No I fully agree that you cannot be held responsible for what racist bigots do because they are stupid.
But to try and say that there is no correlation between their actions or the actions of businesses and the vote leave winning is not really true.
Saying that the bigots probably believed what they are doing before the vote they just beleive the vote has enabled them to be out in the open.
And that is as a result of the vote.
Just to make sure i’m clear i do not think that all leave voters are racist or stupid or mislead. Their veiw is their view and they are quite within their rights to beleive in their view as correct.
I don’t beleive that it ws right and voted stay but that was my choice and was based on what I beleived was economically best for the country.
You know i completley agree with your sentiment, i just don’t think it was the EU that was the cause or the reason we are not going back to that.
Bare in mind the our annual deficit is less then the amount of profit that the major gas & electric companies make per year and if we had not privatised them we could be using it to offset or erase our deficit.
But the likely hood is that as a public company they would be run inefficiently and not make money the same as they were before privatisation.
Lets be honest the reason for most of your complaints is the Tories being in charge throughout the eigties and all the public spending cuts and privatisation they implemented.
And if we vote the Tories in again we can wave goodbye to the NHS and as always the people wont realise what they are missing till it’s gone and it will disapear with the country letting it happen.
I mean there is a person i work with that says she thinks people should have to pay for their healthcare, i have told her that the costs of private healthcare or insurance are extotinate but she thinks she’ll get her NI back to cover it and she’s delusional.
Ooh dear, Stevebish - you’ve run into one of my little bugbears.
The private sector is not more efficient than the public sector. It is just seen as more efficient because it doesn’t cost any taxpayers’ cash to run, at least that’s the perception.
It really does, though. The trains are privatised but the infrastructure is nationalised. Banks are not allowed to go under. We bail them out repeatedly.
I’ve worked in the private sector for nigh on twenty years, mostly as a contractor. Efficient? Don’t make me laugh. I owe my career longevity to being theoretically-get-riddable-tomorrow. I am not a direct cost. I am, an accountant’s trick, used to theoretically keep me off the balance sheet.
That is widespread. It isn’t efficient, you just don’t realise it isn’t, because the costs are passed down to the customer.
I am an acccountant and don’t worry I do know exactly what you meen, but the nationalised industires are just run even more inefficiently, do you really beleive that any of the fuel companies would have made money if they had been left nationalised.
Nationalised industries are just poorly run, most of that is because of Tory governments spending all of their time destablising them to prove that nationalised industry does not work, then the Labour governments spending their time trying to mend what has been broken.
But they are poorly run, my wife is a nurse and i can tell you that the NHS is badly run and could save millions if they were more organised, but the Tories will never let that happen.
But if you look at the councils all over the country they are indicative of the problem with nationalised industry.
My opinion privatise big industry let the private sector organise them so that they make money and then re-nationalise them and leave them to run and make the counntry money.
OK Lenin - we’ve heard all the theory. How do you propose to actually sort it all out and make society equitable to all. Give us details dammit!!
Don’t start that! We’ll be here all day!
Seriously though, many of these things are political choices, the creation of money being one of them. Right now, money is only ever created as debt. There are economists out there that think we should create it for infrastructure projects. Corbyn’s People’s QE is a proposed implementation of that theory.
In terms of equitable for all, I suppose what I’m really after is that people get the same chances, irrespective of background. The simple fact is that if you’re born unlanded, life is a lot harder while you spent 25 years sorting that out. Our poor young bright kids have to spend years paying back the costs of their tuition.
It’s mostly a case of rebalancing the economy to serve a wider variety of interests. As it stands, most things people really need to change their lives are financially out of reach, intentionally so, to get you to take your arse down to the nearest bank.
We talk about having a moribund economy, and yet at the same time, billions of earned income is going straight into the coffers of banks, doing nowt particularly useful except enrich those that issued the loans.
So have I. Private sector is just as, if not more mental. Many of the corporations I’ve worked for have been run like fucking kingdoms, GoT style-shenanigans included.
It is best to be a lowly tech soldier in these places.
If you want to do something about the racism issue, get your arse down to the demo at Bargate tomorrow to oppose the racists already planning on setting up there.
It been a long time since I worked in the public sector and times have chanegd enormously since then, but I have worked with public sector organisations since and much like the private sector, both have examples of brilliance, dedication and benefit and both have examples of dogma, intransigence and profligacy. But by it’s very nature operations within the private sector have to be more efficient else they fail and fold. Large Corps may have dictatorial structures (i don’t know), but that’s no argument to say they are inefficient.
They’re just as capable of being as efficient or inefficient as each other.
They’re assessed by different standards, is all.
Publicly run industries are seen as a money pit, because it comes out of your pay packet before you see the cash.
For some reason, spin mostly, if you’re paying a “tax” to a private industry, you’re paying out of your take-home income, and it isn’t inefficient anymore!
I don’t know Pap, I’m currently working the public sector and it can be the most frustrating waste of money possible.
Having to send systems out to tender every 3 years (EU legislation BTW) and go through the whole ball aching process despite there being nothing wrong with the current system. Even your current suppliers have to bid to be kept as a “preferred” supplier
Employing people is a ball-ache. Recently looking for someone and due to the red-taped HR processes it has taken us 6 months to find absolutely no-one, so we’ve had to send out again. Unfortuantely, as with systems, we can only use “preferred” agencies so we’re going to end up with the same dross. The man hours that go into employing someone and actually proving that they’re really the best person for the job. In the private sector we would have had someone in within a month!
I’ve spent the last 5 years in the public sector and 20+ years before that in the private, I definitely think the private sector is more efficient and less of a money waste.
And in many cases, that is absolutely true. Consumer goods would be one area.
But the commuter in the south east doesn’t really have a choice as to which train service they use, neither do most users of public transport inside cities.
You have a choice as to which energy providers you use, but you have to buy energy from a private supplier, and you have to serve their profit motive.
Same thing with housing. You can choose to live on the streets, or you can rent or buy.
Many of these takehome choices aren’t really choices. They’re taxes, just going to private pockets, instead of democratically controlled organisations.
Private sector business that are really inefficent and/or badly run wil eventually fail because of that beast called competitors . That usually works as a pretty big incentive to find a way to improve. Public sector business bosses are occastionally held to be sort-of accountable, and very occasionally that might be in public and they might lose their job, but thats about it.
I don’t disagree with that at all. There is a very sensible, logical argument, and i’ve seen you advocate it in previous posts, for some services being better offered in public ownership and transport is certainly one of them. But it is very difficult to ascertain what level of expenditure would be classed as a hidden “tax” for paying for them. Nobody can tell what the cost level of energy supplies would be if it was in public ownership and how this compares with private investment. Private ownership and competition would drive down prices and theoretically improve efficiency, but as to when level that fades into inconsequence, no-one can tell.
I work in the public sector and can honestly say that since I arrived this morning I’ve done about 5 mins work. I’ve watched a bit of Saints training on Facebook, posted on here, played scrabble on line, listened to two albums and eaten some crisps.
