That Lunancy from the Greens in Full...

[mybrainhurts]

The Gang Green...what?

[sjn2004]

Art0ir said:

Mutters. And 11% of the population actually agree with it?

That 11% is mainly sub 23 year olds who either think A - they will win the X factor next year or B - they'll do some Youtube video that goes viral and be rich and famous from it.

[hidetheelephants]

Sway said:

Oh, and I've never yet found an example of the State delivering anything in a more cost effective manner than the (appropriately regulated) private sector!

The 2 major rail franchises that were either handed back because the private sector didn't want to do it anymore or the operator went bust and subsequently operated as DORs worked well and had as good customer satisfaction and financial performance as the private operators. It's certainly possible for the state to provide services well and cost effectively, as it is for the private sector; dogma serves no-one.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 23 January 18:24

[turbobloke]

hidetheelephants said:

Sway said:

Oh, and I've never yet found an example of the State delivering anything in a more cost effective manner than the (appropriately regulated) private sector!

The 2 major rail franchises that were either handed back because the private sector didn't want to do it anymore or the operator went bust and subsequently operated as DORs worked well and had as good customer satisfaction and financial performance as the private operators. It's certainly possible for the state to provide services well and cost efectively, as it is for the private sector; dogma serves no-one.

It may be possible, how often does it transpire in practice? Also if state-owned rail returns a profit to HMT rather than shareholders, is that inevitably a better thing? Just asking

[Sway]

Agree on maintaining a lack of dogma, however rail isn't an example of a real privatised service - more private sector delivery of a subset of services...

I fully agree certain rail franchises are ste, but how much is that to do with the network/infrastructure in those areas over which they have no control? I'm not particularly au fait with the mechanics of the railway operation.

[Morningside]

People actually vote for these? Good God! And they call UKIP loonies.

[Gaspode]

hidetheelephants said:

It's certainly possible for the state to provide services well and cost efectively, as it is for the private sector; dogma serves no-one.

There's a fair amount of evidence that electricity supplies and prices were more reliable and lower when the electricity industry was nationalised under the CEGB than it has been since privatisation.

I think the biggest problem that public-sector organisations have is in actually holding people accountable for poor performance, not in designing and operating efficient processes and systems. As a result they find it very difficult to fire people and end up carrying a lot of dead wood.

[Sway]

Gaspode said:

I think the biggest problem that public-sector organisations have is in actually holding people accountable for poor performance, not in designing and operating efficient processes and systems. As a result they find it very difficult to fire people and end up carrying a lot of dead wood.

Agreed. The issue is that the effect of your latter sentence is pretty much guaranteed eroding of the performance of the efficient processes and systems!

[Gaspode]

Sway said:

Agreed. The issue is that the effect of your latter sentence is pretty much guaranteed eroding of the performance of the efficient processes and systems!

But that is soluble, it just takes some people to take a few decisions. There's nothing about state-run industries per se that mitigates against them being run as efficiently as private-sector organisations. If I had my way, I would nationalise a number of industries (such as power, transport, infrastructure etc), but on a basis where they remained a plc with 60% of the shares held by HM Government, 20% available to be traded publicly, and 20% held by the management and employees of the organisation.

There is no need for the taxpayers of the UK to pay more than they need to in order to provide additional profits for foreign companies. The result, as we have seen in the NHS with PFI, can be disastrous.

Nationalised industries, properly run, could be both more accountable (and therefore properly fulfil their environmental responsibilities, for example) and more efficient than the private sector equivalent when it's money resulting from taxation that is their main source of income.

[Sway]

On that I find myself in complete agreement. Just unfortunate in my mind that the steps needed to achieve this would lead to open revolt.

[Digga]

In the interest of fairness, there are others looking at economic 'growth' and also available resources who appear to draw similar conclusions to the Greens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-22/when-ends...

[turbobloke]

Digga said:

In the interest of fairness, there are others looking at economic 'growth' and also available resources who appear to draw similar conclusions to the Greens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-22/when-ends...

Our goldfish appeared to be looking at the screen earlier today when there was a growth-related article on view. That doesn't mean they can understand or apply what's in view. Recognising some economic position or other is easy for intelligent people, selecting an even remotely appropriate response is more challenging. Understanding that Wackernagel-type sustainability calculations are flawed and unhelpful is beyond any politician I've heard or read, they regard such matters as heresy against doctrine and rationality disappears. On the basis of their manifesto, the Green answer to a potential economic problem is to kill the economy, that's also just being fair to the Greens.

[Digga]

turbobloke said:

Understanding that Wackernagel-type sustainability calculations are flawed and unhelpful is beyond any politician I've heard or read, they regard such matters as heresy against doctrine and rationality disappears. On the basis of their manifesto, the Green answer to a potential economic problem is to kill the economy, that's also just being fair to the Greens.

Yes, the stopped clock argument, WRT to the Greens is not wrong - they may be correct on one point, for all the wrong reasons.

[turbobloke]

Digga said:

turbobloke said:

Understanding that Wackernagel-type sustainability calculations are flawed and unhelpful is beyond any politician I've heard or read, they regard such matters as heresy against doctrine and rationality disappears. On the basis of their manifesto, the Green answer to a potential economic problem is to kill the economy, that's also just being fair to the Greens.

Yes, the stopped clock argument, WRT to the Greens is not wrong - they may be correct on one point, for all the wrong reasons.

Indeed, the wrong reasons and mostly the wrong responses.

Breastfeeding not included

[hidetheelephants]

Gaspode said:

There's a fair amount of evidence that electricity supplies and prices were more reliable and lower when the electricity industry was nationalised under the CEGB than it has been since privatisation.

I think the biggest problem that public-sector organisations have is in actually holding people accountable for poor performance, not in designing and operating efficient processes and systems. As a result they find it very difficult to fire people and end up carrying a lot of dead wood.

The leccy market as originally set up worked pretty well; the wheels fell off the wagon when the carbon fascists imposed market distortions in the form of green subsidies and emissions taxes without altering the rules and forcing the premature closure of entirely functional power stations.

[KarlMac]

I work for a privatised rail company. If the ex-BR people we have here are any indication of the level of staff back then its a miracle anything ran at all. Theres little to no understanding of budgets, financial planning or understanding of ebit. All issues are resolved by a) chucking more men at it or b) ask the customer for more moolah.

A lot of people forget in the private vs public arguement that when a service is privatised its the same people that get TUPE'd into the new Co. Except all the decent staff take redundancy.

[dandarez]

Anyone listen to Vine today on Radio 2?

One part was all about the Green Party and whether they'd ruined Brighton.

I thought 'Oh no give us a break!'

I had to smile when the leader of the Council came on...

http://greenparty.org.uk/people/jason-kitcat.html

[mybrainhurts]

dandarez said:

Anyone listen to Vine today on Radio 2?

One part was all about the Green Party and whether they'd ruined Brighton.

I thought 'Oh no give us a break!'

I had to smile when the leader of the Council came on...

http://greenparty.org.uk/people/jason-kitcat.html

He can't be married to a Kitkat, no nuts in a Kitkat.

Shurely shome mishtake, must be married to a Snickers. Nutty as hell...

[Guybrush]

KarlMac said:

I work for a privatised rail company. If the ex-BR people we have here are any indication of the level of staff back then its a miracle anything ran at all. Theres little to no understanding of budgets, financial planning or understanding of ebit. All issues are resolved by a) chucking more men at it or b) ask the customer for more moolah.

A lot of people forget in the private vs public arguement that when a service is privatised its the same people that get TUPE'd into the new Co. Except all the decent staff take redundancy.

This is all quite true; I've seen this happen. Often the privatised organisation will fade away under the remaining bumbling 'management' unless they have a captive market and can just keep increasing prices. Remaining in the public sector wouldn't be an option either as they would just survive effectively on taxpayer subsidy. One answer of course would be to cull ineffective management, as may be happening with the army, before the management can implement cuts to the front line staff and blame the government for cuts.

[boyse7en]

Sway said:

Reading that, they're not looking to reduce school sizes. They're looking to keep or increase the size of schools, just have one school operating out of several locations.

That's really efficient, and completely undermines their stated aim of increasing engagement and 'democracy' in management.

Exactly how engaged do you think the staff and pupils will be when the headteacher is spreading themselves across 5 village schools?

What do you think is happening at the moment? Our village school (about 75 pupils) shares the headmistress with two other primaries of similar sizes. Specialist staff are contracted for limited period (eg this term they are doing tennis for sports, so tennis coach comes one day a week, next term will be netball/hockey/football/surfing/golf or whatever)

This is the same for many small primary schools in the area, most of which share resources.

In case it is relevant, the area has Tory-controlled Local Authority.