The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[al Roumi]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

[Furunculus]

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?
Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

[Beskar]

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off)

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

[InsaneApache]

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing!

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

[Beskar]

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.



No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

This works only with services, i.e. Rail, Water, etc. (as you pointed out). However, the massive number of as-yet unidentified leaky pipes, and the only recently replaced (last five years or so) rail carriages show that the public sector in Britiain not only failed to provide value for money, it failed to upgrade with time and technology. When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I('m afraid.

[Beskar]

When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I'm afraid.

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link, I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

[Beskar]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

Thanks for reminding me. That is the sort of thing I meant with "That is not actually entirely true."

[InsaneApache]

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! .

Just to illustrate a point.

In fact councils are so determined to get their money from other councils that they pursue their cases all the way to the Parking Adjudicator.

But the craziest, stupidest example has to be an appeal by Islington Council (Case number 2070232277) heard by the Traffic Appeals Service between June and September 2007.

In this case Islington Council had not only issued a parking ticket to itself, but then pursued itself at the Parking Adjudicator and then asked for costs against itself! (The craziness doesn’t end there because to ask for costs the council must believe that it acted wholly unreasonably or vexatiously against itself!)

The decision of Mr. Adjudicator Gerald Styles on 13th September 2007 clearly points out that the council cannot sue itself but the fact that he clearly did not collapse laughing and managed to dictate his decision is a tribute to his professionalism.

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tic...s-release-001/

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....

[Beskar]

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....

Oh, they do it all the time. They are just not accountable for their actions, and the government ends up paying for it.

For example, that one where the banks kept asking themselves for a loan, and chased itself up on the loan and after years of finical neglect, cause a global-wide recession with governments all over the world having to bail them out.

[Furunculus]

Oh, they do it all the time. They are just not accountable for their actions, and the government ends up paying for it.

For example, that one where the banks kept asking themselves for a loan, and chased itself up on the loan and after years of finical neglect, cause a global-wide recession with governments all over the world having to bail them out.

wow, what parallel universe do you live in?

so this had nothing to do with central banks keeping interest rates too low for too long to keep the boom years rolling (read: bubble years expanding), at the same time as quango mega-banks like fannie & freddie were encouraged to get into social lending at the bottom of the property market (read: take non-commercially viable risks), in order that social engineering objectives could be met?

this of course not helped in britain by a tri-partite scheme of financial governance that failed the first time it was tested (thanks Gordon) that worked under the assumption that the timeless cycle of boom-and-bust was broken (thanks Gordon) and a regulatory regime that allowed banks to grow to the point where their failure would represent an existential threat to the economy of the country (thanks Gordon).

yeah, it was all the fault of nasty money grubbing capitalist scum! what utter bull [insert random smiley here]!

[al Roumi]

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

[Furunculus]

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

don't get your knickers in a twist, i already said i wasn't an extreme libertarian anarchist, and that i recognised a role for government.

[Myrddraal]

Is the conservative proposal to remove funding for teacher training for those with third class degrees or lower still in their manifesto?

For reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8464916.stm

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, it's official. The Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and the general election will be held on the 6th May.

[InsaneApache]

Well, it's official. The Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and the general election will be held on the 6th May.

You mean no-one is in charge! No more Great Leader! I feel a panic attack coming on.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.