Current Affairs The Labour Party

[catcherintherye]

The health care and social service system are different than other service providers in that it's morally objectionable when businesses make any profit from their enterprise. So that is a separate matter (one that I should have made clear in my other response). Elsewhere, if the private sector are comfortable with massive taxation, a cap on the profit they could make, and are ok with having their contracts torn up with zero compensation should they provide poor services, then I dont see the ideological incompatibility with statism - it'd still mean overall democratic control of the economy if the people's needs were being met. Of course, the private sector wouldn't accept such demands. Therefore there waould be a need for nationalisation of certain sectors.

To be honest mate, having worked in education and seen a lot of what goes on, the "profit motive" is the case of enormous corruption that goes unreported.

Just from my time observing things it would make your teeth itch what goes on. Money spent on expensive adjournments for senior managers while kids go hungry. Disgraceful really and I think that culture should be driven out.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Those services work pretty disastrously for rail companies, schools and hospitals currently, so it would be a pretty stupid way to operate it.

I am not sure as a taxpayer why I am expected to pay for shareholders profits for providing a pretty sub standard service.

That's kinda half the problem isn't it? You're not expected to pay because you're not the one buying the service. You can be responsible when you're holding the purse strings, but your taxes are spent in whatever way the government of the day sees fit, and you have absolutely no say in the matter. To take umbrage at a waste of your taxes when it's wasted in one particular way kinda brushes over the whole thing. Ultimately in any relationship, it's the buyer that agrees to the terms and signs the contract. Never are they forced to do so, and in the government's case, the sheer size of public sector procurement puts them at a massive advantage in any negotiation. It amazes me that the logic seems to be that someone as clueless as to either draft contracts so that they perform poorly, or signs contracts that are clearly not fit for purpose, should then be given even more responsibility by actually doing the job as well.

 

[catcherintherye]

That's kinda half the problem isn't it? You're not expected to pay because you're not the one buying the service. You can be responsible when you're holding the purse strings, but your taxes are spent in whatever way the government of the day sees fit, and you have absolutely no say in the matter. To take umbrage at a waste of your taxes when it's wasted in one particular way kinda brushes over the whole thing. Ultimately in any relationship, it's the buyer that agrees to the terms and signs the contract. Never are they forced to do so, and in the government's case, the sheer size of public sector procurement puts them at a massive advantage in any negotiation. It amazes me that the logic seems to be that someone as clueless as to either draft contracts so that they perform poorly, or signs contracts that are clearly not fit for purpose, should then be given even more responsibility by actually doing the job as well.

I think thats a fair argument that ostensibly it's bad management as opposed to a bad structural idea.

It may surprise you but I am not wholly against a mix of private and state. I just think the state has to be more dynamic and decisive in how it does investments. I am really not sure what taking very secure areas that are for the public good can really get from having the profit motive introduced. There has to be an acknowledgement that making a profit at times can fly in the face of good service, or that short term profiteering can be detrimental to longer term advances (which the state should uniquely be able to ride out).

I do think, investments in greener companies, companies that promote health, sociability, improved mental health etc is a real avenue of opportunity for any government of any party really. It's not strictly an ideology that fits within any grouping easily but takes aspects of all of them.

I've worked in both areas and there are strengths and weaknesses to both. I am not sure importing the values of private sector into the public sector is the solution or vice versa.

 

[tsubaki]

But again, why is it okay to keep channels open with someone we are so diametrically opposed with, whereas someone taking part in a think tank with the aims of improving skills, housing and finance regulations (which spans the political divide) is seen as heretical?

Because, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you would never speak to IS to improve their chances; nor does the state have "constructive dialogue" with most of its own citizens (over tax for example). Yet that is what politicians do when they have "constructive dialogue" with the likes of the Big Four accountancy firms or the banks, especially on areas where the financial organizations have a fairly clear interest and where politicians have an input into regulation. It is a process which even in an honest society would invite serious questions about the probity of the politician concerned because of what it implies.

Noone is saying that normal contact with the banks, along suitable channels, is something that shouldn't happen, but what we have seen this past forty years has been pretty far from acceptable.

Again, even your answer points at a couple of problems. The banks are seen as a big evil only looking to trip people up. Only socialists can truly care about people. There’s no middle ground and there’s nothing to be gained from constructive dialogue. It’s exactly that kind of thinking that’s led the country into this absolutely depressing political nonsense rather than pushing us forward.

Since the last partially socialist Govenrment in the UK we have had a succession of governments that have been more than happy to have "constructive dialogue" with the banks and accountancy firms - which has resulted in things like deregulation of the City, privatizations, the creation of LLPs, "tax planning", encouraging outsourcing, deliberately wrecking other peoples businesses for profit and all the rest of the wheezes that both almost wrecked the economy, helped to build a vast and growing deficit and which went almost totally unpunished. The City is now the biggest money laundering hub on the planet and there is an increasing amount of evidence to show that this is starting to affect our national security.

That all that has gone on and has (at best) not been challenged is why there is political turmoil now. This is not so much a matter of left vs right as of accepting reality or denying it. If people genuinely do not have a problem with what the banks and accountancy firms have done lately then yes, they probably do not truly care about people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think thats a fair argument that ostensibly it's bad management as opposed to a bad structural idea.

It may surprise you but I am not wholly against a mix of private and state. I just think the state has to be more dynamic and decisive in how it does investments. I am really not sure what taking very secure areas that are for the public good can really get from having the profit motive introduced. There has to be an acknowledgement that making a profit at times can fly in the face of good service, or that short term profiteering can be detrimental to longer term advances (which the state should uniquely be able to ride out).

I do think, investments in greener companies, companies that promote health, sociability, improved mental health etc is a real avenue of opportunity for any government of any party really. It's not strictly an ideology that fits within any grouping easily but takes aspects of all of them.

I've worked in both areas and there are strengths and weaknesses to both. I am not sure importing the values of private sector into the public sector is the solution or vice versa.

Procurement is probably one of those unsexy, non-partisan areas that governments of any stripe could improve significantly upon, both in terms of making it easier to get the best companies for the job (rather than the Carillion types who know how to work the procurement system), and in using the purchasing power they do have more effectively, whether it's striking a better bargain or purchasing particular types of service. I'm sure @roydo can share some stories on how wasteful the NHS can be in terms of purchasing, and I doubt his tales are isolated examples.

 

[catcherintherye]

Procurement is probably one of those unsexy, non-partisan areas that governments of any stripe could improve significantly upon, both in terms of making it easier to get the best companies for the job (rather than the Carillion types who know how to work the procurement system), and in using the purchasing power they do have more effectively, whether it's striking a better bargain or purchasing particular types of service. I'm sure @roydo can share some stories on how wasteful the NHS can be in terms of purchasing, and I doubt his tales are isolated examples.

There does come a point though, when you deal with a business who's responsibility is to it's shareholders not it's customers that there is a contradiction. It's a mechanical way of looking at it, but overall there is a conflict there. I suppose thats why it goes deeper than just bad decisions.

I think there is a role for business to make profits for their shareholders in a society, but I think keeping that distinct from key services who's role is not around profitability but performance is quite important.

 

[roydo]

I'm sure @roydo can share some stories on how wasteful the NHS can be in terms of purchasing, and I doubt his tales are isolated examples.

Plenty mate. Plenty.

From lazy/zero negotiating with suppliers who will charge what they can, and ALWAYS lower the price when challenged, (still making a bundle even then), to the routine addition of the word "Clinical" onto a pretty standard piece of kit, like scales for example.

A set of scales that Argos pump out for £12.99, suddenly become Clinical Scales, at £80 a pop.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There does come a point though, when you deal with a business who's responsibility is to it's shareholders not it's customers that there is a contradiction. It's a mechanical way of looking at it, but overall there is a conflict there. I suppose thats why it goes deeper than just bad decisions.

I think there is a role for business to make profits for their shareholders in a society, but I think keeping that distinct from key services who's role is not around profitability but performance is quite important.

Yes, I suppose it's a matter of application in many instances. In an ideal world, a company can only do well by its shareholders if it also does well by its customers, and it can only do that if it does well by its employees. That's the ideal scenario, but there are obviously many examples where that isn't the case.

Equally, you hope that the lack of any competition doesn't dull the senses of a public providers such that they fail to do all they can to deliver the very best care for the end user. In many instances that is indeed the case, but in others they become expert at pleasing the purse string holder rather than the end 'customer'. In the NHS for instance, there was a study earlier in the year looking at the pay (and indeed honours etc.) of Trust executives, and discrepencies had nothing to do with the performance of their trust, and everything to do with their political connections.

As I've said before a few times, the older I get, the more aware I am of the importance of simple good management/aptitude, and how that often overrides political ideology, public/private ownership and all manner of other factors. If people are good at their job then a lot of the other stuff doesn't really matter.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Healthy debate that is.

They are the uttered words of a Telegraph reader and as connected to the concept and ideology of the labour party as an invite to Paul Dacre's for dinner.

No job or wash. Do you sing 'sign on' when you go the match?
Reprehensible from a labour party 'member' and more power to those getting shut of them with those thoughts.

I said I was being flippant but the majority of the new momentum members in my local party have never had a proper job. That's the truth of it. So them standing up and lecturing their ideologies for a fairer economy come across like a bit of a sixth form debating class. It's basic drivel like all corporates are bad and simply raises taxes to pay for everything. Maybe other constituencies are different I don't know.

 

[magicjuan]

I said I was being flippant but the majority of the new momentum members in my local party have never had a proper job. That's the truth of it. So them standing up and lecturing their ideologies for a fairer economy come across like a bit of a sixth form debating class. It's basic drivel like all corporates are bad and simply raises taxes to pay for everything. Maybe other constituencies are different I don't know.

What do you mean by 'proper job' and in what context?

 

[tsubaki]

Plenty mate. Plenty.

From lazy/zero negotiating with suppliers who will charge what they can, and ALWAYS lower the price when challenged, (still making a bundle even then), to the routine addition of the word "Clinical" onto a pretty standard piece of kit, like scales for example.

A set of scales that Argos pump out for £12.99, suddenly become Clinical Scales, at £80 a pop.

Did you see last nights Panorama?

 

[roydo]

Did you see last nights Panorama?

Bits of it. Seemed a bit iffy from what I could tell.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/swing-voters-say-labour-is-the-party-of-quinoa

Only a focus group like, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[zzr45]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/swing-voters-say-labour-is-the-party-of-quinoa

Only a focus group like, but interesting nonetheless.

If anyone in Crewe has heard of Quinoa I’d be massively surprised.

 

[Number_25]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/swing-voters-say-labour-is-the-party-of-quinoa

Only a focus group like, but interesting nonetheless.

I legit had to DuckDuckGo Quinoa, and it looks disgusting.

I agree though, the Labour Party needs to start pushing working class politicians into positions of real power. Part of doing that is reselection at local level.