hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Agreed. But you should also understand that like these so-called "frothing at the mouth lefties" you are coming off as a gloating right-winger who's cheering a very narrow majority which will clearly spell a lot of pain and suffering for a great many people. Except I'm not a right winger. How do you explain my vote for labour 8 years ago? Quite prepared to vote for labour in the future if they are the best option. The difference between you and me is that I won't refuse to vote Tory even if they are clearly the best option. You are ever so melodramatic and it weakens your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 (edited) Jesus. You talk as if people will be rounded up in prison camps. This is the UK. Pretty soft on everything You can say that...... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-benefit-cuts-are-already-being--blamed-for-the-deaths-of-three-vulnerable-people-and-there-may-be-60-more-9942735.html Hypo, I would not, not refuse to vote Tory if they came up with more than smears, propaganda. Edited 9 May, 2015 by Hockey_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Agreed. But you should also understand that like these so-called "frothing at the mouth lefties" you are coming off as a gloating right-winger who's cheering a very narrow majority which will clearly spell a lot of pain and suffering for a great many people. I think it's your excessive use of hyperbole that people find irritating. "a lot of pain and suffering" is subjective. I don't think the Tories are planning to introduce physical torture any time soon. and "a great many people" is equally subjective. How many is a great many? 50,000? 100,000? 100,000 people is around 0.1% of the population. Even if they are your mates, the government still has it's responsibilities towards the other 99.9% as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 You can say that...... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-benefit-cuts-are-already-being--blamed-for-the-deaths-of-three-vulnerable-people-and-there-may-be-60-more-9942735.html Hypo, I would not, not refuse to vote Tory if they came up with more than smears, propaganda. Reading that article, it appears the problem is more about the incompetence of the people who determine who is entitled to benefits, as opposed to benefit cuts per se. Serious questions need to be asked of the jobsworths that determine if someone is fit to work, when they are obviously not. How can someone who is in a coma be deemed fit to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Ditto. Austerity will continue for all but the top 2% earners in this county, where they will continue to get richer. Cameron has played a blinder: - set/spread the fear of the Labour:SNP pact - put party politics before the country - put at risk UK membership of Europe. (my heart says leave Europe:my head says we have no choice but to stay) - put the Union at risk in a stake of party politics before the country - not taking part in the debates (other than one) he gave voice to the minority parties and thus spreading the vote. Labour play into Cameron's hands: - Milliband as leader - playing to central rather than tilting to the left - backing austerity plans - lack of honesty about the last time in office and over spending. Why didn't they just stick their hand up and admit they balls'ed up and over spent but hand learnt from mistakes Where have the values of the people gone. With the Tories in, it will be another 5 years of those at the top 'I'm okay jack' attitude while the others face the cost. I hope you know where you local food bank is. There need is set to grow even more. And for what it is worth I'm in the top 2% earners. Proud to be from Southampton Test - Labour Held. Proud to be living in Borough (Southwark) - Labour Gain Good luck it is going to be needed. Remember it will be those with least that will pay for austerity. Proud to be a lefty and care for others and not just myself.good post and i suspect your right,i voted tory the last 2 elections so we are not all nasty and selfish, but i am in the centre ground but i agreed labours policy on the mansion tax and non doms should be made to pay there fair share of tax and need a harder purge of tax avoiders at the top also ,and i have paid a higher rates of tax for years but my quality of life is more important than a little extra in my pay packet .i hope cameron sticks to the centre ground and keeps us all has one nation but fear the looney right of our party will cause trouble to follow there agenda and undermine him like they did majors government who was a decent man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Reading that article, it appears the problem is more about the incompetence of the people who determine who is entitled to benefits, as opposed to benefit cuts per se. Serious questions need to be asked of the jobsworths that determine if someone is fit to work, when they are obviously not. How can someone who is in a coma be deemed fit to work? Human statue? Shop window mannequin? Guard at Buckingham Palace? Some people just aren't prepared to make the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Reading that article, it appears the problem is more about the incompetence of the people who determine who is entitled to benefits, as opposed to benefit cuts per se. Serious questions need to be asked of the jobsworths that determine if someone is fit to work, when they are obviously not. How can someone who is in a coma be deemed fit to work? I don't blame the jobsworths (who are often very poorly paid anyway) but rather the mandarins who set the tick-box exercises and the targets that the jobsworths have to meet (evidenced by Mr TF's experience mentioned about 3 days ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 This thread really does read like last Summer's meltdown threads on the main board. Quality reading guys, keep in up! As if the tories on here wouldn't be having a meltdown if I Miliband had got a majority. I can picture now the panic and wailing about the deficit, "I'm leaving the country" etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I don't blame the jobsworths (who are often very poorly paid anyway) but rather the mandarins who set the tick-box exercises and the targets that the jobsworths have to meet (evidenced by Mr TF's experience mentioned about 3 days ago). So the issue is more about process rather than the cuts... But I am sure the tick boxes don't say "if applicant is in coma, then pass them as fit to work". Someone has ****ed up here and should be sacked, if the unions would allow it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 So the issue is more about process rather than the cuts... But I am sure the tick boxes don't say "if applicant is in coma, then pass them as fit to work". Someone has ****ed up here and should be sacked, if the unions would allow it No, the process is driven by the cuts. There have been many reports of the 'jobsworths' being scared to report glaring inaccuracies for fear of losing their jobs. In Mr TF's case, the clerk told him s/he didn't have the authority to change his wrongly applied sanction or to allow him to escalate his complaint to a senior manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Righties can be a charming bunch; some very gracious "winners" out there: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/08/jk-rowling-harry-potter-labour_n_7243710.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCholulaKid Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I have a friend who is exactly like some of you on here and I just can't understand his perspective. Absolutely despised thatcher to the point that he had a party when she died ffs. Thinks it is now the end of the world and wouldn't even consider voting anyone else but labour no matter who was in power and no matter what they did and it seems to me that this come primarily from his parents who are both militant labour too. In that circumstance you might as well not vote if you are just going to vote for one party by default. Oh dear. Just when I thought it wasn't possible for you to look any thicker..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 No, the process is driven by the cuts. There have been many reports of the 'jobsworths' being scared to report glaring inaccuracies for fear of losing their jobs. In Mr TF's case, the clerk told him s/he didn't have the authority to change his wrongly applied sanction or to allow him to escalate his complaint to a senior manager. sounds like a culture of bullying to me.. In Mr Tf's case, why could she not allow him to escalate it? That is his right. These people are there to serve the public. Unfortunately too many in the public sector don't see it that way, which applies to the jobsworths and the mandarins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Oh dear. Just when I thought it wasn't possible for you to look any thicker..... Feeling is mutual mate. If you blindly vote for a party unthinkingly at every election then you really are a thick idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 sounds like a culture of bullying to me.. In Mr Tf's case, why could she not allow him to escalate it? That is his right. These people are there to serve the public. Unfortunately too many in the public sector don't see it that way, which applies to the jobsworths and the mandarins In the real world, people like Job Centre staff (I'm talking about the real workers here, not their managers) are not given any authority. Claimants don't have any rights to ask for an escalation of their complaints. All he could achieve was a note on his file to the effect that there had been an administrative cock-up and that his JSA should apply from the original date. No apology and the 'blight' of the sanction is still there. I don't think you realise just how frightened ordinary people are to complain. God forbid, but it's going to get far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 sounds like a culture of bullying to me.. In Mr Tf's case, why could she not allow him to escalate it? That is his right. These people are there to serve the public. Unfortunately too many in the public sector don't see it that way, which applies to the jobsworths and the mandarins They are there to serve the public but they also work for the public and that responsibility extends to spending other workers' money with responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 (edited) As if the tories on here wouldn't be having a meltdown if I Miliband had got a majority. I can picture now the panic and wailing about the deficit, "I'm leaving the country" etc etc I don't think it would be anything like the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are seeing now. Edited 9 May, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I think it's your excessive use of hyperbole that people find irritating. "a lot of pain and suffering" is subjective. I don't think the Tories are planning to introduce physical torture any time soon. and "a great many people" is equally subjective. How many is a great many? 50,000? 100,000? 100,000 people is around 0.1% of the population. Even if they are your mates, the government still has it's responsibilities towards the other 99.9% as well. My "excessive hyperbole" right, so, like George Osborne before the election I cannot give you exact examples, I'm wrong? Also, as far as the jobsworths go. Remember such assistance isn't judged by a doctor any more (the DWP, working for the government don't trust those). It is a paid member of a French sub-contracted healthcare group filling out a tickbox form on a computer so the person doing the ticking is probably not to blame. This system was created under the instructions of this government. The only plus point for me is that my relatives up in the Wirral gave the minister currently responsible for this, Esther McVey, has been kicked out on her ear. As I say, I'm a member of such disability groups who campaign for this to be judged more fairly, so call me a loony lefty but I just don't wish to see more treatment like this dished out to those worse off in society (generalisation or not). So after watching this happen in the name of austerity cuts for five years now and seeing the general public resoundingly give it the thumbs up makes me just a little bit mad (It made John Major mad too...I assume you've seen all his latest speeches?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I don't think it would be anything like the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are seeing now. "ITS DISGUSTING, THESE LOONEY LEFT CVNTS! IM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY THAT NEW CAR THIS YEAR FFS!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 "ITS DISGUSTING, THESE LOONEY LEFT CVNTS! IM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY THAT NEW CAR THIS YEAR FFS!" ....is what no one would have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 ....is what no one would have said. No but Shy Tories would be thinking it in their heads. Plus some of these might tweet similar at random celebrity Labour voters: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/08/jk-rowling-harry-potter-labour_n_7243710.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 This pretty much sums it up for me: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/may/08/democracy-a-religion-that-has-failed-the-poor?CMP=fb_gu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCholulaKid Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Feeling is mutual mate. If you blindly vote for a party unthinkingly at every election then you really are a thick idiot. I couldn't agree more. Where we disagree is that whereas I'll vote to ensure the disadvantaged get the best possible deal. Your vote is all about you - and what's best for you. I'm not your mate, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I couldn't agree more. Where we disagree is that whereas I'll vote to ensure the disadvantaged get the best possible deal. Your vote is all about you - and what's best for you. I'm not your mate, btw. How could you possibly know that? I vote for a combination of factors which includes what I think is best for the country but also on the issues I care about and how things affect me. If you tell me that you don't give a thought for yourself or the issues that affect you when casting your vote then I'm afraid I don't believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 How could you possibly know that? I vote for a combination of factors which includes what I think is best for the country but also on the issues I care about and how things affect me. If you tell me that you don't give a thought for yourself or the issues that affect you when casting your vote then I'm afraid I don't believe you. For a self-confessed left-wing voter, that sounds very Thatcherite. But perhaps that's the problem, it's now just the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 (edited) For a self-confessed left-wing voter, that sounds very Thatcherite. But perhaps that's the problem, it's now just the norm. So when you vote you never have a thought for your own situation and how policies might affect you? What nonsense. I'll give you an example, one reason I voted tory is I think they will be best for my business. The success of my business means I can pay the people who work for me more rather than myself. Now how is that selfish? Edited 9 May, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Is it just me or do the left hate the right more than the other way around. When Farage failed to win his seat in South Thanet the loudest noise came from a couple of gobby women in the room who were cheering loudly and shouting, "Bye bye Nigel!" To me it came across as very bitter. I'm not one to agree with Farage but he isn't exactly Nick Griffin and is standing up for his own political beliefs. I can't really imagine the same level of spite had the Greens lost their seat in Brighton. I thought the same after Thatcher died and people were dancing in the streets shouting, "rejoice!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Is it just me or do the left hate the right more than the other way around. When Farage failed to win his seat in South Thanet the loudest noise came from a couple of gobby women in the room who were cheering loudly and shouting, "Bye bye Nigel!" To me it came across as very bitter. I'm not one to agree with Farage but he isn't exactly Nick Griffin and is standing up for his own political beliefs. I can't really imagine the same level of spite had the Greens lost their seat in Brighton. I thought the same after Thatcher died and people were dancing in the streets shouting, "rejoice!" Precisely. There is an extremely nasty and vicious undercurrent beneath the lefty exterior. A lot of the time it isn't even very well hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 So when you vote you never have a thought for your own situation and how policies might affect you? What nonsense. Yes, sure but you always think beside that how your vote will effect people. It just seems to me today that it's the Gordon Gekko culture that has arisen. I know when I read stories of people's lives being ruined by things such as the bedroom tax or the social clear out and gentrification that London is currently undergoing, it makes me think long and hard about who I want to vote for. I certainly don't see this and think "ah, well, I'll be better off tax-wise if I vote for the guy causing this". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Precisely. There is an extremely nasty and vicious undercurrent beneath the lefty exterior. A lot of the time it isn't even very well hidden. People shake their heads and wondered how can the polls have been so wrong? The polls were wrong because of a campaign of intimidation and bullying by the left that genuinely frightened people from admitting they would vote Tory. You would expect it from Mugabe's Zimbabwe but Britain? How many Labour signs did you see vandalised? Ironically the SNP had a similar approach in Scotland and the referendum poll was also 5% out. Who really is the nasty party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 People shake their heads and wondered how can the polls have been so wrong? The polls were wrong because of a campaign of intimidation and bullying by the left that genuinely frightened people from admitting they would vote Tory. You would expect it from Mugabe's Zimbabwe but Britain? How many Labour signs did you see vandalised? Ironically the SNP had a similar approach in Scotland and the referendum poll was also 5% out. Who really is the nasty party? Really? So the right are the victims are they? Campaigns of intimidation....brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Yes, sure but you always think beside that how your vote will effect people. It just seems to me today that it's the Gordon Gekko culture that has arisen. I know when I read stories of people's lives being ruined by things such as the bedroom tax or the social clear out and gentrification that London is currently undergoing, it makes me think long and hard about who I want to vote for. I certainly don't see this and think "ah, well, I'll be better off tax-wise if I vote for the guy causing this". Erm which is exactly what I said, that my voting is based on a number of factors so in reality not "selfish" at all. I wouldn't arrogantly call you selfish or uncaring just because you happen to vote for a mainstream party that is different to the one I vote for. Stereotyping all tory voters as selfish and unfeeling will do nothing other than make you look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Really? So the right are the victims are they? Campaigns of intimidation....brilliant. Just pointing out why the polls were wrong. Would you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Just pointing out why the polls were wrong. Would you disagree? Since most of the media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch I would suggest that if anyone's been intimidating anyone it's the right. But I do love your "there's a force at work preventing the British people from expressing their inner tory" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Since most of the media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch I would suggest that if anyone's been intimidating anyone it's the right. So do you disagree with me that the polls understated Tory support because people were reluctant to declare they were voting Tory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 But WHY would they? They appear to be in the majority...is it shame? It's certainly not the threat of violence (although since the new government want to scrap their membership to the court of human rights that may be an issue soon.) Why because they'd be seen to agree to horendous welfare cuts? Legal aid cuts? mass privatisation? Yeah, I suppose that could make you a little bit nervy to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 But WHY would they? They appear to be in the majority...is it shame? It's certainly not the threat of violence (although since the new government want to scrap their membership to the court of human rights that may be an issue soon.) Why because they'd be seen to agree to horendous welfare cuts? Legal aid cuts? mass privatisation? Yeah, I suppose that could make you a little bit nervy to admit. Well clearly they are intimidated and that does not reflect well on the left. There is actually an argument that the more wealth you create the more you have to spend on public services and the more you borrow the worse austerity you will have in the years ahead. I subscribe to that argumen but did not go and scrawl Labour scum on all the Labour signs that I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 People shake their heads and wondered how can the polls have been so wrong? The polls were wrong because of a campaign of intimidation and bullying by the left that genuinely frightened people from admitting they would vote Tory. You would expect it from Mugabe's Zimbabwe but Britain? How many Labour signs did you see vandalised? Ironically the SNP had a similar approach in Scotland and the referendum poll was also 5% out. Who really is the nasty party? "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "f*ck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Well clearly they are intimidated and that does not reflect well on the left. There is actually an argument that the more wealth you create the more you have to spend on public services and the more you borrow the worse austerity you will have in the years ahead. I subscribe to that argumen but did not go and scrawl Labour scum on all the Labour signs that I saw. I agree with creating wealth in the public sector....for the country as a whole, being run by the country and for it's people. Not big business into the pockets of execs and shareholders. I think public services should be run like a business with maximum efficiency for the highest profit FOR US. Someone said to me the other day, if you trust a party, you must understand who they funds them and who they are answerable to. Labour, it's the unions (it's how they were created) and for the conservatives it's financiers and big banking corporations so it's always seemed strange to me that anyone in their right mind would think they would punish them but I digress but it's money in the end that's always the issue on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I agree with creating wealth in the public sector....for the country as a whole, being run by the country and for it's people. Not big business into the pockets of execs and shareholders. I think public services should be run like a business with maximum efficiency for the highest profit FOR US. Someone said to me the other day, if you trust a party, you must understand who they funds them and who they are answerable to. Labour, it's the unions (it's how they were created) and for the conservatives it's financiers and big banking corporations so it's always seemed strange to me that anyone in their right mind would think they would punish them but I digress but it's money in the end that's always the issue on both sides. I would suggest that the 'tractor building' wealth creation model you put forward has been demonstrated to fail. I think that if 1% of the population pay 27% of the taxes then you should try to turn the 1% into 2% and you will raise even more taxes and have even better public services. The price you pay is that there are lots of very rich people. The point being that we can both have differing viewpoints about how to realise the same objective of good public services. Yours is left of centre mine is right, that does not make me a c***t'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I agree with creating wealth in the public sector....for the country as a whole, being run by the country and for it's people. Not big business into the pockets of execs and shareholders. I think public services should be run like a business with maximum efficiency for the highest profit FOR US. Someone said to me the other day, if you trust a party, you must understand who they funds them and who they are answerable to. Labour, it's the unions (it's how they were created) and for the conservatives it's financiers and big banking corporations so it's always seemed strange to me that anyone in their right mind would think they would punish them but I digress but it's money in the end that's always the issue on both sides. but the shareholders are the people.... Unless you don't have a pension. ... some services are better kept in the public sector, whilst others will always perform better in the private sector. For example, ba and bt have performed better in private sector. Whilst the Police couldn't possibly work better in the private sector. It's all about balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 (edited) ... Edited 9 May, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Not getting drawn into it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 (edited) but the shareholders are the people.... Unless you don't have a pension. ... some services are better kept in the public sector, whilst others will always perform better in the private sector. For example, ba and bt have performed better in private sector. Whilst the Police couldn't possibly work better in the private sector. It's all about balance. That's just a myth. Private sector companies can be notoriously top-loaded, and a common question heard in many of the larger concerns is "what job does he/she do?". I think small business is a brilliant thing. Able to twist, turn and refocus; normally comprised of staff who know how to wear a few hats. The corporate world is the complete opposite. Hierarchy, process, people resolutely wearing one (and only one) hat, standards. Half of company policy and procedure is normally in recognition of its size, designed to keep itself from tearing itself apart. It just about hangs together, but it can be woefully inefficient. The reason it hangs together is because the shareholders are happy, and the reason the shareholders are happy is because the organisation still makes money, even amongst the inherent inefficiency. The reason the organisation still makes money is because the cost of all that inefficiency is passed down to the customer, be it government or individual. The hidden cost of corporate inefficiency is a burden we all have to pay, either through tax or direct spend. Public and private sector comparisons are therefore apples and oranges in a financial sense. If you look at private sector organisations through a purely financial lens in isolation, hey, some of them are really profitable organisations. What great businesses! What's worse is that the money is seen as pure. "No-one has taken anything from the taxpayer to get that!", the capitalist might say. Yeah, you have. It's in your prices. It's reflected in the margin we pay to allow you to deal with your shít. The private sector is not more efficient than the public sector. It just gets to hide its losses in its prices and pretend that it doesn't affect taxpayers. Edited 9 May, 2015 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 LOL fest on this thread now. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 LOL fest on this thread now. Brilliant. I did wonder if I'd stumbled onto the muppet show when I saw the "right being intimidated by the left" line. By the way, if you see things like dying people being refused state help or people being forced to use foodbanks because of savage cuts, you may take the generalised view that people who vote for those who commit this stuff to law are not particularly nice or endering people....but hey, this board shows us, shucks, they have feelings too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 That's just a myth. Private sector companies can be notoriously top-loaded, and a common question heard in many of the larger concerns is "what job does he/she do?". I think small business is a brilliant thing. Able to twist, turn and refocus; normally comprised of staff who know how to wear a few hats. The corporate world is the complete opposite. Hierarchy, process, people resolutely wearing one (and only one) hat, standards. Half of company policy and procedure is normally in recognition of its size, designed to keep itself from tearing itself apart. It just about hangs together, but it can be woefully inefficient. The reason it hangs together is because the shareholders are happy, and the reason the shareholders are happy is because the organisation still makes money, even amongst the inherent inefficiency. The reason the organisation still makes money is because the cost of all that inefficiency is passed down to the customer, be it government or individual. The hidden cost of corporate inefficiency is a burden we all have to pay, either through tax or direct spend. Public and private sector comparisons are therefore apples and oranges in a financial sense. If you look at private sector organisations through a purely financial lens in isolation, hey, some of them are really profitable organisations. What great businesses! What's worse is that the money is seen as pure. "No-one has taken anything from the taxpayer to get that!", the capitalist might say. Yeah, you have. It's in your prices. It's reflected in the margin we pay to allow you to deal with your shít. The private sector is not more efficient than the public sector. It just gets to hide its losses in its prices and pretend that it doesn't affect taxpayers. You were doing ok until the last bit. The inefficiencies may be in the prices but payment of these is optional as opposed to the taxes and borrowings needed to fund the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I did wonder if I'd stumbled onto the muppet show when I saw the "right being intimidated by the left" line. By the way, if you see things like dying people being refused state help or people being forced to use foodbanks because of savage cuts, you may take the generalised view that people who vote for those who commit this stuff to law are not particularly nice or endering people....but hey, this board shows us, shucks, they have feelings too. They are not 'savage cuts' they are only taking us back to the levels of a few years ago. They are cuts in increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 You were doing ok until the last bit. The inefficiencies may be in the prices but payment of these is optional as opposed to the taxes and borrowings needed to fund the public sector. Yeah, alright. Petrol is optional. Gas and electricity is optional. The food chain is optional. The hellish South West Trains season ticket is optional. I am glad you have finally seen the light and have become a self-sustainability specialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 I did wonder if I'd stumbled onto the muppet show when I saw the "right being intimidated by the left" line. By the way, if you see things like dying people being refused state help or people being forced to use foodbanks because of savage cuts, you may take the generalised view that people who vote for those who commit this stuff to law are not particularly nice or endering people....but hey, this board shows us, shucks, they have feelings too. I think we found out who the real Muppets were on Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 May, 2015 Share Posted 9 May, 2015 Thank God we won't have any of Labour's 'back of a fag packet' policies to argue over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now