Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Bullett said:
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.
Now THAT I can relate to. Yes sounds like the projects I worked on too 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.
When you refer to the inter-departmental politics that's why I suggested that it was viewed as more efficient/cost effective for projects to be rolled into one mega-project rather than split into manageable (and deliverable) smaller projects. The process of raising budget for a small project was as time and resource intensive as for a larger project...and everyone believed that bigger IT projects meant more efficiency. With hindsight we al know this was wrong...but that was the world-view at that time (10+ years ago).
However, I did see civil servants also doing the long hours too. Many were working 7 days a week...mostly younger staff with ambition.
Dr Jekyll said:
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?
Well, when somebody in the UK buys a German car, they pay for it in Euros instead of pounds. That money goes into the German economy to pay German workers and boost the German economy. That money effectively leaves our own economy and the only way we can get it back is to export something of equal value (swap Euros for GBP). It's the main problem Greece has, they export olives to pay for BMWs which isn't sustainable. Or to put it another way: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?
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).
People need to have money to spend and equally, they need somebody to trade with. If everyone in UK imported every goods or service from abroad where would the wealth come from?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 28th April 12:33
wormus said:
Well, when somebody in the UK buys a German car, they pay for it in Euros instead of pounds. That money goes into the German economy to pay German workers and boost the German economy. That money effectively leaves our own economy and the only way we can get it back is to export something of equal value (swap Euros for GBP). It's the main problem Greece has, they export olives to pay for BMWs which isn't sustainable. Or to put it another way:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).
People need to have money to spend and equally, they need somebody to trade with. If everyone in UK imported every goods or service from abroad where would the wealth come from?
1) Where do you imagine the UK buyer gets the Euros from if not by exchanging sterling with someone who has Euros but wants to buy from the UK, and will buy from the UK once they have the pounds.GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).
People need to have money to spend and equally, they need somebody to trade with. If everyone in UK imported every goods or service from abroad where would the wealth come from?
2) Of course we couldn't import everything. But neither could we export without importing for precisely the same reason, it would effectively mean the rest of the world was importing everything.
What on earth you imagine the GDP formula has to do with balance of trade I've no idea.
Dr Jekyll said:
1) Where do you imagine the UK buyer gets the Euros from if not by exchanging sterling with someone who has Euros but wants to buy from the UK, and will buy from the UK once they have the pounds.
2) Of course we couldn't import everything. But neither could we export without importing for precisely the same reason, it would effectively mean the rest of the world was importing everything.
Agreed. However, my original point (perhaps made badly) was if you increase minimum wage, it makes the goods or service more expensive and less competitive with cheaper alternatives that can be sourced from abroad. If on the other hand you have a closed economy, that doesn't matter - they charge you a fair price so you do the same. That assumes of course that you can buy what you are looking for in your own territory and often you can't. For an example of what I'm on about, take a look at Switzerland. Everyone gets paid a fortune but it's also expensive to live so it evens out.2) Of course we couldn't import everything. But neither could we export without importing for precisely the same reason, it would effectively mean the rest of the world was importing everything.
Dr Jekyll said:
What on earth you imagine the GDP formula has to do with balance of trade I've no idea.
Errrr...it includes net exports?Burwood said:
AAGR said:
This used to be a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his activities ....
Happy Days.
yeah, well, there are only so many ways of attacking the mans character without having a break Happy Days.
sidicks said:
Burwood said:
AAGR said:
This used to be a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his activities ....
Happy Days.
yeah, well, there are only so many ways of attacking the mans character without having a break Happy Days.
wormus said:
Dr Jekyll said:
1) Where do you imagine the UK buyer gets the Euros from if not by exchanging sterling with someone who has Euros but wants to buy from the UK, and will buy from the UK once they have the pounds.
2) Of course we couldn't import everything. But neither could we export without importing for precisely the same reason, it would effectively mean the rest of the world was importing everything.
Agreed. However, my original point (perhaps made badly) was if you increase minimum wage, it makes the goods or service more expensive and less competitive with cheaper alternatives that can be sourced from abroad. If on the other hand you have a closed economy, that doesn't matter - they charge you a fair price so you do the same. That assumes of course that you can buy what you are looking for in your own territory and often you can't. For an example of what I'm on about, take a look at Switzerland. Everyone gets paid a fortune but it's also expensive to live so it evens out.2) Of course we couldn't import everything. But neither could we export without importing for precisely the same reason, it would effectively mean the rest of the world was importing everything.
Dr Jekyll said:
What on earth you imagine the GDP formula has to do with balance of trade I've no idea.
Errrr...it includes net exports?Burwood said:
sidicks said:
Burwood said:
AAGR said:
This used to be a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his activities ....
Happy Days.
yeah, well, there are only so many ways of attacking the mans character without having a break Happy Days.
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've started and run 2 ltd companies. The first cost me my life savings and nearly my house, and my wife was pregnant with our first child at the time. The second I gave up a well paid job with a large company start. I'm not Alan Sugar but I have provided employment for a few people.
I would not have bothered if there was no possible reward. In a socialist society I would simply wait for my government allocated job, and do that alongside all the other drones.
98elise said:
To produce wealth there is either some risk, personal sacrifice, or extra commitment. If there is no reward why would you bother.
I've started and run 2 ltd companies. The first cost me my life savings and nearly my house, and my wife was pregnant with our first child at the time. The second I gave up a well paid job with a large company start. I'm not Alan Sugar but I have provided employment for a few people.
I would not have bothered if there was no possible reward. In a socialist society I would simply wait for my government allocated job, and do that alongside all the other drones.
Ditto.I've started and run 2 ltd companies. The first cost me my life savings and nearly my house, and my wife was pregnant with our first child at the time. The second I gave up a well paid job with a large company start. I'm not Alan Sugar but I have provided employment for a few people.
I would not have bothered if there was no possible reward. In a socialist society I would simply wait for my government allocated job, and do that alongside all the other drones.
But the Tories are exactly doing us any favours with the Dividend tax either.
That's why it's the politics of envy - if you're successful and do your own thing, you're not conforming and socialists hate that more than anything whatsoever.
They want to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator and will actively try to hurt anyone who does differently.
It's not just politics of envy - its spiteful politics.
They want to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator and will actively try to hurt anyone who does differently.
It's not just politics of envy - its spiteful politics.
Jimboka said:
Perhaps a lot of the population give scant regard for the dress sense, of the current crop of deluded lunatics in power
Explain to me how they are 'deluded lunatics' please. Personally, I think Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Thornberry and Abbott could far more easily be described as being deluded than any of the current leadership; amongst them they have proposed erecting statues to commemorate fallen IRA heroes, sending our deterrent subs out to sea with no deterrent, suggested that Pol Pot did more good than bad, and Lady Emily has already proven her scant regard for the every day working class of this country.
FWIW I am no fan at all of May, but I cannot even contemplate using my vote for Labour whilst this shower of cretins are in charge of the opposition.
I posted the photo as a light hearted post, but it does make a serious point in that you are not taking your role seriously if you dress like a teenage oik. Imagine (actually don't) if May came out in a mini skirt and boob tube; that would not appropriate for her age or her role as PM. The photo shows poor judgement by Corbyn, a trait he should be trying to avoid displaying where possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/j...
The great man speaks. Now we know...
(well, he didnt menion what he sachieved in his 34 years, but you know...hes a person...)
The great man speaks. Now we know...
(well, he didnt menion what he sachieved in his 34 years, but you know...hes a person...)
williamp said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/j...
The great man speaks. Now we know...
(well, he didnt menion what he sachieved in his 34 years, but you know...hes a person...)
Seems he forgot to mention all of that IRA stuff........The great man speaks. Now we know...
(well, he didnt menion what he sachieved in his 34 years, but you know...hes a person...)
Rich_W said:
I saw that on Have I Got News For You earlier, highly amusing. Bumbling fool can't even face the right way.Reminded me of this for some reason.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff