Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[princealbert23]

desolate said:

No.

Just pointing out that it was originally written 12 months ago.

Why?

[Burwood]

dimots said:

768 said:

dimots said:

I worked for the government 10 years plus ago and saw a lot of wasted money...most of it being due to the tactics of the various consultancies who were engaged to manage and advise on IT projects. Siemens, Cap Gemini et al had a tactic of 'Get on the job, make yourself indispensable, and keep billing the client!'.

I've not seen that, but I have seen government departments screw consultancies around on projects, not listen to the specialist advice and then when they'd completely fked it all up accuse them of such tactics and even withhold payment.

dimots said:

So who is to blame for that?

The procurement departments IME.

They can't even be bothered to pay SMEs 7 figure sums, they'd rather pay 30% more to a large consultancy already on the books who they know will use the SME just so there's less paperwork. They want to write one cheque a year and don't care what the money goes on until someone questions it way too late. Zero notion of working with the consultancies to ensure there aren't unexpected surprises. And then it's the fault of the consultancies for doing what they were asked to and expecting to be paid as agreed.

Generally more cost effective and definitely a safer bet in terms of reparative payments/clawback etc if you work with a bigger firm than an SME - major tick box for procurement departments.

Bottom line is a lot of people are trotting out the 'private sector chases efficiency' vs 'public sector wallows in inefficiency' cliche which is not borne out by my experience - private sector is very happy with inefficiency as the status quo if there's profit to be had.

And your working career was in the private sector. I'm genuinely interested to hear about people that did well but are socialist

[Burwood]

dimots said:

768 said:

dimots said:

I worked for the government 10 years plus ago and saw a lot of wasted money...most of it being due to the tactics of the various consultancies who were engaged to manage and advise on IT projects. Siemens, Cap Gemini et al had a tactic of 'Get on the job, make yourself indispensable, and keep billing the client!'.

I've not seen that, but I have seen government departments screw consultancies around on projects, not listen to the specialist advice and then when they'd completely fked it all up accuse them of such tactics and even withhold payment.

dimots said:

So who is to blame for that?

The procurement departments IME.

They can't even be bothered to pay SMEs 7 figure sums, they'd rather pay 30% more to a large consultancy already on the books who they know will use the SME just so there's less paperwork. They want to write one cheque a year and don't care what the money goes on until someone questions it way too late. Zero notion of working with the consultancies to ensure there aren't unexpected surprises. And then it's the fault of the consultancies for doing what they were asked to and expecting to be paid as agreed.

Generally more cost effective and definitely a safer bet in terms of reparative payments/clawback etc if you work with a bigger firm than an SME - major tick box for procurement departments.

Bottom line is a lot of people are trotting out the 'private sector chases efficiency' vs 'public sector wallows in inefficiency' cliche which is not borne out by my experience - private sector is very happy with inefficiency as the status quo if there's profit to be had.

And your working career was in the private sector. I'm genuinely interested to hear about people that did well but are socialist

[manic47]

sidicks said:

BigMon said:

I said I did work for the council. I left in 2008, so it has been while.

I worked in ICT rather than finance so I can't directly answer your questions but all I can tell you is what my ex-colleagues are telling me.

Back in 2008 there was colossal waste but, to give an example, an ICT section of 20 in 2008 has shrunk down to around 8 in 2017. That needed doing, and the savings have been made.

I can't comment on other councils but they will have all been under the same pressures so I'd be amazed if there is still the land of milk and honey being alluded to in other posts.

Thanks for the clarification. However none for the above really explains how bills are going up and services are going down!

All local authorities have been on the receiving end of hefty cuts to their core central grant from government. The core central grant makes up the majority of their spending, not council tax.

That's not to say the councils are paragons of financial excellence at all...
My local one seems to make fairly bizarre decisions, then again there's an absolute mass of local Govt regulations and laws which see to stop them doing obvious things.

[pingu393]

technodup said:

pingu393 said:

Simple solution to the transient person problem = if you are a registered voter, you pay the poll tax.

I wonder how that would affect the Labour and SNP vote

I see where you're going but collection is still the problem.

Collect the whole lot from the head of the household, or if rented, the landlord.

[dimots]

Burwood said:

And your working career was in the private sector. I'm genuinely interested to hear about people that did well but are socialist

Yes I am still working, private sector, company director etc...

I am a socialist, I don't think the money system we have now is working (too much held as capital, not enough in the hands of the workforce, wagees stagnant/dropping etc...) and I want to see redistribution of wealth happen. I would welcome a minimum income policy rather than minimum wage and would happily pay more tax to raise the minimum standard of living.

I believe in the transformative power of new technologies like bitcoin and AI and think we will be going through some massive societal changes in the next couple of decades for which a focus on socialist fundamentals would prepare us better.

I could just be mad of course.

[768]

dimots said:

768 said:

It's not more cost effective to pay a 30% premium for the same people to do the work. I don't buy reparative payments being an issue either - 30% is a massive premium when these organisations frequently work together for decades.

A tick box however I am certain it is.

It is more cost effective because it saves on the creation of project boards, stakeholder groups, consultation, procurement process, etc... If you can farm something out wholesale at a higher cost to save on internal admin it can save money.

The clawback issue is a biggie for getting project spend approved, as are such indicators as age of company, turnover, etc... Government departments like to spend money with established acts. I'm not saying it's good, but SMEs less than 5 years old with less than £2m turnover will struggle to win contracts due to the process.

Nope. Same people doing the work. The intermediary doesn't touch the project apart from the contract and invoices.

Same project boards, same stakeholder groups, same consultation. Same SME getting a contract. One less contract for the procurement department to raise and one less invoice to pay. And for just a handful of people for six months rather than raise a contract they're paying in excess of £100k. More on larger projects. There's no way that's cost effective.

In many cases the same SMEs have previously had direct contracts.

If a large supplier as an intermediary, despite not previously having a relationship with the SME unlike the end client, can take on the risk of the contract and still make a profit the public sector procurement department are doing it wrong. Not once for some pseudo safety blanket but repeatedly.

[dimots]

Sounds like you have a specific example in mind. I don't know where you are getting your 30% figure from or have any idea what you are referring to.

[sidicks]

manic47 said:

GAll local authorities have been on the receiving end of hefty cuts to their core central grant from government. The core central grant makes up the majority of their spending, not council tax.

That's not to say the councils are paragons of financial excellence at all...
My local one seems to make fairly bizarre decisions, then again there's an absolute mass of local Govt regulations and laws which see to stop them doing obvious things.

Which suggests that Government spending could be lower then, if they are making lower allocations to local Councils!

[Burwood]

dimots said:

Burwood said:

And your working career was in the private sector. I'm genuinely interested to hear about people that did well but are socialist

Yes I am still working, private sector, company director etc...

I am a socialist, I don't think the money system we have now is working (too much held as capital, not enough in the hands of the workforce, wagees stagnant/dropping etc...) and I want to see redistribution of wealth happen. I would welcome a minimum income policy rather than minimum wage and would happily pay more tax to raise the minimum standard of living.

I believe in the transformative power of new technologies like bitcoin and AI and think we will be going through some massive societal changes in the next couple of decades for which a focus on socialist fundamentals would prepare us better.

I could just be mad of course.

I'm intrigued, I'd never think you mad I think you'll be disappointed due to one fundamental fact. Commodity businesses, and I would define those as servicing the masses and employing the masses and whichuse a lot of resources. And it follows that those resources must be acquired at the lowest cost. I myself like to think I give a lot but that's my personal view. I think it's my choice and isn't something that should be dictated by government policy. The reason for that is prosperity is never achieved in a high taxation overtly oversight environment. And of course good times never last.
Based on your posts and my interpretation I'm sure you're a very generous employer and it would be great if that was the norm but I don't think that is something that should be imposed by policy. It should come from within

[dimots]

Burwood said:

I'm intrigued, I'd never think you mad I think you'll be disappointed due to one fundamental fact. Commodity businesses, and I would define those as servicing the masses and employing the masses and whichuse a lot of resources. And it follows that those resources must be acquired at the lowest cost. I myself like to think I give a lot but that's my personal view. I think it's my choice and isn't something that should be dictated by government policy. The reason for that is prosperity is never achieved in a high taxation overtly oversight environment. And of course good times never last.
Based on your posts and my interpretation I'm sure you're a very generous employer and it would be great if that was the norm but I don't think that is something that should be imposed by policy. It should come from within

Well yes. I also consider myself a libertarian so would prefer the government not to tell me what to do and will tend to try and find ways to do what I want to do anyway if they try and stop me. Perhaps what I really want is a socialist safety net for the marginalised.

I may have to give this some more thought.

[grantone]

dimots said:

Yes I am still working, private sector, company director etc...

I am a socialist, I don't think the money system we have now is working (too much held as capital, not enough in the hands of the workforce, wagees stagnant/dropping etc...) and I want to see redistribution of wealth happen. I would welcome a minimum income policy rather than minimum wage and would happily pay more tax to raise the minimum standard of living.

I believe in the transformative power of new technologies like bitcoin and AI and think we will be going through some massive societal changes in the next couple of decades for which a focus on socialist fundamentals would prepare us better.

I could just be mad of course.

Many people have the same concerns as you, just come to a different conclusion about the way to get there.

My own thoughts are that most of the increase in living standards we have seen over the last century have come from the transformative power of technology rather than government; mass manufacturing, efficient supply chains, ICT, etc... Socialism tends to central planning and it's unfair to ask someone centrally to work out what all the best decisions on technology are, they are almost always going to be wrong. That's why the technology companies that are dominant today are almost all different to those in the 1980's, which were in turn different to those in the 1950's, no-one has shown the ability to be right forever.

Combine that with the idea of the Laffer curve, that tax takes can't increase forever without impacting the willingness or ability of people to generate tax income and that's my general opposition to socialism.

Add to that the incompetence of the leaders we've seen in the UK promoting socialism and it doesn't look like a vote winner!

[anonymous-user]

I've been working with B to C Internet technology since the mid 90s and have worked with some of the UKs leading on line retailers. I've seen it all unfold and owned all the mostly obsolete Tech there's been.

There's no doubt the internet has changed our lives immensely over the past 20 or so years but not all of it for the better. It's become a channel for the people who have wealth to extract more from the people who don't. Bitcoin, AI etc are nothing new and neither is automation in the workplace. However, the constant bombardment of information and advertising from is eroding our free time and time to think for ourselves. This week Amazon released a version of echo that enables you to take a picture of what you are wearing so it can assess your fashion sense along with your peers. A great way to make us care even more about what other people think.

Digital marketing is becoming more targeted and machine learning is being used to follow us around the internet and pop up when we least expect it. Social media makes us feel bad as it always looks like somebody else is drinking a more delicious hot chocolate or doing something more interesting than you are when in truth, we are all the same. We are told we will be happier with more stuff or be inferior if we don't buy it. It's all about taking our time, attention and money.

Add to that most of the wealth then flows out to counties like China so they can invest in our property, leaving us nowhere to live and you effectively find yourself living in today's UK society. And it's pretty miserable for many.

Minimum wage increases will not improve that, what we need is an economy based not on consumerism but export where we manufacture and consume our own products, food, cars etc and export the excess.

Most importantly, we need to find a way for technology to give us time back, not rob us or our own ability to interact with the real world and each other.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 28th April 08:10

[Dr Jekyll]

wormus said:

Minimum wage increases will not improve that, what we need is an economy based not on consumerism but export where we manufacture and consume our own products, food, cars etc and export the excess.

No point in exporting if not to import, exporting is working importing is shopping. If we don't import where will all these foreigners get their sterling to buy our exports?

And what do you mean by manufacture our 'own' products? If using stuff made in the UK is preferable why not go one step further and just get it from your particular country in the UK, or county, or town. Take it to it's logical conclusion and we become self sufficient peasant farmers.

[Burwood]

dimots said:

Burwood said:

I'm intrigued, I'd never think you mad I think you'll be disappointed due to one fundamental fact. Commodity businesses, and I would define those as servicing the masses and employing the masses and whichuse a lot of resources. And it follows that those resources must be acquired at the lowest cost. I myself like to think I give a lot but that's my personal view. I think it's my choice and isn't something that should be dictated by government policy. The reason for that is prosperity is never achieved in a high taxation overtly oversight environment. And of course good times never last.
Based on your posts and my interpretation I'm sure you're a very generous employer and it would be great if that was the norm but I don't think that is something that should be imposed by policy. It should come from within

Well yes. I also consider myself a libertarian so would prefer the government not to tell me what to do and will tend to try and find ways to do what I want to do anyway if they try and stop me. Perhaps what I really want is a socialist safety net for the marginalised.

I may have to give this some more thought.

A couple of comments. Firstly, the fundamental problem with Socialism is that you can not change human nature insofar as the producers of wealth aren't motivated to provide for the idle. It's that simple. Second, Labours problem is Corbyn. Back at his peak I admired Blair immensely. I was even close to voting for him but I'm dyed in the wool blue. The man had charisma and was a great speaker. Compare that to Corbyn. By any measure he is a clown, he really is a disaster. Not only that his habit of contradicting policy/manifesto tells me he is not to be trusted at all. It's intentional because he doesn't want to lie. I believe 100% that if he got power he would go way beyond the limits of their existing policy. Radical change that would cause the country great harm.

Philanthropy is great. I prefer to do my own due diligence on the recipient and be in full control.

[dimots]

Burwood said:

Firstly, the fundamental problem with Socialism is that you can not change human nature insofar as the producers of wealth aren't motivated to provide for the idle. It's that simple.

I don't think it's human nature not to want to provide, it's simply down to the cost of doing so. Is it human nature to count the cost of everything?

[Burwood]

dimots said:

Burwood said:

Firstly, the fundamental problem with Socialism is that you can not change human nature insofar as the producers of wealth aren't motivated to provide for the idle. It's that simple.

I don't think it's human nature not to want to provide, it's simply down to the cost of doing so. Is it human nature to count the cost of everything?

I mean, say the extreme example of 1 guy does all the heavy lifting and the other 9 guys sit on the sofa. So the 1 guy leaves. I grew up in another country (NZ). In the 1980s my father was paying a top tax rate of 66%! Fair-hell no. I remember it like it was yesterday. Hard to believe that some politician thought that ok

I think counting the cost is only prudent. How can we not. If we don't we get sloppy, unproductive and uncompetitive which would result is lost exports which spells doom. That is why inflation is such a red line. It must be kept under control at all costs.

Edited by Burwood on Friday 28th April 11:01

[Bullett]

As someone who had consulted, specified, designed and delivered multiple it projects (mostly contact centre stuff) to both public and private sectors I can say that dealing with councils is an absolute nightmare. Probably the worst client with the exception of charities.
No one ever wanted to work work on council projects so that why you would get junior staff on them as it was normally career suicide when it all went wrong.
It started with vague requirements that kept changing variable (unrealistic) timescales and wanting a ferrari but with the budget for a 2nd hand fiesta.
Massive and pointless hoops to jump through and often being several places removed from the end user (council) who instructed all communication through consultancy.
So we would deal with a larger SI who would be contracting to someone like BT who in turn are working with CapG. Each leg adding on their 10 or 20% so a simple request could take weeks to process as it needed 4 layers of Quote/P.O. Typically I'd also quote up to double on the standard no of days we would use for a commercial customer as we quoted fixed price. These were nearly always fixed price jobs, the reason costs go up is because the customer changes to requirement (see the vague requirements note above).

When you eventually got to site to deliver it was often a case of the users wanted something different so back to the drawing board or what was specified wasn't suitable or it was massively over or under spec'd for actual requirements, more change requests.

Eventually you would start and then the politics happened as dpet a wanted x and dept b wanted y and they had to be done in certain order.

Getting stuff done was horrible as one person often couldn't do all tasks required so would need 2 or 3. My guys would often be staying away so working long hours was normal so they could poe on friday. We only expected/planned 8 hour days but people often worked longer to get it done. I've had the lights turned out on my whilst I was finishing up as it was 5.30. And forget doing anything after about 3 on a friday. The permies would be doing 9-5 on the dot. Only contractors about outside core hours.

Now in the interest of balance the commercial could also be inefficient but nothing public sector. Utilities (ex public sector! ) worst, the any large organisation to various levels, medium sized business on the up were best as they tend to be focused and results driven then getting worse again with very small operations running on a shoestring. Weirdly big gov depts have got a lot better recently, last 5 years or so much more focused and commercial in their approach.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

No point in exporting if not to import, exporting is working importing is shopping. If we don't import where will all these foreigners get their sterling to buy our exports?

How about increasing GDP? Yes, we will probably have to import raw materials but to look at it another way, French people buy french cars whilst still exporting them to the rest of Europe. We may no longer have a car industry worth talking about but there are other examples where we can all buy British.

Dr Jekyll said:

And what do you mean by manufacture our 'own' products? If using stuff made in the UK is preferable why not go one step further and just get it from your particular country in the UK, or county, or town. Take it to it's logical conclusion and we become self sufficient peasant farmers.

No idea why the logical conclusion is to become peasant farmers. We have a great history of innovation and manufacture and once we were considered a "Nation of shopkeepers". Consumerism fulled by a globalised economy and access to cheap credit in recent years means anyone has access to pretty much anything. Years ago, you wouldn't have seen school kids walking around with £600 iPhones but it's indicative of how accessible everything has become.

My argument is, you cannot change a culture built on the consumption of accessible consumer electronics/cars etc, mostly from foreign countries simply by raising minimum wage. You need offer an alternative that's made domestically. Admittedly, I cannot see many people swapping their Audi or BMW for whatever the UK might be able to build!

[Dr Jekyll]

wormus said:

You need offer an alternative that's made domestically. Admittedly, I cannot see many people swapping their Audi or BMW for whatever the UK might be able to build!

But why?

If the Germans make better cars then it's perfectly sensible to buy them. We could make cars ourselves, or grow bananas here, or keep our curtains closed all day and light our offices from UK produced electricity instead of importing all that free light from the sun (blasted extraterrestrials undercutting British workmen). But what's the point?