fail to improve standards? Shareholders sucking out money is bad news.

I agree, it's a bad idea in most ways, but potentially a good idea if it's limited to less than 5 schools per company. Think vocational, or technical training.- there are some nice organisations out there! The national curriculum is a joke. 5 passes at C or above up from 23% to 46% in 20 years! Whatever happened to ogives & bell shaped curves. Bring back Selective education, & a proper system of aptitude assessment so kids are motivated & are steered onto courses which suit them rather than one size fits all.

If you want to follow the example of successful education, then I would suggest setting up charitable foundations or cooperatives to run industry.

I dont know how old you are, or if you have a short memory. PFI was well established under the last conservative government and reports of its disasters were already in the news. One of the hoped for changes under new labour was that they would get rid of it. Well they didnt. They went conservative instead and adopted it.

The dome was a conservative project initially in the hands of Michael Heseltine. By the time labour came to power it was already attracting ridicule for its incompetent organisation. Initially the cons attempted to get private industry to run it. Didnt work out well.

I think I posted a while back - I (did) know a lot about PFI, being as I worked for one of Soros's co-bidders for the IR &C&E estates. Sod the Tories, Labour did not have to build that White Elephant Dome at all. It showed how shit things can be when they're done by committee.

The joke was that the Tories sold of the family silver, but Labour literally sold off the family gold! We even bid more than Soros. Another example would be London Underground. What a joke that sevice level contract was - guaranteeing 30% return/annum!

Why weren't we all invited into that party eh?

You're not against entrepreneurs - you're against crooks!:beerchug2:

It was never about getting services run better - it was to hide the huge future liabilities racked up, buy votes, & pay off your sponsors.

If money doesn't circulate, bankers can't print more(fractional reserve lending) or get paid interest for nob all.

The problem is - the gits who run the unions are just as bastardish, just less well off. I know guys working on the Tube & network rail who have 52 days holiday a year, phenomenal sick leave, & earning £65K driving a train!


Right. yes. people running banks which created the biggest financial failures ever known were punished by 1) staying in their jobs after the companies were rescuedand continuing to get vast bonuses or 2)retired on humongous pensions. Im glad the equivalent sanction in the public sector is not yet on quite such a big scale.

I've long favoured a mansion tax for any value of a property above £900,000 - well before Vince Cable - but I'd hit it for a one off 20% not a poxy 0.5%. You' get all those tax shy bastards like Phillip Green, Laksi Mittal & Russian oligarchs then. That would raise £20Bn. That's a lot of jets.

Yes, where I live the privatised train company extended journey times as timetabled so as to make it easier to meet its punctuality targets. Instead of sometimes taking 10 minutes longer, journeys now always take 10 minutes longer.

Haha. That's classic. I went to Hounslow from Waterloo. It's 45 minutes. It's a straight track. Overland. No other trains. And only 11.5 miles!!!!

I lived in a place 2 stops on from where 4 tubes in row would suddenly terminate - some without reason, then TO ALLOW THE OTHER TRAINS TO CATCH UP. This happened every other day. Didn't even have any timetable on the board, it was just a very expensive glorified clock.

Im not going to disagree this one. It is a fine example of what private industry does if you let it. However, not so much of the 'was'. This is still going on, even being encouraged by government. It gets worse: banks now claim they must not even be taxed!

I only wish jigsaw was real & he only had it in for top bankers & those swine expense fiddling, country ruining MPs:wink::wink:

:biggrin1:

 

[Jason]

The current program of the coalition in the UK is an aggressively anti-social program aimed at prioritising the ability of businesses to exploit their workers, enforce wage deflation and undermine employee rights. It proposes to decimate the public sector (putting hundreds of thousands out of jobs if at all possible, because it's simply cheaper in the short term to pay them dole rather than proper wages) while allowing the private sector to parasitise the British tax payer in becoming a cheap and not-so-cheerful public service provider which will extort from and exploit those whom it should be serving. It's a libertarian rightwing political program which is as doctrinaire as they come.

Your language is a bit heated but there is some truth in this.

But there's another element. I don't like the name of Cameron's "big society" but I do think the idea is a hint of sanity. We do need people in society (including in business) to start acting with a moral guide, and we need ways in which society can promote such right-acting individuals. We have to get away from the idea and practice of business being for profit only, and find ways where businesses that apply a moral code prosper - and thoe that don't fail.

Maybe the internet is pointing the way. If you are thinking of buying something on eBay part of the information you look at is the community feedback on the seller. The price is not the only consideration. If two identical items are for sale you might well pay a bit more to buy from someone with excellent feedback, or from a seller who is contributing part to charity.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Your language is a bit heated but there is some truth in this.

But there's another element. I don't like the name of Cameron's "big society" but I do think the idea is a hint of sanity. We do need people in society (including in business) to start acting with a moral guide, and we need ways in which society can promote such right-acting individuals. We have to get away from the idea and practice of business being for profit only, and find ways where businesses that apply a moral code prosper - and thoe that don't fail.

Maybe the internet is pointing the way. If you are thinking of buying something on eBay part of the information you look at is the community feedback on the seller. The price is not the only consideration. If two identical items are for sale you might well pay a bit more to buy from someone with excellent feedback, or from a seller who is contributing part to charity.

As much as I think that idea is a laudable one, I don't think the Tories are capable of bringing about the kind of transformation in business practices you describe. It would require a total cultural change which I don't see an appetite for.

These are reactionary times, rather than revolutionary ones, and frankly the kind of cultural revolution your describing just seems like pie in the sky to me.

 

[Jason]

Sometimes a bit of pie in the sky has to be considered.

IMO the twentieth century displays two deeply flawed systems, socialism and capitalism. We have to get beyond both of these, and yes it needs a cultural revolution. I think of it in terms of a tipping point. For this it doesn't need everyone to behave properly, just enough people. A precondition is that people have freedom to decide how they behave, and capitalism (with all its many wrongs) is the most likely system to offer this.

No I don't think the Tories are capable of bringing about such a transformation. But I think they are capable of creating a situation where it might happen on its own.

 

[dandelion]

Changes usually happen when things are so bad they can no longer be tolerated. Thus all those who posted (and, yes, the US tea party) are entirely correct the best course would have been to let the banks fail. Then the outrage would have been sufficient to demand changes to prevent it happening again. Which as things stand, it will.

Incidentally, it isnt over yet. Get a tea party majority in the Us, demand restitution from said banks, put them into bankruptcy now and off we'd all go.

Must be the orange glowing eyes.

 

[Speculator]

I dont know where you are from or what sort of 'lefties' you mean. In british politics the 'left' is generally considered the labour party. They have just come to the end of a period of fond romance with the capitalist financial sector where they couldnt get enough of it. I dont recall one of them who wanted to abolish capitalism. Virtually every uk politician is interested in taming capitalism and making it work for them. The right is currently going on about the ills of public sector spending and the need to cut taxes to encourage the capitalist private sector. Yet in practice they have not cut taxes. Nor did they in the past.

I'm from the UK. The real left in this country don't support the labour party, as far as they're concerned they've sold out to big business, made their position clear on the nationalisation of capital (won't happen i.e the abolition of clause 4) and Tony Blair severed Labour's links with the unions by opting to court wealthy businessmen for funding instead.

The real left do want to abolish capitalism, now more than ever due the credit crunch, bankers' bonuses, private equity and the casino economy etc etc. They know this won't happen with New Labour though which is why their sceptical about voting for them.

Nearly as much as the state investing in roads, minimum safety standards, health care, basic pensions...and so forth?

...which are all state monopolies, they've managed to put all these things at risk with their reckless spending policy. Given the amount of money they've spent I'd expect some sort of return.

Because they hated dictatorships and liked civil rights? what does that have to do with capitalism or socialism?

The way East and West germany was split in two made it an ideal testing ground for the claims of capitalists and communists, there was a clear winner. When the wall fell in 89 the living standards of East Germans were years behind that of their western counterparts, since then the reunified Germany has spent vast sums in the east in an attempt to reduce the systematic inequalities that exist to this day.

Ask some Polish people what is was like lving under a communist regime, it doesn't sound pretty.

 

[798686]

But there's another element. I don't like the name of Cameron's "big society" but I do think the idea is a hint of sanity.

I'm not too keen on it either. Is it a play on words, and a riposte to right-wing fear of 'big government'?

It's also maybe a little unfair (not of yourself, but in other posts) for the Tories to receive all the blame for encouraging private companies into public services, as this is exactly what Tony Blair also had planned, in a big way.

 

[B_crackoff]

I don't like the name of Cameron's "big society"

It's too much like he means "The Big Issue" society!

It's also maybe a little unfair (not of yourself, but in other posts) for the Tories to receive all the blame for encouraging private companies into public services, as this is exactly what Tony Blair also had planned, in a big way.

They're all the same now. There's not a jot of difference. It's just a matter of marketing, presentation & sound bites.

Did you know that the party with the most economically left policies (re-nationalise public services, utilities, f*ck the banks), that gained the most votes... was the BNP.

That's shocking. Now I might disagree with economically left policies (mainly because they're advanced through ideology rather than practicality or forward coherent planning regardless of the situation), but I do think people should have a true choice.

The high flyers have got the same training (Rockerfeller sponsored seminars), same social circle, 7 figure wealth, & a belief in a divine right to rule - & they all wind up cocking it up.

That said, I do believe that Cameron is a decent man, steeped in social responsibility, who sincerely wants to do the best for his country. But everone thought that about Tony too!

 

[B_curiousme01]

I'm not against Social programs at all. I am against allowing them to fall into a big blackhole that the public can do nothing about but watch. And, I am also for programs that support small business and a host of others. However, you asked about public vs. Private sector and I gave my opinion. You are welcome to speculate and judge me by it all you wish. I did not mean to enter another debate, I expressed MY opinion on your topic.

The greatest words ever spoken that truly explains how I feel are "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I'm self employed and own my own business. So I'm a in a similar boat to you.

But what comes across from your post is that because you personally have no desire to make use of government run services you think no one should either want to or have the opportunity to.

I have to drop a bombshell on you too, you live in the States right? And you're complaining about the burden of regulation and tax? Enforcement (or lack thereof) aside I suspect you'd have more regulations and bureaucracy to deal with if you lived almost anywhere else in the world, and if you lived in Europe you'd have laws to ensure your business was socially responsible rather than purely about exploiting your customer base without even a nod to communities your business operates in.

God knows I work hard, and for years I was basically penniless so what success I have now I value very highly and would work twice as hard again to sustain and expand my business.

However when national EU regulations interpose themselves, or when I'm required to pay taxes I think of that as an opportunity to prove that not only does my business benefit me or those whom I may employ, my customers and those I do business with, but it also benefits the society I live in and frankly am glad I live in.

Why should I think only about my business, my livelihood, my hard work and success etc when I can think beyond that to the social good these things can be put to also.

I would be ashamed of myself if in the haste to become a professional artist and craftsperson with a successful business I forgot my responsibility towards those I live and work among. I pay my taxes in the knowledge that some proportion of them is going to help sick people, the elderly, the homeless, or for schools which will offer opportunities to other young artists to get on the path of success which state funded schools and colleges helped me on to.

Having come from a very working class background myself I know what poverty and lack of opportunity look like and what they do to whole communities. If my taxes go towards developing effective programs which not only help those less fortunate than me keep the wolves at bay but also help them to get out of their situation then I can't see what is so damned wrong about that.

If my taxes also get used to pay a public servants wages then Christ alone knows why I should object to that either, I'm still doing well enough (and I live in high-tax Europe), and if the state is going to employ anyone then I'm glad my taxes are being recirculated in the economy by being spent by someone working in a socially responsible and socially accountable sector.

At least I (and the rest of society) can hold the state accountable for how it spends my (our) taxes, private companies are under no obligation whatsoever to care what I or anyone else thinks about how they use their profits.

Do we seriously want industries which have shown themselves corrupt and negligent, greedy and without conscience to be running government services when unlike politicians we have no leverage with them with which to hold them to account for their actions?

 

[dandelion]

I find i was brought up on the blood-spattered 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori', as an object lesson in the dangers of patriotism. Fighting and dying to defend your country at all cost may be appropriate when it is under threat of destruction,but we are far away from that now. The purpose of a state is to defend its people. That is why we grunts put up with dying in ditches or ploughing fields by manpower. We do not have to put up with this now. There are riches enough for everyone so long as some way can be devised to spread them around and get a fair amount of work done in return. It is not fair and never has been that certain individuals exploit good luck to become or stay rich. The state should be the servant of the people, not their master, and this means arranging matters for the greater good of the majority, not the minority. This means 'robin hood' taxes on the rich, who perhaps do need to think a little more about what they can uniquely do for their country. The complaint of the rich was taken up by Monty Python, whose robin hood sketch had him taking so much from the rich they became the poor. But it was a joke. It does not happen in real states.