Printable View
The banks were bought using public money. They weren't soft loans - they bought new shares. They weren't free - they charged for insurance that cost billions that looks like won't be required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Which businesses expect these bail outs? Oh yes - we had loads of those in the 1970's under... oh yes, Labour.
~:smoking:
Of course they are partisan, they have been part and parcel of the whole Labour movement from the start. Not that I don't agree with you on their attitude to any form of cuts though but they wouldn't be serving their membership if they didn't fight such things, it's just a shame that people in general think on a short term small scale basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Because most public sector workers are providing the basic universal services that make up the "safety net" for everyone, they define the bare minimum you can expect to recieve, any reduction or loss in those services not only affects the poor who have no choice in the matter but also any wealthier people who find themselves force to use them due to unforseen circumstances.Quote:
Why should the people in the public sector get preferential treatment over those in the private sector just because their pay check comes from the tax payer?
Lots of private sector stuff is superflous, it's great to have but it's not absolutely necessary, the icing on the cake if you will.
Cobblers.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
A small percentage of what the Civil service does is absolutely necessary. A lot of it is bloat over the years.
The private sector provides firstly all the materials that the Public service requires - from the equipment and drugs in hospitals to the arms, munitions and kit for the army, equipment for the police and so on. Most infrastructure from the railways to power, water gas is private.
~:smoking:
NHS, Police, Emergency Services, Military, Social Services, Rail, Roads, numerous regulatory bodies and practically the entire education system to name just a few. These are vital major services that make up the majority of the public sector, not a "small percentage"Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
NHS has a vast army of backroom staff which are NOT required. They create paper that gets passed around, often so poorly that another army of staff is required to question the numbers and send them back to the first ones. Not to mention the DoH
Ditto police
Social Services? Don't make me laugh. Vast amounts of waste. Proceedures has long ago overtaken results - as altering results is almost impossible.
Military. Hmm. That there are almost as many civilians in the DoD as in the Army leads me to believe there is some bloat. 20,000 in equipment purchase for the army...
Education system. Forms required to be filled in from children from the age of 2 years old. Exams every year or so (with a vast army of markers etc). Educational consultant... of how the lost goes on.
Rail? Mostly private
And you call this "vital"?
~:smoking:
Are you actually saying that education, law, health, defence and social services are not? Because if you are, god knows what you think is vital:dizzy2:
Oh don't go down the route of that old Murdoch/Tory myth that the public sector is rife with waste and can run perfectly fine on a shoestring budget.
There is definitely plenty of waste that can be eliminated from the public sector. From talks with my some of my friends who work there it always comes down to one universal complaint: too many managers (one I know who works in town planning is the only guy assigned to his manager!). In the end though the waste isn't as significant as the likes of the Tories would have us believe, they just spew hyperbole so they can justify privatising everything which despite all previous evidence, they claim will improve things.
Other teachers usually mark exams btw, so no extra waste there. Also Railtrack looks after the Rail system and while technically a quasi-private company, is wholly own by the government so they are as good as in public sector these days.
I've worked in the NHS for several years and there is a significant amount of waste. So much, in fact, that it's often difficult to get anything done as there is so much bureaucracy.
If teachers are marking, they're doing nothing else. If nurses are holding daily breach meetings for a couple of hours they aren't doing anything else (patients breach for loads of reasons. I've never seen one idea come off these daily meetings). Managers on call throughout the night for no apparent reason cost a lot of money. Cost lists from the PCT that are so full of errors they're not usable and staff are employed to sort out the work by other staff... Managers in the NHS outstrip clinical staff rises year on year - and that is merely numbers, not the salaries. And on it goes.
The waste is a lot greater than your apparent estimation. I don't think that privatising everything is the panacea to all the problems.
~:smoking:
I like how the government is sacking all the firefighters and forcing them to sign new contracts completely changing the terms and conditions and working hours. Blackmailing them to either accept these new contracts or forcing them to strike. It is these backroom gunpoint situations is causing problems across the country.
On another note:
Privatization always causes more problems than solves them. I really don't get why people actively promote it, because all that happens is that all the low-profit and non-profit areas all get the chop, depriving significant amounts of people of their essentials while they maximize on the profit-runs and milk them dry of money. This gets even worse when it involves "contracting out" of public services, as they all have a bidding war for this contract, to provide substandard services and what the councils do, is pass on the accountability to these service providers, to misdirect the public. It is basic economics, how is it cheaper to pay for a middle man to do something for you, who would want a significant amount of the cash themselves, to hire the employees and get the equipment on your behalf than how tt would be to go direct yourself? It is mind boggling.
It boils down to what I said during that, accountability. Government is far more accountable then the private sector. If a government doesn't do a job right, the population deals with this, by moving their vote some where else. This is different with 'contracting out' as the public don't have a say in the matter, which just causes people to moan and direct their anger at the companies who do not care as they are getting an easy buck. Then with private sector of key infrastructure, the same happens again, people have to use these services, they cannot just chose not to simply not use them because it would significantly hamper their lifestyles. The private sector loves these areas as they just grab consumers where it hurts.
OK I'll bite. In a previous life I worked in local government. Since that time I've run my own businesses. When I was an officer in local government everything we did, memos, requisitions, holiday requests etc. was done in quadruplicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
It took months or years to get anything constructive done. In fact most of the time we were busy doing 'reorganizations'. Usually within 18 months of the last one.
Talking of waste, here's one for you.
In 1973/4 all local government was reorganized. (sound familiar?) At that time it was decided that the city council would no longer require the services of it in house architects.
Scroll on 18 years.
An external audit was commissioned by the city council as a way of finding savings. Guess what? They found an architect team ensconced in city hall. Seventeen of them. Not one of them had any work to do for nearly two decades. Mind you they were pretty sharp at crosswords. :book:
Wow! that's a doozy right there, 18 years of employment in a redundant role and no one noticed! What scares me is that if they took the best part of two decades to notice something as big as that, there will be plenty more they didn't get.:no:
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Do the Co-op model with it being a mutual. Yes, the private sector has its issues, but it's choosing the lesser of two evils:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
When patients were discharged from hispital a list of illnesses was compiled on a discharge summary to the GP, also supposedly to assess cost of the admission. As it was a clinical document, most of the detail wasn't put on it by the clinicians as the GP knows the chronic history. To make things worse, the document was done in quadruplicate (a popular trend) so was almost illegible by the time it came to work out the cost of the admission (yes, it was done in pen - computers? What are they?)
So, vast waste.
~:smoking:
as someone who loathes murdoch i'm sorry to tell you that i do believe we are wasting too much private money on poorly run and superfluos public services.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
there is plenty of evidence that spending more than forty percent of GDP on public spending is damaging to long term growth, there has in fact been a recent report that claimed that anything above 35% has the same effect.
if i was going to be ideological about this i would say that it should be the aspiration of every british government to reduce public spending to one third of GDP, but i could simplify that by declaring the band between 35% and 40% as moral activity and anything outside of that immoral activity.
While I agree that the current public service model is inadequate, especially with copying the trends of the private sector by bringing in a hundred and one managers. If I was at the reins of power, I would completely change how the system is run. For a start, I would make the system accountable, so if people do a rubbish job, they get sacked. I would change the structure and hierarchy which would significantly reduce the number of pen-pushers and the heads of departments are democratically accountable to the public, so it is lead by people who want to do the job and have the support of the local communities.
Fundamentally, public service should be superior bang-for-buck than the private sector. As Rory said, the private sector is currently lesser than the two evils, and that is a very bad thing, due to the amount of horse manure which defines the standard they set. There needs to be a serious change, and not only in the civil service, but in government itself.
As for Furunculus's point about the GDP, only thing we would most likely disagree on is the fixed number side of things. The amount of GDP spent by the government doesn't fundamentally hinder growth, as it does the opposite in a lot of cases, such as heavy subs into high-tech research and development. I know Furunculus is also in favour of wise-decisions such as this like myself. Another thing is the definitions, in America, the Healthcare system is classified as "Major Growth Economy", over in the UK, where it is government ran, it is classified as a "Major Waste of the Economy". Just because the fact the government runs it, fundamentally makes it bad, even though it does a far better service than the American counterpart, at a lot lower cost-ratio. It actually costs the British citizen far less to have the NHS than an American counterpart, in terms of quality of care for everyone. This is where me and Furunculus start disagreeing as we see things in a different light. As because of the NHS example, because of the higher standards at a cheaper cost, I would argue that consumers have far more money to spend in the economy, and that workers are generally far more healthier, thus providing superior economical output.
I understand Furunculus's point, he is basically wanting the tax money to be used wisely, in order to promote growth and for the country to get better. While I don't set an arbitrary standard like he does, lets say, only 33% of GDP as taxes, we both want the same end goal. Just different ways and thinking behind attempting to reach it. Also, this is why I like arguing with Furunculus in many ways, as we simply want similar end goals and I feel I can understand his points because of that.
Apparently it looks like David Milliband could announce his retirement from front-line politics. With it, Labour loses its best chance at re-election and looses a key voice from the "reasonable" Labour camp which includes Darling, Straw and others. Instead, we're left with Ed Milliband and Ed Balls. Two people who try and distance themselves from New Labour despite being key allies of Brown and both being "deficit deniers".
It's amazing that Labour really doesn't get it still.
Tax burden in Sweden has been above 40% since 1974... The UK? Never.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Not so. "...But during the 1973 reform, the very top rate of income tax on earnings was left at 75 per cent. In 1974, the top rate on earnings was actually increased, to 83 per cent."
Oh, and on unearned income the tax rate was at its peak 98%. Good old Labour.
~:smoking:
one begs to differ:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...total&state=UK
Long term growth is all well and good, Furunculus, but that doesn't exactly buy you lunch (now). Which is why developing countries tend to spend the money injected into them from 3rd parties by and large (if it doesn't disappear into corruption) in Quality of Life, i.e. health care, schools, infrastructure. Rather than a national bank to light a fire under the national economy.
And that is not necessarily a bad or irresponsible thing. Health care, schools, sanitation etc. lie a foundation for a modern economy which certainly may be more expensive to fund collectively than if any individual were to pay for herself privately; but you do amortize these costs. This results in a situation where this inflated but amortized cost per person is relatively affordable for a larger number of people compared to a few individuals paying for what they need by themselves. It also creates a few extra jobs in the process. :shrug:
sorry, i must have missed the part where we became a developiing country, in fact, i was pretty much sure that we were the archtype of a developed country!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
where does this fit into that?
Tax burden of the total GDP. Not taxes on rich people, nor GDP spending (since you can overspend, which usually is stupid). If i get the diagram on page 6 correctly, it's about 80% of total income.
Linky, English version got less info unfortunatly
Anyway, my point being that all Nordic countries have higher taxes and higher GDP spending than the UK, yet aren't exactly suffering.