[Closed] Osbornes Budget - Yes or No?

Molgrips - Yes but in both cases, cost or convenience has been the driver so service has been irrelevant.

TJ just remembered something else - when my wife was interviewed for her role they were actively recruiting from the private sector because in their words, the public sector is "institutionally inefficient".

Though to clarify, that's aimed at the many useless paperpushers, managers, empire builders and pointless job justifiers and so on, not the front line staff who are typically pretty decent and have their patients' interests at heart.

It is probably true that the public sector is somewhat less efficient, but that's just how it is I think.

🙄

Ever shopped for electronics at Dixons? Bought bikes at Halfords?

Molgrips, do you not get the concept - I'm able to [b]choose[/b]

Obi_Twa - Member

................

Anyone go salary figures for healthcare practitioners, teachers and any other job where a public sector role has a directly comparable private sector role?

Me - identical roles in private and public sector. Public £12.70 an hour plus extra for unsocial hours etc. Private £11 per hour and no extras

Actually I think healthcare is skewed on this as due to the salary disparity the best folk go into the public sector.

I see massive inefficiencies all the time in the private sector. I see a manger wasting 20% of their time collating financial figures that no one will ever look at - and all they are doing is looking them up on the computer and copying them onto a bit of paper. Senior manger and 20% of their time is spent doing this - at the insistence of the regional manager who then doesn't read the figures.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Of course the taxpayer does subsidise private sector massively. all those people on minimum wage that then require benefits to keep them out of destitution.

If the private sector paid a living wage then this taxpayer money would no t need to be spent. Of course the CBI campaigned against the minimum wage and campaigns against any rise in it - despite the fact that it cost no jobs at all - 2 million jonbs at risk from the minimum wage according to the CBI before it was brought in.

Now this subsidy I resent greatly - the taxpayer subsiding private sector so as to boost the profits which go to the bosses.

another one - look at the amount of money taken out of private sector companies by the bosses?

Also, people suggesting Gordon Brown created the world financial crisis need to get a grip on reality.

Whilst there are many who think he is implicit in the activities that led to the banking crisis I haven't seen anyone on this thread explicitly blame him for the global economic downturn. But he's the one who didn't make allowance for the economic cycle in his spending plans - a beginner's mistake which left us in the current position when the inevitable happened.

Molgrips, do you not get the concept - I'm able to choose

I do you get your point that in theory you can choose a different provider if you are unhappy. But that is not relevant to the points I am trying to make.

Firstly, inefficiency is widespread throughout business NOT just the public sector.

Secondly, although in theory I can shop elsewhere, if I want to buy car parts or whatever at 6pm, I do not have any choice. Dixons, Halfords, Currys etc are all equally crap - free market imperatives have not resulted in good service. Halfords can be as rubbish as it likes and we will still shop there.

I think the work shy thing is probably highly insulting and often misguided.

Many of us can't comprehend exactly what other people do as part of their job and assume in our ignorance that this must mean that it is easier than it is. I'm not saying that there are not inefficient people employed in either sector, just that judging without intimate knowledge is foolhardy.

I think what people are really alluding to that there might be people in the public sector doing jobs that don't really need doing. I guess in times of plenty we can afford to employ enough folks to cross all the Ts, but in times of hardship we have to cut back a little which seem fair enough. The private sector is always about the bottom line and fat profits for the shareholder/ company owners so live in perpetual times of hardship at the coal face. The question I would be asking is why should this be so, just so the few can get unnecasarily even richer.

There will of course be a different mindset for those in steady public sector jobs to those in high risk private sector ones. The steady public sector employment comes with less impressive renumeration offset by the knowledge that is is slightly more secure. Those setting up their own private sector companies or working in a bonus driven culture are a little like the gold rush speculators a couple of centuries ago, working hard for a pitance for the chance of striking big. Big for some means bust for others so it's swings and roundabouts.

The question I would be asking is why should this be so, just so the few can get unnecasarily even richer.

Capitalism requires those dependent on being given a job to work for as little as is absolutely possible.

I can still [b]choose[/b] not to molgrips.

My bin collection is ****ing shocking, different bin every week - why cant I and my neighbours [b]choose[/b] to get our bins collected by someone who offers a better level of service?

Public sector here and Yes. I agree with what Miketually said on the other page.

Yes mate I fully understand your point, I am not arguing with that.

What I am trying to say though is that [b]sometimes the free market does not deliver best services[/b].

"Molgrips, do you not get the concept - I'm able to choose"

I don't hold with that argument that competition necessarily leads to better service. You don't get to choose who maintains your railways, for example. Also, at one time you only had one gas supplier, this was then sold off (and where the f*ck did all the money made from privatisation go?) you now get to choose from several virtually identical companies who all collude to charge the same price.

My Brother in law is a Civil Servant in the benefits agency who would not know a hard days work if it hit him in the face, but then again he earns peanuts.

My Wife is a Police Officer who works really hard.

My Sister is a primary School Teacher, who work so many hours at evenings and weekends its a joke.

One of my friends is a Surgeon, who earns very good money, but works unbeliavably hard and does very little private work.

There is good and bad in the public sector, but the majority work very hard and provide essential services.

Maybe.

actually Molgrips - your comments regards halfords/dixons suggests that people are willing to accept a poorer level of service as long as the price is right and the delivery of the services is more suited to their needs (eg, being open late on weeknights!)

why cant I and my neighbours choose to get our bins collected by someone who offers a better level of service?

Imagine having four posties delivering your mail again how is this more efficient? Choice can be good or bad depending on the service rather than the product

Now this subsidy I resent greatly - the taxpayer subsiding private sector so as to boost the profits which go to the bosses.

Well that is a curious point of view. Private companies pay what they need to pay to get employees - why would they want to pay more than they need? If they pay too low for a role they will get a 2nd rate employee or will be short staffed. If people can't get by on what the private sector is paying then what should they do? Work more hour? Years ago those on lower incomes did all sorts to survive but these days we say the state should help look after them - to what degree is up for debate.

another one - look at the amount of money taken out of private sector companies by the bosses?

What does that mean? Taken out by owners you mean? That's a return on their investment right?

your comments regards halfords/dixons suggests that people are willing to accept a poorer level of service as long as the price is right and the delivery of the services is more suited to their needs (eg, being open late on weeknights!)

Tiger - I refer to people like Fred Goodwin and Adam crozier. Not the owners

yes tiger god forbid we should let everyone have a living wage ...persoanlly I think they should jack in work and live of benefits as they get more money. Do you really think there is nothing wrong with a system when you "earn " more on benefits than working for the minimum wage? *As others mention the state has to subsidise these people to get a sustainable income.

* please starr a new threead if you wish to calim benefits are too high I am sure you would be happy with a serf /feudal/slave based system

What does that mean? Taken out by owners you mean? That's a return on their investment right?

The pay of directors etc keeps going up hugely in relation to the pay of average workers - even in companies that overall have performed badly. Is this a good example of the free market, or is it just the people who have the power looking after themselves?

a public sector role has a directly comparable private sector role?

Me:
Software developer, few years experience, five years ago, private sector, £35,000 (and offered more when I quit)
Researcher, also doing quite a lot of software development, an extra PhD, 5 more years experience, working much harder, roughly £25,000

In my experience of moving from private to public sector, the private sector was often full of inneficiency, poor management, customers being ripped off left right and centre, golf rather than job skills as the primary driver for advancement, long drunk lunches & pretty slow to get the job done etc. In the public sector, pretty much everyone here is very focused and into what they do, and we get stuff done in easily half the time, and stupid management rarely gets in the way.

Oh yeah, and as for job security, in the private sector, I've spent years working with pretty useless people, because they had no sensible way of sacking people, or because whoever hired them didn't want to admit their mistakes. In the public sector, everyone is forced to justify themselves by getting funding, and almost all people at my level are on short term contracts, renewed based on performance & funding.

The problem with the argument that the public sector is always inneficient and the private sector is efficient, that comes from idiots who have no knowledge, and have just read a few press releases from the more right wing conservative think tanks, is that like most sweeping generalisations, it is bollocks, and just makes you look like a ****. Yes the public sector is inefficient sometimes, yes the private sector is too. There isn't any general trend either way.

As for customer service, that's a laugh - as anyone who has ever called up a utility, phone company etc. because companies are so completely short term profit driven, they basically dump all customer services in order to make themselves more profitable in the short term, without worrying about losing customers in the long term. In part they don't even need to worry about losing customers, because almost all utility companies are as bad as each other. The only exceptions I can think of are Ecotricity, and Smile, who both don't use automated telephone systems, you just get to talk to a useful person pretty much straight away. But that has hardly upped the level of customer service for everyone except for the few who switch to them. Contrast that with the doctors, phone them up, talk to a person, local council, phone em up, guess what, talk to a person, local hospital & midwifes unit, phone them up, talk to a person etc etc.

Joe

yes tiger god forbid we should let everyone have a living wage

You really wanted to miss my point now didn't you?!

If they pay too low for a role they will get a 2nd rate employee or will be short staffed

That only holds when there are more jobs than jobseekers. When it's the other way round, the employers call the shots and consequently the bosses can screw the little people as much as they like.

But in any case, free market ensures that companies will pay the BARE MINIMUM to secure employees.

An even more extreme example of no choice in the private sector is trains. Sure there are many companies, but if I want to go from Cardiff to London there's only one company running trains on that route. So they can be as crap as they want and I've still got to put my custom there if I want train travel.

What happens then is that the service gets worse and worse so they can pay their shareholders and bosses tons. Rich get richer, poor get poorer and the service gets worse.

Both private and public have problems with efficiency and service - it's not as simple as Z11 makes out I think.

Well said Joe marshall

*applause*

You really wanted to miss my point now didn't you?!

Do you really think there is nothing wrong with a system when you "earn " more on benefits than working for the minimum wage?

Yes, simple answer to that one isn't there, cut benefits!

Both private and public have problems with efficiency and service

as we've repeatedly covered here, if a business is inefficient, [b]it fails[/b] if a business does not provide what its customers want or expect [b]it fails[/b] - this is not a risk with the public sector, and is why the public sector so often fails to offer value for money.

Last week the gov't trumpeted the fact that they had identified 12 projects worth £2bn that they were cancelling, the notion being that they were 'wasteful'. Leaving aside the argument about whether they were wasteful or not (one was a new hospital in Hartlepool), what amazed me was that this was after a 'broad and wide-ranging review' of 217 such projects. In other words [b]over 95%[/b] of these projects the ConDems couldn't argue against even given their 'scorched earth' criteria.

So how bad is all this 'waste' in the public sector in reality??

as we've repeatedly covered here, if a business is inefficient, it fails if a business does not provide what its customers want or expect it fails - this is not a risk with the public sector, and is why the public sector so often fails to offer value for money.

Value for money? Work out how many services you get for your Council Tax. Then work out how much it would cost you to get the same in the private sector..

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Yes, simple answer to that one isn't there, cut benefits!

So people are destitute, homeless and hungry. Very nice. Back to the poor house is it?

Still that really shows your true colours

Not as much as you clearly wanted to miss mine as I actually responded with a point

Which was irrelevant so why would I respond? I shall make my point more explicit - why should an employer pay more than he has to for the skills he wants? We have a minimum wage set be the state so that is deemed to be the least payment that is OK; if that is incorrect then I don't think the employer is to blame.

Also, re. Z-11's bin proposal: what about the neighbours the other side of the street that decide that they want a 'super-economy' service that involves their bins being collected only once every two months? To save some money they put their rubbish in your bins when you're out or asleep, or fly-tip it at the start of that nice bit of singletrack you've been riding for the last however many years. I'm sure everyone in your street is far too well off to do this, but what about those ne'er-do-wells from the estate down the road, they might get to hear about that new fly-tipping spot... Not such a great idea now is it?

Yes TJ - hunger and homelessness, the level of poverty in the UK today - look at it out there, its like Mumbai!

People on benefits are so incredibly poor and close to starvation that they even have to kidnap their own children!

[img] http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00671/Karen-Matthews2_671290a.jp g" target="_blank">http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00671/Karen-Matthews2_671290a.jp g"/> [/img]

zulu - i'd love to see you manage on benefits

been there, done it, went and got a f*cking job..

see, simple innit!

25% cut to education is gonna hurt,
halt to school rebuilding in london was featured on local news the other night

that will do long term damage to the country and future economic prospects

and i still see no move to insulate us from future banking collapses, the bank levy is pittance compared to what the crisis has cost us

ams till waiting to see what will happen to the sell off of royal mail, nhs etc etc

if its anything like the increased choice we have for the gas elec trains we will see prices rise considerably with little or no increase in service
and the loss of many services, like bike carriage on trains etc

privatising something only means we pay at the point of service not via direct taxation

been there, done it, went and got a f*cking job..

see, simple innit!

So, if the Public Sector advertised a similar job to your present one, but for more money, you would not apply on principle?

Yes, simple answer to that one isn't there, cut benefits!

You must be trolling if you think it's that simple.

as we've repeatedly covered here, if a business is inefficient, it fails if a business does not provide what its customers want or expect it fails

As we've repeatedly covered here, that's simply not the case.

why cant I and my neighbours choose to get our bins collected by someone who offers a better level of service?

I think you'll find that most bins are collected by private companies that are contracted by councils.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Yes, simple answer to that one isn't there, cut benefits!

I noticed you failed to explain how multiple companies collecting bins or delivering post was more efficient despite loving choice. You know sometimes a monopoly is inevitable and not great if in private hands as they tend to exploit the situation - see Microsoft for example recently.

Tiger some employers are women you always say he in posts when you mean they perhaps you should work in the public sector and get some equality training? 😉
Fair point though I should bring iot up with govt rather than employers

private companies that are contracted by councils

Thats competition for the market - not competition for the customer in the market, completely different things - since when does the householder have a decision who provides the service?

same with trains, competition [b]for[/b] the market, not competition [b]in[/b] the market - basic understanding of economics might help you understand that

TJ -Mcdonalds does pay more than the minimum wage - you get a payrise with every gold star! 😀 In fact, when I was a student I worked there, since my (labour) council was somewhat reluctant to provide funding for a trainee gamekeeper... see, no need to rely on government handouts, paid my own way!

[i]Every single solitary public employee is a drain... blah blah[/i]

I would [i]dearly[/i] like to see you walk into ITU and say that - perhaps you'd care to tell some of the TA NHS staff what a bad job they do. **** me, you have no idea.

I grasp the power of the market - indeed, it furnishes me with ever-more refined bicyle kit, for starters - but "choice and competition" as applied to acute/emergency care is just tosh. If I've got massive polytrauma or a dissecting aneurysm, I don't want friggin' choice - I just want an experience-hardened surgical team, who (shock horror!) probably achieve more by virtue of c o - o p e r a t i o n, than anything else. Privatisation of the NHS won't result in market utopia - it will simply see infrastructure and assets snapped up by the likes of Cinven, Serco, etc, while [i]somebody else[/i] attempts to do the messy, tricky stuff. It won't be the "market" that picks up the slack. That's not how they manage acute care on the continent - and, indeed, they spend [i]more[/i] than us on healthcare.

as we've repeatedly covered here, if a business is inefficient, it fails if a business does not provide what its customers want or expect it fails - this is not a risk with the public sector, and is why the public sector so often fails to offer value for money.

Not true. Businesses have to be incredibly inefficient to fail. All they have to do not to fail, is scrape by and make a profit, or at least not so much of a loss that their debts get called in, and be not so much worse than their competitors that they actually die. Which in many markets is not exactly a high bar.

In an ideal world, there'd be a million companies able to do everything, there'd be no inertia in markets, no advantage to being a big established company, no barriers to entry, none of the other things that mean that markets don't actually work how you think they do, and it'd all be lovely, customer service would be great, and we'd all be happy with our electricity providers.

If markets were 100% perfect and efficient, we wouldn't have wasted zillions of pounds and years of peoples time during the dot-com boom etc. We had bollocks companies with no sensible business plan being hyped up by market lovers so much that they could even buy and almost ruin major actually profitable, viable businesses (AOL/time warner being the worst one).

We wouldn't have had banks bombing left right and centre over the last couple of years, as they discovered that the supposedly efficient market pricing of assets was actually pricing things worth bugger all as being worth an awful lot.

Joe

Tiger some employers are women you always say he in posts when you mean they

But as I've said before that's bad English IMO - as it happens my boss is a woman...and a right PITA she can be too 😉

Noteeth - what did I say [b]after[/b] that?

Go on, finish the quote!

Every single solitary public employee is a drain on the resource, every single one is "taking money out of the economy "through their very existence - [b]some of these people are very necessary, vital constituents of society,[/b] many, oh so very many, are not!

So, you may be able treat a dissecting aneurysm, but you clearly cannot f*cking well read a complete sentence, come back and debate with the big boys when you can!

joemarshall - good post

many, oh so very many, are not![u]

And your actual evidence for this? I don't ask for proof but a bit of evidence would be nice. I reakon slack is a % or two

Whcih services don't you want to be provided?

Street naming executive!

There, thats one service we don't need to provide, one job thats not needed in a local authority! thats your starter for ten TJ! One £19k job cropped off the public payroll!

So, you may be able treat a dissecting aneurysm, but you clearly cannot f*cking well read a complete sentence, come back and debate with the big boys when you can!

I don't consider you one of the big boys, Z11 🙂

Why? Because you are making vast generalisations without evidence. Or at least, you seem to be.

Plus, public sector workers are not taking money out of the economy - mostly, they spend it back IN the economy.. which is why govt spending can be economic stimulus.

No, Z-11, I read the entire thing... fact is, you are employing the kind of market rhetoric that has been used to justify absurd & damaging reform in the NHS (and will probably see its final demise). Firing a few "diversity outreach co-ordinators" [insert fave Daily Mail example here] will make ****-all difference, when compared to the massive damage done to public sector (NHS, MOD, transport) infrastructure over the last decade, largely due to ill-planned privatisation. I'm sick to the back ****ing teeth with "choice and competition" mantras - as so lovingly chanted by yourself. It's every bit as dogmatic as anything spouted by the Left.

[i]So, you may be able treat a dissecting aneurysm[/i]

I can't... but I know enough to know that it ain't like buying white goods.

so noteeth - why did you try and partially quote me to insinuate that I thought that TA NHS staff did a bad job?

Or were you trying to play reductio ad absurdium?

If you want to argue that piss poor fake privatisation damages the NHS, go for it, I'm all in agreement - that doesn't however mean that the NHS is running at peak efficiency and cannot learn lessons from outside the public sector!

we know the private sector is King in your opinion but I raised some issues about this a number of times have you taken to ignoring my posts? Are they just too taxing for you?
I am trying baiting now clearly 😉

Fekkin amazing.
Why are we in a recession right now? Why is this discussion even happening? Because the banks and other financial institutions (all private sector, unless Muppet11 would care to correct me on that) managed their affairs so badly they begged tens of billions of pounds off the taxpayer to save themselves from going under. And yet some muppets [b]still[/b] manage to bang on about how inefficient the public sector is compared to the private sector.

Still 25% public sector cuts - how much of that will be pulled from generous army pensions?

competition for the market, not competition in the market - basic understanding of economics might help you understand that

And a basic grip on reality might help you understand why it's not possible to have individual bin collections. No one would want to provide the service.

Evidence Zulu of the very many unneeded?

[i]why did you try and partially quote me[/i]

Nope, no need to partially quote. Your starting premise is that we are all a "drain". And, yes, I grasp that services must be paid for, by somebody (i.e. the private sector).

[i]that doesn't however mean that the NHS is running at peak efficiency![/i]

No, but the cause of efficiency is not served by the kind of market chat that is so easily bandied about (not least by those interests looking to profit from the privatisation of services). You may think acute care can be run like a supermarket - where choice is facilitated by the switching behaviour of consumers. I would beg to differ. Having an acute MI is not like the planned purchase of fruit and veg.

Because the banks and other financial institutions (all private sector, unless Muppet11 would care to correct me on that) managed their affairs so badly they begged tens of billions of pounds

Where did I say that noteeth?

at the same time, procurement of drugs and equipment [b]can[/b] be run like a supermarket - Tesco's goes straight to manufacturers and gets the best prices, then runs a large, highly efficient logistics and distribution system, partly in house, partly contracted out... so, how exactly is the supply side of the NHS not like running a supermarket?

Zulu - there is no choice in suppliers for many things for a start.

Evidence Zulu of the very many unneeded?

[img] [/img]

there is no choice in suppliers for many things for a start

well, Tesco can sell Tomato Ketchup, made by Heinz, for about 2/3 the price, per 100g, that my local corner shop do - how many suppliers are there for Heinz tomato ketchup?

Is it because anyone can make a bisuits or toilet roll but someone has a patent on the drug? You cannot threaten to go to another cheaper supplier it is like a private sector monopoly and there is no choice and we know how bad that is don't we? Aint free trade /capitalism great.

So otherwise the police would have to do that role or let the traffic jams build up?

Must do better.

Evidence of the very many unneeded public sector employees please E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E

Every single solitary public employee is a drain on the resource

I thought you were a big army fanboy?

Every single solitary public employee is a drain on the resource, every single one is taking money out of the economy

I'm still trying to work out how I'm [i]removing[/i] money from the economy. I don't withdraw my salary from the bank and stuff it under the floorboards.

Some of the money that you pay in tax finds its way to me and from me back out to someone else. None of it is actually removed from the economy though.

[i]partly in house, partly contracted out...[/i]

Actually, NHS Logistics ran a tight ship - and did an excellent job of managing complex supply lines. How strange, then, that NuLab parcelled them (and their assets) off to DHL. It's already been contracted out, as with home oxygen supplies - often with pisspoor results.

I know - let's sell off the RLC to Serco.

[i]Where did I say that?[/i]

C'mon - I [i]know[/i] what you are thinking... 😉

[img] [/img]

Is it because anyone can make a bisuits or toilet roll but someone has a patent on the drug? You cannot threaten to go to another cheaper supplier

grey import - its what Tesco's do

and yes, its perfectly legal - and guess what, patents run out and the NHS can provide drugs BP rather than brand name, more money saved!

Grey imports - done when possible already but patents are worldwide and pricing is the same worldwide.

BP equivalents - done already when possible.

'm still trying to work out how I'm removing money from the economy. I don't withdraw my salary from the bank and stuff it under the floorboards.

Some of the money that you pay in tax finds its way to me and from me back out to someone else. None of it is actually removed from the economy though.

who pays for the heat and light in your office? me!

None of it is actually removed from the economy though

It is, if you buy something manufactured overseas. Like a bike, for instance 🙂 In reality thought the amount of money leaving the UK if you buy a £120 washing machine is fairly small.

Anyway I was under the impression that the NHS being a very big customer was able to get some really low prices out of suppliers?

Counter intuitively, I think the problem in the public sector is actually the fear of waste. My experience from when my wife worked in management in a government department was that there seemed to be dislocation between the budget she administered and the cost of administering the budget. Her team grew and grew until the incremental budget increases were pretty much matched by the increased staffing costs but because this came out of another budget no connection seemed to be made. What it demonstrated to me was that there was an almost paranoid fear that money might be wasted but the cost of this paranoia was almost as great as the maximum possible waste so actually nothing had been achieved. In my view, it would have been better to strip away layers of controls and just accept that people will make mistakes from time to time leading to some waste. This will, in my view, lead a lower overall cost than that of trying to drive it out of the system, which in a fallible world is never going to be possible. (There is plenty of waste in the private sector.) The problem with this utopian view is of course it will be difficult to find politicians who are comfortable defending waste.

Good analysis mefty with a relevant point.

Because the banks and other financial institutions (all private sector, unless Muppet11 would care to correct me on that) managed their affairs so badly they begged tens of billions of pounds

FFS get with the conspiracy remember that was Gordon Browns fault as he let the B of E set interest rates or he took the house prices out of inflation iirc. Clearly not a failing of private international capital , private companies, or capitalism just shows left wing politics dont work OBVIOUSLY.

I could point out that the central banks that are supposed to stop us from getting into this mess are public institutions, but I won't. 🙂

who pays for the heat and light in your office? me!

Your taxes go to my employer, who pays the electricity company. Unless the electricity company is stuffing the cash under the floorboards, that money hasn't left the economy.

It is, if you buy something manufactured overseas. Like a bike, for instance In reality thought the amount of money leaving the UK if you buy a £120 washing machine is fairly small.

As a wishy-washy Grauniad-reading public sector-worker, am I more likely to try to buy locally sourced goods?

😉

Good post, Mefty.

[i]This will, in my view, lead a lower overall cost than that of trying to drive it out of the system[/i]

Don't tell the likes of McKinsey... how will they afford to [i]live[/i] - if they can't dispense their expensive-and-oh-so-valuable advice to us? 😯

Unless the electricity company is stuffing the cash under the floorboards

Or spending it on coal from overseas.. oh wait.. they are.

Mike, good luck finding a locally sourced washing machine or any other manufactured items...

Or spending it on coal from overseas.. oh wait.. they are.

As a wishy-washy Grauniad-reading public sector-worker, am I more likely to get my electricity from Ecotricity?

Mike, good luck finding a locally sourced washing machine or any other manufactured items...

In which case, it doesn't matter if my employer is spending the money after getting it via taxes, or Zulu-Eleven. From the point of view of the economy, anyway.

😉

who pays for the heat and light in your office? me!

Again z-11 if we privatise the NHS and we all pay the same amount of money to it via a % of our wages or insurnace or whatever has it miraculously started to make money JUST because it is the privaye sector even though nothing has changed in terms of income or expenditure? It also gives a fair amount of it's money to the private sector as well for medicine , equipment etc.
Patents last 20 years - but can be extended to make up for the time it was tested- should we let people die whilst we wait for it to lapse?