The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

What's Hot
14041434546200

Comments

  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    edited April 2017
    Fretwired said: 
    Class de-alignment is a good way of putting it. I also think the fact that fewer people belong to a trade union has had an effect on views - there's not the link between your average plumber and the Labour Party. I had a local authority job in the 70s in Luton. The council had around 30,000 council houses and a massive direct labour force of trades people to maintain and build properties. These people were all members of a union which was closely aligned to Labour - I had to be a member of a Union to keep my job. Thatcher swept it all away by forcing councils to outsource the work so all these people either set up on their own or worked for private companies with no union. 
    So the outsourcing was done to benefit the Conservatives politically. In your opinion, did it benefit the end user, was that labour force better outsourced than it was as an in-house agency? 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Fretwired said: 
    Class de-alignment is a good way of putting it. I also think the fact that fewer people belong to a trade union has had an effect on views - there's not the link between your average plumber and the Labour Party. I had a local authority job in the 70s in Luton. The council had around 30,000 council houses and a massive direct labour force of trades people to maintain and build properties. These people were all members of a union which was closely aligned to Labour - I had to be a member of a Union to keep my job. Thatcher swept it all away by forcing councils to outsource the work so all these people either set up on their own or worked for private companies with no union. 
    So the outsourcing was done to benefit the Conservatives politically. In your opinion, did it benefit the end user, was that labour force better outsourced than it was as an in-house agency? 
    I was a junior auditor. I can tell you that the council saved huge amounts of cash. Fraud and theft was rampant - many trades were paid on piece work rates so, for example, the painters used to mix undercoat with gloss and do one coat - the more windows that got painted the more money they earned. When samples were taken gloss and undercoat would be found, but after a few years the paint started peeling and the job would need doing again. The council was Labour - they actually agreed with the policy as it proved popular with council house tenants who were fed up with shoddy work. Don't forget that in the 70s employment was high - there were four car plants in Luton - so 99% of council tenants were paying a reasonable commercial level rent, but felt the council's trade people ripped them off. It also allowed the councillors to take back handers from commercial companies, but that's another story.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22096
    So that had a clear financial benefit. I'm not opposed to outsourcing if it improves a service and benefits the end user. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    So that had a clear financial benefit. I'm not opposed to outsourcing if it improves a service and benefits the end user. 
    Basically the managers took the workforce and formed a private company and continued to use the council depot so initially nobody lost their job. Serious money was saved and eventually the likes of SERCO came along and bought the DLO (Direct Labour Organisations) as they were called and privatisation was complete.

    Councils don't like having council houses - being a big landlord is a PIA with tenants moaning if things go wrong and councillors on the war path if they think they may lose their seats. The outsourcing of maintenance was a major relief.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • capo4thcapo4th Frets: 4437
    Also one of the huge problems of council,waste and outsourcing...

    I know for a fact that many councillors are on the take with regard to local decisions, service provision and planning. 

    Local government waste is rife thats that's why they complain of constant budget deficits but are happy to take their huge salaries and platinum pensions.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • EvilmagsEvilmags Frets: 5158
    capo4th said:
    Also one of the huge problems of council,waste and outsourcing...

    I know for a fact that many councillors are on the take with regard to local decisions, service provision and planning. 

    Local government waste is rife thats that's why they complain of constant budget deficits but are happy to take their huge salaries and platinum pensions.
    Wtch Glasgow if Labour loses power...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • AliGorieAliGorie Frets: 308
    edited April 2017
    The Irish Press can say it. It's a shame the 'British' Press aren't allowed to.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7lmZbiV4AAr8aE.jpg
     

    6reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    AliGorie said:
    The Irish Press can say it. It's a shame the 'British' Press aren't allowed to.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7lmZbiV4AAr8aE.jpg
     

    Drivel.

    Decline and fall is not inevitable. and it won't happen. Has Ireland even got a navy?

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    Fretwired said:
    AliGorie said:
    The Irish Press can say it. It's a shame the 'British' Press aren't allowed to.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7lmZbiV4AAr8aE.jpg
     

    Drivel.

    Decline and fall is not inevitable. and it won't happen. Has Ireland even got a navy?
    I'm disappointed that this kind of bitterness still persists in Ireland after 100 years
    It would be easier to trot out a list of insults about Ireland

    In fact, the country that will be the most affected negatively by Brexit will be Ireland
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    edited April 2017
    AliGorie said:
    The Irish Press can say it. It's a shame the 'British' Press aren't allowed to.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7lmZbiV4AAr8aE.jpg 

    And the Irish news is from Northern Ireland, part of the UK
    It's a nationalist paper, and so would be very anti-Brexit

    amazingly, this SNP-supporting paper also thinks Brexit is a terrible mistake: http://www.thenational.scot/
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71959
    edited April 2017
    Fretwired said:

    I was a junior auditor. I can tell you that the council saved huge amounts of cash. Fraud and theft was rampant - many trades were paid on piece work rates so, for example, the painters used to mix undercoat with gloss and do one coat - the more windows that got painted the more money they earned. When samples were taken gloss and undercoat would be found, but after a few years the paint started peeling and the job would need doing again.
    The problem there wasn't due to it being in the public sector though - it was incompetent management. If the workers had been properly supervised - or better still, paid by the hour rather than piecework so there was no incentive to short-cut the job - then there wouldn't have been the poor results.

    Fretwired said:

    Basically the managers took the workforce and formed a private company and continued to use the council depot so initially nobody lost their job. Serious money was saved
    ... as that directly proves. Same workers, better management, so better results.

    Fretwired said:

    eventually the likes of SERCO came along and bought the DLO (Direct Labour Organisations) as they were called and privatisation was complete.
    Thereby adding the extra cost of profit-taking and shareholder dividends that wasn't present before.

    Fretwired said:

    Councils don't like having council houses - being a big landlord is a PIA with tenants moaning if things go wrong and councillors on the war path if they think they may lose their seats. The outsourcing of maintenance was a major relief. 
    Very true, hence they need to be run by independent publicly-owned companies rather than directly by the councils, so there isn't the problem for the councils and there isn't the profit-taking of the private sector.

    The private sector being 'more efficient' is a myth - it can't be, because money is taken out of the system to provide the profits of the private contractors.

    And once companies like Serco get big enough they become semi-monopolistic and can push their prices up knowing that smaller competitors can't easily get into the market.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    edited April 2017
    ICBM said:
    Fretwired said:

    I was a junior auditor. I can tell you that the council saved huge amounts of cash. Fraud and theft was rampant - many trades were paid on piece work rates so, for example, the painters used to mix undercoat with gloss and do one coat - the more windows that got painted the more money they earned. When samples were taken gloss and undercoat would be found, but after a few years the paint started peeling and the job would need doing again.
    The problem there wasn't due to it being in the public sector though - it was incompetent management. If the workers had been properly supervised - or better still, paid by the hour rather than piecework so there was no incentive to short-cut the job - then there wouldn't have been the poor results.


    No it wasn't. It was the Unions - any changes to working practices resulted in a strike or work to rule. The workers had a monopoly, much like the tube drivers, so could effectively do what they liked egged on by their unions. It was virtually impossible to sack anyone. The moment it was a contract the workers knew the council could cancel it and get another company to do the work. The power of the unions was gone at a stroke. And it was the same management team so you can't blame management.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71959
    Fretwired said:

    No it wasn't. It was the Unions - any changes to working practices resulted in a strike or work to rule. The workers had a monopoly, much like the tube drivers, so could effectively do what they liked egged on by their unions. It was virtually impossible to sack anyone. The moment it was a contract the workers knew the council could cancel it and get another company to do the work. The power of the unions was gone at a stroke. And it was the same management team so you can't blame management.
    I admit that was probably the simplest solution to a difficult problem, but my point is that it's a myth that the public sector can't be efficient if it's run properly, because it was when the same workers did the same job. Who allowed the bad working practices to arise in the first place is the real question.

    Instead we now have near-monopolistic private companies like Serco which make a fat profit from milking the system, are constantly trying to increase their takeover of public services, but are not publicly accountable in any way. And guess which political party they donate to...

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    ICBM said:

    The problem there wasn't due to it being in the public sector though - it was incompetent management. If the workers had been properly supervised - or better still, paid by the hour rather than piecework so there was no incentive to short-cut the job - then there wouldn't have been the poor results.

    Fretwired said:

    Basically the managers took the workforce and formed a private company and continued to use the council depot so initially nobody lost their job. Serious money was saved
    ... as that directly proves. Same workers, better management, so better results.

    Fretwired said:

    eventually the likes of SERCO came along and bought the DLO (Direct Labour Organisations) as they were called and privatisation was complete.
    Thereby adding the extra cost of profit-taking and shareholder dividends that wasn't present before.

    Fretwired said:

    Councils don't like having council houses - being a big landlord is a PIA with tenants moaning if things go wrong and councillors on the war path if they think they may lose their seats. The outsourcing of maintenance was a major relief. 
    Very true, hence they need to be run by independent publicly-owned companies rather than directly by the councils, so there isn't the problem for the councils and there isn't the profit-taking of the private sector.

    The private sector being 'more efficient' is a myth - it can't be, because money is taken out of the system to provide the profits of the private contractors.

    And once companies like Serco get big enough they become semi-monopolistic and can push their prices up knowing that smaller competitors can't easily get into the market.
    I've seen extremely competent managers in the public sectors unable to get results from inept, half-arsed staff on many occasions, so no - that isn't the reason. Unionisation of the public sector adds to the problem. I have met many in jobs that they got moved into when they were no longer needed, or were not competent. That road ends with lots of ill-suited people, doing a bad job with zero concern about their output, working 35 hours max

    I thought you had read the Tim Harford's books?
    they should be able to explain to anyone why, even with profits, the private sector is more efficient 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    ICBM said:
    Fretwired said:

    No it wasn't. It was the Unions - any changes to working practices resulted in a strike or work to rule. The workers had a monopoly, much like the tube drivers, so could effectively do what they liked egged on by their unions. It was virtually impossible to sack anyone. The moment it was a contract the workers knew the council could cancel it and get another company to do the work. The power of the unions was gone at a stroke. And it was the same management team so you can't blame management.
    I admit that was probably the simplest solution to a difficult problem, but my point is that it's a myth that the public sector can't be efficient if it's run properly, because it was when the same workers did the same job. Who allowed the bad working practices to arise in the first place is the real question.

    Instead we now have near-monopolistic private companies like Serco which make a fat profit from milking the system, are constantly trying to increase their takeover of public services, but are not publicly accountable in any way. And guess which political party they donate to...
    where's your evidence that it's a myth?

    Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBM said:

    The problem there wasn't due to it being in the public sector though - it was incompetent management. If the workers had been properly supervised - or better still, paid by the hour rather than piecework so there was no incentive to short-cut the job - then there wouldn't have been the poor results.

    Fretwired said:

    Basically the managers took the workforce and formed a private company and continued to use the council depot so initially nobody lost their job. Serious money was saved
    ... as that directly proves. Same workers, better management, so better results.

    Fretwired said:

    eventually the likes of SERCO came along and bought the DLO (Direct Labour Organisations) as they were called and privatisation was complete.
    Thereby adding the extra cost of profit-taking and shareholder dividends that wasn't present before.

    Fretwired said:

    Councils don't like having council houses - being a big landlord is a PIA with tenants moaning if things go wrong and councillors on the war path if they think they may lose their seats. The outsourcing of maintenance was a major relief. 
    Very true, hence they need to be run by independent publicly-owned companies rather than directly by the councils, so there isn't the problem for the councils and there isn't the profit-taking of the private sector.

    The private sector being 'more efficient' is a myth - it can't be, because money is taken out of the system to provide the profits of the private contractors.

    And once companies like Serco get big enough they become semi-monopolistic and can push their prices up knowing that smaller competitors can't easily get into the market.
    I've seen extremely competent managers in the public sectors unable to get results from inept, half-arsed staff on many occasions, so no - that isn't the reason. Unionisation of the public sector adds to the problem. I have met many in jobs that they got moved into when they were no longer needed, or were not competent. That road ends with lots of ill-suited people, doing a bad job with zero concern about their output, working 35 hours max

    I thought you had read the Tim Harford's books?
    they should be able to explain to anyone why, even with profits, the private sector is more efficient 

    Does this mean the NHS should be fully privatised? 

    Genuine question, I'm not intending to load it at all. But if you took your theory to it's logical conclusion, we'd have a system similar to the US I'd imagine. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    ICBM said:

    The problem there wasn't due to it being in the public sector though - it was incompetent management. If the workers had been properly supervised - or better still, paid by the hour rather than piecework so there was no incentive to short-cut the job - then there wouldn't have been the poor results.

    Fretwired said:

    Basically the managers took the workforce and formed a private company and continued to use the council depot so initially nobody lost their job. Serious money was saved
    ... as that directly proves. Same workers, better management, so better results.

    Fretwired said:

    eventually the likes of SERCO came along and bought the DLO (Direct Labour Organisations) as they were called and privatisation was complete.
    Thereby adding the extra cost of profit-taking and shareholder dividends that wasn't present before.

    Fretwired said:

    Councils don't like having council houses - being a big landlord is a PIA with tenants moaning if things go wrong and councillors on the war path if they think they may lose their seats. The outsourcing of maintenance was a major relief. 
    Very true, hence they need to be run by independent publicly-owned companies rather than directly by the councils, so there isn't the problem for the councils and there isn't the profit-taking of the private sector.

    The private sector being 'more efficient' is a myth - it can't be, because money is taken out of the system to provide the profits of the private contractors.

    And once companies like Serco get big enough they become semi-monopolistic and can push their prices up knowing that smaller competitors can't easily get into the market.
    I've seen extremely competent managers in the public sectors unable to get results from inept, half-arsed staff on many occasions, so no - that isn't the reason. Unionisation of the public sector adds to the problem. I have met many in jobs that they got moved into when they were no longer needed, or were not competent. That road ends with lots of ill-suited people, doing a bad job with zero concern about their output, working 35 hours max

    I thought you had read the Tim Harford's books?
    they should be able to explain to anyone why, even with profits, the private sector is more efficient 

    Does this mean the NHS should be fully privatised? 

    Genuine question, I'm not intending to load it at all. But if you took your theory to it's logical conclusion, we'd have a system similar to the US I'd imagine. 
    You are correct, it logically challenges the dogma that the NHS is the best way to deliver free medical care
    My guess is that there would be certain bits that would be retained under state control, I have no idea which

    I can't see how that would be anything like the USA though

    From my very limited experience with foreign healthcare, I thought France would be most like that?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601


    Does this mean the NHS should be fully privatised? 

    Genuine question, I'm not intending to load it at all. But if you took your theory to it's logical conclusion, we'd have a system similar to the US I'd imagine. 
    No it shouldn't be fully privatised. But when you have £5 toilet rolls you should soon work out that there are things that could be like all non-drug purchasing. Government departments are appalling at buying things - the NHS would be better off outsourcing procurement to the likes of Amazon (if we forget the tax thing for a minute). Amazon can negotiate good prices and has the tech and infrastructure to store and deliver items - imagine a hospital with an internal Amazon website so staff could requisition stuff for next day delivery. There would be full reporting on costs and what's been delivered and the NHS wouldn't have to keep large stocks of things.

    Get rid of the buildings and outsource their maintenance to a large estate management company like DTZ - they could raise cash to build new hospitals and lease them back to the government. Far cheaper than PFI.

    And let companies sponsor ambulances and hospitals - I bet you could raise serious cash via advertising opportunities. Buses have done it for years.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • capo4thcapo4th Frets: 4437
    £5 every time you want to see a GP or visit A&E would raise a shed load of cash and stop people visiting their GP for an aspirin. 


    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • capo4thcapo4th Frets: 4437
    Procurement in councils and hospitals is a joke they get ripped off day in day out and we are footing the bill.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.