The Labour Government

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Don't read either unfortunately.

I'll say again for the hard of thinking, there are obviously some very genuine cases of SEN, ND and mental health conditions out there that deserve all the help and support they need... but sadly they don't get that help because of the huge numbers of people who are gaming the system with nothing more than very mild examples of these conditions, that's if they even have them at all.

So you're saying that those ''gaming the system'' are able to get past their doctors and health professionals ... then past the DWP assessors ......

 

[west didsblue]

So you're saying that those ''gaming the system'' are able to get past their doctors and health professionals ... then past the DWP assessors ......

I suspect he has personal experience of gaming the system which explains his apparent knowledge.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Well my local river is still of human faeces and my PIP claiming neighbour has just had her third foreign holiday this year despite being too ill to work. So I'm afraid I ain't seeing these improvements.

I think that you are misunderstanding the purpose of Personal Independence Payments.... (PIP) . They are to make up the cost of someone who is ill and having to pay more because of that illness and those living a ''normal '' life. Its meant to allow them to live as close to a ''normal'' life as possible.... it doesn't stop them from going on holiday or going shopping ... its designed to allow them to do those things if its at all possible

 

[mosssideblue]

I think that you are misunderstanding the purpose of Personal Independence Payments.... (PIP) . They are to make up the cost of someone who is ill and having to pay more because of that illness and those living a ''normal '' life. Its meant to allow them to live as close to a ''normal'' life as possible.... it doesn't stop them from going on holiday or going shopping ... its designed to allow them to do those things if its at all possible

Nail on head mate, well said. I would add, it’s shit being disabled and also bloody expensive

 

[metalblue]

So why is UK private sector productivity so poor?

Loss of banking sector jobs, gas and oil investment, reduction in manufacturing roles, broadly speaking the higher paid jobs have shrunk in UK or capital intensive roles have diminished being replaced with labour intensive roles - the jobs tax (aka NI hike) makes matters worse.

Public sector productivity decline is significantly worse than private sector decline over the past 5 years or so - partly driven by stagnating wages (so people were promoted to compensate) but that has led to a huge increase of inward facing roles in the public sector - this will take years to fix but it’s perfectly possible to do through natural wastage (ie only hire to fill roles that are outwardly facing).

 

[metalblue]

Cheap labour abroad doesn’t affect UK productivity they are abroad if you mean people from aboard working for low wages in the UK there is minimum wages and they are being replaced by machines anyway as show in the earlier comments with the ordering machines

Cheap labour facilitates labour intensive roles which absolutely reduces UK productivity.

 

[BTH]

Cheap labour facilitates labour intensive roles which absolutely reduces UK productivity.

It didn't help when Thatcher sold everything off either to her mates or abroad. We've never recovered from it and never will do, yet the Tories have never taken responsibility for it.

 

[metalblue]

So you think these feckless workshy people living a cushy life milking a generous benefits system are somehow going to produce offspring that are highly motivated, hard working, high earning, net contributors to the tax take?

That's a really interesting preposition.

It flies in the face of all the evidence. We have been told for years that social mobility, particularly among the poorest in society, is piss poor.

 

[metalblue]

It didn't help when Thatcher sold everything off either to her mates or abroad. We've never recovered from it and never will do, yet the Tories have never taken responsibility for it.

You believe the government would do a better job of running BT or British Airways? Would the post office scandal have happened if it was a publicly owned company? I mean hillsborough and the blood scandal happened so who knows. Privatisation has had some successes and some failures - to think otherwise is plainly wrong.

 

[metalblue]

Don't read either unfortunately.

I'll say again for the hard of thinking, there are obviously some very genuine cases of SEN, ND and mental health conditions out there that deserve all the help and support they need... but sadly they don't get that help because of the huge numbers of people who are gaming the system with nothing more than very mild examples of these conditions, that's if they even have them at all.

They aren’t gaming the system, the system is broken. Benefits provided for SEND conditions isn’t means tested - I’ve posted before on here I know someone personally who works part time (midwife) has 2 kids diagnosed and the benefits calculator told her she could get £7,500 a month in benefits and pay (inc rent). That is not sustainable for the state - I’d rather see that money going to better support in school and other activities - both her kids, certainly neuro-diverse, but absolutely no reason why they will not lead productive lives in future. My sister on the other hand is mentally handicapped- can perform set tasks- leads a fulfilling life for her but not productive.

 

[Earlyriser]

I see Michael O'Leary that well known people's champion has waded in on the impending UK Budget. He states 'Rich people are fleeing… as they are trying to find low-fare flights to get the hell out of London before Rachel Reeves taxes their mansions, their income and inheritance.’ Clearly they are so rich they can only afford to fly Ryanair. Has he thought that one through?

 

[BTH]

You believe the government would do a better job of running BT or British Airways? Would the post office scandal have happened if it was a publicly owned company? I mean hillsborough and the blood scandal happened so who knows. Privatisation has had some successes and some failures - to think otherwise is plainly wrong.

Bizarrely, all three of the organisations you have mentioned have had widely reported massive problems over time, so yeah, I do!

Struggling to think of any privatisation successes TBH, but I'm sure you'll be able to furmish me with a lengthy list...

 

[metalblue]

Bizarrely, all three of the organisations you have mentioned have had widely reported massive problems over time, so yeah, I do!

Struggling to think of any privatisation successes TBH, but I'm sure you'll be able to furmish me with a lengthy list...

What problems have they had that are a consequence of being privatised? ie those problems would never have happened if they remained state owned?

You are (I suspect) ideologically opposed to privatisation- I have a more open mind to it. Let’s take BA for example (or Thomas Cook) what business does any government have owning an airline or travel agents? Similarly rolls Royce / leyland - what business does a government have owning a car / engine producer? On the flip side I do not believe leccy or water should be in private hands - although some sort of non profit setup might be ok. Then we have other privatisations that were botched (eg rail) and doomed to be a fuck up - but that doesn’t mean a privatised rail cannot work, after all our railway network started out being in private hands.

 

[BrianW]

Then we have other privatisations that were botched (eg rail) and doomed to be a fuck up - but that doesn’t mean a privatised rail cannot work, after all our railway network started out being in private hands.

It was a very different world back then.

First, there was no shortage of private capital willing to take risks. They did not expect the state to bear much of the risk and effectively guarantee profits.

Second, the railways had a near-monopoly of transport. They were up against canals, and to an extent, coastal shipping, but there was no road transport worth mentioning beyond local delivery and certainly no airlines.

Third, the most profitable railways were those with heavy coal and mineral traffic. That trade has virtually vanished.

We maintain a railway system mainly for social and economic reasons. It is subsidised, although not to the extent that is common in Europe. Without that subsidy, almost the whole passenger network would be bankrupt. There are limited freight trains that make enough profit for them to be viable (which is why they are privately operated) but they benefit from not bearing the whole of the infrastructure costs. Whether they would still be viable if passenger trains vanished is questionable,

 

[hampshireblue]

Bizarrely, all three of the organisations you have mentioned have had widely reported massive problems over time, so yeah, I do!

Struggling to think of any privatisation successes TBH, but I'm sure you'll be able to furmish me with a lengthy list...

All organisations have problems over time, often due to IT issues.

I worked for a company that went from Public to private ownership. Some teething problems at the start, but ultimately it has been a "success" although when it has a rare bad day it is widely reported and chastised.

A pragmatic union/management relationship has got it where it is and a 98% union membership rate has helped significantly when needed. Not a day lost to industrial action since privatisation in 2002.

 

[metalblue]

It was a very different world back then.

First, there was no shortage of private capital willing to take risks. They did not expect the state to bear much of the risk and effectively guarantee profits.

Second, the railways had a near-monopoly of transport. They were up against canals, and to an extent, coastal shipping, but there was no road transport worth mentioning beyond local delivery and certainly no airlines.

Third, the most profitable railways were those with heavy coal and mineral traffic. That trade has virtually vanished.

We maintain a railway system mainly for social and economic reasons. It is subsidised, although not to the extent that is common in Europe. Without that subsidy, almost the whole passenger network would be bankrupt. There are limited freight trains that make enough profit for them to be viable (which is why they are privately operated) but they benefit from not bearing the whole of the infrastructure costs. Whether they would still be viable if passenger trains vanished is questionable,

All really good points as to why rail shouldn’t be privatised. It’s not something I immediately think of as a candidate for privatisation but then NationalExpress was privatised so I’m a little undecided, for sure the toris were privatisation mad at the time and were selling anything that wasn’t bolted down, rail was poorly done - I do agree on the social aspect of rail but honestly they need to sort the fares out to meet that purpose because they are ridiculous!!! I suppose ideally you’d want a joined up rail and bus network which I presume was the logic behind the privatisation approach in the first place.

 

[SamTheGuru]

since privatisation in 2022.

:)

 

[BTH]

What problems have they had that are a consequence of being privatised? ie those problems would never have happened if they remained state owned?

You are (I suspect) ideologically opposed to privatisation- I have a more open mind to it. Let’s take BA for example (or Thomas Cook) what business does any government have owning an airline or travel agents? Similarly rolls Royce / leyland - what business does a government have owning a car / engine producer? On the flip side I do not believe leccy or water should be in private hands - although some sort of non profit setup might be ok. Then we have other privatisations that were botched (eg rail) and doomed to be a fuck up - but that doesn’t mean a privatised rail cannot work, after all our railway network started out being in private hands.

You are correct. I am absolutely ideologically opposed to privatisation.

What's more surprising is that you think concentrating the power and might of formerly nationally owned companies into the hands of a small group of people is a good idea, especially given that the government has to bail these companies out when it inevitably goes pear-shaped!

You'll find that most "first world" nations have flag carrying airlines. We are no different; call it soft power if you like.

Rolls Royce is owned by BMW these days but it makes some sense for any government to have a hand in an important military hardware supplier.

 

[Vic]

Loss of banking sector jobs, gas and oil investment, reduction in manufacturing roles, broadly speaking the higher paid jobs have shrunk in UK or capital intensive roles have diminished being replaced with labour intensive roles - the jobs tax (aka NI hike) makes matters worse.

Public sector productivity decline is significantly worse than private sector decline over the past 5 years or so - partly driven by stagnating wages (so people were promoted to compensate) but that has led to a huge increase of inward facing roles in the public sector - this will take years to fix but it’s perfectly possible to do through natural wastage (ie only hire to fill roles that are outwardly facing).

I've no idea what evidence you have for any of that. Who on earth is replacing capital intensive jobs with labour intensive jobs?

 

[WRicko]

Cheap labour facilitates labour intensive roles which absolutely reduces UK productivity.

Read the point again