Do we have a fundamental problem?
Discussion
I apologise if the following is massively ill informed and would be happy to be informed otherwise.
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
ntiz said:
I apologise if the following is massively ill informed and would be happy to be informed otherwise.
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
The fundamental problems we have are that we have "Champagne tastes and Beer income" coupled with gross inefficiency in the public sector and excessive piss-taking in the private sector. Quite a lot of piss-taking in the public sector too to be fairDo we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Aside from those things are going really well !
ntiz said:
I apologise if the following is massively ill informed and would be happy to be informed otherwise.
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Had much the same convo at dinner last night.Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Privatise it, and the cash buggers off abroad, while the service is bare minimum. Nationalise it and the cash gets burned on government f
k ups and waste.I suspect the answer lies in getting slightly better-grade people to clip the private sector’s wings a bit. “Yes Amazon, you can do mail too but if you want the contract you’ll have to commit to a daily service in the Outer Hebs as well as the good bits you want” type stuff. And actually enforce it.
Problem is the private sector are just better at contracts/negotiating/lawyers and get away with whatever.
But I feel a private sector held to account by a competent system of governance would be a good start.
Though I’m like you OP - no kind of expert on this So interested to read others replies.
ntiz said:
I apologise if the following is massively ill informed and would be happy to be informed otherwise.
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Limited experience admitedly Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
This question comes to me quite often as we seem to spend a lot of time arguing over whether things should be privatised or nationalised. With people getting very upset on both sides of the argument.
To me though it seems that we have a bigger problem as we seem to be incapable of handling either in a satisfactory manner.
When it’s nationalised the service seems to be terrible and yet cost huge amounts but desperately needs more investment permanently.
Privatised we sell it for a fiver to a foreign company hand then a big bag of money to encourage them to also invest which seems to inevitably end up as profit. End result usually being the service being poor whilst ripping us off directly posting large profits.
Which leads to my concern that it’s irrelevant which way we run things as the outcomes are poor either way. Which I suppose makes us question why can’t we seem to do it?
Many countries seem to run both styles to a level of success. French motorways are immaculate i assume because the government has the private company under very strict contracts. That they actually enforce. Many countries run more successful nationalised services like NHS which although cost a lot at least appear to get a service worthy of the money.
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
Apologies for the terrible writing and as I said happy to be told be told if I’m wrong.
Paul Whitehouse's program on rivers sparked a conversation in chez thingus
The water co's were sold off in 89 on the basis that private companies could deliver better quality results and performance than nationalised companies
Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
Meanwhile the water co's are making millions of pounds profit and paying exec's million £ plus packages
To my naïve mindset why would private water co's invest the millions of £ they are making into upgrading networks, infrastructure etc when they have investors to pay
Something as essential as water, i believe, should be under state control but with a proper management/leadership team to deliver the service and reduce waste
The state of our river and coast is a disgrace and needs sorting
I believe the model used in some of the 'exemplar' public service deliveries is 'private sector but wholly owned by the state'.
So, a middle ground. The State is the shareholder, but crucially the application of the service is delivered without political interference.
No cash being hoovered out to shareholders, no fkwit politicians thinking they know exactly what needs to happen for successful delivery when they've zero experience and a four year outlook.
So, a middle ground. The State is the shareholder, but crucially the application of the service is delivered without political interference.
No cash being hoovered out to shareholders, no f
kwit politicians thinking they know exactly what needs to happen for successful delivery when they've zero experience and a four year outlook. Poor management and short term greed !!
We are bogged down with red tape and like others say we still have sewage in the rivers and the sea
I’m sure there are is
Great signage at the sites and you have to do an induction and have to wear the right PPE..
Thinking we need less university and more vocational/ on the job apprenticeships
Nobody should be in charge of anything unless they have some Practical experience, what happened to people working their way up the ladder ?
And we need governments that look further than the next election , Nick Clegg saying there was no point investing in a power station because it wouldn’t be operational until 2022 .!!
We are bogged down with red tape and like others say we still have sewage in the rivers and the sea
I’m sure there are is
Great signage at the sites and you have to do an induction and have to wear the right PPE..
Thinking we need less university and more vocational/ on the job apprenticeships
Nobody should be in charge of anything unless they have some Practical experience, what happened to people working their way up the ladder ?
And we need governments that look further than the next election , Nick Clegg saying there was no point investing in a power station because it wouldn’t be operational until 2022 .!!
Edited by Ivan stewart on Monday 6th March 06:54
Biggus thingus said:
Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
Meanwhile the water co's are making millions of pounds profit and paying exec's million £ plus packages
To my naïve mindset why would private water co's invest the millions of £ they are making into upgrading networks, infrastructure etc when they have investors to pay.
I suspect that it’s even worse than the figures suggest. Wessex Water are recorded as discharging sewage into the sea, in our local authority area alone, on 447 occasions in 2021, totalling 1206 hours.Meanwhile the water co's are making millions of pounds profit and paying exec's million £ plus packages
To my naïve mindset why would private water co's invest the millions of £ they are making into upgrading networks, infrastructure etc when they have investors to pay.
However, that doesn’t appear to include (happy to be corrected!) the times when the sewers simply overflow into the streets a mile or two inland. It then finds its way downhill, via surface water drainage . . . into the sea. You can follow the trail of grey toilet paper dust.
Quick Google gives the figure for Wessex Water dividends paid 2010-2021 of £1.214 billion.
I think a lot of it is linked to an imbalance in wealth and how the economy is structured.
The UK for the most part is a poor, rundown country with pockets of wealth. However people at both ends of the spectrum have a sense of entitlement but don’t wish to do anything unless it involves short term profit for them.
The UK for the most part is a poor, rundown country with pockets of wealth. However people at both ends of the spectrum have a sense of entitlement but don’t wish to do anything unless it involves short term profit for them.
Disastrous said:
Had much the same convo at dinner last night.
Privatise it, and the cash buggers off abroad, while the service is bare minimum. Nationalise it and the cash gets burned on government fk ups and waste.
I suspect the answer lies in getting slightly better-grade people to clip the private sector’s wings a bit. “Yes Amazon, you can do mail too but if you want the contract you’ll have to commit to a daily service in the Outer Hebs as well as the good bits you want” type stuff. And actually enforce it.
Problem is the private sector are just better at contracts/negotiating/lawyers and get away with whatever.
But I feel a private sector held to account by a competent system of governance would be a good start.
Though I’m like you OP - no kind of expert on this So interested to read others replies.
In the public sector you get people negotiating contracts with no experience, other than being sent on a contracts training course. Privatise it, and the cash buggers off abroad, while the service is bare minimum. Nationalise it and the cash gets burned on government f
k ups and waste.I suspect the answer lies in getting slightly better-grade people to clip the private sector’s wings a bit. “Yes Amazon, you can do mail too but if you want the contract you’ll have to commit to a daily service in the Outer Hebs as well as the good bits you want” type stuff. And actually enforce it.
Problem is the private sector are just better at contracts/negotiating/lawyers and get away with whatever.
But I feel a private sector held to account by a competent system of governance would be a good start.
Though I’m like you OP - no kind of expert on this So interested to read others replies.
For example, a cleaning at a public organisation I contracted at. Cleaning was set out for all the offices. If a cleaner was off/off sick there was no cover and other cleaners would cover as best they could. So cleaning was minimal when short staffed. Yet this was allowed. If an office was repurposed, then cleaning stopped. If a new area was converted to offices, there was no cleaning despite them not having to do the repurposed office. Basically no-one cares or has a clue about setting out standards, boundaries and penalties.
NerveAgent said:
I think a lot of it is linked to an imbalance in wealth and how the economy is structured.
The UK for the most part is a poor, rundown country with pockets of wealth. However people at both ends of the spectrum have a sense of entitlement but don’t wish to do anything unless it involves short term profit for them.
I also agree but it's not a problem with the capitalist model rather it's we don't actually work using thr capitalist model. In essence in the UK there are 3 groups.The UK for the most part is a poor, rundown country with pockets of wealth. However people at both ends of the spectrum have a sense of entitlement but don’t wish to do anything unless it involves short term profit for them.
1) the very rich who control thier own income stream (business owners)
2) middle income and high income workers, paid via paye and shut out of most benefits and most income adjustments
3) low income and the poor, recive direct cash benefits from the state and pay zero or net zero tax.
Groups 1 and 3 pay for very little. Group 2 pays for most things but benefits the least.
If group 2 moan we demonise them tell them 60k a year shut up your rich you can afford it. Group 3 need help Group 1 will move overseas if we don't help them so you Group 2 have to pay for everything.
Everything is very expensive and in the UK we won't admit we can't fund it (we say Group 2 can pay more). We can't fund it so we patch it up cut corners etc. An over 30 years we end up where we are.
The UK is filled with talented people held back by a system that needs you to be a wage slave.
Gecko1978 said:
1) the very rich who control thier own income stream (business owners)
2) middle income and high income workers, paid via paye and shut out of most benefits and most income adjustments
3) low income and the poor, recive direct cash benefits from the state and pay zero or net zero tax.
Groups 1 and 3 pay for very little. Group 2 pays for most things but benefits the least.
If group 2 moan we demonise them tell them 60k a year shut up your rich you can afford it. Group 3 need help Group 1 will move overseas if we don't help them so you Group 2 have to pay for everything.
Middle child syndrome 2) middle income and high income workers, paid via paye and shut out of most benefits and most income adjustments
3) low income and the poor, recive direct cash benefits from the state and pay zero or net zero tax.
Groups 1 and 3 pay for very little. Group 2 pays for most things but benefits the least.
If group 2 moan we demonise them tell them 60k a year shut up your rich you can afford it. Group 3 need help Group 1 will move overseas if we don't help them so you Group 2 have to pay for everything.
I personally would tax group one til their pips squeak. If they all f
ked off I have the feeling that suddenly the rest of the country would have more money.Biggus thingus said:
The water co's were sold off in 89 on the basis that private companies could deliver better quality results and performance than nationalised companies
Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
That's not actually correct. Raw sewage had always been dumped straight into rivers and particularly the sea. Most beaches had big steel pipes feeding down below the low water mark. In the 70s and 80s all our rivers were so polluted that the water was black and you were more likely to be poisoned than drown if you fell in. I am always astonished when looking at the Thames now, even in central London the water is clear.Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
But yes, more effort does need to be put in to stop the discharges.
Biggus thingus said:
Limited experience admitedly
Paul Whitehouse's program on rivers sparked a conversation in chez thingus
The water co's were sold off in 89 on the basis that private companies could deliver better quality results and performance than nationalised companies
Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
Meanwhile the water co's are making millions of pounds profit and paying exec's million £ plus packages
To my naïve mindset why would private water co's invest the millions of £ they are making into upgrading networks, infrastructure etc when they have investors to pay
Something as essential as water, i believe, should be under state control but with a proper management/leadership team to deliver the service and reduce waste
The state of our river and coast is a disgrace and needs sorting
This is the crux of it for me. The priority of a national service must be to deliver that service. My water supplier has pushed costs to the consumer way up whilst also paying out £100M in dividends. Their priority is to provide an income to shareholders.Paul Whitehouse's program on rivers sparked a conversation in chez thingus
The water co's were sold off in 89 on the basis that private companies could deliver better quality results and performance than nationalised companies
Since then we've seen our rivers and coastal waters become polluted beyond belief and the Govt signing off on allowing raw sewage being legally dumped in rivers and sea
Meanwhile the water co's are making millions of pounds profit and paying exec's million £ plus packages
To my naïve mindset why would private water co's invest the millions of £ they are making into upgrading networks, infrastructure etc when they have investors to pay
Something as essential as water, i believe, should be under state control but with a proper management/leadership team to deliver the service and reduce waste
The state of our river and coast is a disgrace and needs sorting
It feels like people have forgotten that not all investments are profitable. I was listening to the radio on a long drive recently and every other as seemed to be "did you invest some money and not become rich overnight? Oh noes, we can help!" law firms. What happened to "the value of your investment may go down as well as up"? If someone has bought shares that turn out not to be the golden goose they hoped for, sucks to be them. That's the risk of buying shares. If you don't want that risk you stick it somewhere with pitiful levels of interest.
ntiz said:
Do we just have a fundamental problem in the way we handle services in this country?
...
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
There are entire theses out there that try and answer these questions, and people have been writing those theses for 100 years. It's hard to give a simple answer, but if I had to try I'd say that the overriding problem, and the cause of Britain's general malaise (which is not a recent thing - it was first identified in the late 19th century) is management, or more accurately, poor management. ...
Im sure we aren’t the only ones who struggle but can’t help thinking there is actually a bigger problem to be addressed?
That's poor management at every level - governmental, political, economic, municipal, educational, corporate. Arguably even personal. As a nation, a society and a culture we are just not very good at long-term, large-scale management and that is especially obvious and acute when it comes to narrow-margin businesses, competitive industries and large public services/infrastructure.
Lots of reasons have been given for this. Is it our Anglo-Saxon individualism making us less effective at teamwork and putting the entity and the goal above personal ambition? Are we too in love with the fairy tale of the brilliant individual who pulls himself up from the gutter to become a millionaire, or the buccaneering, rules-defying adventurer who hits it rich, which doesn't imprint on us the truth that, in 99.99999% of cases, generating wealth requires time, effort, tenacity and stewardship?
Is it the class system which creates an us/them barrier between workforce and management and a cultural ideal of inherited rater than generated wealth? Does that still give us a lingering distaste for working 'in trade', even in a white collar capacity, so management is not culturally valued? Does the lingering effects of the class system and our cultural individualism combine to give us a mistrust of both management and government (social stratas that, traditionally, 'are not for the likes of us' and are not run by us or in our interests) so there is a national scepticism about the competency of the government to run services and management to run businesses that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Is it because we industrialised first and without competition, which let us build up a massive head start that we're still coasting on now, but never had to learn how to actually sustain an enterprise? Is it because the Empire gave us a quarter of the world to essentially (and often literally) strip-mine for easy get-rich-quick wealth (is it relevant that the two developed nations able to not only sustain but expand an industrial economy in the latter 20th century - Germany and Japan - were both latecomers to the international colonial scrabble?)
Is it because the cream of our people - the brightest minds - were killed in the trenches of WW1 and those that survived were left with a generational national trauma just as we really needed to be girding our loins to the changed world order? Is it because we - uniquely - were an undisputed military victor of WW2 but it left us economically, financially, politically and physically shattered? The defeated nations were materially far worse off, but the rebuilding process forced them to both turn their focus inwards, pull together and build and run a functioning modern society from scratch. The UK was just as flogged, tired and broken, but we retained our outward focus and our illusion of being a great power, and didn't come up with a new social arrangement or a new national sense of purpose.
Gecko1978 said:
I also agree but it's not a problem with the capitalist model rather it's we don't actually work using thr capitalist model.
......
The UK is filled with talented people held back by a system that needs you to be a wage slave.
I dunno...it certainly sounds like you're describing the capitalist model there. ......
The UK is filled with talented people held back by a system that needs you to be a wage slave.
Edit:
donkmeister said:
It feels like people have forgotten that not all investments are profitable. I was listening to the radio on a long drive recently and every other as seemed to be "did you invest some money and not become rich overnight? Oh noes, we can help!" law firms. What happened to "the value of your investment may go down as well as up"? If someone has bought shares that turn out not to be the golden goose they hoped for, sucks to be them. That's the risk of buying shares. If you don't want that risk you stick it somewhere with pitiful levels of interest.
Well said. You get this whenever something meaningful is proposed to do something about the property market, especially with regard to BTL landlords. There's always some interest group wailing about how people have sunk their savings into a portfolio and they can't be expected to loose money on it. Or sometimes even just make less money than predicted (because they're mortgaged up to or beyond the hilt). Investments are supposed to have an element of risk and that is what justifies the reward. So is the notion that, as an investment, something like property may actually require spending and upkeep that will lose you money in the short term and you may not get a 'pay out' until you actually release your investment. Not everything can, or should, be an income stream that pays out for little or no effort. Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 6th March 10:12
Yep.
We have an electoral system thats so out of date it stinks.
It needs reform to make Government and Parliament more democratic, less oppositional, and more co-operative, instead of this pendulum-like system that shortens politicans horizons, and wastes considerable resources as one side undoes the things the other side did when the pendulum was swung the other way.
We have an electoral system thats so out of date it stinks.
It needs reform to make Government and Parliament more democratic, less oppositional, and more co-operative, instead of this pendulum-like system that shortens politicans horizons, and wastes considerable resources as one side undoes the things the other side did when the pendulum was swung the other way.
ZedLeg said:
Gecko1978 said:
1) the very rich who control thier own income stream (business owners)
2) middle income and high income workers, paid via paye and shut out of most benefits and most income adjustments
3) low income and the poor, recive direct cash benefits from the state and pay zero or net zero tax.
Groups 1 and 3 pay for very little. Group 2 pays for most things but benefits the least.
If group 2 moan we demonise them tell them 60k a year shut up your rich you can afford it. Group 3 need help Group 1 will move overseas if we don't help them so you Group 2 have to pay for everything.
Middle child syndrome 2) middle income and high income workers, paid via paye and shut out of most benefits and most income adjustments
3) low income and the poor, recive direct cash benefits from the state and pay zero or net zero tax.
Groups 1 and 3 pay for very little. Group 2 pays for most things but benefits the least.
If group 2 moan we demonise them tell them 60k a year shut up your rich you can afford it. Group 3 need help Group 1 will move overseas if we don't help them so you Group 2 have to pay for everything.
I personally would tax group one til their pips squeak. If they all f
ked off I have the feeling that suddenly the rest of the country would have more money.Now you're falling in to your own trap.
These big companies rely on benefits and tax breaks funded by the middle income taxpayers to do business. They're parasites.
I'm not an economist but considering that the worlds richest doubled their wealth over the pandemic while other economies saw the same money disappear. If we stopped allowing the world's richest to do this then the money would have to go elsewhere no?
These big companies rely on benefits and tax breaks funded by the middle income taxpayers to do business. They're parasites.
I'm not an economist but considering that the worlds richest doubled their wealth over the pandemic while other economies saw the same money disappear. If we stopped allowing the world's richest to do this then the money would have to go elsewhere no?
Edited to add - I’ve avoided the whole ‘private cs public’ debate as from a procurement point of view it’s irrelevant, you should be trying to secure best value for stakeholders, whether that’s the exchequer or shareholders.
We have very difficult issues to deal with in the public sector procurement/supply chain. A lot of what follows is contentious but is based on what I’ve witnessed working in procurement over the last 15 years in companies involved the Public sector supply chain at various levels.
- there is a prevalence of what I call ‘civilised corruption’, not the brown paper bag or gifts for the wife you see in developing economies but instead opportunities for future employment or ‘corporate hospitality’. A company I worked for that sold into council building projects had a six figure budget for ‘entertaining’ various council representatives and a process for how to manage requests for tickets to events. A cosy relationship between the salesman and buyer reduces any opportunities for new entrants to the supply chain. It’s not a coincidence football clubs have huge corporate suites.
- the policies and procedures that have been created are so complex and difficult to manage that in order to win anything companies need bid/tender teams, which again reduces the chance that competition can come along with a new challenge. When these bid teams are working with buyers to write the scope and specifications it makes it even harder to get competitive bids.
- we’ve reached the point now that with any service councils require there are a limited number of providers, and people within those industries will change between the different companies, taking these practices with them.
It’s really hard to break, because a lot of people make a lot of money out of this system and there is no great incentive to change. There are people on this gravy train that simply wouldn’t earn what they do now outside of their current position.
We do seem to be reaching a tipping point, in my industry (steel) there are a lot of people retiring or taking voluntary redundancy while they wait to retire, despite steel being privatised decades ago there is a big hangover in attitudes from the great British Steel days where money was free and easy (or at least that’s what they’d have you believe).
The test will be whether the new generations of buyers/salesmen fall into the same bad habits as previous. By and large people in my peer group seem to be a lot more fiscally aware having suffered through the GFC so I’m hopeful of change.
We have very difficult issues to deal with in the public sector procurement/supply chain. A lot of what follows is contentious but is based on what I’ve witnessed working in procurement over the last 15 years in companies involved the Public sector supply chain at various levels.
- there is a prevalence of what I call ‘civilised corruption’, not the brown paper bag or gifts for the wife you see in developing economies but instead opportunities for future employment or ‘corporate hospitality’. A company I worked for that sold into council building projects had a six figure budget for ‘entertaining’ various council representatives and a process for how to manage requests for tickets to events. A cosy relationship between the salesman and buyer reduces any opportunities for new entrants to the supply chain. It’s not a coincidence football clubs have huge corporate suites.
- the policies and procedures that have been created are so complex and difficult to manage that in order to win anything companies need bid/tender teams, which again reduces the chance that competition can come along with a new challenge. When these bid teams are working with buyers to write the scope and specifications it makes it even harder to get competitive bids.
- we’ve reached the point now that with any service councils require there are a limited number of providers, and people within those industries will change between the different companies, taking these practices with them.
It’s really hard to break, because a lot of people make a lot of money out of this system and there is no great incentive to change. There are people on this gravy train that simply wouldn’t earn what they do now outside of their current position.
We do seem to be reaching a tipping point, in my industry (steel) there are a lot of people retiring or taking voluntary redundancy while they wait to retire, despite steel being privatised decades ago there is a big hangover in attitudes from the great British Steel days where money was free and easy (or at least that’s what they’d have you believe).
The test will be whether the new generations of buyers/salesmen fall into the same bad habits as previous. By and large people in my peer group seem to be a lot more fiscally aware having suffered through the GFC so I’m hopeful of change.
Edited by KarlMac on Monday 6th March 11:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff