Keir Starmer

[metalblue]

I'm not advocating no government. Just small government please. Privatize what would benefit from privatization, and if it would not then sure let the state run it. But my list of the latter is rather shorter than Starmer's (or god forbid, Rayner's).

Off the top of my head, I would like the state to:

• Keep us safe, domestically and from international threats
• Heal us when sick
• Educate our kids
• Look after the poor and those unable to care for themselves
• Look after us in our old age
• Provide an environment for business to thrive

Is there anything I've forgotten in there?

Protect consumers.

Aka regulation.

Aka there goes your small state.

When I sat my Futures and Options representative exam a few moons ago compliance was fairly straightforward- don’t rip off your customers. Then compliance became a beast that constantly needed feeding to justify its own existence- new rules and regulations, increasing reporting and so on and so forth. Didn’t stop the financial crisis did it? No, so the answer was to do more and more of it. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different outcomes.

Some (many) regulations and regulators are vital and consumers and customers should always be protected but for some reason after a while regulators feel they need to protect customers from themselves and their own stupidity.

Basically there should be one rule in business, “don’t be a ****” oh and pay your taxes … two rules then. Oh and don’t rip customers off. Three rules then. I’m getting as bad as a regulator keep creating new rules ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

What a load of free market fundamentalist bollocks.

Show me a list of the successful far left socialist economies over the past 120 years and you might have a point.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

 

[hilts]

I'm not advocating no government. Just small government please. Privatize what would benefit from privatization, and if it would not then sure let the state run it. But my list of the latter is rather shorter than Starmer's (or god forbid, Rayner's).

Off the top of my head, I would like the state to:

• Keep us safe, domestically and from international threats
• Heal us when sick
• Educate our kids
• Look after the poor and those unable to care for themselves
• Look after us in our old age
• Provide an environment for business to thrive

Is there anything I've forgotten in there?

Broad strokes, you would have to be more specific in what you wouldn't have the state do that they currently do or you believe a more socialist govt would like to do.

 

[mancityvstoke]

He didn’t quite say that, he said about getting people back into the workplace where they can and increasing the support network to help those that could. There will always be some that can’t.

They have been saying this about the sick for as long as I can remember.....nothing changes. Just more easy targets who they can never really help properly.

Well actually some things did change.

Remploy factories closed and rehab centres, like the one at Windmill Lane, closed. Disgraceful.

Training Unemployed Adults: Lessons from TOPS

By Iain MacKinnon, Managing Director, The Mackinnon Partnership

campaign-for-learning.org.uk

Remploy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[hilts]

Show me a list of the successful far left socialist economies over the past 120 years and you might have a point.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

You've thrown in far left as a deflection tactic. If you asked which countries had more social responsibility at their core and were more successful(define) you would get a fair few answers I would have thought.

I would say over the years the UK have created enough money through business and GDP but the distribution to the people and how it is spent has been poor.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Broad strokes, you would have to be more specific in what you wouldn't have the state do that they currently do or you believe a more socialist govt would like to do.

To be specific, I'd have to give it a lot more thought to craft my reply and it would inevitably be a long post that is too boring to read.

So I will answer more generally, but with specific examples. I am passionately of the belief that competition is the key to continual improvement. Whether that "improvement" means lower cost, increased output, better quality, improved features - whatever - that can vary. Sometimes it's all of the above, but competition drives organizations to be "better", or else they lose out to their competitors.

How this manifests itself is people, and organizations, working harder. Now of course we are talking generalizations here, and there are millions of people in the public sector who work incredibly hard. But as a general rule, there are behaviours I see in the private sector that I do not see in the public sector. I see Tesco being open 7 dayas a week and in some cases, 24 hours, as just one example. Is it more cost effective for them to shut? Yes it is. Is it better for the customer for them to stay open? Yes it is. Would it be convenient if you to contact your local council about a failed bin collection, when you got home from work at 19:30? Yes, it might be. Are they open? No, they have fucked off home, because it doesn't matter to them whether you have great service or not. They don't really care. No "sale" is lost, no-one gets fired, mediocre is just fine.

As a rule, I don't see the drive for improvement in the public sector. (Note, as a rule) I don't see people working until 02:00 to get an important document finished, like sales reps in my industry sometimes may have to do to get a proposal out. Instead I see a lot of fat, dumb and happy. Content with the status quo, happy to be closed on Wednesday afternoons, happy to deliver a poor service.

Clearly, privatization where there is no competition does not solve this. We see this with the trains, where the train companies have the same sloppy attitude. Trains running 10 minutes late is perfectly fine, because the customer can do fuck all about it.

So I'd like the private sector to run everything (within limits - I don't want them running the police force, for example) where we can introduce competition, to improve quality, improve service and do so more cost effectively. I don't see those objectives being achieved very often in the public sector.

Now, of course the lefties on here who have their opposed doctrines that the state should run everything from trains to manufacturing of tea bags, will disagree. I am fine with them being mistake in their beliefs.

 

[mancityvstoke]

To be specific, I'd have to give it a lot more thought to craft my reply and it would inevitably be a long post that is too boring to read.

So I will answer more generally, but with specific examples. I am passionately of the belief that competition is the key to continual improvement. Whether that "improvement" means lower cost, increased output, better quality, improved features - whatever - that can vary. Sometimes it's all of the above, but competition drives organizations to be "better", or else they lose out to their competitors.

How this manifests itself is people, and organizations, working harder. Now of course we are talking generalizations here, and there are millions of people in the public sector who work incredibly hard. But as a general rule, there are behaviours I see in the private sector that I do not see in the public sector. I see Tesco being open 7 dayas a week and in some cases, 24 hours, as just one example. Is it more cost effective for them to shut? Yes it is. Is it better for the customer for them to stay open? Yes it is. Would it be convenient if you to contact your local council about a failed bin collection, when you got home from work at 19:30? Yes, it might be. Are they open? No, they have fucked off home, because it doesn't matter to them whether you have great service or not. They don't really care. No "sale" is lost, no-one gets fired, mediocre is just fine.

As a rule, I don't see the drive for improvement in the public sector. (Note, as a rule) I don't see people working until 02:00 to get an important document finished, like sales reps in my industry sometimes may have to do to get a proposal out. Instead I see a lot of fat, dumb and happy. Content with the status quo, happy to be closed on Wednesday afternoons, happy to deliver a poor service.

Clearly, privatization where there is no competition does not solve this. We see this with the trains, where the train companies have the same sloppy attitude. Trains running 10 minutes late is perfectly fine, because the customer can do fuck all about it.

So I'd like the private sector to run everything (within limits - I don't want them running the police force, for example) where we can introduce competition, to improve quality, improve service and do so more cost effectively. I don't see those objectives being achieved very often in the public sector.

Now, of course the lefties on here who have their opposed doctrines that the state should run everything from trains to manufacturing of tea bags, will disagree. I am fine with them being mistake in their beliefs.

Privatisation of public utilities has been a disaster.

 

[hilts]

To be specific, I'd have to give it a lot more thought to craft my reply and it would inevitably be a long post that is too boring to read.

So I will answer more generally, but with specific examples. I am passionately of the belief that competition is the key to continual improvement. Whether that "improvement" means lower cost, increased output, better quality, improved features - whatever - that can vary. Sometimes it's all of the above, but competition drives organizations to be "better", or else they lose out to their competitors.

How this manifests itself is people, and organizations, working harder. Now of course we are talking generalizations here, and there are millions of people in the public sector who work incredibly hard. But as a general rule, there are behaviours I see in the private sector that I do not see in the public sector. I see Tesco being open 7 dayas a week and in some cases, 24 hours, as just one example. Is it more cost effective for them to shut? Yes it is. Is it better for the customer for them to stay open? Yes it is. Would it be convenient if you to contact your local council about a failed bin collection, when you got home from work at 19:30? Yes, it might be. Are they open? No, they have fucked off home, because it doesn't matter to them whether you have great service or not. They don't really care. No "sale" is lost, no-one gets fired, mediocre is just fine.

As a rule, I don't see the drive for improvement in the public sector. (Note, as a rule) I don't see people working until 02:00 to get an important document finished, like sales reps in my industry sometimes may have to do to get a proposal out. Instead I see a lot of fat, dumb and happy. Content with the status quo, happy to be closed on Wednesday afternoons, happy to deliver a poor service.

Clearly, privatization where there is no competition does not solve this. We see this with the trains, where the train companies have the same sloppy attitude. Trains running 10 minutes late is perfectly fine, because the customer can do fuck all about it.

So I'd like the private sector to run everything (within limits - I don't want them running the police force, for example) where we can introduce competition, to improve quality, improve service and do so more cost effectively. I don't see those objectives being achieved very often in the public sector.

Now, of course the lefties on here who have their opposed doctrines that the state should run everything from trains to manufacturing of tea bags, will disagree. I am fine with them being mistake in their beliefs.

So you want to flog people to death or employ even more people over a bin?

This is what I meant by success and its definition.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Privatisation of public utilities has been a disaster.

Easy words, but in what way specifically? Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of privatization of everything, and e.g. water companies is a big problem because you can hardly switch water providers. When you have to rely upon a regulator, it's probably not a great start.

But comparing for example, electricity supply pre and post privatization, in what way is it "a disaster" now compared to how it was before?

I remember when it took 6 weeks minimum to get a new phone line connected by the GPO. How wonderful was that? It was fucking awful. Now, the service is miles better.

My local GP surgery is shut on a saturday and shut on a sunday. Good luck if you are ill at the weekend. What sort of "service" is that. And when Jeremy Hunt tried to change it, they all threatened to strike. M&S cannot shut on a Saturday or Sunday, can it. My local garage - a little independent with like 3 mechanics, manages to be open on Saturday, so why can't my GP surgery? It's because they don't give a toss. They get paid whether they open or not, so they'd rather play golf. Wouldn't we all.

So you want to flog people to death or employ even more people over a bin?

This is what I meant by success and its definition.

It's dangerous to get too hung up on specifics. I tried to answer as a generality and give an example that's all. In that specific example, it might be great if the council arranged a rota system so they could provide extended hours of cover, so the public could access services and more convenient times, perhaps?

 

[hilts]

Easy words, but in what way specifically? Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of privatization of everything, and e.g. water companies is a big problem because you can hardly switch water providers. When you have to rely upon a regulator, it's probably not a great start.

But comparing for example, electricity supply pre and post privatization, in what way is it "a disaster" now compared to how it was before?

I remember when it took 6 weeks minimum to get a new phone line connected by the GPO. How wonderful was that? It was fucking awful. Now, the service is miles better.



It's dangerous to get too hung up on specifics. I tried to answer as a generality and give an example that's all. In that specific example, it might be great if the council arranged a rota system so they could provide extended hours of cover, so the public could access services and more convenient times, perhaps?

There was a time when working late, or at a weekend would have been classed as unsocial. God forbid people wanting to see their kids.

Phoning up some poor sod up at night when the footy is about to start over a sodding bin or even in the private sector missing an anniversary over a loaf of bread at 2am is not progress.

Society has declared that we are now a 24/7 working environment.

Really I'm part of society no one asked me? Who was it?

Mainly people who work Mon to Fri.

Boss " can you work Saturday Hilts"

"Nah mate I have a life"

" we are desperate"

"You do it then"

"It's not my job"

"It's not mine either on a Saturday or after 40yrs, ttfn"


God my employees are so lazy, why won't they work more so I don't have to.