Quantcast
Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life" - Page 229 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Section_31

Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

Recommended Posts

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Is there a definitive list of things which are too important to "leave" to the private sector (whatever that means), maybe I could get a look at that.

 

I didn't say leave to the private sector, I said leave to the greedy private sector. I would imagine that gives away what it means, doesn't it? Surely we can agree we don't want our governments dictating what clothes should look like or what music should sound like, leave that to private enterprises. Surely we can also agree that sometimes we don't want to leave basics necessities exposed to corporate greediness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
Why do you always have to take things to extremes? Why is the ONLY alternative to the UK/USA system of economics - a system we have SEEN with our own eyes is destructive, to become some kind of North Korean tractor factory?

 

Capitalism wasn't always like this, it went along quite nicely for many years until it had all its marbles removed.

 

I was at a party once with a senior journo from the Economist, and he gave me the patter that 'capitalism isn't ideal but it's the best model we've found', and I said there were alternative models, like the Scandinavian model which balances a free market with social responsibility, or pointed out how the Japanese were motivated to work not by self interest, but my a devotion to the betterment of their society, and he said "yes but that's all coming to an end, they were able to do that because they were homogenous societies, but there's more immigration now'.

 

What did he say after you punched him in the throat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did he say after you punched him in the throat?

 

He has a million pound house and does one story a day, which he said he usually nicks from Bloomberg and gives a slight rewrite. Not to sound bitter, but this is not a meritocracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
He has a million pound house and does one story a day, which he said he usually nicks from Bloomberg and gives a slight rewrite. Not to sound bitter, but this is not a meritocracy!

 

Yeah, but what did he say after you punched him in the throat.

 

Yeah, Iv'e experienced things like that before. Plagiarist wankers. For example, I knew this senior journo from the New Statesman, he has a million-dollar condo and does seven stories a week which, he admitted, he usually pinches from the FT. Sometimes it's hard to feel like it's really the best who get ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly we'd all be better off if we followed the example of those nations who have nationalised everything. I'm sure they're wonderful, free places to live.

 

Yes, because they are they only two possibilities; you fucking clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it quite funny that the capitalists (Americans most certainly) hide behind the word of God. However they don't actually follow much of the word of God and specifically ignore 'Love thy neighbour'.

 

They just prefer you to do the biggest shit you possibly can in a paper bag, set it on fire, leave it on his doorstep, ring the bell and run away. Whilst hiding behind a bush sniggering at your neighbour trying to get a fresh squashed turd out of the grooves on his trainees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because they are they only two possibilities; you fucking clown.

 

 

Clown indeed. You're the one who keeps mentioning Blackwater, as if it was some kind of template for all private involvement in public services. Blackwater (as it's no longer known) doesn't even operate in the UK ffs.

 

If you could stick to real world examples of outsourcing in the UK, we'd all be much better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clown indeed. You're the one who keeps mentioning Blackwater, as if it was some kind of template for all private involvement in public services. Blackwater (as it's no longer known) doesn't even operate in the UK ffs.

 

If you could stick to real world examples of outsourcing in the UK, we'd all be much better off.

 

I mention Blackwater (who I'm well aware have had numerous name changes to try and remove the stink) because it's relevant in the discussion about privatisation as it's a global system now. You might not have noticed but UK assets are being bought by companies from other countries. I also mention it as it's the scariest extreme of what is being allowed to be privatised: war.

 

It was also a wider point about how companies, even *astonished face* UK companies, can now hire private military firms, and how a company massively tied to food availability (on a planet where it may soon start being scarce) having an army in tow might be concerning.

 

When your only response to criticisms of the obvious, rampant problems with the current model of capitalism, and the public/private movement it talking about Korea and putting tags about National Socialism on a thread then, yes, it's clownish behaviour.

 

But, as we know, this same point will have to be made again in about two months when you do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, I didn't mention Korea. And the tag about national socialism is on a different thread, on which it is completely funny.

 

I'm not aware of any private armies operating in this country, but I'm sure you'll be the first to notify me if any exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say leave to the private sector, I said leave to the greedy private sector. I would imagine that gives away what it means, doesn't it? Surely we can agree we don't want our governments dictating what clothes should look like or what music should sound like, leave that to private enterprises. Surely we can also agree that sometimes we don't want to leave basics necessities exposed to corporate greediness.

 

If by "corporate greediness" you mean seeking to maximise profit, then the vast majority of basic necessities (food, clothing, basic consumables, medicines etc.) are already exposed to this. Most governments accept that private companies are able to provide these more efficiently and at better quality than they can.

 

There may be a separate case for nationalising certain industries (e.g. public goods, which to be tend under provided by the private sector) but it has no relationship to how greedy companies are or whether the goods themselves are necessities. Either the private sector is better at supplying them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
If by "corporate greediness" you mean seeking to maximise profit

 

I mean cutting everywhere, even areas which are needed, in order to make more profit for shareholders. Whilst our elderly die in their 10s of thousands because they can't afford to heat themselves in the winter, private energy companies are making huge profits, getting huge tax breaks, and are being paid by tax payers in the way of a winter fuel payment. That's just one example, there are others.

 

This isn't about the man in the street coming good, building a business, making it earn him money and also provide a good service, it's about systematic greed at the expense of the health, wealth, and well being of the citizens of the country.

 

I've no problem with people earning a crust, or lots of crusts, but I do have an issue with wealth pooling at the very top at the expense of the majority. That's what's happening. Corporate greed is just one instance of it.

 

then the vast majority of basic necessities (food, clothing, basic consumables, medicines etc.) are already exposed to this. Most governments accept that private companies are able to provide these more efficiently and at better quality than they can.

 

Most governments accept it because they tax the profits they make. Efficiency and quality in the private sector is a myth. Quality especially. As for efficiency, for who? Cutting back of non-profitable services in order to make savings and boost profits isn't efficiency for the end user but it is for the shareholder.

 

There may be a separate case for nationalising certain industries (e.g. public goods, which to be tend under provided by the private sector) but it has no relationship to how greedy companies are or whether the goods themselves are necessities. Either the private sector is better at supplying them or not.

 

Yeah, in a world with no special interests maybe. In the real world, unfortunately it's not quite as simple in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We go round in circles here but when i hear about private companies reducing costs its barely ever true to anybody but their shareholders. The cost to the ordinary man in the street is massive. Unemployment benefits,a rise in crime and recreational and prescription drug use are all at cost to the taxpayer. This then questions the whole saving money argument for me as it really isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, I didn't mention Korea. And the tag about national socialism is on a different thread, on which it is completely funny.

 

I'm not aware of any private armies operating in this country, but I'm sure you'll be the first to notify me if any exist.

 

Which countries that have nationalised everything were you talking about then with your trademark ridiculous response?

 

You realise that some people concern themselves with things that happen outside the UK shores, right? You also realise that if the UK government are using private contractors then it's public money being spent, so quite relevant?

 

I won't need to notify you. That unquenchable thirst you have for informing yourself on these issues will sort you out I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which countries that have nationalised everything were you talking about then with your trademark ridiculous response?

 

 

None specifically, it was a general point about how nationalisation doesn't result in the claimed increase in freedoms.

 

You realise that some people concern themselves with things that happen outside the UK shores, right?

 

 

You're right to be concerned about what happens elsewhere, but this topic is about UK politics, and especially the UK government and it's austerity measures.

 

You also realise that if the UK government are using private contractors then it's public money being spent, so quite relevant?

 

 

Absolutely. People have a right to know what their money is being spent on. I just wish the debate was framed a little more constructively than "State = good, private = bad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think about it, the fact that companies employ lobbyists to influence government policy is rancid isn't it? It's so anti-democratic.

 

Thought for the day... Now I'm off out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you think about it, the fact that companies employ lobbyists to influence government policy is rancid isn't it? It's so anti-democratic.

 

Thought for the day... Now I'm off out!

 

Take that thought one step further. Isn't the basis of democracy the ability to influence government policy.

 

And isn't the real issue the fact that only companies are doing this.

 

Democracy comes with responsibilities, which for plebs like you and I extends beyond ticking a box every few years.

 

But we can't be arsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks the bbc are impartial need to get out a bit more.

 

Thatchers funeral showed them in their true establishment pomp. Very little debate about the selling of this country's assets or how subsequent job shedding and sky high consumer prices have left millions in fuel debt. Very little on the riots, the massive 3 million unemployed, the women at greenham common, the stop and search laws, the increase in police brutality, poll tax, she made britain a bullying shitstain of greed, very little debate at all

 

Instead we had days of rose smelling bulshit about the women who saved the nation. They even wheeled out terry wogan to tell us how marvellous the funeral went and to tell a lovely little tale of her and dennis getting tipsy at a bbc function. Though in the interests of balance they made sure they showed clips of miners fighting with police. Cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take that thought one step further. Isn't the basis of democracy the ability to influence government policy.

 

And isn't the real issue the fact that only companies are doing this.

 

Democracy comes with responsibilities, which for plebs like you and I extends beyond ticking a box every few years.

 

But we can't be arsed.

 

These may be the people who give rise to the greatest unease but they are not alone. HJC and HFSG evolved into lobby groups, ASH was the lobby group behind the introduction of the smoking ban (am I alone in my concern that we have lobby groups funded from the public purse?), Greenpeace have lobbied on many fronts and have, perhaps, had the biggest impact on our society of all over the last twenty years. There are many more with specific areas of interest such as Terence Higgins Trust, Tressel Trust and so on. All actively engage in political lobbying.

 

Didn't Bombarier lobby parliament when the cross rail rolling stock order was presented to a German company? Should we prevent them from making representation in such circumstances.

 

I don't see anything wrong with lobbying per se but it must be open and transparent and shouldn't involve promises of future directorships or envelopes stuffed with cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fairness selling our assets like gas, electricity, water, railways, has lead to much lower bills for consumers and far better service, hasn't it?

 

I don't know about the bills but the service is infinitely better than it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These may be the people who give rise to the greatest unease but they are not alone. HJC and HFSG evolved into lobby groups, ASH was the lobby group behind the introduction of the smoking ban (am I alone in my concern that we have lobby groups funded from the public purse?), Greenpeace have lobbied on many fronts and have, perhaps, had the biggest impact on our society of all over the last twenty years. There are many more with specific areas of interest such as Terence Higgins Trust, Tressel Trust and so on. All actively engage in political lobbying.

 

Didn't Bombarier lobby parliament when the cross rail rolling stock order was presented to a German company? Should we prevent them from making representation in such circumstances.

 

I don't see anything wrong with lobbying per se but it must be open and transparent and shouldn't involve promises of future directorships or envelopes stuffed with cash.

 

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×