Current Affairs The Labour Party

[abelard]

No one said that people come to look at the private sector, that would be silly. But while the Dales are beautiful, no one flies into the U.K. to see them. Stonehenge is hardly a product of the public sector. The rest were paid for via taxation (private sector generated) or private donation (private sector generated). None were put in place via the public sector because the public sector only spends money.....

the private sector by and large can only make money because of what the public spends

for example:

 

[tsubaki]

No one said that people come to look at the private sector, that would be silly. But while the Dales are beautiful, no one flies into the U.K. to see them. Stonehenge is hardly a product of the public sector. The rest were paid for via taxation (private sector generated) or private donation (private sector generated). None were put in place via the public sector because the public sector only spends money.....

well done on packing so much wrong into one post

 

[dead_soft]

No one said that people come to look at the private sector, that would be silly. But while the Dales are beautiful, no one flies into the U.K. to see them. Stonehenge is hardly a product of the public sector. The rest were paid for via taxation (private sector generated) or private donation (private sector generated). None were put in place via the public sector because the public sector only spends money.....

see, this is why I asked for an explanation of what you said earlier. Why do you think the public sector only spends money?Can we see your working?

 

[James]

No one said that people come to look at the private sector, that would be silly. But while the Dales are beautiful, no one flies into the U.K. to see them. Stonehenge is hardly a product of the public sector. The rest were paid for via taxation (private sector generated) or private donation (private sector generated). None were put in place via the public sector because the public sector only spends money.....

Couple of questions for you Pete. When thinking about all those people working in the private sector...

Who funded the majority of their education?
Who funds the NHS to keep them healthy?
Who funds the police, fire brigade, military to keep them safe?
Who funds the infrastructure to keep everything working?

I could go on. Nothing operates in a vacuum. Without the public sector operating where the private sector won’t, the environment for the private sector to thrive can’t be created. If the private sector is to benefit from the environment created it should pay for it.

I appreciate you know this but the “private sector good, public sector bad” argument is getting a bit tired and dated don’t you think?

 

[peteblue]

Couple of questions for you Pete. When thinking about all those people working in the private sector...

Who funded the majority of their education?
Who funds the NHS to keep them healthy?
Who funds the police, fire brigade, military to keep them safe?
Who funds the infrastructure to keep everything working?

I could go on. Nothing operates in a vacuum. Without the public sector operating where the private sector won’t, the environment for the private sector to thrive can’t be created. If the private sector is to benefit from the environment created it should pay for it.

I appreciate you know this but the “private sector good, public sector bad” argument is getting a bit tired and dated don’t you think?

I’m not putting forward a ‘private sector good, public sector bad’ argument. We require both of them to do what needs to be done. What I am slightly miffed about is this ‘we want more’ approach from the public sector, without a single thought about the private sector, who get poorer wages, pensions and job security, and would have to provide the money.....

 

[Catfish Blues]

On tourist attractions ...

From https://ceoworld.biz/2019/02/18/the-uks-100-most-popular-tourist-attractions

The British Museum in London was the most visited tourist attraction in the U.K., with over 5.9 million visitors, followed by Tate Modern, with approximately 5.6 million visitors.

The National Gallery, the Natural History Museum (South Kensington), the V&A, Science Museum, Southbank Centre, Somerset House, Tower of London and Royal Museums Greenwich complete the top 10.

The BM is owned by a public body
Tate isn't public owned, but get a lot of funding from govt
National Gallery - commercial body, so private
National History Museum - is basically a govt funded charitable trust
V&A - Again, a govt funded charitable trust
Science Museum - Ditto
Southbank - Charity - largest funder is govt
Somerset House - Charity, gets no govt support
Tower - Owned by the crown, run by a charity without govt funding
Greenwich Museum - Not sure off hand, but I think it's run as a charity without govt funding ?

Basically, a lot of the major tourist attractions in the country are mostly run or funded, directly or indirectly, by public bodies, all be it, in a fairly hands off kind if way. Privately run, commercial attractions, pale into insignificance in comparison.

 

[degsy]

Well yeah, I wasn't advocating shooting all pensioners tomorrow

Woo woo

 

[peteblue]

Its been going up since legislation about 20 years ago came in. That said, you are correct that it costs a bomb, but demographics will sort that out in about 15 to 20 years.

what happens in 15-20 years ?......

 

[neil999]

I’m not putting forward a ‘private sector good, public sector bad’ argument. We require both of them to do what needs to be done. What I am slightly miffed about is this ‘we want more’ approach from the public sector, without a single thought about the private sector, who get poorer wages, pensions and job security, and would have to provide the money.....

not sure, how do you compare job roles?

 

[roydo]

what happens in 15-20 years ?......

Most of the boomers, that freak population bubble that has driven the consumer and housing markets since the mid 50's will be no more, and the ratio between the generations will return to a more natural one. One example of that effect will be a huge number of apartments currently being lived in by over 60's, being available for younger folk.

That isnt a pop at the boomers by the way, just an observation that their impact on stuff will diminish.

edit. And the cost of the state pension will be less onerous.

 

[Blue 1]

Most of the boomers, that freak population bubble that has driven the consumer and housing markets since the mid 50's will be no more, and the ratio between the generations will return to a more natural one. One example of that effect will be a huge number of apartments currently being lived in by over 60's, being available for younger folk.

That isnt a pop at the boomers by the way, just an observation that their impact on stuff will diminish.

edit. And the cost of the state pension will be less onerous.

I realise not everyone makes it to pensionable age, but are the boomers really a bubble? Figures are from the 2011 census.

Ages attained (years)	Population	% of total
0–4	3,914,000	6.2
5–9	3,517,000	5.6
10–14	3,670,000	5.8
15–19	3,997,000	6.3
20–24	4,297,000	6.8
25–29	4,307,000	6.8
30–34	4,126,000	6.5
35–39	4,194,000	6.6
40–44	4,626,000	7.3
45–49	4,643,000	7.3
50–54	4,095,000	6.5
55–59	3,614,000	5.7
60–64	3,807,000	6.0
65–69	3,017,000	4.8
70–74	2,463,000	3.9
75–79	2,006,000	3.2

 

[peteblue]

I realise not everyone makes it to pensionable age, but are the boomers really a bubble? Figures are from the 2011 census.

Ages attained (years)	Population	% of total
0–4	3,914,000	6.2
5–9	3,517,000	5.6
10–14	3,670,000	5.8
15–19	3,997,000	6.3
20–24	4,297,000	6.8
25–29	4,307,000	6.8
30–34	4,126,000	6.5
35–39	4,194,000	6.6
40–44	4,626,000	7.3
45–49	4,643,000	7.3
50–54	4,095,000	6.5
55–59	3,614,000	5.7
60–64	3,807,000	6.0
65–69	3,017,000	4.8
70–74	2,463,000	3.9
75–79	2,006,000	3.2

looks like Roydo’s flats will have an even bigger population....

 

[roydo]

I realise not everyone makes it to pensionable age, but are the boomers really a bubble? Figures are from the 2011 census.

Ages attained (years)	Population	% of total
0–4	3,914,000	6.2
5–9	3,517,000	5.6
10–14	3,670,000	5.8
15–19	3,997,000	6.3
20–24	4,297,000	6.8
25–29	4,307,000	6.8
30–34	4,126,000	6.5
35–39	4,194,000	6.6
40–44	4,626,000	7.3
45–49	4,643,000	7.3
50–54	4,095,000	6.5
55–59	3,614,000	5.7
60–64	3,807,000	6.0
65–69	3,017,000	4.8
70–74	2,463,000	3.9
75–79	2,006,000	3.2

Of course they were a bubble. To see how, you need to do that table in reverse, and see the numbers before they rocked up.

As an entity, they were by a mile the largest consumer group ever. Before them, what were children between the age of 13 and 20 called? Before they were adults, who went on package holidays? Markets have reacted to their purchasing power ever since the mid 50's. Witness funeral plan and equity release adverts on day time TV.

In their dotage, there has been a rush to build affordable retirement/care complexes that simply were not needed when they were kids. What your table actually does is prove that the natural ratio between the generations has returned to normal. I will guarantee that if you did it from the census in 1951 or 1961, the ratio will look very very different.

 

[roydo]

looks like Roydo’s flats will have an even bigger population....

No, they will have a new one.

edit. Soz, the other bit got deleted ffs! I also said you make a good point.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I’m not putting forward a ‘private sector good, public sector bad’ argument. We require both of them to do what needs to be done. What I am slightly miffed about is this ‘we want more’ approach from the public sector, without a single thought about the private sector, who get poorer wages, pensions and job security, and would have to provide the money.....

That's terrible for private sector workers. Why do they have lower pay, pensions and job security. Surely with all the money they are making they can afford to offer their workers more?