Ljundhammer wrote:point of a public business is often not to make money, but to employ people, as the marginal losses (including tax income from what they spend) is likely less than them being on the dole.

The problem with this though is that in recessions/public spending squeezes they tend to sack the staff at the bottom (this is why the rise in public sector salaries annoys me, it's happened because of counter-intuitive economic management), so they spend lots of time not realising this strategy, plus the fact that people at the bottom spend more of their disposable income which helps support aggregate demand in the economy, which helps get us out of a recession.

The issue (@ruffian) is not so much that public businesses can't be profitable, it's that they are comparably very inefficient at being profitable (which has been borne out by many studies, most recently by Philip Green), and because of it's general inability to operate as a meritocracy it fails to appoint people with the appropriate skills and experience to correct this (does this sound like GW's senior management that took the stand in the CHS case seriously, read Alan Merrett's testimony then remember he's their head of IP).

They also get weighed down with spiralling pension commitments, but I won't talk about that because the entitlement levels of public sector workers at all levels on that topic makes me want to lock myself in a football stadium with a flamethrower and the cutest kittens you can imagine.

Ljundhammer wrote:That said, regulators need to be given some teeth, because the privitised utility companies are currently on a gravy train at our expense - there's a lot to be said, in my opinion, for the privitisation of the business, but the infrastructure itself being kept in the government hands (like the railway was at the beginning).

So much this! "Oh look we decommissioned some power stations. Oh look now supply is going to struggle to meet demand so we have to raise prices." Errmm, maybe a law that says decom requires building a new one.

Or for the cost of building HS2 we could instead build a nuclear fusion plant......

I'll give Victoria a bit of my horned viper later...

I wish I'd got into the public sector when I was young & milked for all I could. I would have loathed myself for doing it, but a decent retirement would put that into perspective I think...

The reason that people get sacked in a recession from public sector is because in a recession the Tories get in to sort out the mess the last lot (even themselves) got us into. No matter how liberal the British public may or may not be (I happen to think we're creeping toward the American standard which is frightning), people still don't trust socialists, or even the left wing with the economy, and the Tories are always voted in. Unfortunately, history does seem to have a habit of proving this right.

The Tories don't sack rich people. They won't get voted in for that. All politicians look 5 year forward at most, and what they look at is how will I get voted back in - if fixing, or wrecking the economy will do that, then they'll do that.

Politicians are self serving dicks led by focus groups. There are very few who have their own ideas, or say what they want or mean. I'm very glad that the welfare system, NHS, death penalty, etc were done a long time ago, because they'd never be done now. In the olden days politicians had a goal, a reason to vote for them, now they all act like Burger King - "Have it your way" - I don't want it my f**king way, I want you to tell me what your way is so I can f**king vote for you or not, I don't want you all to say the same old lies, do something completely different because your focus group told you to after the election, then claim that that's what I really wanted, and you're stopping, pausing, and f**king listening. Grow a f**king backbone & tell what you mean. GAAAAH!

* ahem *

Ljundhammer wrote:The reason that people get sacked in a recession from public sector is because in a recession the Tories get in to sort out the mess the last lot (even themselves) got us into. No matter how liberal the British public may or may not be (I happen to think we're creeping toward the American standard which is frightning), people still don't trust socialists, or even the left wing with the economy, and the Tories are always voted in. Unfortunately, history does seem to have a habit of proving this right.

Well yes, the left wing has a bad record on the economy and then gets stuck in a position where balancing the books involves sacking their own voters. If anyone had an incentive to go get a clue, it's the left wing.

Ljundhammer wrote:The Tories don't sack rich people. They won't get voted in for that. All politicians look 5 year forward at most, and what they look at is how will I get voted back in - if fixing, or wrecking the economy will do that, then they'll do that.

The Tories (or whoever the prevailing government is) has nothing to do with the sacking of baseline/frontline staff. That's down to the various top and middle managers of the councils and other public bodies. And that's basically self-preservation (middle managers) and lack of leadership (top managers). The top managers should be cutting out the middle tier so that the organisation remains effective and can still deliver the service it's meant to. If the distribution of sackings varied between councils and public services affiliated with different parties you might have a point, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of them are fat around the waist and trimming at the bottom, regardless of affiliation (like the NHS for example).

And ridiculously unmonitored upper tier pay offerings where leadership staff get private sector equivalent pay and public sector equivalent pensions.

Yes, you are right. On both counts.

But politicians annoyed me on the way to work this morning by getting a future pay rise that they can't do anything about. The buggers. So it's all their fault until I listen to an American, then it's their fault.

Not technically true, they aren't legally required to accept it

I need to find an article outlining Ipsa's reasoning why they deserve it so I can share it on my Lib Dem friend's FB timeline then rip in to it in the comments

Ljundhammer wrote: So it's all their fault until I listen to an American, then it's their fault.

Hey! Not fair! I have nothing to do with it!

Reading the last posts it strikes me that after all these years, our 2 countries are not so different after all. We have the same out of touch politicians, the same broken 2 party system that act like the same party, the same ostrich like head in the sand leadership. It's like the ruling political party are all standing on tip toe in a pool of liquid manure up to their lower lips whispering "Don't make waves"!

And for the record, I am one of those "public sector pensioners". I had a fair argument with someone about "public entitlements". I think the term is overused. Of course I am "entitled" to my pension, I worked for over 30 years in the public sector to earn it. It's the same as someone with an employer funded IRA (Independent Retirement Account). Both of these are contractual benefits. Considerably different from "public assistance" or welfare. In this country we now have 5th and 6th generation welfare recipients. Single women with multiple children from multiple fathers on the public dole. So it is my taxes that is supporting these women and their bastard children making me the virtual father. But I don't want to open up a whole new can of worms about that. Suffice it to say that we both live in countries that are in sad shape politically, and there's no real solution or ending in sight.

As for cricket, we have a game over here where there is no time limit for the game, there is no maximum size to the playing field, the offensive team never gets possession of the ball, and there are only 2 camps on the popularity of the game. One side is fanatically devoted to the game and it's players to the exclusion of day to day events, the other side is meh with a capital 'M'. I find this game viewed in person to be marginally entertaining when attended in person (because of the hot dogs and beer) but incredibly boring to view on television. We call it baseball. Now American Football on the other hand...

And for the record, one of the things I like most about this forum is the opportunity to hear you all talk about your own country and its problems. Puts thing over here in perspective! Cheers!

I'm not familiar with US public pensions so my entitlement comments don't extend beyond the UK's borders

I'm not sure I'd accurately characterise UK politics as a 3-party system, more a 1-party system with colours assigned broadly in line with historic trends Most leading politicians in the parties seem to be "lifers" from good university backgrounds who worked through internships, special advisors and other jobs within politics before hitting the front bench. Consequently there aren't really any differences in the policies offered and most of it is tweaking round the edges (I guess that's your not making waves in the mud) and generally being incompetant at actually running anything (maybe project management training should be compulsory). There's also a trend towards decentralising everything, which I don't feel is necessarily that well considered and generally smacks of trying to make sure the buck doesn't stop with the politicians.

As an outsider looking in to the US system I'd at least give it props for feeling like there's major idealogical differences between the parties even if they have gridlocked themselves into doing bugger all at Federal level.

Interesting app to work out where you are in the queue of humans on the planet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

Baragash wrote:Most leading politicians in the parties seem to be "lifers" from good university backgrounds who worked through internships, special advisors and other jobs within politics before hitting the front bench.

That really annoys me. There should be a minimum age for politicians. And anyone who wants to be a politician should be disbarred from being one too!

Baragash wrote:There's also a trend towards decentralising everything, which I don't feel is necessarily that well considered and generally smacks of trying to make sure the buck doesn't stop with the politicians.

Yes, there is a large amount of arse covering going on. It might be a good thing though. With local policies & local laws & local polticians (similar to Italy?) then the national government has very little power & very little is actually done (read: ballsed up) centrally.

Sure is smug secularist soft right up in this mother hubbard.

Ljundhammer wrote:

Baragash wrote:Most leading politicians in the parties seem to be "lifers" from good university backgrounds who worked through internships, special advisors and other jobs within politics before hitting the front bench.

That really annoys me. There should be a minimum age for politicians. And anyone who wants to be a politician should be disbarred from being one too!

I lol’ed, but also wondered if you were currently reading the lolfull Heinlein at the moment with his crazy book on bring back national service to see who deserves to serve.

Ljundhammer wrote:

Baragash wrote:There's also a trend towards decentralising everything, which I don't feel is necessarily that well considered and generally smacks of trying to make sure the buck doesn't stop with the politicians.

Yes, there is a large amount of arse covering going on. It might be a good thing though. With local policies & local laws & local polticians (similar to Italy?) then the national government has very little power & very little is actually done (read: ballsed up) centrally.

This country is too small to decentralise.. and then once decentralised too many groups have legit claims.. eg cornish seperatists etc etc..
What you really have is PR cycles.. currently (from about mid term blair) you have local tailored solutions and choice.. but at the same time you have the total opposite of "how dare we not fix the postcode lottery of health"/"baby p" "left in their own filth due to a councils decision to go with vendor X in CCTing", the how dare the only school that meets my standards be one that teaches christian values rather than primarily national curricula and today the oh we could fix school nutrition but all the new schools created under localism agenda wouldn't have to comply, so it won't work.(NOBODY is willing to tell the latter group their wrong, when advocating the former..unprincipled cowardice and lack of comprehension. You either let norwich say " if you have cancer don't live here, we focus on aids".. or you accept that it will happen.. or you have centralised government)

In a place like America(which has grass roots up completely unlike the right here), china (which is terrified of dissent due to whenever any alternate view steps up china almost ceases to exist (see white lotus) .. you actually have regions.. Here we have football clubs and made up differences with people who live the other side of the street from us.... this also goes to what bara was saying applauding the americans for having 2 ideologically opposed parties.. in practise yes the consensus politics of scrapping for floating centrist(sane) voters doesn't happen (due to being blackmailed by the tea party and left wing purists -(see european centralist liberal).. but you can't put me in a room with a southern democrat.. and I'd get on swimmingly well with a preppy east coast republican..whilst the parties have diverged a bit more post clinton(remember that clinton was to many the greatest republican democrat.. he was able to eliminate the federal welfare program, (something Reagan couldn't pass) brought in more tax loopholes for the rich and started several quiet wars using drones and sniper craft stuff that bush then came in and did overtly.If the greatest gripe the right had with him was who he stuck his junk in.. he was their boy.Micheal moore still goes on about him being a elephant in donkeys clothing.) they are still incredibly weird spectra that cross over. (hence it not just being republicans that killed the entirety of the gun bill.. southern democrats just couldn't see why they'd shoot themselves in the foot..so to speak)

T minus 5 until another beaching report, another thatcher gets bored of localism getting in the way of strong good wholesome government by costing too much and destroying the GLC etc etc etc.. This "choice" fad only really started because labour was completely dominated by the scottish and welsh from 88-95.

Baragash wrote:

Ljundhammer wrote:point of a public business is often not to make money, but to employ people, as the marginal losses (including tax income from what they spend) is likely less than them being on the dole.

The problem with this though is that in recessions/public spending squeezes they tend to sack the staff at the bottom (this is why the rise in public sector salaries annoys me, it's happened because of counter-intuitive economic management), so they spend lots of time not realising this strategy, plus the fact that people at the bottom spend more of their disposable income which helps support aggregate demand in the economy, which helps get us out of a recession..

Quadruple this.. when you have X number of big firms sat on investments that they must shed and you have them paying out to X and Y external investers rather than basic cost of living increases to workforce you created deeper longer recessions through trickle up economics (lol), I'm not saying trade war now.. but if your choosing to make everyone part of the poverty industry (middle class Americans now on foods stamps, the great mortgage walkaway of the middle class leading to the second American housing tsunami etc) your creating a very very long road to recovery. (and potentially openning the door to the crazy-right saying they ought to get unskilled couch peeps building roads, due to labour being so disposably/freely available. Mussolini style.. and deskilling whichever workforce they decide to focus on (train up all the crims in accountancy like they were all trained to repair shoes in the 60s-70s)
Post office being privatised.. something thatcher wouldn’t do..and you young Thatcherites will sit there saying "good idea, not letting them cache in their shares..stakeholder society, give a man a £1k china cup balanced on his nose and he can't rebel when his standard of living drops to nothing".. I see a total waste that could have been another financial stimulus of people shedding shares for those who are stuc at the 0.001% interest rates who are itching to invest in a new brand and those low workers buying stuff now to fix the economy.. meh.

Ljundhammer wrote: I don't want it my f**king way, I want you to tell me what your way is so I can f**king vote for you or not, I don't want you all to say the same old lies, do something completely different because your focus group told you to after the election, then claim that that's what I really wanted, and you're stopping, pausing, and f**king listening. Grow a f**king backbone & tell what you mean. GAAAAH!

* ahem *

You’ve got professional pragmatists.. who play to the (voting) majority..(hence the sway to the right until something on the left actually catches. bedroom tax isn’t going to do it). Nobody voting based on their crazy belief system/ideology.. but on the merit of individual circumstances/situations and repurcussions for those invested (/ stakeholder voters).. be happy it’s a very secularist version of government.
Since the death of the communist perspective people have just assumed all that’s left is unitarist and the pluralists are the insurgents rather than sane people that recongise everything is a discussion between rival interests.. meh.

The problem with pandering to the majority, is that the majority are generally wrong...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html

Given the number of copies that the Sun, Star, Express and Mail shift daily, I'd be mightly unsurprised to hear that the British public would heavily endorse the re-introduction of the Death Penalty and an opt out of the Human Rights Act - does anyone reading this really think that's a good idea? I certainly don't look forward to a referendum on Europe...

EDIT: there is the flip side thought - you can't trust politicians anymore either - 45minutes to launch WMDs!

On regionalism/centralism - there are things that are better regionalised, road repairs for example; asnd others that are better served centrally like hospitals and power supplies.

On America - I didn't understand it before, and since watching Oliver Stone's History of America (highly recommended by the way) I know a lot more & understand even less. All I do know is that all American politics is corrupt from the bottom up (not particularly different to ours) and while the Tea Party and the opposite extremes do exist, in the middle they're still massively to the right of where I'm comfortable.

On Timewizard - it is all his fault, he just doesn't know it yet

I facebook spammed that around the place a few days back..
but if you believe in freedom of expression and you believe in democracy then at some level or another.. yes you put your fate in the hands of the mob.
Hence I generally believe in professionals in a bubble rather than 100% liberal democracy and I'm vaguely authoritarian compared to what you *say* a lot of the time.


Just to announce, read daughters report this week.
Maths Flying high
English Flying high
Religious education- "on track", with prompting she will talk about stuff but she is still formulating her views.

(I mark that as excellent across the board myself)

killmaimburn wrote:but if you believe in freedom of expression and you believe in democracy then at some level or another.. yes you put your fate in the hands of the mob.

I agree. Which is why we should actually educate people properly.

I take it "On track" is not "flying high" because she hasn't bent to their particular version of nonsense yet? Or won't bend. I expect those that have are "flying high".

I went to a CoE school to look around for my litle ones the other day. The head was saying that "religion isn't all about god, it's about finding your own spirituality", which was somewhat rubbished by the fact that every single wall had a pupil made montage of a cross on in, and entire corridors were given up to poems about how life's great when you believe in god. I think I'll be trying to get onto the Governers Board there...

And I agree - that is excelent. (EDIT: unlike my own English apparently...)

Sidetrack for Lh.
Its easy to get sidelined with tags faith X etc..
I went to a secondary school that was apparently famously good for the disabled.. what this meant was they had a ramp in the back to the eating hall.. all my classes were still up 2 flights of stairs etc and I still got told off if I couldn't transmat across site to other classes in time etc etc.

Daughters head is what I'd class sane christian.If you can get passed the annoying songs once a week (not helped by the fact I protested and banned the secular bunch which were incredibly patronising to women.. "my mum might not have a degree but shes the one there always there for me, she makes a wonderful tea" etc etc. It all depends (not-here's-matt is 3rd gen secular and his daughter has suddenly started saying she knows god because she sees his beard in every cloud) I think its down to charisma.. nothing has put Dylan off faith more than meeting the CoE, the drabness and lack of inspiration, and having to listen to one of new (incredibly bad with kids) ministers sermons.Its done more than me winnning a battle with wife ever could on questioning authority.
Some schools just do it because brand christtm gives them another method of being a selection school and being able to not teach those people who need it most.

Ljundhammer wrote:On Timewizard - it is all his fault, he just doesn't know it yet

Oh, I knew it.

I just didn't think that you lot knew it!