Author Topic: UK General Election 2017  (Read 113993 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #775 on: May 30, 2017, 08:16:47 PM »
It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.
Is the model terribly good? Shouldn't bigger organisations be running it if one insists on having a private model?
Are you saying that the bigger a private company is the better? If so, why?

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #776 on: May 30, 2017, 08:32:00 PM »
I'd argue the for the opposite. Smaller businesses are generally able to offer a more personal service - there is more to what they offer than just the bottom line, or having to keep shareholders happy. And as with care homes, nurseries should be diverse in nature to offer a range of options for families to choose from - big business doesn't offer this.
But I think Professor Davey's complaint was that they are unable to offer some or any service in the eventuality of becoming non profitable. This opens a range of choices No provision, subsidisation, larger companies or organisation, or nationalisation. In terms of care homes it could be argued that a social care version of Butlins, say, might do a better and more economical job than a 'Guest house type' small social care operation. 

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #777 on: May 30, 2017, 08:39:40 PM »
I'd argue the for the opposite. Smaller businesses are generally able to offer a more personal service - there is more to what they offer than just the bottom line, or having to keep shareholders happy. And as with care homes, nurseries should be diverse in nature to offer a range of options for families to choose from - big business doesn't offer this.
I can't comment on the care home sector but the nursery sector is very diverse and there is an odd competition between public and private providers.

So currently the universal free provision is for 3 and 4 year olds. Some 2 year olds get free provision but this is means tested. So for 3 and 4 year olds there is competition between nursery classes in state primary schools, small local private providers which range from full blown nurseries to groups run out of community centres and church halls and the big chain providers.

Overall I don't think there is a great competitive advantage with being a big chain as the economies of scale tend to be on the fairly minor expenditure, while the biggest costs (staff, business rates and premises costs) are no less significant as you add more nurseries to a chain. You do, of course have the advantage of 'brand recognition', but that is only a help if parents think favourably of the 'brand'. In many cases a small and much more personal approach of a single local one-off nursery can be more appealing and word of mouth is critical in the sector.

Problems arise when a government initiative tell you that you now need to double the number of free hours you offer, without giving critical details to allow you to plan - most notably how much you will be compensated for offering these hours free to parents.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #778 on: May 30, 2017, 08:46:36 PM »
Are you saying that the bigger a private company is the better? If so, why?
In response to a couple of posters stating there was a problem of provision by smallish concerns.

If moneys are coming from the tax or community charge then it also makes sense to avoid duplication and multiplication with who you are dealing with.

The ideal private model and standards for social care has been set I believe in organisations such as Butlins, Pontins, Warners etc.

There should of course, given that organisations of private social care provide homes, be some kind of lock in which prevents eviction if business fails or boredom of an owner sets in. Large companies in social care would not suffer this...

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #779 on: May 30, 2017, 08:49:18 PM »
In response to a couple of posters stating there was a problem of provision by smallish concerns.

If moneys are coming from the tax or community charge then it also makes sense to avoid duplication and multiplication with who you are dealing with.

The ideal private model and standards for social care has been set I believe in organisations such as Butlins, Pontins, Warners etc.

There should of course, given that organisations of private social care provide homes, be some kind of lock in which prevents eviction if business fails or boredom of an owner sets in. Large companies in social care would not suffer this...
Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitalism in the NHS?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 08:51:26 PM by Nearly Sane »

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #780 on: May 30, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »
Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitilism in the NHS?
Don't you mean *unt like capitalism?

I don't. I merely outline what might be better, given that apparently small owners cannot provide what is needed IF ONE INSISTS ON HAVING A PRIVATE MODEL.

If one follows the logic of larger means better and the less operators public money has to cater for then the logical choice is nationalisation.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 09:07:05 PM by Emergence-The musical »

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #781 on: May 30, 2017, 09:01:07 PM »
Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitalism in the NHS?
I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #782 on: May 30, 2017, 09:14:47 PM »
I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.
what does a principle matter on where it is used? Are you saying that in the NHS it would be important to have small groups?

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #783 on: May 30, 2017, 09:15:54 PM »
Don't you mean *unt like capitalism?

I don't. I merely outline what might be better, given that apparently small owners cannot provide what is needed IF ONE INSISTS ON HAVING A PRIVATE MODEL.

If one follows the logic of larger means better and the less operators public money has to cater for then the logical choice is nationalisation.
And why are you asking that of people who haven't said that?

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #784 on: May 30, 2017, 09:27:06 PM »
what does a principle matter on where it is used? Are you saying that in the NHS it would be important to have small groups?
I haven't been talking about the NHS.

I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.
And

If one follows the logic of larger means better and the less operators public money has to cater for then the logical choice is nationalisation.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #785 on: May 30, 2017, 09:32:40 PM »
I haven't been talking about the NHS.
And
Why did you edit the post to avoid the question about your apparent inconsistency in what you were suggesting was as principle? Your position between social care and health care seems to be in conflict. So is it a principle or not? And since it doesn't appear to be for you, why?

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #786 on: May 30, 2017, 09:42:51 PM »
Why did you edit the post to avoid the question about your apparent inconsistency in what you were suggesting was as principle? Your position between social care and health care seems to be in conflict. So is it a principle or not? And since it doesn't appear to be for you, why?
.
One more time. I haven't given an opinion on health care.



Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #787 on: May 30, 2017, 09:45:37 PM »
.
One more time. I haven't given an opinion on health care.
and one more time principles are principles or they aren't. I have no issue if you are arguing from practicality but you didn't. You argued from principle. Pointing out that you don't apply it shows it isn't a principle for you.

BTW how is that an answer to your quote mining to change what was being asked? Why do you think this sort of dishonesty is justifiable? 

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #788 on: May 30, 2017, 09:48:03 PM »
But I think Professor Davey's complaint was that they are unable to offer some or any service in the eventuality of becoming non profitable. This opens a range of choices No provision, subsidisation, larger companies or organisation, or nationalisation. In terms of care homes it could be argued that a social care version of Butlins, say, might do a better and more economical job than a 'Guest house type' small social care operation.
But as I have pointed out the issue of non viability has very little to do with size. I own a small, one-off nursery. Without doubt it is run exceptionally efficiently (and is of exceptional quality). I doubt very much that the big chains are as efficient as us (indeed I'm aware that they are often running under capacity and also rely heavily on costly agency staff, which will affect their efficiency).

The issue is that the money provided per hour from government to cover the free provision isn't sufficient to cover the basic costs of providing the care. And that is the same for big and small. Nurseries do it in effect as a 'loss leader' - lose money on the 'free provision' but make that up on additional hours parent opt for. Now of course if the number of free hours rises from 15 to 30 per week, then you double the amount of 'loss lead' and massively reduce any additional hours that you can actually make money.

We are just about OK as we are massively efficient (largely due to be very good at optimising numbers of children, being at near capacity and staff plus having negotiated a fantastic deal on rent), but many others, big and small aren't - hence why many aren't signing up to the 30 hours.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 10:31:43 PM by ProfessorDavey »

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #789 on: May 30, 2017, 09:49:27 PM »
The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?
Any chance as you have been posting frequently on the thread after my reply to this that you might try and justify and explain this?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 10:11:58 PM by Nearly Sane »

Ricky Spanish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #790 on: May 31, 2017, 07:03:37 AM »
Don't know who wrote this but it certainly resonates with how I feel:

'Here's what I'm really struggling to understand.

All I've ever heard from people, for years, is:

"bloody bankers and their bonuses"
"bloody rich and their offshore tax havens "
"bloody politicians with their lying and second homes"
“bloody corporations paying less tax than me”
"bloody Establishment, they're all in it together”
“It'll never change, there's no point in voting”

And quite rightly so, I said all the same things.

But then someone comes along that's different. He upsets the bankers and the rich. The Tory politicians hate him along with most of the labour politicians. The corporations throw more money at the politicians to keep him quiet. And the Establishment is visibly shaken. I've never seen the Establishment so genuinely scared of a single person.

So the media arm of the establishment gets involved. Theresa phones Rupert asking what he can do, and he tells her to keep her mouth shut, don't do the live debate, he'll sort this out. So the media goes into overdrive with…
“she's strong and stable”
“He's a clown”
“He's not a leader”
“look he can't even control his own party”
“He'll ruin the economy”
“how's he gonna pay for it all?!”
“AND he's a terrorist sympathiser, burn him, burn the terrorist sympathiser”

And what do we do?

We've waited forever for an honest politician to come along but instead of getting behind him we bow to the establishment like good little workers. They whistle and we do a little dance for them. We run around like hypnotised robots repeating headlines we've read, all nodding and agreeing. Feeling really proud of ourselves because we think we've come up with our very own first political opinion. But we haven't, we haven't come up with anything. This is how you tell. No matter where someone lives in the country, they're repeating the same headlines, word for word. From Cornwall to Newcastle people are saying.
 
“He's a clown”
“He's a threat to the country”
“she's strong and stable”
“He'll take us back to the 70s”

And there's nothing else, there's no further opinion. There's no evidence apart from 1 radio 5 interview that isn't even concrete evidence, he actually condemns the violence of both sides in the interview. There's no data or studies or official reports to back anything up. Try and think really hard why you think he's a clown, other than the fact he looks like a geography teacher. (no offence geography teachers) because he hasn't done anything clownish from what I've seen.

And you're not on this planet if you think the establishment and the media aren't all in it together.

You think Richard Branson, who's quietly winning NHS contracts, wants Corbyn in?
You think Rupert Murdoch, who's currently trying to widen his media monopoly by buying sky outright, wants Jeremy in?
You think the Barclay brothers, with their offshore residencies, want him in?
You think Philip Green, who stole all the pensions from BHS workers and claims his wife owns Top Shop because she lives in Monaco, wants Corbyn in?
You think the politicians, both Labour and Tory, with their second homes and alcohol paid for by us, want him in?
You think Starbucks, paying near zero tax, wants him in?
You think bankers, with their multi-million-pound bonuses, want him in?

And do you think they don't have contact with May? Or with the media? You honestly think that these millionaires and billionaires are the sorts of people that go “ah well, easy come easy go, it was nice while it lasted”?? I wouldn't be if my personal fortune was at risk, I'd be straight on the phone to Theresa May or Rupert Murdoch demanding this gets sorted immediately.

Because here's a man, a politician that doesn't lie, he can't lie, he could have said whatever would get him votes anytime he wanted but he hasn't. He lives in a normal house like us and uses the bus just like us. He's fought for justice and peace for nearly 40 years. He has no career ambitions. And his seat is untouchable. That's one of the greatest testimonies. No one comes close to removing him from his constituency, election after election.

His Manifesto is fully costed. It all adds up, yes there's some borrowing but that's just to renationalise the railway, you know we already subsidise them and they make profit yeah? One more time… WE subsidise the railway companies and they walk away with a profit, just try and grasp the level of piss-taking going on there.

Unlike the Tory manifesto with a £9 billion hole, their figures don't even add up.

And it benefits all of us, young, old, working, disabled, everyone. The only people it hurts are the establishment, the rich, the bankers, the top 5% highest earners.

Good, fuck them, it's long overdue.

VOTE LABOUR."

Over to you ToryBoy: http://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-and-labour-election-chief-andrew-gwynne-in-fiery-spat-10897829

(Notice how there are no answers. Only bluff and bluster)


**ETA** This Trump/Buffon clone is "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs". Really??
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 07:24:18 AM by Ricky Spanish »
UNDERSTAND - I MAKE OPINIONS. IF YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE ME QUESTION MY OPINION THEN I WILL CONSIDER THEM.

floo

  • Guest
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #791 on: May 31, 2017, 08:43:58 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40101566

I think a no overall majority might be a good thing.

jakswan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12485
    • Preloved Ads
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #792 on: May 31, 2017, 09:13:00 AM »
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
- Voltaire

floo

  • Guest
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #793 on: May 31, 2017, 09:21:09 AM »
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!

I think so, then both sides will need to work together for the good of the country.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #794 on: May 31, 2017, 09:24:45 AM »
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!
I wouldn't disagree but then given I am in favour of proportional representation, not a huge jump. I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.

floo

  • Guest
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #795 on: May 31, 2017, 09:27:17 AM »
I wouldn't disagree but then given I am in favour of proportional representation, not a huge jump. I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.

You are probably right seeing how accurate, NOT, the opinion polls have been recently.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #796 on: May 31, 2017, 09:27:53 AM »
I think so, then both sides will need to work together for the good of the country.
Let's assume the polling is correct. What it will mean is a minority Tory govt propped up by Ulster Unionists who might have as their condition teaching creationism in schools.


Fan as I am of PR, the idea that coalition govt means everyone working together is fantasy.

floo

  • Guest
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #797 on: May 31, 2017, 11:05:00 AM »
Let's assume the polling is correct. What it will mean is a minority Tory govt propped up by Ulster Unionists who might have as their condition teaching creationism in schools.


Fan as I am of PR, the idea that coalition govt means everyone working together is fantasy.

Well we shall see what happens a week tomorrow, until then it is all speculation.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #798 on: May 31, 2017, 11:19:04 AM »
Well we shall see what happens a week tomorrow, until then it is all speculation.
In what way is the point, that coalitions are not a panacea, speculation?

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: UK General Election 2017
« Reply #799 on: May 31, 2017, 11:59:10 AM »
I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.
Actually that isn't true - the poll reported overnight involved polling about 50,000 people, which is hugely greater than the standard polls which typically involve just 1000 people.

The difference is in the way the data are modelled to predict the vote share and seat distribution. That is apparently a largely new approach, so might be right or could be way off. All we know really is that YouGov claim to have trialled this in the EU referendum and it got the result correct.

They have suggested a wide range of possible outcomes, involving a range of seats won. What was published was their 'central' prediction.