The Labour Government

[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

 

[WRicko]

And you have?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure if you have, your grammar is so poor most of your posts are borderline incomprehensible, so perhaps you are actually making the most salient, valid and reasoned points in this whole thread, I suppose we'll never know.

You just speculate that some unknown people, in some unknown position, in some public services somewhere, are lazy useless idiots. Ye you know nothing about them. I am sure Nigel can defiantly fix it tho ! He will probably magically personally monitor all civil servants, teachers, policeman and sack the lazy idiots !

 

[WestGorton]

Al last we have adults in charge, who will mistakes, but thankfully don't have sex with sheeps heads in the dorm.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Al last we have adults in charge, who will mistakes, but thankfully don't have sex with sheeps heads in the dorm.

Different, but will go with that.

 

[WRicko]

Well a huge proportion of immigrants in the UK aren't even receiving minimum wage, working in the grey/gig economy they'll be getting well below minimum wage in reality.

Those ordering machines are a rare example of a corporation bothering to invest in technological innovation to improve productivity though, for the most part they just stick with the easier option of exploiting cheap migrant labour.

As I've previously said, comparing "productivity" between different countries is as utterly pointless and meaningless as comparing official GDP figures between different countries.

America has huge illegal population yet is very productive. We have a smaller grey economy than developing nations and places like Greece and Italy. Illegal workers won’t be working for any of the major companies. We have more supermarkets rather than sole traders for example than places like France and more self check out etc and we have a large services sector which is basically all computer based and soon AI.

Think it’s more about short term profit / dividends rather than investing in capital rather than anything to do with poor workers or illegals

 

[WRicko]

The difference is any business owner in the private sector who has a highly inefficient and wasteful operation with a lazy, intransigent and entitled workforce providing an abysmal level of service for thier paying customers is only wasting their own money... money which I suspect will soon run out.

It doesn't quite work like that in terms of the public sector does it, the public sector can be as inefficient, inept, intransigent, workshy and entitled as it likes... yet the money still rolls right in.

I would say most utilities and banks provide rubbish services. Doesn’t stop the money rolling in.

The specific company I am thinking of that I worked for kept expanding.

I network with other business owners and a lot of it’s a jolly.

How many zooms do people have that could be half as long ?

How many private companies have team bonding days or early finish on Fridays etc.

Sometime there is more to work than just work and productive and sometimes it has other benefits that can result in more productivity like keeping staff

Give me examples from the public sector ?

What about the unpaid overtime work the police, teachers, NHS staff do

 

[Kompany Car]

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.

Just a point Rolls Royce Motor Cars is owned by BMW. Rolls Royce plc who make jet engines, nuclear systems and defence products is not.