Question for socialists

[pjclarke]

Plus the other 50 public sector employers needed to support the process

I've told a you a million times about exaggerating.

Yep Spot on 90% of all criminals, uneducated, unemployed welfare dependents are all educated by the state

And you.

State held monopoly that makes us pay more than any other EU country and is often held to ransom by strikers.

State monopoly? try telling that to National Express or Connex . Ever stopped to wonder why fares tend to be cheaper (and the trains faster) on the Continent ?

Just make sure you dont fall ill on a Friday/ Saturday night or at a time that doesnt suit the doctors to come out

Ah, so your definition of an 'utterly cruel' state is one where non-urgent medical treatment in your own home is only available most of the time?

And then shoved you into an old people home to be beaten and bullied after your hard earned savings and investments have been stolen from you

D'ya think that might be just a tad offensive to the vast majority of decent, honest care providers?

Thanks to the states inability to regulate and run an economy with any level of competence

Ah, so the financial crisis was due to too little state regulation of the finance industry. Got that.

The state is a parasite

It is, or should be, a symbiosis: without the state providing a numerate and literate workforce, subsidising public transport, guaranteeing exports, underwriting the banks, the private sector could not survive.

[DodgyAgent]

I've told a you a million times about exaggerating.


And you.



State monopoly? try telling that to National Express or Connex . Ever stopped to wonder why fares tend to be cheaper (and the trains faster) on the Continent ?



Ah, so your definition of an 'utterly cruel' state is one where non-urgent medical treatment in your own home is only available most of the time?

D'ya think that might be just a tad offensive to the vast majority of decent, honest care providers?



Ah, so the financial crisis was due to too little state regulation of the finance industry. Got that.



It is, or should be, a symbiosis: without the state providing a numerate and literate workforce, subsidising public transport, guaranteeing exports, underwriting the banks, the private sector could not survive.

My point at 7.30 on a saturday morning - just off to play golf. is this.

You seem to argue that we should shut up and be grateful to the state for supplying us with all the necessary public services.

My point is that the state supplies them, but it supplies them at such appallingly low standards that it should be challenged to the point that no one should accept the standards it delivers. It may for example provide healthcare that is vital but it does so to a very low standard.
The reasons for this are because the state has a monopoly on delivering these services. Without any competition there is no accountability and terrible inefficiency - these services are run for the political and material benefits of those who run them and work in them, not for those who consume them.
Another reason is that employment laws are such that individual workers are no longer accountable either, so whether services are delivered or targets are met they will all still have jobs.
When a public sector manager is sacked they soon get a job working for another public authority- Waste in Whitehall: How civil servants have overspent by £31billion in just two years | Mail Online. Yes it may be the Mail but this story was as a result of a Times investigation. Made up or not made up there are stories everywhere of incompetence, waste and corruption within the public sector.

Your attitude represents the arrogance of the leaders of the public sector who think that the rest of us should be grateful for what is handed out, and that we should be morally obliged to pay our taxes to support these services. You may be brainwashed into falling for this but I am not.

The cruelty element is that this pernicious system hurts most at the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society rather than the rich privileged section that people like you inhabit.

[doodab]

My point is that the state supplies them, but it supplies them at such appallingly low standards that it should be challenged to the point that no one should accept the standards it delivers. It may for example provide healthcare that is vital but it does so to a very low standard.

Having recently had the benefit of the NHS when struck down with a serious medical condition, and having also experienced paid for care in Germany, I have to say you don't know what you are talking about. Is there room for improvement? Yes, of course. But to say that it's care of an appallingly low standard that no one should accept it is simply bulltulip.

[doodab]

Made up or not made up there are stories everywhere of incompetence, waste and corruption within the public sector.

And of course there is none such in the private sector. No rail crash or prisoner escape has ever been traced to a private contractor, there have been no bribery scandals involving Bae or others, the bankers didn't almost destroy their companies while handing themselves whopping pay cheques.

The NAO says that the Civil Service lacks the commercial acumen to negotiate value-for-money contracts and as a result Whitehall is being ‘ripped-off’, The Times reports.
Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public accounts committee, said civil servants lacked the management, planning or IT skills to negotiate cost-effective contracts. She said industry was always ‘calling the tune’

So in a nutshell that says that your oh so wonderful private sector is routinely ripping off the taxpayer. Imagine how much waste could be reduced if we just handed them the money and let them make a profit as they see fit.

Your ability to look at the private sector through rose tinted specs is second to none.

Your attitude represents the arrogance of the leaders of the public sector who think that the rest of us should be grateful for what is handed out, and that we should be morally obliged to pay our taxes to support these services.

As opposed to those private sector leaders who would gladly charge us more for a lesser service and call the difference profit. We've seen private sector delivery of essential services in the railways and utility companies. The dogma used to be these things would be cheaper because the private sector is more efficient, I think that's been shown to be bollocks hasn't it.

[pjclarke]

You seem to argue that we should shut up and be grateful to the state for supplying us with all the necessary public services.

I know what my position is, thanks, and it ain't that. I simply found your simplistic characterisation of the state as parasitic as absurd, counterfactual, and offensive to a large number of people for whom the phrase 'public service ethic' still means something. I am a school governor and every teacher I know does a difficult and worthwhile job extraordinarily well, for a lot less money than they could earn elsewhere. As my son went to the school, the appropriate response from me is gratitude to these 'parasites'.

OTOH every critic of the profession I've met has this in common - they wouldn't last one week in the classroom.

[d000hg]

My point is that the state supplies them, but it supplies them at such appallingly low standards that it should be challenged to the point that no one should accept the standards it delivers.

Untrue.

It may for example provide healthcare that is vital but it does so to a very low standard.

Even more untrue.

[DodgyAgent]

And of course there is none such in the private sector. No rail crash or prisoner escape has ever been traced to a private contractor, there have been no bribery scandals involving Bae or others, the bankers didn't almost destroy their companies while handing themselves whopping pay cheques.



So in a nutshell that says that your oh so wonderful private sector is routinely ripping off the taxpayer. Imagine how much waste could be reduced if we just handed them the money and let them make a profit as they see fit.

Your ability to look at the private sector through rose tinted specs is second to none.



As opposed to those private sector leaders who would gladly charge us more for a lesser service and call the difference profit. We've seen private sector delivery of essential services in the railways and utility companies. The dogma used to be these things would be cheaper because the private sector is more efficient, I think that's been shown to be bollocks hasn't it.

My point is that the debate needs to shift from tribal positions between left and right to how do we make public services work. Your citing of the public sector ripping off the public sector is a perfect example of just how incompetent the public sector is. Would Tesco allow themselves to be ripped off in this way? No -they employ and train the hardest bast**ds imaginable to screw suppliers till they bleed (trust me I know )
As monopolies public services have a duty to the taxpayer to procure services likewise, and as a duty in particular to the poor in society who are trapped into the web of public service dependency. They don't. Why? because public services are a useful "guilt" tool with which to promote socialist agendas - so no one challenges them. Or those of us who do are smeared as child eating capitalists.

As soon as a public service is criticised up jumps some self important "school governor" taking "personal offence" at criticism of their monopoly that is "trying its best" armed with anecdotes and excuses to conjure support. If that particular institution is producing outstanding results then fine. If it is'nt then the institution needs to be changed - from the top-. And to say "you come and try it" to your critics, I will say "what are we paying you for?"

Again you move the argument to comparing with the private sector. This is not where the debate lies - in terms of efficiency - overall rather than anecdotal- private (non monopolistic) businesses out perform public sector institutions hugely.

I am not saying that all public services should be privatised. Instead I am saying they should be run to the standards of very the best businesses and institutions. I will add at this stage that it IS the governments job to patrol the activities of the private sector as much as it should encourage it to work. So when financial institutions collapse because they have not been regulated properly then ultimately the government is responsible - otherwise what is the government there for? I will also add that the main reason for our sovereign debt crisis is because labour governments have once again squandered far too much money on public services.

On your point about private sector profiting from running state monopolies I would agree that this is not an efficient way of delivering what should be public services - energy and transport. However I would wager that companies such EDF UK, Virgin transport and National Grid are still run, as companies, far better than anything that preceded them - they rarely get ripped off by suppliers, I know I have tried. The problem here is that instead of those efficiencies being transferred to benefit the consumers they are instead - transferred to the shareholders and senior executives within them. Again my point is that the debate should move on from a private/public tit for tat argument to one that discusses how these services are delivered for the total benefit of the consumer.

My extreme comments using words such as "parasite", "evil" were used to convey how the other side of the "tribe" sees the public services. And whilst these words are excessive, it is not unfair to identify a distinct link between the vast numbers of poor, unemployed, ill educated and unhealthy and how closely reliant they have been on the public services.

The public sector has for too long been used as a tool with which to fight political arguments. It needs to be under constant critical scrutiny particularly by those who support it. It does not need to have its employees mollycoddled by employment laws and it does not need to allow its workers to have more time off sick than any other sector of workers. What it does need to do is to subject itself totally to the needs of the consumers.

[pjclarke]

As soon as a public service is criticised up jumps some self important "school governor" taking "personal offence" at criticism of their monopoly that is "trying its best" armed with anecdotes and excuses to conjure support.

Yeah cheers, but factually wrong (again). Education is not a monopoly, transport is not a monopoly, health is not a monopoly.

There is hardly a level playing field in terms of 'customer service': I'll take that comparison seriously when BUPA starts treating AIDS patients or providing long term psychiatric care, intensive care or an A&E service. The private sector can and does cream off the profitable customers while the state has a responsibility to provide a universal service. Most people regard this as a good thing.

[doodab]

My point is that the debate needs to shift from tribal positions between left and right to how do we make public services work.

My extreme comments using words such as "parasite", "evil" were used to convey how the other side of the "tribe" sees the public services. And whilst these words are excessive, it is not unfair to identify a distinct link between the vast numbers of poor, unemployed, ill educated and unhealthy and how closely reliant they have been on the public services.

If you want to shift the debate on from tribal positions don't adopt one.

Your citing of the public sector ripping off the public sector is a perfect example of just how incompetent the public sector is. Would Tesco allow themselves to be ripped off in this way? No -they employ and train the hardest bast**ds imaginable to screw suppliers till they bleed (trust me I know )

As monopolies public services have a duty to the taxpayer to procure services likewise, and as a duty in particular to the poor in society who are trapped into the web of public service dependency. They don't. Why?

This is rather missing the point, which is that the private sector clearly cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the taxpayer, or for that matter most of their other customers. Plenty of private sector firms do get screwed on such deals. Suggesting that it's their own fault for being unprepared for the sharks they are dealing with rather suggests that they might be better off doing this stuff in house instead.

Again you move the argument to comparing with the private sector. This is not where the debate lies - in terms of efficiency - overall rather than anecdotal- private (non monopolistic) businesses out perform public sector institutions hugely.

The best private sector firms may well be more efficient but the worst probably aren't. I do wonder what you mean by "efficient" in this context and how this is measured, I think simple measurement on cost without regard to quality is misleading. It's also worth pointing out that while many government IT projects for example are well publicised high profile disasters, the fact is that these disasters are largely (not) being delivered by the private sector, who consistently fail to do things to the required standard within budgetary constraints.

I'm for transfer of expertise and best practices into the public sector but I believe that the first duty of those responsible for delivering essential services is to the end user and I don't see how this can be reconciled with private ownership and for profit operation. Your examples of EDF, virgin etc may well be "better run as companies" but ultimately the end product counts far more than the method of delivery and it's hard to argue that privatization of these companies has (or hasn't) delivered a better end product as there is no state run control with which to compare.

[AtW]

Would Tesco allow themselves to be ripped off in this way? No -they employ and train the hardest bast**ds imaginable to screw suppliers till they bleed (trust me I know )

They are not doing too well now -

Tesco slump due to divine intervention, says Christian pressure group | Business | The Guardian

I've been to Tesco enough to know they are "Tesco quality" and not cheap at all. Screwing suppliers can only last so long.