Earl Aelfheah

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? They opposed sell off of Royal Mail and the con policy to force the sell off of housing assoc stock at under market rates. More recently, the sell off of publically owned shares in Lloyds and RBS (again, typically, at a loss to the taxpayer). I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that 'the left' were accused first of being dogmatically opposed to all privatisation, then of being no different in their position to privatisation than the right. I think they believe in a role for the private sector, (but also the state) in running public services. That seems to me a more rational and pragmatic premise.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that is your biased observation. You seem > to be saying that when Labour do a bad > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the > evidence for that statement? > > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. > > I would say there is little, if no difference, > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been > privatised, prepared for privatisation or listed > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such a > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. post > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had > changed markedly, especially though PPI. > > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the private sector for service delivery. Whether one agrees with where and how they've chosen to do this is another debate. The point is, they are willing to accept private sector involvement or not, depending on the case. My point was that The Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state should commission services, not run them (a point you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a position which basically says, the state should not be involved in running services regardless of circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely ideological.

OK. I may have found the answer. Think this could be the first ever post? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,9,9#msg-9

That only take you back to 2007 and i'm pretty sure it's older than that (expect there has been some archiving). I'm wondering whether it's reached 10 yet (if not, must be soon).

Just out of interest, how old is the EDF - when's it's birthday and are there any current posters left who were here on day 1?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do Pubs rely on selling food to make ends > meet...? > > ...and Restaurants rely on selling alcohol.. ? > > DulwichFox Ha! That's a very good question.

If you look at Labour's record, they were pretty pragmatic when it came to using private sector providers (whether or not they made the good choices aside). The Conservatives take any opportunity to divest from state run services, regardless of value for money. You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. It's too easy to say 'oh they're all ideological' - of course, and that's not a bad thing in itself, but my point is the Conservatives are particularly dogmatic.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See? Sometimes 'bad looking' privatisations > actually have very good financial reasons. Thanks for the patronising tone btw.

Loz - this ignores the fact that the previous two private operators failed to meet their financial commitments and that over the next eight years there will be on going subsidies. If you would like another example - the sell off of council housing is probably the most ridiculous - houses disposed off at huge discounts, many of which are then rented back by local authorities at private rates, or by individuals who then claim increased Housing benefit. Anyway, we could probably debate the rights and wrongs of individual sell off until the cows come home, but I would be interested to know your view on my main contention; The Conservatives fundamentally (and imo doggedly) believe that the state should commission services, not run them.

Are you sure she wasn't waiting to be buried?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MrBen from your logic we've had the gentrification > debate, so let's brush it under the carpet and > pretend it's not happening? > > Louisa. It's a reasonable debate to have (and not inappropriate in the context of this particular thread). I think where people have rightly got annoyed in the past, is when threads are repeatedly diverted off topic into a 'gentrification' rant.

Just to please quids and confirm his suspicion that I?m some kind of Marxist, I will add this - I do also have a moral and philosophical ambivalence with regards private companies having too big a role in a tax funded service. These are not free markets in the most fundamental sense - 'consumers' are forced to buy these services on threat of legal sanction (via taxation). This is morally acceptable because there is an implicit social contract- certain services, such as education and healthcare are funded collectively and offered to all. We accept this as the cost of living in a civilised, social democracy. When not all that money is reinvested into improving services however, but is diverted into the hands of shareholders, I do think it disrupts this social contract. So yes, I do think there is also an ideological tension with regards public money and private profits.

What people seem to be saying is that the NHS is not perfect. Well sure, but it is generally pretty efficient. In terms of what it delivers for the amount of money it receives, it compares pretty well with the best. In terms of 'the left' having a closed mind to reform, or being dogmatic and ideological, I think this is nonsense. Labour did much to reform the health service and was certainly not closed off the the potential role of the private sector. The conservatives on the other hand have time and again pursued ideologically driven interventions across all manner of state services regardless of value for money or any sense of pragmatism. For example, selling state assets at under market value, as well as profit making services (bringing money into the exchequer), such as the east cost mainline. These are purely ideological decisions based on a belief that the state should only commission services, not run them.

.

I knew Mallard's post would trigger this kind of response

Everyone claims to hate Foxton's... and yet they seem to be incredibly successful.

It's pretty despicable and also amazingly dumb, but then it's Foxton's.

Lazero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James, > > What do "additional works" generally consist of? > Does that just mean speed bumps? > > I'm all for enforcing the speed limit, but > personally hate speed bumps. They're uncomfortable > and annoying (mainly on my bicycle but also in the > car). Many around Southwark are so poorly designed > that you actually have to go way below the speed > limit (in a car) unless you want a very sudden > jolt. It also doesn't sound like they do much good > for the suspension. > > I know some people are really against speed > cameras but I don't see a problem with the odd > average speed camera. It works on the Rotherhithe > tunnel - no one speeds and no one gets frustrated > being stuck behind someone observing the law. I couldn't agree more

Ruislip Lido has a beach. http://www.completelylondon.co.uk/the-sunny-beaches-of-london/ I agree it would be nice to have sand at Peckham / dulwich. If you're looking for a good sand pit though, the one opposite the Horniman isn't half bad.

indiepanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not convinced anyone wants to pay more tax, so either > we make deep spending cuts elsewhere, or get a bit > smarter about how we fund health. I would happily pay more tax to ensure that the health service stays free at the point of use.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like dogma to me. As Ms Kendall rightly > said it should be about outcomes not how it is > delivered. BTW Huge public services e > consistently been exposed as paying ridiculously > over the odd prices for goods and services as they > don't have the procurement skills, incentives or > culture to utilise their economies of scale. I'd > like less dogma and some more honest from both > left and right but until we have an open > discussion and when the reaction is 'close all > debate down' we get the status quo which won't be > fit for purpose for mid 21st century demographics > or practice. There is no dogma, just (imo) a healthy skepticism about how outsourcing services will lead to improvements. The evidence so far has been that public private partnerships have proved bad value for the tax payer. There are plenty of ways to drive further efficiency, ensure better management and incentivise the right kind of behaviours, without contract everything out. Besides, the point of posting that link was that actually, the current system is pretty efficient. I have to be honest, when i see Capita, G4s et al sending their contract negotiators into the health service, my first thought isn't 'oh this will lead to good value for the tax payer', but maybe I'm just jaded.

The NHS is actually pretty efficient http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services It's not perfect, but compared to other systems it stands up well. I completely agree with Goosey. The idea that fragmenting the system and bringing in private companies will improve the service is nonsense. Not only, we are expected to believe, will they do the same things more cheaply and to a better standard, but all this whilst also channelling some of our taxpayer contributions to their shareholders in profit. And all this without the NHS's current economies of scale. I suspect (and call me a cynic), that all they are actually good at is 'extracting value' for their investors, through clever contract negotiation.

I think I saw Timothy Claypole on Goodrich road

Lovely village Beehive Under Shed.

That's fair enough, but I think people weren't really clear why it was there perhaps (whether it was intended to be 'play sand' or not). Either way, doesn't justify people letting their dogs do their business there (or anywhere else) and not then clearing it up.