Private enterprise - the cyanide pill for the UK

What happens when someone decides they don't want to pay for things? Do we just leave unswept roads, unemptied bins, graffitti, potholes etc? Do we get private companies to spend as little funding as possible to turn a profit? How does a private company enforce payment collection? That'd be quite costly to run on a service by service basis compared to just enforcing council tax.
 
[TW]Fox;22303184 said:
In an ideal world. But in the same ideal world what if the profit the company would make was instead re-invested in services or simply used to reduce the cost of providing the service? It makes logical sense that removing the profit element from a service makes it cheaper to provide.

Now we all know in reality it doesnt work like that, but given we are having a theory based argument anyway...
Click to expand...

As you say ideally it's better (for the masses) for a private company to be run as a public company, however I think the lack of market forces in this environment is more detrimental than the negatives bought about by profit.

But then I guess I'm a capitalist at heart, although a 21st century one.
 
Moses said:
But it is possible to make savings, without affecting the low/mid level staff, with said savings going to the owners... no? I mean, it can happen as you describe, but that isn't a certainty, is it?
Click to expand...

No more a certainty than, for example, pure communism being riddled with inefficiency and corruption.

On paper, either extreme can be made to look wonderful.

In the real world, neither is. That's a certainty because both extremes are extremely heavily rigged to put wealth and power into the hands of the tiny elite. On paper, it can be assumed that they will be perfectly wise and perfectly benevolent and will therefore be able and willing to use it for the benefit of everyone. In reality, it is a certainty that will not happen.
 
Serco and G4S run prisons, its no wonder compared to public sector HM prison service they are all at the bottom of the governments weighted scorecard for prison performance.

and now we trust them with our borders, just LOL I wonder how much they paid to Cameron and the Tory Party
 
MrMoonX said:
Serco and G4S run prisons, its no wonder compared to public sector HM prison service they are all at the bottom of the governments weighted scorecard for prison performance.

and now we trust them with our borders, just LOL I wonder how much they paid to Cameron and the Tory Party
Click to expand...

G4S are running Lincolnshire police now as well.
 
[TW]Fox;22302857 said:
There are more than a few things.

Your lack of ability to see the UK does not consist of 67 million Dolphs knows no bounds.

We went through this when you seriously suggested everyone should be pick which bin lorry firm they want.

Your ideas make sense only in a utopian society filled with people of high intelligence.
Click to expand...

So by your argument, those with intelligence should be obligated by those without it?

How does that work?

OldCoals said:
How would you implement it?
Click to expand...

Far too broad a question, as the method and practicality of implementation would vary significantly depending on the task.

Besides, before we could really get into this, we'd need to remove the unfair and disproportionate measures in the current taxation and benefits system to ensure everyone had an equal 'share' of each service through single rate taxation and universal benefits.
 
Dolph said:
So by your argument, those with intelligence should be obligated by those without it?

How does that work?



Far too broad a question, as the method and practicality of implementation would vary significantly depending on the task.

Besides, before we could really get into this, we'd need to remove the unfair and disproportionate measures in the current taxation and benefits system to ensure everyone had an equal 'share' of each service through single rate taxation and universal benefits.
Click to expand...

Humour me, pick a task and tell me how it would be implemented.
 
OldCoals said:
Humour me, pick a task and tell me how it would be implemented.
Click to expand...

Well, road maintainence and improvement is quite an easy one, for example, as the technology already exists to track the passage of vehicles, and hence you assess the budget for the road based on the number of vehicles that use it, taken from either road tax or fuel tax revenues. This way the busiest roads get upgraded more frequently based on usage. You could even incorporate public transport spending along similar lines, especially where systems like Oyster are in use.

It doesn't have to be a concious choice all the time, just a much better usage of available data to work out the most efficient spending plan.
 
Dolph said:
Well, road maintainence and improvement is quite an easy one, for example, as the technology already exists to track the passage of vehicles, and hence you assess the budget for the road based on the number of vehicles that use it, taken from either road tax or fuel tax revenues.
Click to expand...

Don't forget everyone should have the right to decide which road fixing company they want to use.
 
Dolph said:
So by your argument, those with intelligence should be obligated by those without it?

How does that work?
Click to expand...

It works as it does now. It's annoying but its life. It's why we don't have the freedom to chose that its safe to drive at 130mph on an empty road in a good car - because not everyone is capable of making that decision rationally, therefore a speed limit is imposed instead.

etc etc.
 
[TW]Fox;22304143 said:
It works as it does now. It's annoying but its life. It's why we don't have the freedom to chose that its safe to drive at 130mph on an empty road in a good car - because not everyone is capable of making that decision rationally, therefore a speed limit is imposed instead.

etc etc.
Click to expand...

Perhaps though, such decisions should be based on evidence and demonstratable harm reduction, not popularity or opinion?
 
[TW]Fox;22304138 said:
Don't forget everyone should have the right to decide which road fixing company they want to use.
Click to expand...

Out of qualified providers, why not?

Or is democracy only a good idea when it determines which rights people can have, not how taxpayers money is spent?
 
Dolph said:
Perhaps though, such decisions should be based on evidence and demonstratable harm reduction, not popularity or opinion?
Click to expand...

I agree, but after that was done there would still be a limit - despite the fact some people will be able to rationally decide for themselves whats safe. Sadly the lowest common denominator must be catered for.
 
[TW]Fox;22304201 said:
I agree, but after that was done there would still be a limit - despite the fact some people will be able to rationally decide for themselves whats safe. Sadly the lowest common denominator must be catered for.
Click to expand...

Actually, the evidence doesn't support a speed limit based approach at all, there is virtually no correlation between exceeding the speed limit and causing an accident without taking other factors into account (TRL research puts it at about 3% of all accidents).

An evidence based approach to road safety would focus on appropriate behaviour for the conditions and a much stricter driving test with regular resits, not speed limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom