First the nationalists, now the communists

[Moscow Mule]

That would still be subsidising rich bosses who pay wages that are too low to live on without state assistance.

If you weren't taxed on NMW, it would be survivable without state assistance.

It's illegal not to pay NMW (except in circumstances obv.)

[DodgyAgent]

Now while I agree with your sentiment, which is I'm guessing improve some of the 'appalling state run schools, I'm really concerned you seem to think this is a deliberate ploy to exploit the poor for their votes.

If you genuinely believe this is the case DA then you've got some serious issues.

I am not saying that the state is being that cynical.

What I am saying is that ultimately the fact that state run schools are so poor in terms of how they are run, the facilities that they have and their efficiency (classroom sizes) is of little consequence to labour politicians.

You tend to find as in all things that the people who are the most efficient are those who are most directly accountable for what they do (headmasters in privately run schools, IT contractors have the lowest sickness days at work, MPS do whatever is most likely to bring them votes).

The state schools are run principally for the benefit of MPs looking for votes, secondly they are run for the benefit of those who administer and run them thirdly for the benefits of those who work in them and finally for the benefit of those who use them.

The more illiterate and dysfunctional our society becomes the more tax that is needed to employ people and policies (police, sure start, welfare, "community officers") to deal with ensuing problems. Therefore the party that promotes the "dealing of problems by the state" (which usually creates the problems in the first place) will become the party in power.

What I find deeply repellent are the middle class tw*ts who continue to support socialism and all its evils in order that they can wear a "badge of caring" when they themselves would not touch a public service with a greased barge pole. These middle class "tw*ts (Polly Toynbee, David Milliband, Tony Blair and most labour politicians) who believe that being closet socialists somehow gives them some sort of moral integrity should be challenging the state institutions and holding them to account. You never see Polly (priviliged middle class leftie) challenge public sector institutions, because they know that without them they would have no poor people to represent.

[snaw]

I am not saying that the state is being that cynical.

What I am saying is that ultimately the fact that state run schools are so poor in terms of how they are run, the facilities that they have and their efficiency (classroom sizes) is of little consequence to labour politicians.

You tend to find as in all things that the people who are the most efficient are those who are most directly accountable for what they do (headmasters in privately run schools, IT contractors have the lowest sickness days at work, MPS do whatever is most likely to bring them votes).

The state schools are run principally for the benefit of MPs looking for votes, secondly they are run for the benefit of those who administer and run them thirdly for the benefits of those who work in them and finally for the benefit of those who use them.

The more illiterate and dysfunctional our society becomes the more tax that is needed to employ people and policies (police, sure start, welfare, "community officers") to deal with ensuing problems. Therefore the party that promotes the "dealing of problems by the state" (which usually creates the problems in the first place) will become the party in power.

Better.

I agree with the first half of that, and I'll agree to disagree on the 2nd half.

[DodgyAgent]

Better.

I agree with the first half of that, and I'll agree to disagree on the 2nd half.

We'll leave it at that snaw as we have already discussed this topic to death!

[sasguru]

Anyway back to the subject under discussion.
What's giving capitalism a bad name at the moment is how rewards seem to be unrelated to risks for the people at the top of large companies.
You'll get paid masses of money and get a golden good-bye regardless of how the company fares under your watch.
These people are NOT entrepreneurs but politicians who thrive in large organisations - and in boom time they don't need much skill, as their companies would do well even if there was a chimpanzee in the top job.

The CEOs who manage to steer their companies through donwturns and use it to their advantage - those guys deserve the big money.

I think that is what is pissing people off.

[DodgyAgent]

Anyway back to the subject under discussion.
What's giving capitalism a bad name at the moment is how rewards seem to be unrelated to risks for the people at the top of large companies.
You'll get paid masses of money and get a golden good-bye regardless of how the company fares under your watch.
These people are NOT entrepreneurs but politicians who thrive in large organisations - and in boom time they don't need much skill, as their companies would do well even if there was a chimpanzee in the top job.

The CEOs who manage to steer their companies through donwturns and use it to their advantage - those guys deserve the big money.

I think that is what is pissing people off.

It is not capitalism it is wrong it is more the ultimate consequences of capitalism that monopolies are created. It is up to government to keep things fair

[sasguru]

It is not capitalism it is wrong it is more the ultimate consequences of capitalism that monopolies are created. It is up to government to keep things fair

I don't agree. Take Fred the Shred for example. AFAIK there was/is great competition between the banks. But it seems the shareholders somehow have no mechanism to stop the blatant profiteering of mediocre management in large companies.

[Cyberman]

I don't agree with that statement one bit but it's worth pointing out that the societies with the happiest populations are the ones where the wealth gap is the smallest.

You mean somewhere like Sri Lanka ?

[BrilloPad]

I don't agree. Take Fred the Shred for example. AFAIK there was/is great competition between the banks. But it seems the shareholders somehow have no mechanism to stop the blatant profiteering of mediocre management in large companies.

yes. but they are rarely allowed to fail. when was the last one before Lehmans? They seem to have lots of upside and little downside.

[DodgyAgent]

yes. but they are rarely allowed to fail. when was the last one before Lehmans? They seem to have lots of upside and little downside.

Like the large carmakers they are not really subject to the laws of capitalism on account of their sheer size.