30/11 Strikes.

[[TW]Fox]

Default provision? It would solve both that problem and the laziness problem of those who can't be bothered.

And who choses that...?

You'd end up with a situation where the vast majority would end up with default provision so a handful of us can geek out over the best value bin man. Yea, thats well worth it. Can we just have the council collect the trash please? Though don't forget to give them a Super Diamond pension and pay them £50k a year or whatever the current myth going around about bin men is.

 

[MrMoonX]

Why would your average citizen want choice and control over who empties the bins? Most people have more important things to worry about than which supplier to use for bin collection and who they think should maintain the street lighting. They'd rather than council did that for them.

Look at the absolute mess that choice and control has brought to the energy markets. Only the very intelligent can select the correct energy tariff without any faffing around. Most people would probably far rather return to the days when the 'electric board' sent them a bill.

I agree, take back energy supplies into public sector, along with railways, water, all hospital and justice services and mug off the fat cats at eon and serco

I don't want to have to choose between viola or g4s to empty my bins I want the council to do it for me, preferably not via a company making a profit from public service

 

[Dolph]

Yes, because like it or not in this country of almost 70 million people, quite a large proportion of them are the average person and a scary proportion are the below average.

I read scary research that suggested 50% of the population are below the median average

Again, default provision would address this, why can't we have choice if we want it?

 

[uk_unbeliever]

But it isn't being discussed in this thread. Focusing on an extreme position that has been advocated by no-one, rather than addressing the positions raised, doesn't really help advance the debate at all...

I think it is relevant- my first post in this thread (think it was my first) was about hiding greed behind the false ethic of 'freedom' and showing that taking neo-liberal policy to its conclusion is pretty bad for lots of people. No-one here is advocating it (I haven't read the whole thread so don't know) but it moving towards it people should know what it can entail. Same way i'm sure that in 30 pages there's been some referral to union members being communists or socialists etc

 

[Dolph]

I agree, take back energy supplies into public sector, along with railways, water, all hospital and justice services and mug off the fat cats at eon and serco

I don't want to have to choose between viola or g4s to empty my bins I want the council to do it for me, preferably not via a company making a profit from public service

But why should your desires take away my freedom as well?

This is the problem with left-leaning economics, it always comes with authoritarianism.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I read scary research that suggested 50% of the population are below the median average

Again, default provision would address this, why can't we have choice if we want it?

For the same reason that you and me cannot go and drive our well maintained, well built, performance cars at 155mph up the A38 in complete safety. Because you can't cater to the minority for blanket things like service provision. Or speeding laws.

But why should your desires take away my freedom as well?

Because the freedom to select a bin man is probably not a freedom worth worrying about.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

What's the defiling about some prisons being ran by private companies MrMoon ?

 

[Biohazard]

The original point being made to which I answered, to which you made your post was not specific either...he was talking about public sector spending as a whole, as was I. By the way you worded your post, you implied that public sector spending is funded by Deficit Borrowing, that simply isn't the full story or even representative of how the Government raises revenue overall.

Exactly, and "where do you think the money comes from" would imply the Private Sector in retort I can presume? What I'm trying to point out is that while that is largely the case, it is not always as direct as is often inferred due to cash flow. Grahame is right, this "we pay for you" is increadibly disingenious and also dangerous yet at the same time a complete irrelevence. If "they" don't pay for "someone" there is something seriously wrong.

Going at significant lengths to attack and significantly undermine one significant aspect of society and the constitution is self defeating, regardless of how unpopular it may be to some of the masses we all need it to go about our daily lives and conduct business. Have a right to say, of course. Such emotive and derogatory language does not add any validity to the relationship between the citizen and the state. It already exists, all it does is detriment it.

I did not intend in anyway to imply anything so stupid as you think I did, I apologise if you got that impression.

 

[Dolph]

What's the defiling about some prisons being ran by private companies MrMoon ?

I actually agree with MrMoonX about Prisons, they shouldn't be privatised, specifically because they require direct access to the state monopoly on legitimate use of force.

 

[Dolph]

For the same reason that you and me cannot go and drive our well maintained, well built, performance cars at 155mph up the A38 in complete safety. Because you can't cater to the minority for blanket things like service provision. Or speeding laws.

You can though, just because we don't, doesn't mean you can't.

It would be very easy to replace speeding laws with something based on an assessment of driver behaviour, especially given the impact of breaking the speed limit on accident rates.

Because the freedom to select a bin man is probably not a freedom worth worrying about.

Are we back to the 'principle' argument again?

 

[MagicBoy]

Default provision? It would solve both that problem and the laziness problem of those who can't be bothered.

Then it's a two tier system and completely blows away your original point about choice!

Go out there and meet the public. Most of them are nowhere near as literate and articulate as the majority of people still debating in thread at the minute.

There's old people, people with health issues both physical and mental, people who live in extreme poverty and depend on the welfare state for shelter and basic needs. Catering to the 0.01% of the population who don't like the perceived waste in public services isn't a remotely sensible option.

 

[Biohazard]

I agree, take back energy supplies into public sector, along with railways, water, all hospital and justice services and mug off the fat cats at eon and serco

I don't want to have to choose between viola or g4s to empty my bins I want the council to do it for me, preferably not via a company making a profit from public service

Yes I would support nationalising energy generation.

 

[uk_unbeliever]

Default provision? It would solve both that problem and the laziness problem of those who can't be bothered.

Is this basically bare bones health care (any health care at all?), something to reduce serious environmental hazards (rubbish collection, recycling, some health and safety protection) and social security somewhere between absolute and current levels of 'relative' poverty?

 

[MrMoonX]

What's the defiling about some prisons being ran by private companies MrMoon ?

why should G4S Serco and Kaylx make millions from crime?

plus they scrimp on staffing etc, prisoners prefer private because they aren't supervised as much in a private jail compared to a public one, its run on appeasement to a certain extent.

If drugs are found in a G4S jail say birmingham they get fined by the Ministry of Justice, so what do they do? they don't look for them in first place, its sad and sickening, prisons should never be for profit.

not to mention the staff 'prison custody officers' don't have the power of a constable like public sector prison officers

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes I would support nationalising energy generation.

It makes little sense to have important infrastructure services in the hands of privately operated and often foreign owned companies, so I agree with you.

 

[deSade]

No, I'd advocate a % income based approach, with clear division between each part of the payment, and everyone gets the same right to access the service guarantee.

So you advocate a divisive approach to basic services then. It's a clear socio-economic slap in the face to basic human principals, and will lead to a more clearly defined two-tier system than ever. Thatcher would be proud!

 

[Buckster]

anyone noticed a sudden drop in headlines re the strike tomorrow both today and yesterday ?

it almost seems like the press have been asked to not make it a big deal ?

just seemed odd that 5 days ago it was headline news - all the problems going to happen etc - then suddenly seems relegated to a relatively minor news item ?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Interesting, thanks. Defiling ? Auto spell on iPad is a pain sometimes.

 

[Dolph]

So you advocate a divisive approach to basic services then. It's a clear socio-economic slap in the face to basic human principals, and will lead to a more clearly defined two-tier system than ever. Thatcher would be proud!

Erm, what?

By using a % income based approach, you ensure that everyone pays the same proportion of income for the same services, and the rich subsidise the poor...

 

[Biohazard]

It makes little sense to have important infrastructure services in the hands of privately operated and often foreign owned companies, so I agree with you.

Nonprofit would also provide a fair cost to the customer and a stable platform for business growth while reducing the current overhead over time.