|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 14, 2007 20:40:10 GMT
The less the state involvement in the world the better. Planning, sport, litter, refuse collection, housing, education etc. You only have to look around to see the impact of state involvement in dire living environments, chaotic roads, incomprehensible laws, filthy hospitals, unrluy schools, overcrowded prisons, a housing crisis, et boring cetera.
The more bureauprats there are the worse it gets. The worse it gets the more bureauprats are employed to "improve" things!
Would you miss your local authority if it ceased to be overnight? Nah. Private enterprise would fill the gaps and cost us all less. At least things would get done - some for the worse and a lot for the better. I think we would move on from our time warp and become an enjoyable and freer place to live.
If someone wanted to invest and build a giant radiator in the middle of Pitchcroft let them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2007 21:20:06 GMT
"If someone wanted to invest and build a giant radiator in the middle of Pitchcroft let them!'
Hear, hear!
|
|
|
|
Post by DazaB on Jun 14, 2007 21:34:06 GMT
ealing, it wasn't you i served last night, purchasing 1281.36 pounds worth of designer radiators was it?  ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2007 22:01:47 GMT
"1281.36 pounds worth of designer radiators"
Drool!
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 15, 2007 7:51:56 GMT
The less the state involvement in the world the better. Planning, sport, litter, refuse collection, housing, education etc. You only have to look around to see the impact of state involvement in dire living environments, chaotic roads, incomprehensible laws, filthy hospitals, unrluy schools, overcrowded prisons, a housing crisis, et boring cetera. The more bureauprats there are the worse it gets. The worse it gets the more bureauprats are employed to "improve" things! Would you miss your local authority if it ceased to be overnight? Nah. Private enterprise would fill the gaps and cost us all less. At least things would get done - some for the worse and a lot for the better. I think we would move on from our time warp and become an enjoyable and freer place to live. If someone wanted to invest and build a giant radiator in the middle of Pitchcroft let them! A nice thought, but however poor British Rail was, they never ended up with executives facing corporate manslaughter charges due to deaths on the rail due to cost cutting measures. Private enterprise in the form of contracted out cleaning services in hospitals at lowest cost has led directly to deaths from MRSA and other superbugs which were unheard of a few years ago. Roads are built and maintained by private contractors, normally at lowest cost tender, hence the lack of organised planning of repair time and the lack of anything other than surface dressing on roads, cheap and not very cheerful. Unfortunately private enterprise wouldn't fill the gaps, unless there was a profit to be made from it, and if driving down cost and standards leads to bigger profits, then so be it. Would you miss your local authority? Well without it there would be no Worcester City. |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 15, 2007 12:18:09 GMT
The less the state involvement in the world the better. Planning, sport, litter, refuse collection, housing, education etc. You only have to look around to see the impact of state involvement in dire living environments, chaotic roads, incomprehensible laws, filthy hospitals, unrluy schools, overcrowded prisons, a housing crisis, et boring cetera. The more bureauprats there are the worse it gets. The worse it gets the more bureauprats are employed to "improve" things! Would you miss your local authority if it ceased to be overnight? Nah. Private enterprise would fill the gaps and cost us all less. At least things would get done - some for the worse and a lot for the better. I think we would move on from our time warp and become an enjoyable and freer place to live. If someone wanted to invest and build a giant radiator in the middle of Pitchcroft let them! A nice thought, but however poor British Rail was, they never ended up with executives facing corporate manslaughter charges due to deaths on the rail due to cost cutting measures. Private enterprise in the form of contracted out cleaning services in hospitals at lowest cost has led directly to deaths from MRSA and other superbugs which were unheard of a few years ago. Roads are built and maintained by private contractors, normally at lowest cost tender, hence the lack of organised planning of repair time and the lack of anything other than surface dressing on roads, cheap and not very cheerful. Unfortunately private enterprise wouldn't fill the gaps, unless there was a profit to be made from it, and if driving down cost and standards leads to bigger profits, then so be it. Would you miss your local authority? Well without it there would be no Worcester City. In allthe examples you have quoted where the private sector is pilloried can we be clear on who does what? a) the hospitals are run by the state who sets the standard and cost for the cleaning. They also manage the sub contractors. b) roads are built and maintained to standards laid down by government under contracts issued by government and supervised by government. The exception is the M6(T) which seems to me to be absolutely what we need much much more of. c) who runs the railways? I dont think the infrastructure has ever left state ownership has it? Who sets the standards and the inspection regime? Let me give you an example of government value for money (based on real life but without naming names). You are given £1 to spend on sweets. Today that buys you say 4 Mars Bars (say) at 25 p each. You go out and buy 4 Mars bars. You give them away and make 4 people happy. That is private enterprise. You are give £1 to spend on sweets. You have to decide which sweets. For this you need to draw up a plan and have it approved by 20 departments. Consultants are paid 10p to develop the plan. The plan is amended and has to be reapproved. You find out it is impractical and has to be re-done. This costs a further 5p in fees and 5p in salaries of the staff in the departments who have to be kept employed longer. In the meantime there is an annual increase in the price of Mars Bar to 26p. You need to procure your sweets so you go out to tender. You need to ensure that it is competitive and within EU rules and that all takes another 6 months. Mar Bars rise in price again to 27p. Your contractor is ready to buy a Mars Bar. The contractor needs a profit so he gets 10% of your budget for acting as your agent. So where are we? We started with £1. 10p has gone to the contractor who is buying the sweets. 20p has gone in planning how to buy the sweets and ensuring that all rules are met. Remaining cash 70p. Mars Bars cost 27p each so you can buy 2 and have 16p left over. You have made two people happy. The 16p goes on PR, reports, leaflets to tell people how you have managed their £1 so well. That is the public sector. It is a fascinating debate! Cant see why there would be no Worcester City without the local authority though? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 13:04:14 GMT
Can I have one of those Mars bar BDS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 13:08:15 GMT
I was in Eastern Europe a fair bit in the '70s and '80's while it was still the people's paradise. They solved this Mars bar problem in a very simple manner - they didn't have any.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 15, 2007 13:43:35 GMT
We face this debate all the time around expanding water service provision in developing countries, a debate that draws on the role of government in providing basic services and the role of the private sector. The private sector always point to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of governments in providing, while the public sector point towards excess profits made by the private sector operators, and the failure to reach the needy is society. Its rarely a case of ne'er the twain shall meet, as PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships) of some form (and there are many) - often emerge, with Governments as regulators and the private sector under some form of BOT/BOOT arrangement etc allied to some form of service charter by a consumer watchdog of some sort and conditionalities on pro-poor outreach of services (which is the bit that a purely private operator would normally opt to neglect). Its interesting about whether more train crashes have occurred under a 'privatised' regime. There were certainly major crashes in the 1950s and after then, as shown here (look at the timeline) news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/23/newsid_2671000/2671481.stmCertainly what that points to, interestingly, is the case that a run of deadly crashes led to calls for increased investment into the network (sound familar?). A major change now is that much of that investment is raised privately. I dont know what the rate of income tax would be these days if the major capital investments needed in the UK in respect of rail, water and sewerage, roads, airports, etc were reliant on public sector finance, or by how much that would be offset by cheaper prices of services and tockets. At our more local scale, I am confident that there is probably a decent relationship between the Football Club and the Council. I would not want to discuss openly at all, though, as I dont know what decisions have or have not been taken. |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 15, 2007 21:29:40 GMT
Thats called philanthropy, private enterprise would be You are given £1 to spend on sweets Today that buys you 4 Mars Bars, you go out and buy 4 inferior Marrz Barzz costing 2p each, you get a PR company to market the a**e off Marzz Barzz, you sell them for 30p each, you go back to your supplier and srew the last penny out of them and use you 96p plus the profit from your first 4 sales of £1.12 making £2.08 to buy a further 208 Marzz Barzz which you now sell at 40p each, raking in £83.20 from your original £1 investment. No one really feels happy apart from your shareholders, and when people are taken ill from eating inferior Marzz Barzz containing contaminated chocolate, you don't really care too much as the fines won't even dent your bottom line so long as you make some people redundant. Thats Private Enterprise.
Now, how does all this apply to something like providing public toilets? or street cleansing? those kinds of profitless activities which private enterprise has no interest in being involved in?
Can't you see why City would no longer be around without government? Where would the sentiment be that allowed prime building land to lie wasted by a football pitch, when you could profit from 500 units crammed on the site - no planning permission needed of course.
Andy is right, there to be a balance however uneasy at times, and there has to be regulatory bodies and rules such as planning rules meaning we are all governed, the alternative really doesnt bear thinking about. Ealing couldnt build his radiators because the latest Neil Grinnall would have got there first.
By the way I like the idea of Marzz Barzz, I like private enterprise. I 'm no far left loony believe me.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 16, 2007 15:18:05 GMT
Can I have one of those Mars bar BDS? Of course. One shall be supplied I would give you my last Rolo if you wanted it but keep yer mitts of me Waggon Wheels! |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 16, 2007 15:27:27 GMT
Thats called philanthropy, private enterprise would be You are given £1 to spend on sweets Today that buys you 4 Mars Bars, you go out and buy 4 inferior Marrz Barzz costing 2p each, you get a PR company to market the a**e off Marzz Barzz, you sell them for 30p each, you go back to your supplier and srew the last penny out of them and use you 96p plus the profit from your first 4 sales of £1.12 making £2.08 to buy a further 208 Marzz Barzz which you now sell at 40p each, raking in £83.20 from your original £1 investment. No one really feels happy apart from your shareholders, and when people are taken ill from eating inferior Marzz Barzz containing contaminated chocolate, you don't really care too much as the fines won't even dent your bottom line so long as you make some people redundant. Thats Private Enterprise. Now, how does all this apply to something like providing public toilets? or street cleansing? those kinds of profitless activities which private enterprise has no interest in being involved in? Can't you see why City would no longer be around without government? Where would the sentiment be that allowed prime building land to lie wasted by a football pitch, when you could profit from 500 units crammed on the site - no planning permission needed of course. Andy is right, there to be a balance however uneasy at times, and there has to be regulatory bodies and rules such as planning rules meaning we are all governed, the alternative really doesnt bear thinking about. Ealing couldnt build his radiators because the latest Neil Grinnall would have got there first. By the way I like the idea of Marzz Barzz, I like private enterprise. I 'm no far left loony believe me. What public toilets? In an age of ever increasing demand for such services due to an ageing population Public Lavvies are almost non-existent. What street cleansing? When I were a lad there was a nice old boy who used to sweep every pavement in Malvern and used to get free tea from the locals. This service stopped in in the late 60's / early 70s? Now you might get a gutter cleaning lorry once a season but that aint a lot of use when the streets are full of parked cars?` Perhaps you mean City Centre cleansing to sweep up the detritus of the nights drunken revels? A lot people dont live in City centres or cause this mess and object to paying for it? In any event it is almost useless as the streets of Cities re still full of vermin eating discarded KFC and the like at 3.30am. Still dont see why City wouldn't exist. The LA is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 16, 2007 16:14:06 GMT
And thats my point. So tell me how private enterprise could provide public toilets using your little analogy? How could they provide street cleansing using your little analogy? Use this very poor analogy in an environment where public services are provided, or not provided adequately, by the local authority. How about trying the analogy on other public bodies such as thr Police Forces, or maybe the fire services. How about giving it a go with services such as Public Rights of Way? Go on, give it a go. I'm not saying these services are being provided as well as they could be, but the simplistic idea that private enterprise could do better, or even would want to do better is just wrong.
Do you honestly believe that any flat piece of land of the size of 200m x 150m would be wasted on a football pitch in a world with no planning permission? Who would be there to stop St Modwen building a high yield site at Nunnery Way? no-one. Ironically, its the Local Authority who provide the only lifeline left to City outside of St Georges Lane, and have done for the last 15 years. Without the Local Plan there would be no land allocated for the stadium. Of course you find this irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 20, 2007 8:26:01 GMT
But why would City not exist?. The Club would simply be playing somewhere else.
Private enterprise is providing public toilets and the government has just recognised this by forcing shops to allow the public to use their facilities without charge!
All property is theft as you very well know.
Land in the UK should be returned to the indigenous people. Kick the Normans out!
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 20, 2007 8:29:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2007 8:31:36 GMT
But BDS, that's from the Independent. As we all know it's all their fault anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 20, 2007 10:28:21 GMT
But why would City not exist?. The Club would simply be playing somewhere else. Private enterprise is providing public toilets and the government has just recognised this by forcing shops to allow the public to use their facilities without charge! All property is theft as you very well know. Land in the UK should be returned to the indigenous people. Kick the Normans out! Two interesting points in your post there Mr Dragon Firstly, where would City play? Its hard to think that in a land with no planning restrictions that a space like that at Nunnery Way would not be built on with high yield units. In fact without planning restrictions all of the land between the Northern Bypass and the Motorway would be well developed, and that would not be a bad thing at all. It is only the Local Authority standing in the way of development on that site, it is the Local Authority that is giving City that future. Without planning restrictions there would be little land available which would be suitable for building a football ground on in or around Worcester, and any landowner given a choice between having his land developed for retail or for a football ground would look at the return, and as an entrpeneur would go for retail. In fact you'd be reliant on a philanthropoic soul to allow you to build a football ground in his back garden to keep a Worcester City. Or maybe on the slopes of the Malvern Hills? Secondly, it is interesting that you say the government are FORCING private enterprise to allow the public to use their toilets at no charge. With no governmental powers to do this, these shops have hardly offered these services on their own initiative in the past and havent shown any inclination to do so in the future. Don't get me wrong Mr D I am all for private enterprise doing as much as possible. Private enterprise is all about offering choice, but that includes the choice not to do something, and many tasks undertaken by Local Authorities simply wouldn't be taken on by private enterprise. It is an interesting discussion, but I am all in favour of good governance particularly under Tory control. And what is wrong with Norman Tebbitt that he should be kicked out? |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 20, 2007 10:30:27 GMT
But thats central government and a Labour one at that. The return of Tory power under Dave would soon sort this kind of situation out. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jun 20, 2007 10:51:51 GMT
Yes but the likes of Brooksider and co banged on about a lot of crap, so maybe the point isnt valid. You're not wrong! Though do sort of miss the cantankerous old know-it-all......... However, more seriously shame about Scarborough;Hope the come back eventually? |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 20, 2007 11:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 20, 2007 11:07:30 GMT
Yes there is a report on the BBC website showing why the local authority didnt feel they could lift the restrictive covenant stopping the sale of the ground. All very interesting.
I am sure the Seadogs will return just as Telford have. Not sure about Boston but they will probably have to go through some sort of mystical transformation to harness the support that they undoubtedly have
The whole process of football clubs and administration and preferential treatment of football creditors stinks to me as what really happens is that financial mismanagement is not scrutinised in the way it might be if a club goes bust. An extreme view is that it is a charter for fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 20, 2007 11:22:15 GMT
Your last statement ther Mr Dragon finds us both in full agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 20, 2007 15:45:23 GMT
I am prone to proposing extreme views that I don't hold personally as perhaps from the ensuing debate / argument / prison sentence something constructive and interesting might emerge.
Ken Bates could probably fill a message board on his own. His career and business dealings were exposed somewhere a few years back (possibly by Mihir Bose?). I shall not make any comment other than to say I am glad that he is not at City!
|
|
|
|
Post by villager on Jun 25, 2007 18:42:57 GMT
|
|
