After Osbourne's attack on IT contractors

[expat]

I am all in favour of the free market, but what we're seeing is not that, but the government outsourcing its functions to these firms, whilst still picking up the tab as their client. It is the worst of both worlds. AFAIC, it's just another added layer of bureaucracy. I think this is a case of rhetoric masking the fact that it's still the same inefficient, blinkered entity that is paying for these firms, whilst having a nominally "free market" shell added to it.

And to put it even more simply, using the private sector to do your dirty work then claiming you are all in it with us.

Free market really works. Just look at the tagging scandal. 'Print your own money' contracts for your friends. NL was as bad, they just didn't get caught as often nor were as blatant about it.

Thatcher actually knew what the pitfalls of this type of relationship was, remember what happened to Andersen?

I agree with both of you; and I'm a lefty by local standards, albeit with a gut sympathy for libertarianism. I know they are incompatible but I see good in both. I see little good in what we now have, which is neither social democracy nor libertarianism and certainly not a free market. In fact I have seen little enthusiasm for a free market outside of the early Thatcher.

And yes I remember what happened to Andersen. Thatcher recognised how far Andersen were from the free market, and banned them outright from all future government contracts. "Labour" prime minister Blair brought them back in in short order.

In a totally unrelated observation, Blair's Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt was a former head of research for Andersen Consulting.

[MicrosoftBob]

But you can't means-test everything.

Means-test the state pension? Maybe. The rich can get by without it.

Means-test the NHS? Maybe. The rich can buy private medical insurance. If they choose not to, they take the risk.

Means-test police protection / fire service? Sure. The rich can hire private protection agencies and install sprinkler systems, I guess. If they choose not to, well, they've taken a risk.

Means-test election services? Why not? The rich can go to a polling place manned by staff paid by the users, rather than the free, government operated service. If they choose not to, well, they take the risk of the election not going how they want.

Means-test constituency services? Sure, the rich could pay their MP a fee for any help they want. (Any allegations that this is already happening are probably true but unproven). If they choose not to, well, their MP won't help them.

I guess you could means-test everything. Schools. Road maintenance. National defence. No government agency will get involved in providing any government services for those who have the money to pay for those services themselves. Sounds like a winner to me. If a rich person doesn't want the service, they don't pay.

My favourite? HMRC. Hopefully I'll make enough that they won't provide the services of investigating me and collecting my taxes, leaving me to pay someone to do it. If I don't want the service, if I don't want anyone investigating me or collecting my taxes, I just won't pay for it.

Meanwhile, if you decide that after all, some things SHOULDN'T be means-tested, you'll have to try to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation as to which ones should be, which ones shouldn't be, and what principle determines how to make that decision.

Or you can just decide which things are means-tested by guessing which ones are going to win or lose you the most votes....

You could means test MPs, those with a second home obviously don't need an MPs income or expenses

[SpontaneousOrder]

Lets be fair. They printed loads more money then kept it to themselves. Except for paying their cleaners.

Not quite the same as taking other people's money.

Unless i missed the sarcasm... how on earth can you describe diluting the money supply with new money which they keep personally, and suppose that it's any different than taking other people's money?!!!

That's like your wife watering down the porridge with extra milk, but taking 2 bowls for every one of yours, and saying that she hasn't really taken your porridge - you still have a whole bowl after all.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It is the worst of both worlds. AFAIC, it's just another added layer of bureaucracy.

It's a few euphemistic steps away from fascism.

You can't have a free market, or capitalism, without prices. As these private companies' activities (in this respect) are built upon a portfolio of coerced clients, then there is no price mechanism for said 'services'.

This resembles a free market, or capitalism, in no way at all. It's far closer to fascism.

Then people have the absurd notion that it shows that markets are to blame

[SpontaneousOrder]

Why should a rich man pay only 20% VAT on buying his Ferrari, same as very poor person? Totally unfair!

20% tax on a ferrari is more than 20% on a kia.

[SueEllen]

I agree with both of you; and I'm a lefty by local standards, albeit with a gut sympathy for libertarianism. I know they are incompatible but I see good in both. I see little good in what we now have, which is neither social democracy nor libertarianism and certainly not a free market. In fact I have seen little enthusiasm for a free market outside of the early Thatcher.

And yes I remember what happened to Andersen. Thatcher recognised how far Andersen were from the free market, and banned them outright from all future government contracts. "Labour" prime minister Blair brought them back in in short order.

In a totally unrelated observation, Blair's Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt was a former head of research for Andersen Consulting.

It's not unrelated.

Why do these MPs in government help their "friends" in that way?

It's not like a few of them haven't been caught with cash for questions, have listed interesting companies in members interests their directorships and have had funded "fact finding" trips abroad.

[Zero Liability]

It's a few euphemistic steps away from fascism.

You can't have a free market, or capitalism, without prices. As these private companies' activities (in this respect) are built upon a portfolio of coerced clients, then there is no price mechanism for said 'services'.

This resembles a free market, or capitalism, in no way at all. It's far closer to fascism.

Then people have the absurd notion that it shows that markets are to blame

That's one of the perqs - you get to outsource the blame too.

[WordIsBond]

We are talking about welfare state benefits not roads, NHS and the like.

Is NHS not a welfare state benefit? Are prescriptions?

Why is the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills providing advice for companies in regard to capital controls in Greece? Can't businesses pay for their own advice?

Is the Animal and Plant Health Agency a welfare state department? Isn't it important to the welfare of the citizenry?

Is the Care Quality Commission a welfare-state department? Is long-term residential care for the elderly a welfare state benefit or not?

The state pension would never have come into existence if it had been pushed as a welfare benefit. It was something you "bought" with your NI contributions. You paid into it, you got something out. Is it a welfare-state benefit that you are going to means-test or not?

My point is if you are going to means-test every welfare state benefit, you have to have a clear definition of what is a welfare state benefit. And government is doing a lot of things they wouldn't have touched 200 years ago.

Roads didn't come under the Ministry of Transport until 1936. We could go back to a system of toll roads and have the requirement to pay for their use be means-tested. The only reason road use is not a "welfare state benefit" is because we as a society have chosen to make it universal, rather than means-tested. "Welfare state benefit" is defined societally/culturally rather than by any clear and universally applied definition / principle. Anything that we as a society decide is universal has ceased to be a welfare state benefit.

[MicrosoftBob]

Roads didn't come under the Ministry of Transport until 1936. We could go back to a system of toll roads and have the requirement to pay for their use be means-tested.

The M6 toll road seems to be doing ok, no need for means testing their.

If you can't afford to pay there is the proles M6

[BrilloPad]

20% tax on a ferrari is more than 20% on a kia.

Not in percentage terms.