The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

where's your evidence that it's a myth?

Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I

Fretwired provided the evidence - that when the same workers did the same job, it could be done cheaper. The problem is not public ownership, it's incompetence. (Or intransigence and the lack of political will to deal with it, I admit.)

The problem with privatisation is that it's an absolute certainty that money will be taken out in profit, because without that no company would want the contract. Hence it cannot be cheaper to privatise something than to run it *properly* in public ownership.

no. I think you have misread what he said:
with the same staff and the same managers, they did the same job for less

I'm guessing that you want to believe that a state-organised delivery is automatically cheaper and better than a private company with shareholders to reward, but I'm afraid the evidence is against that

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

BBC bias .. I think I agree with this .... she's bloody annoying as well ..

https://www.change.org/p/the-bbc-the-immediate-sacking-of-laura-kuenssberg-from-the-bbc?recruiter=69896997&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-md-share_petition-no_msg

she wants to be a star -I'm guessing that is the root of most of the irritation, she can't be dispassionate or consistently impartial 

I prefer more laid back and superficially indifferent reporters

However, I'm not convinced she's biased

Schnozz

...

Philly_Q

Heartfeltdawn said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

So it's no different from the working-class people I've been involved with for a decade then. Let's see, I've been accused of being posh for reading, listening to classical music, preferring cricket to football and, perhaps curiously, for not having a driving licence. On my first day in my last job, one working class co-worker thought I was gay because I used long words. 

Crikey, are you Graeme Le Saux?

Drew_TNBD

Fretwired said:

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

According to Marx it is what it means - working class was anyone who depended on wages solely for their income and included everything from manual labour to white collar knowledge-based jobs. These days the definition is blurred in the UK. A plumber might have been seen as working class 50 years ago but these days a self-employed plumber probably has a good income, a mortgage, disposable income for gadgets and holidays and sees himself as part of the middle class as he is skilled.

I have just had my roof replaced - the guy that did it works with his brother and they have a small roofing firm. He left school at 16 and learned his trade on the job - if you spoke to him most people would say he is working class. He however sees himself as middle class and he votes Tory. He has a nice detached house, his wife is a manager in a care home, he has two kids at a decent school, drives a Jag, has a classic Porsche for the summer and takes the family overseas on holiday.

He grew up in a council house so as he now owns his own house he sees himself as middle class and identifies more with Tory values than those of Labour. Thatcher managed to catch the blue collar vote back in the 70s with people who didn't identify with the term working class.

Your roofing friend is right - he's middle class. If you own property - including your house, even mortgaged - you're no longer working class regardless of your family origins. That's the key reason Thatcher (or rather the ideologues who formulated her strategy) encouraged home ownership, to permanently break down working-class solidarity. Property ownership - especially of your own home - means you have too much to lose, as well as more individualistic aspirations.

(I'm middle class by the way - by family as well as home ownership.)

I don't really agree with that to be honest. Having a mortgage doesn't automatically elevate you into the middle classes, especially when 85% of your wage goes on said mortgage.

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

A mortgage gives you access to an appreciating asset and wealth ... my father was born into a poor working class family ... he was the first person in his family to get a degree, became a lecturer and he lives in a house worth £1 million. Is he still working class?

Well it depends. Does he beat his children in the streets in front of everyone, or scream the word cunt at a 6 year old? Like I said; it's a cultural distinction. Not a financial one.

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

So it's no different from the working-class people I've been involved with for a decade then. Let's see, I've been accused of being posh for reading, listening to classical music, preferring cricket to football and, perhaps curiously, for not having a driving licence. On my first day in my last job, one working class co-worker thought I was gay because I used long words. 

Yeah, I've experienced all that too and more. It's the corollary to what I said; it's seen as 'cool' and 'real' to be 'working class' - and 'working class' is very often code for being an uncultured thicko buffoon who is proud of it. That's what the middle classes are saying when they make the distinction, and that's what the working classes are saying when they make the distinction too!

ThePrettyDamned

Garthy said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

capo4th said:

littlegreenman said:

capo4th said:

Sporky said:

capo4th said:

Most people work to live and pay the bills therefore the majority of people are working class.

That's not what the term means.

Enlighten me 

It's probably a sliding scale tbh.

I earn just over £20k in the North, but with no kids, car or mortgage I can do what I want, when I want with little need to have to scrimp or save for the stupidly expensive trips away I regularly take. In terms of available disposable income for "fun stuff", e.g. Ibanez guitars, Cannondale bikes, Broadband Internet, trips to Europe ad hoc, etc... I'm probably still "middle class", just.

My neighbour, who's on 50% higher income but with 2 kids, a car and a mortgage, struggles every month to make ends meet without the "mod cons" I take for granted. I'd class him and his wife and kids as "working class".

Call it lifestyle choices perhaps, but I don't struggle whereas a lot of people do, even on more money.

We both "work" for what we have...

But I'll guarantee he works a lot harder for very little gain compared to what I have to.

This is true whatever your income is you max out. 

Lifestyle choices.

Family members working ? Both working or looking after children? 
Childcare costs
Mortgage / size / location of house
House / modernised / Unmodernised 
Drinking / Clubbing / Pub / Fridge
Holidays / Travel adventure choices
Schooling education
Children's lifestyle / Sport / Entertainment / Activities
1 2 3 or 4 children?
Transport payments / Car payments / Bike / Bus
Dirty house / Cleaner
Guitars Squire / Gibson / Fender
Television Sky / Terrestrial / Broadband providers.
Entertainment / Live music / Digital downloads / LPs
Clothes / Shoes
Heating on/off
Food / Diet / McDonald's / Nando's 

Most people are maxed out with money worries and just have different choices that are income dependant. The Labour Party are selling dreams in return for votes that are simply unachievable.

Do people really think by getting rid of May and voting in Corbyn that he would actually change anything? The man has dreams and good for him, unfortunately he is not the man or the party to implement them. 

I think people just want May out to be honest, as opposed to voting corbyn in.

If May gets anything but a landslide, it's an embarrassment. 

Every opinion poll predicts a landslide although we know how wrong they've been lately, although with tighter races. The Guardian are predicting a massacre:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/27/lib-dems-shouldnt-count-on-remain-votes-the-data-looks-bleak

Just watching the news this morning, if I hear the phrase "strong and stable leadership" one more time I'm going to cry. 

VimFuego

ThePrettyDamned said:

 

snip

Just watching the news this morning, if I hear the phrase "strong and stable leadership" one more time I'm going to cry. 

in that case, got some bad news for you.

ThePrettyDamned

VimFuego said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

 

snip

Just watching the news this morning, if I hear the phrase "strong and stable leadership" one more time I'm going to cry. 

in that case, got some bad news for you.

*Cries* 

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

where's your evidence that it's a myth?

Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I

Fretwired provided the evidence - that when the same workers did the same job, it could be done cheaper. The problem is not public ownership, it's incompetence. (Or intransigence and the lack of political will to deal with it, I admit.)

The problem with privatisation is that it's an absolute certainty that money will be taken out in profit, because without that no company would want the contract. Hence it cannot be cheaper to privatise something than to run it *properly* in public ownership.

ah I see your perspective - you don't like the idea of someone making a profit when providing a public service, this is also the root of many objections to BTL landlords providing accommodation to those on benefits 

However, the assertion from the likes of Tim Harford (and me) is that public owned services can never be "run properly", there is no way to remove all the inefficiencies in a "command economy" model,
competition and the nature of economics are pretty well understood.
For example: there's a reason that we have anti-monopoly laws (and competition laws): when a company has a monopoly on supplying essential goods or services, it can charge what it likes, and be run badly, and those who need to use the service have to pay what is charged and tolerate the poor service.
State run monopolies have the same problems, but that doesn't make it "OK", just because there are no shareholders or dividends being paid.

There are some services that probably work best as monopolies: 

• London underground
• Ambulance service
• police
• army, navy, air force
• Air traffic control

ThePrettyDamned

ToneControl said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

where's your evidence that it's a myth?

Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I

Fretwired provided the evidence - that when the same workers did the same job, it could be done cheaper. The problem is not public ownership, it's incompetence. (Or intransigence and the lack of political will to deal with it, I admit.)

The problem with privatisation is that it's an absolute certainty that money will be taken out in profit, because without that no company would want the contract. Hence it cannot be cheaper to privatise something than to run it *properly* in public ownership.

ah I see your perspective - you don't like the idea of someone making a profit when providing a public service, this is also the root of many objections to BTL landlords providing accommodation to those on benefits 

However, the assertion from the likes of Tim Harford (and me) is that public owned services can never be "run properly", there is no way to remove all the inefficiencies in a "command economy" model,
competition and the nature of economics are pretty well understood.
For example: there's a reason that we have anti-monopoly laws (and competition laws): when a company has a monopoly on supplying essential goods or services, it can charge what it likes, and be run badly, and those who need to use the service have to pay what is charged and tolerate the poor service.
State run monopolies have the same problems, but that doesn't make it "OK", just because there are no shareholders or dividends being paid.

There are some services that probably work best as monopolies: 

• London underground
• Ambulance service
• police
• army, navy, air force
• Air traffic control

I think it's more that, in theory, there should be no difference in the service - the same people do the same job. The only difference should be that one model has profits leaving to shareholders and the other charges less for the same service as profit is not needed, and as the same people are doing the same job the job gets done in the same way.

Whether it can work like this in practice I don't know. What is it that shareholders add to a business model, or is it just incentive to do better? If so, perhaps there is a way of getting the same "do better" approach from a public run model. 

Or perhaps it's not.

Freebird

We need a strong and stable leadership with a long term economic plan to fix the roof while the sun is shining in order to avoid a coalition of chaos.

ToneControl

ThePrettyDamned said:

I think it's more that, in theory, there should be no difference in the service - the same people do the same job. The only difference should be that one model has profits leaving to shareholders and the other charges less for the same service as profit is not needed, and as the same people are doing the same job the job gets done in the same way.

Whether it can work like this in practice I don't know. What is it that shareholders add to a business model, or is it just incentive to do better? If so, perhaps there is a way of getting the same "do better" approach from a public run model. 

Or perhaps it's not.

I won't try to summarise Harford's books in a paragraph,
but basically companies set up to make a profit/loss taking a risk tend to try a lot harder to be efficient, and obviously the profit made has to be included in the cost charged, so the profit is not directly relevant to the purchaser: one company might make 1% profit and charge more than another company making 10% profit

ToneControl

Freebird said:

We need a strong and stable leadership with a long term economic plan to fix the roof while the sun is shining in order to avoid a coalition of chaos.

Make hay while the economic shock shines 

ToneControl

Personally, as a labour voter, I'd rather have Corbyn and his mates get a good kicking now and let the tories run the place for a bit with a large majority rather than wait until 2020 for the GE

I'm hoping a dose of reality from this GE will either wake up the labour party members who have been supporting Jezza, or inspire many with a different view to join

However, it's quite possible that most labour party members are content to simply protest, rather than govern

ToneControl

IF the stock market crashes with the large-majority tory govt in power, will that mean they are "economically incompetent", or will they find a way to escape that branding?

exocet

ToneControl said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

I think it's more that, in theory, there should be no difference in the service - the same people do the same job. The only difference should be that one model has profits leaving to shareholders and the other charges less for the same service as profit is not needed, and as the same people are doing the same job the job gets done in the same way.

Whether it can work like this in practice I don't know. What is it that shareholders add to a business model, or is it just incentive to do better? If so, perhaps there is a way of getting the same "do better" approach from a public run model. 

Or perhaps it's not.

I won't try to summarise Harford's books in a paragraph,
but basically companies set up to make a profit/loss taking a risk tend to try a lot harder to be efficient, and obviously the profit made has to be included in the cost charged, so the profit is not directly relevant to the purchaser: one company might make 1% profit and charge more than another company making 10% profit

I think that the Private Sector approach to delivering a product / service more efficiently than Public Sector is proven in many areas. Where I do question the Local Government scenario where many services are outsourced to Serco type companies and then managed under a terrible contract by the Local Government senior "mandarins". I work with many Local Governments in the South East and I do find myself questioning whether savings are being made. In the same way that NHS has its horror stories on how much it pays for common items, its the same in Local Government. Poor contracts result in poor value for money. I do feel sorry for some of the staff who deliver the outsourced service. I've been dealiing with one London Borough for 7 years. In that time, IT has been provided by 3 different providers, BT Global Services are latest incumbent but the same  staff are TUPE'd across each time. 

siremoon

ToneControl said:

IF the stock market crashes with the large-majority tory govt in power, will that mean they are "economically incompetent", or will they find a way to escape that branding?

The stock market lives on its nerves and reacts to world events.  It could quite easily take fright at something that Trump, or China or the fat git in North Korea does which has nothing to do with the actions of the British government.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

BBC bias .. I think I agree with this .... she's bloody annoying as well ..

https://www.change.org/p/the-bbc-the-immediate-sacking-of-laura-kuenssberg-from-the-bbc?recruiter=69896997&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-md-share_petition-no_msg

How times change. 

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/59096/lets-ban-something-start-a-petition/p1

Not really - totally different scenarios. I'm not a fan of Corbyn but a complaint of bias by Kuenssberg was upheld by the BBC Trust and there's plenty of evidence online with her interviewing style.

Heartfeltdawn

Keep working the humour, Fret.