INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

2015 UK General Election

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#701 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » May 11th, 2015, 6:50 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

I'm not sure that socialism comes into it. Take Karl Popper, for instance. Hardly a socialist; a friend of Hayek and of Mises and a founding member of the Mont Pélerin Society, which was dedicated to the ideas of classical liberalism.

https://www.montpelerin.org/montpelerin/mpsAbout.html


Here is what he had to say in The Open Society and its Enemies:
"I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. Both the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians and Kant's principle, "Promote other people's happiness...", seem to me (at least in their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point, which is, however, not one for rational argument....In my opinion...human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway."
And elsewhere:
Popper thus calls for a public policy that aims at reducing and, hopefully, eliminating such readily identifiable and universally agreed upon sources of suffering as “poverty, unemployment, national oppression, war, and disease” (Conjectures and Refutations, 361).


Of course, there's plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutes suffering. But that's a story for another day...
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#702 Post by Altfish » May 11th, 2015, 7:51 pm

Some possible good news, no mention of Pickles or Warsi in new cabinet - or have I missed them?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#703 Post by Dave B » May 11th, 2015, 8:13 pm

Seems most news sources think Picklesvis out. However I have a memory of a "watch this space" type comment.

Let's hope the fat onion is well and truly jarred!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#704 Post by Nick » May 11th, 2015, 8:46 pm

Altfish wrote:Some possible good news, no mention of Pickles or Warsi in new cabinet - or have I missed them?
Er... Pickles is somewhat difficult to miss....! :wink:

But I'm inclined to agree- we wouldn't miss either of them very much. I don't think Warsi will be appointed; she did resign, after all. But Pickles may yet be. We'll see.

Ron Webb
Posts: 289
Joined: May 9th, 2009, 11:21 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#705 Post by Ron Webb » May 11th, 2015, 8:49 pm

Nick wrote:
Dave B wrote:
Nick wrote:The NHS should be run for the benefits of patients, not just those who work in it.
I'd join you in the frame shop, Alan, if Nick would add, "or those who just want to profit from it."
In one half sentence, Dave, you have encapsulated the problem. You think that it matters more that the word "profit" is banished from health-care, rather than that services are improved.
I think we all agree that service to the patients is the top priority.

Here is how Dave B. amended your sentence: "The NHS should be run for the benefits of patients, not just those who work in it, or those who just want to profit from it." I'm not sure how you could object to that, Nick. Would you support the converse, that "the NHS should be run for the benefit of those who work in it or profit from it, and not the patients"?
Ever[y] doctor and nurse "profits" from the NHS.
There is a difference between wages and profits, as I think you know.
And do you really think that bandage manufacturers should be nationalised, or barred from making profits?
Of course not. Bandages are commodities, and most people can decide for themselves whether they need one. I don't see any serious risk of profit-seeking doctors over-prescribing them.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#706 Post by Altfish » May 11th, 2015, 8:50 pm

Altfish wrote:Some possible good news, no mention of Pickles or Warsi in new cabinet - or have I missed them?
Shapps seems to have gone too.

All the comedy ministers are being sacked.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#707 Post by Altfish » May 11th, 2015, 8:51 pm

Oops double post

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#708 Post by Nick » May 11th, 2015, 9:01 pm

Altfish wrote:
Altfish wrote:Some possible good news, no mention of Pickles or Warsi in new cabinet - or have I missed them?
Shapps seems to have gone too.

All the comedy ministers are being sacked.
Shapps has been moved to Overseas Development, not sacked.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#709 Post by Dave B » May 11th, 2015, 9:10 pm

Thanks, Ron, you made my point for me.

Nick, stir your memory, I have said several times that I do not care who provides my healthcare providibg:

1. It offers at least the same level and standard of service.
2. It employs staff at least as competent as NHS staff.
3. It pays that staff at least comparative salaries and offers comoarative conditions.
4. It costs the tax payer no more than the NHS.

Any private company that can achieve that can compete directly with the NHS on a level playing field. Exactly the same service for £1 more in terms of profit is unacceptable to me. A"service" such as this should not run on the profit motive - just look at America!

But, we will probably still be saying this in 10 years and you, Nick, will probably still be promoting the privatisation because is more efficient. Just like the examples we have had of privatised services in tbe last couple of years?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#710 Post by Altfish » May 11th, 2015, 9:11 pm

Nick wrote:
Altfish wrote:
Altfish wrote:Some possible good news, no mention of Pickles or Warsi in new cabinet - or have I missed them?
Shapps seems to have gone too.

All the comedy ministers are being sacked.
Shapps has been moved to Overseas Development, not sacked.
Surely that's a demotion at best

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#711 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2015, 9:37 pm

Some wag on Twitter:
I have high hopes for Grant Shapps as new Minister of State for International Development. Who better to help the 3rd World get rich quick?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#712 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2015, 9:43 pm

11 reasons the poor are worried that Iain Duncan Smith is back in charge of benefits cuts
David Cameron has reappointed Iain Duncan Smith as Work and Pensions Secretary, meaning he will be in charge of making the huge benefit cuts the Conservatives pledged in their manifesto.

The man who presided over the 'bedroom tax' and the £26,000 benefits cap now has to find a further £12 billion in welfare savings.

The pledge - which will hit the working age poor - was one of the most controversial parts of the Conservative manifesto.

But during the campaign they only said where £2 billion of these savings would come from. With a further £10 billion to find, here are eleven reasons people are worried about Mr Duncan Smith returning to the Department for Work and Pensions.

1. Lowering the benefits cap further

Mr Duncan Smith will lower the annual benefits cap further – reducing it from £26,000 to £23,000-a-year.

2. Scrapping housing benefit for youngsters

Those under the age of 21 who are claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance will be barred from claiming housing benefit.

3. Even civil servants are warning of 'extremely controversial cuts'

Secret papers leaked to the Guardian last week revealed a list of potential cuts the DWP could target in order to make savings. The document warned that the new £120 billion a-year legal cap on welfare spending could lead to "very, highly or extremely controversial" cuts to benefits.

4. Increasing the 'bedroom tax'

The plans leaked in the memo suggested savings could be found by increasing the bedroom tax by applying it to other categories of renters other than just social housing tenants.

The plans also outline proposals to abolish statutory maternity pay. Alternative proposals suggest getting employers to contribute more to the cost of statutory pay.

6. Disabled people could also be hit

Other leaked documents - uncovered by the BBC in March - revealed DWP plans to make savings by cutting disability benefits. The Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payments and Attendance Allowance would no longer be tax free if these plans took affect.

7. And carers could be targeted too

The same leaked memo suggested the Carer's Allowance could also be hit by restricting those eligible for Universal Credit, which would lead to 40 per cent of claimants losing out.

8. IDS wants to rename zero-hours contracts 'flexible hours contracts'

Dismissing Labour's pledge to crackdown on zero-hours contracts, the Work and Pensions Secretary said they were good for workers' "work-life balance" and should be renamed as "flexible-hours contracts".

9. Cuts to the Access to Work fund

The Department for Work and Pensions has already cut a scheme that helps disabled people into work.

A package of reforms announced in March included a cap on how much the £108m Access to Work fund can pay to individuals who use it – an annual maximum per person of one and a half times the UK average salary.

The last government said the limit was needed so that the finite fund could be used to help a larger number of people. But critics say the cap, which comes into effect in October, will mean talented people with serious disabilities simply won’t be able to work.

The Access to Work fund helps people and employers cover costs of disabilities that might be a barrier to work. The biggest single users of the fund are people who have difficulty seeing and people who have difficulty hearing.

10. Further reliance on food banks

The Trussell Trust charity has estimated that the number of people reliant on emergency food handed out at food banks had increased by nearly a million people under David Cameron's premiership.

But another reason why people should be worried of Mr Duncan Smith's return to DWP is the charity's calculation that nearly half of all those referred to their local food bank between April and September last year were due to failures in the welfare system - including the stricter benefit sanctions introduced since 2010.

With even further cuts to welfare ahead, there are fears that the dependency on food banks will see a further rise.

11. The Lib Dems are not there to block his plans

Danny Alexander, the former Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, leaked a memo to the press a week before the election revealing a ‘secret’ plan by Mr Duncan Smith to make swingeing cuts to child benefits and child tax credits to slice £8 billion from the welfare budget.
He claimed he and Nick Clegg blocked the plans from going ahead, but with the Lib Dems banished from Government, who will be there to prevent such brutal cuts this time around?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#713 Post by Nick » May 11th, 2015, 9:48 pm

Ron Webb wrote:I think we all agree that service to the patients is the top priority.
:thumbsup: So, where that is the case, then profits are irrelevant, aren't they? If the best solution also generates "profits", that does not mean that the absence of profits will improve it.
Here is how Dave B. amended your sentence: "The NHS should be run for the benefits of patients, not just those who work in it, or those who just want to profit from it." I'm not sure how you could object to that, Nick. Would you support the converse, that "the NHS should be run for the benefit of those who work in it or profit from it, and not the patients"?
Those who profit by it, by definition, work in it. It is the insistence of a distinction between earnings and so-called "profits" which is the problem. The success of the NHS should be based on outcomes and value for money, not on whom is paid what.
Ever[y] doctor and nurse "profits" from the NHS.
There is a difference between wages and profits, as I think you know.
*sigh* So, a person invents a low cost medical widget and sells it to the NHS and makes a living. That's like wages, right? Then suppose is rather more successful than expected, so he incorporates into a company, though he still works in it, just him, full time, and makes a profit. What's the difference? There isn't one.

And every GP is self employed. Yes, really. Nye Bevan (Minister for Health 1945-1951) was asked how he managed to persuade the doctors to work in the NHS. (B-b-b-but surely they were just gagging to work in the NHS? Don't you believe it! They weren't.) "By stuffing their mouths with gold". Sounds like a profit motive to me.

And do you really think that bandage manufacturers should be nationalised, or barred from making profits?
Of course not.
Absolutely, of course not. But you have failed to explain the difference between "profits" from cutting gauze (manufacturing bandages) and "profits" from cutting human flesh (surgery).
Bandages are commodities, and most people can decide for themselves whether they need one. I don't see any serious risk of profit-seeking doctors over-prescribing them.
The use of bandages, I would hope, is a medical decision. The use of a scalpel is also, I would hope, a medical decision. Who's talking about over-prescription, or over-supply? Not me. And what is so special about physical things that they are entitled to have profit attach to them, whereas services, (which in a medical context, are so much more important) should not?

Ron Webb
Posts: 289
Joined: May 9th, 2009, 11:21 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#714 Post by Ron Webb » May 11th, 2015, 11:50 pm

Nick wrote:Those who profit by it, by definition, work in it. It is the insistence of a distinction between earnings and so-called "profits" which is the problem. The success of the NHS should be based on outcomes and value for money, not on whom is paid what.
I have shares in several companies, and make a nice profit from those investments. But I don't work for the companies.
*sigh* So, a person invents a low cost medical widget and sells it to the NHS and makes a living. That's like wages, right? Then suppose is rather more successful than expected, so he incorporates into a company, though he still works in it, just him, full time, and makes a profit. What's the difference? There isn't one.
The way you've described it, I agree. There is no difference. Both scenarios sound like entrepreneurs rather than wage earners. A wage earner is someone who is paid for his time, not for his product. A doctor who is paid a wage gets just a much money for prescribing an antacid as for doing open heart surgery.
And every GP is self employed. Yes, really.
Well, some are, and some aren't. Same as in Canada. But in general, IMHO it would be better if they weren't.
The use of bandages, I would hope, is a medical decision. The use of a scalpel is also, I would hope, a medical decision.
Call it whatever you like, but usually when I apply a bandage I do it myself. I don't need a medical professional. On the other hand, I'm a bit leery of do-it-yourself surgery. :wink:
Who's talking about over-prescription, or over-supply?
I am. Anyone who stands to make a profit from goods and services is potentially biased in favour of those goods and services.
And what is so special about physical things that they are entitled to have profit attach to them, whereas services, (which in a medical context, are so much more important) should not?
Sorry, by "commodity" I meant the economics definition: "A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type." (Emphasis added.) Marketing hype and personal preferences aside, one bandage is pretty much the same as another. There is plenty of competition, and they are cheaply available from any drugstore. In short, bandages are normally not a big deal. I'm fine with caveat emptor, and if I don't like a particular brand I just won't buy it next time.

Medical services (I mean real medical services, not dispensing bandages) can be highly complex and require specialized knowledge. When I consult my doctor, I want to know that he or she has only my best interest at heart; and if he wants to do a test or a procedure of some sort, it's because I really need it, and not because he really needs it.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#715 Post by Nick » May 12th, 2015, 10:27 am

Ron Webb wrote:
Nick wrote:Those who profit by it, by definition, work in it. It is the insistence of a distinction between earnings and so-called "profits" which is the problem. The success of the NHS should be based on outcomes and value for money, not on whom is paid what.
I have shares in several companies, and make a nice profit from those investments. But I don't work for the companies.
Doh! Dunno what happened there! I should, of course, have written "Those who work in it, profit by it." Makes much more sense! :D
*sigh* So, a person invents a low cost medical widget and sells it to the NHS and makes a living. That's like wages, right? Then suppose is rather more successful than expected, so he incorporates into a company, though he still works in it, just him, full time, and makes a profit. What's the difference? There isn't one.
The way you've described it, I agree. There is no difference. Both scenarios sound like entrepreneurs rather than wage earners. A wage earner is someone who is paid for his time, not for his product. A doctor who is paid a wage gets just a much money for prescribing an antacid as for doing open heart surgery.
Bollox. Open heart surgeons are paid rather more than GP's wouldn't you say? And the only reason for an antacid being prescribed is to get someone else to pay for it. Different people are paid different amounts for their time. Why? Because if they didn't, insufficient people would be available to fill the posts. Yup, that profit motive again.
And every GP is self employed. Yes, really.
Well, some are, and some aren't. Same as in Canada. But in general, IMHO it would be better if they weren't.
Hmmm.... letting my brain have too free a rein. I should have said every GP practice is self-employed. Junior doctors are employed by the practice.
The use of bandages, I would hope, is a medical decision. The use of a scalpel is also, I would hope, a medical decision.
Call it whatever you like, but usually when I apply a bandage I do it myself. I don't need a medical professional. On the other hand, I'm a bit leery of do-it-yourself surgery. :wink:
Irrelevant. Why are bandage manufacturers, or CAT scan manufacturers, not nationalised? They make profits. Why is that OK for you?
Who's talking about over-prescription, or over-supply?
I am. Anyone who stands to make a profit from goods and services is potentially biased in favour of those goods and services.
A moment's thought, please. If the suppliers were responsible for doling out the goods, then, yes, that would be a bad thing. But that is not the case, is it? It is the very fact that they are on opposite sides which increases efficiency. Where there are no consequences to profligate use, then wastage occurs.
And what is so special about physical things that they are entitled to have profit attach to them, whereas services, (which in a medical context, are so much more important) should not?
Sorry, by "commodity" I meant the economics definition: "A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type." (Emphasis added.) Marketing hype and personal preferences aside, one bandage is pretty much the same as another. There is plenty of competition, and they are cheaply available from any drugstore. In short, bandages are normally not a big deal. I'm fine with caveat emptor, and if I don't like a particular brand I just won't buy it next time.
Of course bandages are relatively cheap. That's why it is a good example. You seem perfectly happy that bandage manufacturers make profits. Why should that be any different as the goods or services become more complex and expensive? You need to explain the distinction. And surely the plentiful supply, and the competition in bandages, is great news for the users of bandages. Would that that were true of more medical goods and services.
Medical services (I mean real medical services, not dispensing bandages) can be highly complex and require specialized knowledge. When I consult my doctor, I want to know that he or she has only my best interest at heart; and if he wants to do a test or a procedure of some sort, it's because I really need it, and not because he really needs it.
Lots to say on this; I'll come back to it.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#716 Post by Tetenterre » May 12th, 2015, 10:41 am

On the £12bn welfare cuts: "the word" is that there is no way it can happen and that the figure was put so high so that it could be negotiated down to something less harsh but still draconian during coalition negotiations with the LibDems.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#717 Post by Dave B » May 12th, 2015, 11:19 am

Nick, I belive that those seekibg a profit are those seeking a profit - if we are lucky we may get an acceptable service as a by-product.

In the case of a shop I expect the owner to take a profit. In the case of the NHS I expect any money left over to go back in or to the exchequer (or wherever). Hopefully it would be used to provideceven better service. Likewise efficiencies should also benefit the basic source of funding - you and I - in terms of less tax or better service.

Private companies do not have a good record running public services from the evidence so far, chances are they have cost the tax payer more than they saved? Let' include governmental costs (extra Civil Service effort, legal fees) and copensation of any other kind; plus possible loss of jobs etc.

Remember my tale of the privatised hospital cleaning? Wages reduced, employee standards reduced, constant professional monitoring required - and still basic hygeine levels fell. So they took it back in house to protect the patients . Thus service above profit or savings - alien to the privatised world.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#718 Post by Alan H » May 12th, 2015, 12:04 pm

Tetenterre wrote:On the £12bn welfare cuts: "the word" is that there is no way it can happen and that the figure was put so high so that it could be negotiated down to something less harsh but still draconian during coalition negotiations with the LibDems.
I think you underestimate the Tories.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#719 Post by Nick » May 12th, 2015, 12:50 pm

Dave B wrote:Nick, I belive that those seekibg a profit are those seeking a profit - if we are lucky we may get an acceptable service as a by-product.
Profits are not earned by depriving the customer of what the customer wants, but precisely the other way round. Competing providers can only make a profit by giving an acceptable service. In a state-run, competition-free monolith, run on political lines, there is no such incentive.
In the case of a shop I expect the owner to take a profit. In the case of the NHS I expect any money left over to go back in or to the exchequer (or wherever). Hopefully it would be used to provide even better service. Likewise efficiencies should also benefit the basic source of funding - you and I - in terms of less tax or better service.
Do that, and the improvements disappear.
Private companies do not have a good record running public services from the evidence so far,
Hmmm... Don't they? You hear about the failures, but not the successes.
chances are they have cost the tax payer more than they saved?
Why? If the private alternative is more expensive, why do it?
Let's include governmental costs (extra Civil Service effort, legal fees) and compensation of any other kind;
By all means include all relevant costs. But in no other industry are you suggesting that everything should be micro managed by the state.
plus possible loss of jobs etc.
Jobs are great for those in them, but for everyone else, they are a cost.
Remember my tale of the privatised hospital cleaning? Wages reduced, employee standards reduced, constant professional monitoring required - and still basic hygeine levels fell. So they took it back in house to protect the patients . Thus service above profit or savings - alien to the privatised world.
Yes, I remember your tale. Do you remember my explanation, Ronald Coase and his Nobel prize? Whether or not any firm provides services in-house or not is a completely separate question to whether the private sector should be involved. For example, I would fully expect a private hospital to employ its own cleaners, rather than hire another firm. They certainly wouldn't ask the state to run their cleaning services, would they? But a firm of insurance brokers, say? I would fully expect them to outsource their cleaning.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#720 Post by Dave B » May 12th, 2015, 1:26 pm

Nick wrote:
Dave B wrote:Nick, I belive that those seekibg a profit are those seeking a profit - if we are lucky we may get an acceptable service as a by-product.
Profits are not earned by depriving the customer of what the customer wants, but precisely the other way round. Competing providers can only make a profit by giving an acceptable service. In a state-run, competition-free monolith, run on political lines, there is no such incentive.
In the case of the NHS the incentive should, ideally, be only to provide the best possible service - bnot saving money or making a profit. Yes, budgets have to be met etc.
In the case of a shop I expect the owner to take a profit. In the case of the NHS I expect any money left over to go back in or to the exchequer (or wherever). Hopefully it would be used to provide even better service. Likewise efficiencies should also benefit the basic source of funding - you and I - in terms of less tax or better service.
Do that, and the improvements disappear. [/quote] Why? Define improvements in this context. If ïmprovements" are better services roll them out!
Private companies do not have a good record running public services from the evidence so far,
Hmmm... Don't they? You hear about the failures, but not the successes. [/quote] Please list us some notablen successes in the scale of a hospital, a large service such as Probabtion, benifit assessing etc.
chances are they have cost the tax payer more than they saved?
Why? If the private alternative is more expensive, why do it? [/quote] I will admit that I keep thinking of the canteen services at my last place of work. The company paid all utility charges, wages, maintanence etc. etc. but the staff were "managed" by Sodexo. So they also paid a management fee and we paid a similar price for one banana as a hand of five in the local Co-op because Sodexo controlled all food sources, and pocketed the discount in their regional office. It looked like maximising profit to me, the service did not improve when the Sods took over.
Let's include governmental costs (extra Civil Service effort, legal fees) and compensation of any other kind;
By all means include all relevant costs. But in no other industry are you suggesting that everything should be micro managed by the state. [/quote] But I suspect we still end up paying extra for privatisation fuck-ups, which will be inevitable I feel.
plus possible loss of jobs etc.
Jobs are great for those in them, but for everyone else, they are a cost.[/quote] Yes, jobs are a cost, we have to pay wages. But we get a service from those jobs, is that service of the most cost effective to the end user (us) if part of cost is an excess that goes into the pockets of those who did not contribute directly?
Remember my tale of the privatised hospital cleaning? Wages reduced, employee standards reduced, constant professional monitoring required - and still basic hygeine levels fell. So they took it back in house to protect the patients . Thus service above profit or savings - alien to the privatised world.
Yes, I remember your tale. Do you remember my explanation, Ronald Coase and his Nobel prize? Whether or not any firm provides services in-house or not is a completely separate question to whether the private sector should be involved. For example, I would fully expect a private hospital to employ its own cleaners, rather than hire another firm. They certainly wouldn't ask the state to run their cleaning services, would they? But a firm of insurance brokers, say? I would fully expect them to outsource their cleaning.[/quote] I have to admit that I do not remember your explaination, it was probably academic in nature and bore little relevance to the individual experince.

Nick, the number of times your answer seem to be irrelevant, for a self coinfessed follower ofb things economic that's not so good. My mistakes vare bborn of experience and emotion I admit, but treat people like beans on the counting board and you do humanity, and Humanism, a disfavour.There has to be balance, but it is too far in the favour of the "haves" aty the moment.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#721 Post by Tetenterre » May 12th, 2015, 1:57 pm

Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:On the £12bn welfare cuts: "the word" is that there is no way it can happen and that the figure was put so high so that it could be negotiated down to something less harsh but still draconian during coalition negotiations with the LibDems.
I think you underestimate the Tories.
Quite possibly; let's decide after we've seen what actually happens.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Post Reply