BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)

Subject: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:49 AM

morning all! i must apologise for not having acquired the required skill to put an article on this site. and for the fact that it's pointless without reading aditya chakrabortty 'Britain fell for a neoliberal con trick - even the IMF says so'in today's guardian.

- i'd be most grateful if someone could make the necessary link for me.

i've thought for a while (at least since reading naomi klein's 'the shock doctrine' ) that the whole brexit business is just the latest wheeze by our ailing capitalist masters to pursue their own ultra greedy ends at our expense. they have succeeded (as usual) in causing division between the workers for their own ends. given that - could we have a discussion on disaster capitalism and privatisation without referencing the european question? we will probably end up squabbling anyway but there is a different site for eurosquabbling.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:58 AM

I read the article and was particularly incensed at the comments about the water companies.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 06:10 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/economic-lies-neoliberalism-taxpayers

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: Iains
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 06:15 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/economic-lies-neoliberalism-taxpayers

Unfortunately there are both plus and minus considerations for public/private ownership.Both schools of thought exaggerate to the nth degree and analysing their dissembling is a skill of its own.
In my view public utilities should never have been sold off but their management sucked. A major sin of public ownership in the UK is payroll bloating. Are all those tiers of management in the NHS really necessary?
No one wants to see the NHS privatised, but what else maintains it as a lean, mean fighting machine.
To my mind this displays the dichotomy perfectly. BUT! What is the solution?

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 10:02 AM

thanks, jack. in respect of the cost of renationalisation - i do think there seem to be vast salaries (and golden handshakes etc) given to heads of these companies- these sort of figures are rarely challenged these days and seem to be accepted as the norm. when we take these concerns back under control there will be massive savings involved in putting profits back into the business rather than the profits of the rich.
also, how many public sector staff (including the military) have resigned and then gone to work for agencies doing the same job but at much greater cost to the taxpayer? it's just crazy - billions wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 09:17 PM

Bad management is bad management, whether it is in the public sector, the private sector, the not-for profit sector or the cooperative sector. And it can crop up in any of them.

Privatising something that has been badly managed in public ownership doesn't make sure it will be well managed. What it does is to ensure that there will always be an additional profit cost and that the payment creamed off by those in control will almost certainly rocket.

Bringing things back into public ownership doesn't ensure better management, but it removes those extra costs. Any profit goes to all of us, not just to a few managers, owners, share owners.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 01:10 PM

I can't think of anything privatised by the tories
that has changed for the better...???

Far from it, everything is worse...

Of course, I'm just talking from my own personal experience and perspective...

Btw... I don't own shares or any other private investments.........

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 03:42 AM

Are all those tiers of management in the NHS really necessary?

The first thing that happens when you slim down the NHS is the lower ranks get deleted. And replaced by temporary staff. Foreigners at low wages.

Would anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject care to tell me what proportion of an average man's wages went into National Insurance at any historic juncture? Preferably a graph over the years since 1947.
My contention, and it would be proven IMNSHO, is that we pay less for our health and pension contributions as a percentage now. Just like we pay less, pro rata, for our food. We have become greedy.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: Acorn4
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 04:09 AM

Speaking from experience in various spheres of employment I would say that bad management is the rule rather than the exception.

The Peter principle - people get promoted to the point of their own incompetence - still holds true.

Subject: RE: BS: neoliberal con trick (UK version)
From: Iains
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 04:53 AM

"Would anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject care to tell me what proportion of an average man's wages went into National Insurance at any historic juncture? Preferably a graph over the years since 1947"

I had a quick look but could not find anything. A major problem is that it is a changeable beast so direct comparisons are difficult. The original act of 1911 provided unemployment benefit. The welfare state creation was based on the The Beveridge Reportof 1942 proposing expansion and unification of the welfare state under a scheme of what was called social insurance. In March 1943 Winston Churchill in a broadcast entitled "After the War" committed the government to a system of "national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave.After the Second World War, the Attlee government pressed ahead with the introduction of the Welfare State, of which an expanded National Insurance scheme was a major component.
This was a flat rate contribution until 1975 when it became earnings related, with a top cap. Concurrent with these changes the entitlements vastly expanded, in essence meaning a direct comparison over time is largely comparing apples to oranges. You would need a comprehensive dissection of contribution versus entitlement over time. The flat rate contribution up until 1975 rather destroys the argument prior to then. Subsequently there have been very many tweaks such as giving control to the Revenue and means testing of certain benefits. It is complex and would need more than a simple graph unfortunately.