Anything Political

[Brew 5,421]

You're always welcome to chip in mate, the more the merrier.

 

When the government sold off, privatised a public good,  they liquidated it. They  did not take anything away they simply turned something tangible into cash to be used for the public benefit. And gave everyone the opportunity to share in the process.

In most cases they turned a liability into an asset. By getting rid of the white elephants they freed up millions for the benefit of all, money that  would have gone to prop up badly run enterprises.

In the case of water I agree but I see no reason why the government should run a business unless it's essential.

 

Nationalisation served a purpose once but does anyone realise the number of nationalised companies once ran to almost 120. Even now there are almost 40 still in public ownership.

 

1 hour ago, Oztalgian said:

Privatisation of public assets is one of the biggest cons ever perpetrated on joe public, getting them to buy shares in something they already own

 

There was no need to buy into it if we didn't want to. We could have enjoyed the benefits that came from privatisation with out spending a penny if we so wished. I say again they took nothing away from us they simply changed bricks and mortar into cash and invested it elsewhere. 

[loppylugs 8,429]

I worked for EMEB in the mid 60s when it was still a nationalized industry.  We took our share of flack if anyone was seen leaning on a shovel with a cable laying crew.

My job involved service and repair which put us in much more direct contact with the public.  We took being on time, courteous, and efficient in the repairs seriously.  We had good management at the local level and we respected them.  Pay, and benefits were good and fair.   There was a good atmosphere in the place.

I don't pretend to understand all the political reasons for the sell off.  I know I'm not a socialist.  I believe in free enterprize, but I've seen too many businesses here that would be considered models of capitalism.  They couldn't run a booze up in a brewery and morale is rock bottom.

[Brew 5,421]

I could give you a long history LL but put simply we had good engineers but no one who understood how to run a business in a free market.

[DJ360 6,730]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

The cause of inflation is complex and it's too simplistic to blame a single party/union/industry. The strikes, the ridiculous demands, management intransigence and a weak government all contributed to a feeling of frustration with the voters that change was needed.

 

Well I'm glad you agree that it was complex and that inflation for e.g., was not directly caused (as alleged by the Tories and the press at the time) solely by Union demands. Gratifying that you also hint at crap management... of which there was plenty at the time.. believe me.  I'm also of the opinion that the way Decimalisation was handled added to inflation.  For example, on the day of Decimalisation, I tried to purchae a box of matches.. labelled at 2d.  I was sold two boxes for 1.5p ( =3.6d) a slight loss for the seller.  But within months a standard box of matches cost 2p (=4.8d) an increase of about 150%.  This.. translateds through the whole economy had a real effect.

However.. I think you also ignore the influence of the Tory owned press.. who were in an almost hysterical mood pre 1979, as I said earlier.. exaggerating things.  Just as they did over Corbyn.

 

10 hours ago, Brew said:

I remember no consensus, consensus implies agreement and acceptance.

 

I'm stunned that you say this.  The 'Post War consensus' is mainstream political thought/analysis.  And if Thatch didn't destroy it.. what exactly did she do?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus

 

10 hours ago, Brew said:

Privatisation was not Thatchers idea, Drucker mooted it in the 60's and I doubt he was the first.

 

Irrelevant.  She implemented it and made it a central part of her 'ideology'.  And of course her greatest Con.. was to pull off selling to the British public, that which they already owned.

11 hours ago, Brew said:

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

An argument can be made that the only utility that should be in public ownership is water, it is the only one essential to life. Without electricity there is no water so is maybe essential by association. Gas is not essential, without it we would be cold and uncomfortable but we won't die. Really there was no good reason for the public ownership of airlines, railways and steel among others. Taking rail as an example privatisation has been a roaring success! Yes there are problems but passenger numbers are the highest they have ever been and public subsidy is at its lowest.

 

 

Arguing that Gas is not essential is a bit silly. The real issue is whether our energy profile could better insulate us from the need to import Russian Gas. We have renewables, the potential for nuclear, Biofuel and could even develop modern coal gas plants.. given the will. Airlines,and Railways, but particularly Railways.. were seriously depleted by WW2 and needed public investment in order to recover post war.  I have no argument in principle with privatised Rail, but if it requires Govt subsidy (as it does) whilst still providing shareholder dividends (often going to foreign owned Co's. owned by foreign Govts..) whilst still providing shit services for half the country.. then Privatisation is a monumental and expensive failure.  Have you ever tried travelling from Liverpool or Manchester by Train to say, Leeds?  I could walk it faster.

And of course Rail Privatisation isn't really about Rail Services anyway.  It is about 'divvying up' Govt (i.e 'our') money, amongst the already rich.  This is the reality of Thatcherism and the even more insidious post Thatcher  Tory Asset Strippers.

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

No one was forced to sell their shares. Selling them due to job losses may have taken place but I would suggest that in the majority of cases it a simple case of taking the profit.

 

But.. the whole process was sold as part of Thatcher's plan to create a 'Property owning and Share owning Society'.  She was determined to impose her version of Free Market Capitalism on us.. whether we wanted it or not.  Where share owning is concerned, she failed.  People who are struggliing to get by.. do not have the luxury of holding on to shares.

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Struggling with this bit Col, which entity has failed in it's objective?

 

How long have you got?  Any and every Public Service has been earmarked for Privatisation by this bunch of spivs.  Now, were it a passport to better, or a least equivalent services, at lower cost.. then they might have a point.. but it isn't.. and they don't.  It is purely a mechanism to allow Tory Fellow Traveller's to access public spending.. In short.. legalised theft.  It's perhaps best summed up thus:

 

Quote

In historical context, privatisation seems to answer a number of dilemmas for the Tories. By spreading market incentives, it erodes the public sector basis for Labourist politics. By opening the public sector to profit, it gets a lot of capital into circulation. And by reducing the power of public sector workers, it suppresses wage pressures, thus in theory making investment more appealing. Above all, perhaps, in shifting the democratic to market-based principles of allocation, it favours those who are strongest in their control of the market, and who also happen to represent the social basis of Conservatism.

Quoted from:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/short-history-of-privatisation

 

Crapita.. one of a number of 'favoured bidders' constantly get awarded contracts by Tory Govts, to deliver services which were all, or often part of some  public service.  So that, they have very profitably (for them) failed to deliver privatised versions of Pay and Pensions functions for Merseyside NHS Trusts, or assorted functions for numerous Publicly Funded bodies from Fire Services and Police, to Probation Services etc.  None of these Public Services have improved via this process and in fact my own profession was decimated, quite deliberately, by Gove in particular and reduced to a shadow of its former value and capability. It now performs minimally and largely ineffectively, but cheaply.. and thus allows Govt to claim that it is actually delivering a service, when it actually isn't.  I could also mention Serco and the famously corrupt Carillion.  And finally, let's not forget the the cynical and creeping privatisation of the NHS, by the simple device of creating NHS England as a 'commissioning body', buying in services from numerous profit taking private enterprises., whilst Govt funding remains static, or below inflation.

There are, apparrenty even worse horrors to come after Covid-19 settles (if it ever does), because Govt has underwritten Private Health Provision during the Pandemic bu not yet used any of its capacity.. No doubt it wil be a 'nice little earner' for the Private Sector when all the catching up needs doing...

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

I see no housing crisis unless you mean it is difficult to buy a house after the '08 crash, I don't see that as a 'crisis'. We have plenty of housing stock and everywhere you look there are more and more being built. Home ownership is not essential, desirable yes but not essential. Germany seems to manage quite well with the lowest percentage of home ownership in Europe.

 

 

Seriously?  So you see no homeless?  You see no families in bedsits?  You see no people living on the streets? You see no massive waiting lists for 'Social Housing'?  Yes, we have plenty of building going on. but precious little is affordable, especially in the current climate where banks are so reluctant to lend.

 

It's very telling that even in the relative affluence of the area where I live, few can sell their houses.. and renting is becoming the only option.  Neither the sellers nor the renters want this.

 

Let's add in the obscenity of empty high end property in the likes of 'That London'.. purchased as 'investments' by absentees in China or wherever. but which push up overall prices which pushes increasing numbers off the lower end of the housing ladder...

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

The housing 'crisis' will disappear the moment we let go of the ridiculous stigma attached to renting a property rather than owning one.

 

No.  It will disappear when there is sufficient affordable housing available to match the income of those at the bottom of the ladder.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

5 hours ago, Brew said:

I could give you a long history LL but put simply we had good engineers but no one who understood how to run a business in a free market.

 

The whole point from my perspective is that while we operate in a broadly Capitalist system, we have to regulate the activities of 'Free Markets', which.. if left unchecked, will always further increase inequality.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

16 hours ago, Brew said:

There was no need to buy into it if we didn't want to. We could have enjoyed the benefits that came from privatisation with out spending a penny if we so wished. I say again they took nothing away from us they simply changed bricks and mortar into cash and invested it elsewhere. 

I would have like to think that governments would have "gone to the people" to seek a mandate for selling publicly owned entities but they did not. In many of these privatisations they often happen after a change from a labour to a conservative government where the incoming government claims that the budgetary situation is worse than we were told and we have to do this to reduce government debt. This also helps perpetuate the myth that "Labour cannot manage money". It would not have been so bad if they had invested it wisely. As I said earlier the vast bulk of it was used to cover the unfunded liability of public servants superannuation, something that they had allowed to get out of hand largely through their largesse in tax breaks to the big end of town.

[DJ360 6,730]

Broadly agree Oz. although there is a common misconception that ALL public servant's pensons are unfunded and this is not the case. The unfunded ones are mostly Civil Service and possibly the Armed Forces.  Local Govt, Teachers and many others are contributory pensions and many new recruits do not enjoy final salary schemes.  Also the nature of final salary is often misunderstood too.

 

But, your post gives me a good introduction to another significant part of my argument against privatisation and the Local Govt equivalent 'Compulsory Competitive Tendering'.. CCT.  This abomination has led to not only reductions in the extent and the effectiveness of services, but has also severely damaged the incomes and working conditions of many former 'Local Council' employees.  It has, in the case of many functions clustered around Local Govt, including my own, but also such as Trading Standards, Environmental Health and numerous others, resulted in the sacking of many highly qualified (usually Grad + Post Grad) specialists, in favour or minimally qualified substitutes operating narrowly targeted and 'mechanistic' 'services' designed to present an illusion that a service exists when it is in fact a feeble and ineffective shadow of formerly highly developed and effective functions.  It is, in short, a disaster which has only benefitted a few 'fat cats' and those foreign companies..often owned by foreign Govts, who have secured contracts to deliver local services here. 

 

The likes of Capita, Serco and G4S, Carillion and others have serially failed to deliver.. yet have walked away with untold millions of OUR money safely tied up in Director's Salaries/Pensions.  Nobody has gone to gaol, or even repaid any of the huge sums they have acquired by operating a system which was designed with the simple objective of pushing public money into private hands. It makes me seeth with anger.  Also notable that no Local Authority would have survived even a hint of a single one of these serial frauds and failures without huge public enquiry, press admonition, etc... yet much of the 'noise' about Carillion and others is allowed to quickly subside as this legalised theft is swept under the carpet.

 

Below is a longish but thought provoking and informative read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/risks-of-outsourcing-and-privatisation-laid-bare

[Oztalgian 3,298]

In Australia we have a Federal Government and State Governments.  State governments with help from the Federal government fund health and education. The Federal Government looks after defence and taxation and the distribution of GST (VAT) back to state governments. Both these levels of government employ public servants, it is only the Federal government that has to fund military and defence personnel pensions.

Between the level of governments they have unfunded liabilities of AU$224 billion. An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt. Superannuation and pension benefits are by far the largest component of current unfunded liability.

Remember when we sold Telstra the government put some of the funds into the Future Fund unfortunately unfunded liabilities are growing faster than the Future Fund which has assets of AU$168 Billion, a net deficit of AU$56 billion. The federal government effectively tries to hide this debt from the public by only focussing on current debt during the budget process. Unlike governments companies must provide for superannuation when it occurs and not like the government live on the credit card.

[Brew 5,421]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm also of the opinion that the way Decimalisation was handled added to inflation. 

 

I agree decimalisation  (1971) accelerated the rate of rise in inflation, no argument we wuz robbed. But, you knew there was a but coming didn't you 

From just after the war inflation, with the usual dips and troughs inflation was reasonably steady. A line of best fit gives a figure of around 3.5%.  It stated to rise in '67 under Labours economic policies, this is the start of the period when 'boom 'n' bust' was attached to Labours economic performance..  It slowed, slightly, under Edward Heath but hen rocketed to it's second highest ever level under Labour.

Searching newspaper archives of that period doesn't reveal many exaggerated headlines, not even from Murdoch's finest, the scurrilous Sun.

 

11 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm stunned that you say this.  The 'Post War consensus' is mainstream political thought/analysis.  And if Thatch didn't destroy it.. what exactly did she do?

 

I said I didn't see consensus during the period we are talking about.

 

Quote:

 

'The concept states that there was a widespread consensus that covered support for a coherent package of policies that were developed in the 1930s and promised during the Second World War, focused on a mixed economy, Keynesianism, and a broad welfare state.[2] In recent years, the timing of the interpretation has been debated by historians, asking whether it had weakened and collapsed before Thatcherism arrived in 1979.[3] There has also been debate as to whether a "postwar consensus" ever really existed'.

That's from the  link you gave...

 

11 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And of course her greatest Con.. was to pull off selling to the British public, that which they already owned.

 

We really need to get over this 'we owned' mindset. We owned nothing. It's a bit like saying you own a bit of land or a house, you don't, you merely have certain rights over it.

The state has control of assets that are held for the utility and benefit of the people. We elect a government and expect them to make decisions on our behalf and if they decide that the people they represent are better served by disposing of something and you don't agree then I'm afraid you have to live with it.

I really don't understand this hatred of someone seeing an opportunity and making a profit.

We also need to recognise that your view of the poor and downtrodden don't really exist. There are those unfortunate souls who are genuinely poor but really they are a minority and we have schemes to help. You may not agree and the schemes have all sorts of problems but the fact remains I've not seen kids with ragged clothes and no shoes for over half a century.

 

Many were/are disgruntled with privatisation yet when the opportunity to reverse those decisions came in the shape of one Jeremy Corbyn there was a quite resounding NO.

 

11 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Arguing that Gas is not essential is a bit silly. The real issue is whether our energy profile could better insulate us from the need to import Russian Gas

 

Gas is not essential to life, It's essential to maintain our way of life but we won't die without it. Semantics really. The truth is  successive governments  have brought us to this position and we have no viable alternative.

One of the greatest cons of the modern age is 'renewable' energy. Renewable? possibly, reliable, no. There is much boasting that we have managed without using coal to generate electricity of more than 2 weeks. They are not shouting quite so loud about  the fact we had record high temperatures, demand was low and we maximised the French, Belgian, Dutch and Irish connections to support us.

The train journey you mention is irrelevant. you can't expect to travel by train to every part of the country. I can catch a train to Skegness, time just over 2 hours, The same journey by bus can take over 6 hours. What does that prove? not a thing.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

She was determined to impose her version of Free Market Capitalism on us.. whether we wanted it or not.

 

Judging by her election results apparently we did!

 

You have me on the Capita situation, I was unaware of it and as a shareholder I'm disappointed.

I am aware of the NHS England quango and I agree it, like a lot of other NHS facilities, should be scrapped. Whether or not it leads to creeping privatisation remains to seen. When I stand back look at the NHS as a whole I sometimes feel like Canute, we are trying to hold back the inevitable. The problem is no government has had the chutzpah to make the root and branch reorganisation it so desperately needs. 

 

Gove is an odious man.

I recognise your passion and professionalism for your profession but there is a danger you are one of very few. Many here have recalled just how useless the careers advisor was, mine spent less than 10 minutes telling me I could be a knitter.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Seriously?  So you see no homeless?  You see no families in bedsits?  You see no people living on the streets? You see no massive waiting lists for 'Social Housing'?  Yes, we have plenty of building going on. but precious little is affordable, especially in the current climate where banks are so reluctant to lend.

 

I see those sad people with mental health/ alcohol/drug problems living on the streets though they are comparatively few. Yes there are long list for  a council hose but it's not easy saying why. Under the present rules people are given a choice of the area they want to live. In Derby the average waiting time is a reasonable 160 days but there are some areas where it is almost a year. 

 

13 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Let's add in the obscenity of empty high end property in the likes of 'That London'.. purchased as 'investments' by absentees in China or wherever. but which push up overall prices which pushes increasing numbers off the lower end of the housing ladder...

 

The high end property in London, even taking into account 'trickle down' effect, has  almost no, if any, influence on average house prices. The fact they stand empty is irrelevant they're still paying full council tax.

 

Simple business sense tells us builders would not be building the huge amount of new houses (Hucknall has virtually doubled in size in less than 10 years), if they couldn't sell them.

 

13 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No.  It will disappear when there is sufficient affordable housing available to match the income of those at the bottom of the ladder.

 

 

Which is saying the same thing I did except you are still looking at home ownership and not occupancy...

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Below is a longish but thought provoking and informative read:

 

 

And an article without the left wing Tory bashing bias:-

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/501/economics/advantages-of-privatisation/

[trogg 2,016]

I have made a point of not being involved in this political thread, but here goes." Privatisation funds were used to cover unfunded public employees superannuation schemes", that news to me. When I first started work I was told I had to pay into this scheme as a condition of employment and the Local authority paid in twice as much as me for my pension.

I paid for 30 years, ending paying for most of the time 11% of my wages. What happened to the my contributions and the supposed employers contribution. The scheme started in 1947, so for the first 30years they never had to pay a full pension out, in 1977 when the realised the cost they were paying, contributions went up from 61/4% to 11%,so for the majority of my service I paid 11%. The rate now paid has increased to I believe 13%. 

As for where the cash has gone, The Local Authorities kept this cash and never paid their share into a Fund, they used it as they sought fit, now the schemes have been running for Decades they find they have no money to pay out and the Schemes are deemed too costly to maintain.   If the local authorities had invested all the monies from the beginning they would have plenty to pay the pensions and not blaming employees for having a too generous pension.

[DJ360 6,730]

I'm sorry Trogg but I do not recognise that scenario. Can you point to actual examples?  My pension, when I was employed by St Helen's District Council.. from 1985-2001 was paid into Merseyside Pension Fund.  Once Career Guidance was 'Quangoised' by both Tory and Labour Govts, my Pension continued to be handled by MPF until I fiinished in 2014 and it is still paid by them now I am retired.  I have never heard any report of a Local Council in the UK 'misappropriating' Pension contributions, although there have been plenty of examples in the Private Sector.

[trogg 2,016]

DJ both the Fire Service Pension scheme and the Police Pension Scheme Regulations were set up by Government Regulations in 1947 and have been amended numerous times since. As the Fire Brigades Union secretary for Nottinghamshire I had my personal copy of the regs and regularly sorted out problems for the members and assisted them with appeals and can assure you that there is no Fund to invest the contributions into. I never said that this money had been misappropriated , your words not mine, the money was used , quite legitimately within the Councils General Fund. Most of the other Public employees had pension contributions paid into Funded schemes, some administered by local authorities some by other entities.

[DJ360 6,730]

Thanks for the explanation Trogg.  But what am I missing?  If there was no 'misappropriation' or mismanagement of funds.. what is the point you are making?

[trogg 2,016]

20 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

the vast bulk of it was used to cover the unfunded liability of public servants superannuation, something that they had allowed to get out of hand largely through their largesse in tax breaks to the big end of town.

 

DJ the point I was trying to make, reading my post again rather badly, was that it was not the Public Employees , not "Servants" I am a servant to no man, who were the ones to benefit from the sale of Public assets. They paid more than enough for their pensions and they received no "largesse in tax breaks" , they had tax relief on contributions paid the same as everyone else in this country.

We campaigned several times for the contributions to be paid into a central fund to be invested , so there was no shortage of money for the payment of pensions , with no success .

The pension we receive has been used as a stick to beat us with for decades , all failing to accept that we paid more than enough for it.

It wasnt the cause of inflation , it was not a contribution free pension, it was not too generous and now, they have to sell Public assets to pay the pension, it is the same as everyone else in this Country who pays into a scheme ,you only receive a pension you pay for.

Am I rather defensive of my Pension, well yes, after years of peoples abuse of it of course I am,  this is perhaps why I poorly made my point previously, I must remember to stop calm down  and think more before replying when called a servant as a term of abuse and being the recipient of a too generous pension, Governments of all colours have never been too generous to the working class.

[trogg 2,016]

I completely agree with DJs comments on the CV thread including the part on Thatcher. I too was involved at that time and had to deal with the results of Thatchers policies, but time has passed and what ever we thought of her and her policies we cannot alter history. I try not to get involved in these matters now I am to old and kna******d to take part and change anything , whilst I cannot and will not forget the past whatever I do I try to concentrate on the future and hope for better for my grand children. I can understand DJs position as due to his occupation at the time he had first hand experience of the effects. 

[Brew 5,421]

I voted for Thatcher and against her. I voted for Blair and against him. To blame either for whatever we may consider they did wrong is simply a generalisation and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Every government in history has made mistakes, future governments will be no different.

Holding on to a grudge and resentment for 30 years is not only a waste of time it is likely to colour our judgement of the present and future.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

13 hours ago, trogg said:

we cannot alter history.

 

Trogg.. this has been said a lot lately in the context of George Floyd, slavery, statues, etc.,etc. 

 

And of course it is true that we cannot alter the events around which History is written..

 

But , since History is only ever someone's interpretation of those events.. we can alter how we understand it.

 

When young, I was taught to be proud of the British Empire.  I was taught that it was a 'good thing'.  I was taught that we 'brought religion, education and civilisation to 'savages'.'

I was not taught that we forcibly subjugated people, interfered in their cultures and systematically relieved them of their wealth and natural resources.

 

Those things I only learned later and as time goes on I, and frankly anyone with an open mind learns more about what really happened.

 

So.. if we fool ourselves into thinking that History is just a load of 'facts'.. then of course it can't be changed.  But if we understand that History is only ever someone's interpretation of the facts. (and often not even the facts) then we may have a chance of really 'getting ' it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

13 hours ago, Brew said:

I voted for Thatcher and against her. I voted for Blair and against him. To blame either for whatever we may consider they did wrong is simply a generalisation and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Every government in history has made mistakes, future governments will be no different.

Holding on to a grudge and resentment for 30 years is not only a waste of time it is likely to colour our judgement of the present and future.

 

 

I disagree. 

Thatcher was always only ever a self-obsessed woman who would not even consider that she might be wrong.  She demanded her own way and got it for a short while.

In common with other politicians I despise, (including, notably Blunkett.. a Labour man...) she based her whole philosophy on her own experiences and was completely incapable of empathising with others or their point of view

 

Yes, every Govt. has made mistakes.  Oddly.. Tory Govt. 'mistakes', always seem to end in public, I.E Taxpayer's money going into the hands of Private interests.  It's been happening throughout the Covid Crisis as an incompetent and panicking Govt has thrown OUR money at their friends, in  poorly judged efforts to come up with testing, PPE etc. God only knows how much they have wasted.  If it were Labour.. we'd never hear the last of it.

 

Argue all you like, but the recent actions of Johnson over Cummings, and even more so. over the Jenricks/Desmond scandal just go to demonstrate the contempt in which Johnson and his gang hold the electorate, the Law and the democratic system.

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

Good to see you back Col,

 

45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

So.. if we fool ourselves into thinking that History is just a load of 'facts'.. then of course it can't be changed.  But if we understand that History is only ever someone's interpretation of the facts. (and often not even the facts) then we may have a chance of really 'getting ' it

A bit ambiguous Col, history as someone once said, is written by the victors - so what point are you making here?  

 

18 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Thatcher was always only ever a self-obsessed woman who would not even consider that she might be wrong.  

 

Pure supposition, conjecture and your opinion  - we have no way of knowing how much truth there is in that.  I happen to agree but I wouldn't offer it as fact. The discussion however was not about the lady herself but her policies and the degree to which they were responsible for the rise of the self serving yuppie brigade.

They may have contributed but we can't lay ALL the blame on her doorstep, we have gone over this before and the left had just as big an influence and must accept a good portion  of the blame.

 

26 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Tory Govt. 'mistakes', always seem to end in public, I.E Taxpayer's money going into the hands of Private interests. 

 

An urban myth that it's some sort of old boys club, Bullingdon never had that many members.

 

Every major government project goes to private companies regardless of who's in charge. Yes some people/companies made a lot of money from government contracts and yes the Covid-19 app is a shambles but Labour really can't crow.

 

There will now be a short intermission while I serve up a portion of 'whataboutery'

 

A third of the  PFI schemes (Carillion), we are both highly critical of were contracted under a Labour government. Yes it was started by the Tories but rather than reject the idea  Blair/Brown enthusiastically adopted it as their own.

It was Labour that spent huge amounts on the TSR2 project and than cancelled it. It was Labour who spent 9 years! and 26 BILLION pounds on  computer systems that never got of the ground before, sensibly, Cameron called a halt to that particular gravy train.

 

We chuntered at the time about the amount of waste but we got over it and certainly didn't carry a grudge about it for the next umpteen years...so yes we did hear the 'last' of it.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Argue all you like, but the recent actions of Johnson over Cummings, and even more so. over the Jenricks/Desmond scandal just go to demonstrate the contempt in which Johnson and his gang hold the electorate, the Law and the democratic system

 

Cummings was a storm in a teacup, a minor misdemeanor that in no way warranted the witch hunt that followed.

 

Tony Blairs son arrested, lied to police giving them a false name before being whisked away by special branch - no charges laid, surprise surprise.

Labour MP filmed himself having it off in the commons on Remembrance day?

Jaqui Smith paying for porn films from her expenses?

 

They maybe raise an eyebrow but they're not exactly hanging offences and we really should keep some sense of proportion.

 

 

The Jenricks situation (stinks), but is still developing though it does look like collusion, even corruption. If so then hopefully the law will take it's course but  - we can't tar all Tories with the same brush just as we cannot tar all Labour MP's as anti-Semites.

 

[PeverilPeril 3,284]

I am so pleased that DJ and Brew are 'at it' again  ...  the balance is healthy and makes me think about the future from reflections of the past. Hope that Trogg continues to chip in with his experience from time to time too.

 

I would like to contribute to the debate myself but I do not have the skills of the 'diverse duo'. I have a wealth of 'been there, done that' stuff to call upon but it would be too subjective for this topic. So carry on, carrying on guys 

[Brew 5,421]

Everyone has their own unique perspective and is always welcome to join in PP

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

A bit ambiguous Col, history as someone once said, is written by the victors - so what point are you making here?  

 

 

I don't see any ambiguity Jim. It's true that to a large extent history is written by the victor, but that doesn't mean it is fixed.  As I've said , I think a couple of times now, history is an interpretation of facts.  The facts can't be changed, but they can be ignored, glossed over, varied in emphasis etc., depending on the narrative required to support the political position of the writer.

 

It's a currently popular saying that 'History can't be changed'.  It's also a convenient 'cop out' for those who find the existing narrative to their tastes and are threatened by any new interpretation. I'd argue that History can be 'corrected'.

 

A simple example:

 

Churchill just happened to have a dogged and beligerent personality which suited his role as a war leader.  This is how most people see him.  It is even how I see him in that context.

 

BUT Churchill WAS racist.  There is no doubt about this. He wrote as much himself. 

 

So, in my view it is reasonable to acknowledge this.. though I wouldn't go as far as vandalising statues. We simply need to acknowledge that the qualities which made him a 'hero' were offset by qualities which, in hindsight, don't look so heroic.

 

In the wider historical field, we constantly see new theories, re-interpretations of known facts etc.  Sometimes it's just somebody giving a new insight into happenings at Pompeii.. or the almost endless re-interpretations of the 'niceties' of Henry VIII's reign.  Other examples abound.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Pure supposition, conjecture and your opinion  - we have no way of knowing how much truth there is in that.  I happen to agree but I wouldn't offer it as fact. The discussion however was not about the lady herself but her policies and the degree to which they were responsible for the rise of the self serving yuppie brigade.

They may have contributed but we can't lay ALL the blame on her doorstep, we have gone over this before and the left had just as big an influence and must accept a good portion  of the blame.

 

Thatcher said more than once that she was 'not for turning' etc. She purged her cabinet of 'wets' and absolutely refused to be diverted from her policy ideals. That will do for me.

 

I didn't try to blame Thatcher for the current crisis. I simply pointed out that the behavior of some is a perfect expression of the 'ME ME ME' philosophy she was responsible for initiating.  Nor did I say that everybody behaves that way.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

An urban myth that it's some sort of old boys club, Bullingdon never had that many members.

 

You mentioned Bullingdon.  I didn't.  My point is that the default position of the current and recent Tory bunch is that Private is best and Private owned by 'Yer Mates' is better. How else do you explain the fact that Dyson and JCB were early contenders for fixing the shortage of ventilators etc.., and just happen to be Tory supporters/funders, while other more capable companies were ignored?

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Every major government project goes to private companies regardless of who's in charge. Yes some people/companies made a lot of money from government contracts and yes the Covid-19 app is a shambles but Labour really can't crow.

 

I was with you until 'Labour can't crow'.  Labour have not been in power for more than 10 years. I think they are entitled to crow.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

A third of the  PFI schemes (Carillion), we are both highly critical of were contracted under a Labour government. Yes it was started by the Tories but rather than reject the idea  Blair/Brown enthusiastically adopted it as their own.

 

I'll stand correction.. but as I understand it the likes of Carillion/Capita/Serco/G4S et.al are not solely engaged in PFI.  They are engaged in bidding for anything and everything involving the delivery of Govt funded services. They are acting in direct opposition to the likes of Local Govt and other service prividers.  There is a qualitative difference between these 'companies' and previously existing companies which were engaged in  say, Construction, Engineering, Aerospace etc.  This new bunch of crooks were set up quite specifically 'on the nod' to cash in on the clear intention of Tory Govts to privatise any and all services.  They have frequently been found wanting. yet nobody is sacked, bonuses are still paid and futher contracts issued.  If this is not a deliberate process designed primarily to divert Public Money into Private Hands I dont know what is.

22 hours ago, Brew said:

It was Labour that spent huge amounts on the TSR2 project and than cancelled it.

 

Really?  Give me the figures. As I recall Labour came to power in 1964 and cancelled TSR2 in '65. The Tories had been running with it since around 1959.  More importantly though, the whole TSR2 saga was far more complex than just Lab v Con.  The armed forces were at each other's throats.. the Americans were strongly suspected of interfering in order to sell ther own alternative, (F111?) there were production/design problems, the performance specs were downgraded .. etc., etc.  I was a huge fan and really wanted TSR2 to succeed, but to blithely blame Labour for its demise is a massive and unfair oversimplification.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Cummings was a storm in a teacup, a minor misdemeanor that in no way warranted the witch hunt that followed.

 

This just illustrates my point about history.  The facts are pretty clear in that Cummings broke the rules.. twice. But the interpretation varies from 'minor misdemeanour', to 'sack him'.  And I won't deny that those who detest Cumming's ideas and his sneaky background influence on Govt. policy jumped at the chance to get shot of him.  That's politics.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

The Jenricks situation (stinks), but is still developing though it does look like collusion, even corruption. If so then hopefully the law will take it's course but  - we can't tar all Tories with the same brush just as we cannot tar all Labour MP's as anti-Semites.

 

Whether the Law will take its course remains to be seen.  My point was that the fact Johnson thinks he can just get out of things by declaring 'This Issue Closed', over both Cummings and Jenricks, smacks of his flouting of the Law over Brexit votes in the Commons and just goes to demonstrate his absolute contempt for Parliament, the Electorate, and the Law.

 

He is playing the Dictator and needs to be stopped.

[Brew 5,421]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I didn't try to blame Thatcher for the current crisis. I simply pointed out that the behavior of some is a perfect expression of the 'ME ME ME' philosophy she was responsible for initiating. 

 

I seriously doubt she thought "let's make everyone self centred and greedy", what she did do was follow a policy of 'giving people more choice',  a euphemism for...  OK I surrender..

But I'm losing the will to live here, I dislike the woman almost as much as you.

 

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

My point is that the default position of the current and recent Tory bunch is that Private is best and Private owned by 'Yer Mates' is better. How else do you explain the fact that Dyson and JCB were early contenders for fixing the shortage of ventilators etc.., and just happen to be Tory supporters/funders, while other more capable companies were ignored?

 

Again I refute there is some sort of clandestine, Illuminati type  organisation with the sole purpose of carving up public funding.

 

Over 60 companies received the specifications for a ventilator from government, Vauxhall and Airbus being two I can think of but to change the production lines would be a massive, not to say hugely expensive operation. Which of the 60 were more capable and ignored and of those 60, how many responded with a credible plan?

 

I think the decision to go with Dyson and JCB was sound judgement regardless of their political affiliation (though I admit I originally looked at the Dyson decision with some scepticism).

What other companies could do what they did? If it went to one of the nationalised industries of old they would still arguing over the colour never mind actually making one.

 

JCB.  Due to Covid and the sudden collapse in demand for construction equipment had a huge manufacturing facility with a highly skilled workforce and nothing to do. It was a sensible move to ask them to produce parts for the ventilators. This served two purposes, they designed and produced prototypes in record time and keeping people in work in that part of the country would be a huge help to the local economy.

 

Dyson.  Came up with a working model in 30 days! I seriously doubt there are many companies more capable than that. How much taxpayers money did they get for what is a quite exceptional achievement? ZERO!  Dyson paid the 20 million development costs himself and accepted no public money.

 

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Carillion/Capita/Serco/G4S et.al are not solely engaged in PFI.  They are engaged in bidding for anything and everything involving the delivery of Govt funded services. They are acting in direct opposition to the likes of Local Govt and other service prividers

 

Of course they are, it's how business works and it's incumbent on the directors as part of their duty to the shareholders to pursue every opportunity they have the capacity to meet. 

Private enterprise has several advantages  over a statutory authority and can, react quickly to change, raise the necessary capital, access the expertise available in the labour market,  have economies of scale,  accept the business risk etc. etc.

 

In some instances they have been found wanting, that much is true but in the main we only ever hear of the cock-ups, never the humdrum boring old stories where the system simply works.

I suspect in some cases local authorities would be only  too happy to offload a service.

 

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

This new bunch of crooks were set up quite specifically 'on the nod' to cash in on the clear intention of Tory Govts to privatise any and all services

 

Who? what? where? when?. Is this a new conspiracy theory or just hyperbole?

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Cummings and Jenricks, smacks of his flouting of the Law over Brexit votes in the Commons and just goes to demonstrate his absolute contempt for Parliament, the Electorate, and the Law.

 

Labour are demanding a debate on the topic and for once I can say I totally agree with them. I'm not privy to all the facts but on the evidence in the Times Jenricks appears to  be corrupt. Johnson in his last weeks as mayor gave the nod to a proposal but the one at present is somewhat different and has been expanded beyond recognition. It remains to be seen how much Boris is involved.

[letsavagoo 963]

A rare post on this thread for me but had to smile today when I heard Tony Blair in a recent interview saying that during lockdown one of the things he’d missed most were his servants. 
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.