Jeremy Corbyn

[pingu393]

DC's dig of the day was when he told JC that he was on Question 5, but only just thought of a supplementary to Question 2. "You really should make the cogs turn faster"

[TankRizzo]

AAGR said:

To put the record straight, Billy Bragg's house is Victorian, beautifully and carefully modernised. Incidentally, during WW2 it was owned/occupied by US comedian Vic Oliver.

Incidentally, does it make the jealous whingers any happier to know that the house is all of 20 yards from the edge of a crumbling water's-edge chalk cliff which will one day engulf the house .... ?

Oh, and yes, the next door building is an achingly-trendy boutique hotel which has recently been done up by 'we've moved from London' people.

Edited by AAGR on Tuesday 2nd February 15:00

You live in Burton AICMFP

[Digga]

Just saw this in my FB feed this morning and it made me snigger quite a bit. Have we done this already?

[mybrainhurts]

Well, they are a bit retarded, yes....

[Welshbeef]

So now he wants to bring back/re nationalise services the councils have outsourced (to save money and increase service output...).


The mans an utter moron.



Some/many companies have very long contract terms and breaking the contract early is always possible but at significant. To think that councils have better buying power than private corporations who are experts in certain sectors is beyond belief.


It's like saying if you public deliver this service it will cost you £100m but give it to private sector and it's all done for £60-65m including their own margin and a vastly better service to boot is crazy.

[anonymous-user]

AAGR said:

Oh, and yes, the next door building is an achingly-trendy boutique hotel which has recently been done up by 'we've moved from London' people.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd February 15:00

Just like Billy then?

I just hope he's at home when it goes over the edge........

[Stickyfinger]

REALIST123 said:

Just like Billy then?

I just hope he's at home when it goes over the edge........

That is a bit unpleasant and reflects on you quite badly


He holds and expresses his views, so what ?

Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 6th February 08:10

[irocfan]

Welshbeef said:

So now he wants to bring back/re nationalise services the councils have outsourced (to save money and increase service output...).


The mans an utter moron.



Some/many companies have very long contract terms and breaking the contract early is always possible but at significant. To think that councils have better buying power than private corporations who are experts in certain sectors is beyond belief.


It's like saying if you public deliver this service it will cost you £100m but give it to private sector and it's all done for £60-65m including their own margin and a vastly better service to boot is crazy.

in SOME cases this might be an idea. For instance IIRC agency nurses cost vastly more than nurses employed directly but as they come from a different budget it's all good

In the main though I do agree with you

[Welshbeef]

irocfan said:

in SOME cases this might be an idea. For instance IIRC agency nurses cost vastly more than nurses employed directly but as they come from a different budget it's all good

In the main though I do agree with you

Clearly employing direct even if on a fixed term contract v perennial agency staff will be cheaper. Frankly they need a talent resource pool ie a department which will recruit directly otherwise you'll always be on the hook for recruitment/finders fees.

[Garvin]

Welshbeef said:

<snip> It's like saying if you public deliver this service it will cost you £100m but give it to private sector and it's all done for £60-65m including their own margin and a vastly better service to boot is crazy.

It's the socialist way and a very old and failed way at that. Which epitomises JC and the far left completely.

They still hang on to these 'visions' even though they have failed in the past - they honestly believe they can make them work now because they are 'different'.

Nationalising does two things lefties really crave. 1. It increases employment; and 2. It increases central government control.

The 'safe' employment is usually at lower than private salary levels and a lack of real motivation (safe jobs) means nationalised services end up with the rump end of the labour force thereby causing more to have to be employed at overall greater cost and a reduction in service. They also believe that this doesn't really matter because their heads are firmly stuffed up their arses and that they will never run out of money!

It will be the 1970's all over again, only worse because the Labour Party back then had far more brains than the present lot and still made a complete hash of things resulting in Denis Healey and his begging bowl in front of the IMF.

[dav123a]

Welshbeef said:

So now he wants to bring back/re nationalise services the councils have outsourced (to save money and increase service output...).


The mans an utter moron.



Some/many companies have very long contract terms and breaking the contract early is always possible but at significant. To think that councils have better buying power than private corporations who are experts in certain sectors is beyond belief.


It's like saying if you public deliver this service it will cost you £100m but give it to private sector and it's all done for £60-65m including their own margin and a vastly better service to boot is crazy.

I would let councils bid for the contracts SOME may be able to do the work. Not really an issue to me who runs the utilities as long as that can do the job. Not sure your last paragraph runs true though.

[Sway]

dav123a said:

I would let councils bid for the contracts SOME may be able to do the work. Not really an issue to me who runs the utilities as long as that can do the job. Not sure your last paragraph runs true though.

As soon as that happens, accountability by the consumer is lost...

Yes, there are council elections, but not for any of the positions that would be fking things up. Current scenario is very simple - if you're unhappy with price or service, it's exceptionally easy to swap provider. The company loses turnover and revenue, and those responsible have to up their game or be sacked.

The service I've received from my utilities provider over the last 8 years has been simply superb. So good on all aspects that there has been zero desire to change.

Only area I would perhaps improve would be defined standard, responsibility and funding for infrastructure improvements. In certain areas the consumer isn't paying for this, it's left to the taxpayer to provide the top ups to permit large scale long lead time improvements.

[dav123a]

Sway said:

As soon as that happens, accountability by the consumer is lost...

Yes, there are council elections, but not for any of the positions that would be fking things up. Current scenario is very simple - if you're unhappy with price or service, it's exceptionally easy to swap provider. The company loses turnover and revenue, and those responsible have to up their game or be sacked.

The service I've received from my utilities provider over the last 8 years has been simply superb. So good on all aspects that there has been zero desire to change.

Only area I would perhaps improve would be defined standard, responsibility and funding for infrastructure improvements. In certain areas the consumer isn't paying for this, it's left to the taxpayer to provide the top ups to permit large scale long lead time improvements.

Not sure how private companies are any more accountable though. If say the council offered say gas then you could still switch. I don't have an issue with that. If Yorkshire water mess something up I can't vote a senior manager out nor can I change providers. I'd say they were less accountable than a council.

[turbobloke]

dav123a said:

Sway said:

As soon as that happens, accountability by the consumer is lost...

Yes, there are council elections, but not for any of the positions that would be fking things up. Current scenario is very simple - if you're unhappy with price or service, it's exceptionally easy to swap provider. The company loses turnover and revenue, and those responsible have to up their game or be sacked.

The service I've received from my utilities provider over the last 8 years has been simply superb. So good on all aspects that there has been zero desire to change.

Only area I would perhaps improve would be defined standard, responsibility and funding for infrastructure improvements. In certain areas the consumer isn't paying for this, it's left to the taxpayer to provide the top ups to permit large scale long lead time improvements.

Not sure how private companies are any more accountable though. If say the council offered say gas then you could still switch. I don't have an issue with that. If Yorkshire water mess something up I can't vote a senior manager out nor can I change providers. I'd say they were less accountable than a council.

ISWYM but in another sense you can't opt for the more efficient and effective council down the road to run your local services either, you only get to vote once in a while which may result a bit of a change in some of the people local to you. It's still the council and it has a cosy permanent money supply on tap via taxes so the incentive to provide high quality services with the possibility of going bust if they don't win enough customers is absent. That's not a straightforward concept when there are essential services that need to be maintained but it's part of the equation.

I'm not convinced that local authority people genuinely consider themselves accountable to local people though they will lay claim to that attribute day in day out.

[.:ian:.]

Garvin said:

Nationalising does two things lefties really crave. 1. It increases employment; and 2. It increases central government control.

Imagine the increase in public sector employees required for every council to manage and supply utilities! I bet Jezza does and becomes almost fully tumescent (for his age)
Why stop at gas, electric and water? How about phone and internet!

[Murph7355]

.:ian:. said:

Imagine the increase in public sector employees required for every council to manage and supply utilities! I bet Jezza does and becomes almost fully tumescent (for his age)
Why stop at gas, electric and water? How about phone and internet!

Or food supply. Or all transportation.

We should also revisit the flag - too much blue and white on it

[Northern Munkee]

Garvin said:

Welshbeef said:

<snip> It's like saying if you public deliver this service it will cost you £100m but give it to private sector and it's all done for £60-65m including their own margin and a vastly better service to boot is crazy.

It's the socialist way and a very old and failed way at that. Which epitomises JC and the far left completely.

They still hang on to these 'visions' even though they have failed in the past - they honestly believe they can make them work now because they are 'different'.

Nationalising does two things lefties really crave. 1. It increases employment; and 2. It increases central government control.

The 'safe' employment is usually at lower than private salary levels and a lack of real motivation (safe jobs) means nationalised services end up with the rump end of the labour force thereby causing more to have to be employed at overall greater cost and a reduction in service. They also believe that this doesn't really matter because their heads are firmly stuffed up their arses and that they will never run out of money!

It will be the 1970's all over again, only worse because the Labour Party back then had far more brains than the present lot and still made a complete hash of things resulting in Denis Healey and his begging bowl in front of the IMF.

This ^^^^ pretty much is it for me.

I should tribally be a labour voter, however I'm also old enough to remember the 70s growing up, power cuts, strikes, and simply couldn't trust them again, it's clear a majority of normal 'working people' pragmatically realise that the strikes over pay in the 70s and lack of productivity, could not go on, and were prepared to tolerate Thatcher, as a pragmatic and necessary adjustment, they gave Labour another go when they put up a reasonably (I know...) sensible candidate in Blair - I may have voted for him in '97 (and if I did it was the only time) but eventually he went bad (on Iraq) and left a massive hole in the roof ("there's no more money") and credit card debt and nothing saved to fix it. You just know with less brains and more ideological dogma and special pleading groups having the whip hand that they'll be spineless, ideologically driven to fk it all up again and many including JC hate this country. Just couldn't bring myself to vote for them, and I say this from my northern inner city safe labour tribal seat and public sector job. They just cannot be trusted on the economy and now security again.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 6th February 10:56

Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 6th February 10:57

[dav123a]

turbobloke said:

ISWYM but in another sense you can't opt for the more efficient and effective council down the road to run your local services either, you only get to vote once in a while which may result a bit of a change in some of the people local to you. It's still the council and it has a cosy permanent money supply on tap via taxes so the incentive to provide high quality services with the possibility of going bust if they don't win enough customers is absent. That's not a straightforward concept when there are essential services that need to be maintained but it's part of the equation.

I'm not convinced that local authority people genuinely consider themselves accountable to local people though they will lay claim to that attribute day in day out.

I wouldn't say most councils have a cosy money supply , alot of councils round this way have had 40% cuts in budgets. I would have councils hive this bit into an arms length company that stands on its own feet. Your last paragraph is probably right for some employees but its probably true for private utility companies as well.

[Langweilig]

I love the quote in the comments section - "The church leaders have sent for the Witchfinder General".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641591/Jeremy-...

[turbobloke]

dav123a said:

turbobloke said:

ISWYM but in another sense you can't opt for the more efficient and effective council down the road to run your local services either, you only get to vote once in a while which may result a bit of a change in some of the people local to you. It's still the council and it has a cosy permanent money supply on tap via taxes so the incentive to provide high quality services with the possibility of going bust if they don't win enough customers is absent. That's not a straightforward concept when there are essential services that need to be maintained but it's part of the equation.

I'm not convinced that local authority people genuinely consider themselves accountable to local people though they will lay claim to that attribute day in day out.

I wouldn't say most councils have a cosy money supply , alot of councils round this way have had 40% cuts in budgets.

Which no doubt were used to make headline grabbing reductions in service provision for the sake of demonstrating how evil the government is or how essential the LA is, rather than the better option of sacking a management layer or two, particularly top end desk jockeys who make the service cuts while preserving their own pension.

Also, that angle assumes there's nothing more that can be done about fraud, waste and error rather than keep topping up the leaky bucket, and that the previous funding levels under Labour weren't generous when the Coalition and then the Conservatives took the helm.

We're dealing with the public sector here. The funding will never dry up. Councils are sitting on tens of £millions of reserves for a rainy day, maybe they should look out of the window occasionally. There's no need for complete depletion, merely appropriate use when times are hard and people need services, like now maybe.

dav123a said:

I would have councils hive this bit into an arms length company that stands on its own feet. Your last paragraph is probably right for some employees but its probably true for private utility companies as well.

Yes possibly so.

Neighbouring councils have been collaborating for some time now in terms of providing better vfm in service provision, more of this is needed and we need to be sure that where two departments see their service combined, an appropriate number of middle and senior managers are sacked.

There were too many public sector jobs created under Brown the Profligate and I'm convinced there's room for more to go with people upskilling for work in the private sector, if they can survive the culture shock in the new environment which will in general be far more tuned to customers...otherwise the customers will walk, which as per my post above they/we can't do as 'customers' of their/our local council.

http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hr-news/strategy-news/pu...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pu...

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th February 12:39