The great TP election thread

Or sweeping the floor, cleaning the toilets, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of work.


Steve
 
Phil V said:
Let's step back a bit here...

that's not the foundation it was built on and not how it's run. It's your opinion of what it should be (who's hysterical)..
Click to expand...

So you think the foundation it was built on was to give unattractive people some redeeming features, or people who would rather be a woman or man some gender re-assignment, or those who are already on borrowed time a little extra borrowed times at disproportiate cost to to the tax payer. It should be scrapped in its current form and be a much leaner and no nonsense organisation.Hopefully a Tory/UKIP alliance will do just that. The view that limitless spending on the NHS needs challenged, and it will be.


Phil V said:
But that law only covers services the government choose to put out to tender, given that it was running OK and putting money into the exchequer, why did we have to re-let the contract. I can't understand why someone so interested in government spending can be in favour of them giving up all that profit, it's almost as if the mantra of 'public bad, private good' had become so ingrained people fail to check whether it's true..
Click to expand...

To see if the east coast route could be made even better? Turns out it could be, and that bid was made by Virgin. Why not put the service out to tender, why not have the government do less in our lives and services rather than more.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
so the bidders have huge incentives to win them, and to do that they have to come up with something special.
Click to expand...
Like FirstGroup did with the West Coast franchise? :D
 
Phil V said:
But that law only covers services the government choose to put out to tender, given that it was running OK and putting money into the exchequer, why did we have to re-let the contract.
Click to expand...
ST4 said:
To see if the east coast route could be made even better? Turns out it could be, and that bid was made by Virgin.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The state-owned operator-of-last-resort, Directly Operated Railways, was not allowed to bid for the franchise. So we'll never know whether or not they could have done an even better job. The decision not to allow them to bid was 100% ideological.
 
StewartR said:
so the bidders have huge incentives to win them, and to do that they have to come up with something special.
Click to expand...
Llamaman said:
Like FirstGroup did with the West Coast franchise? :D
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know. That all happened after I left the rail industry and I haven't bothered myself with the details. I know the DfT evaluation process was found to be flawed - and I'm not surprised, to be honest, because my impression was that the DfT teams were rarely as capable as the bidders' teams - but I don't have any knowledge beyond that.

EDIT - I should say that the consultants and experts the DfT use to evaluate franchise bids are probably just as capable as those used by the bidders - indeed, they're all drawn from the same relatively small number of consultancies. But the difference is that bidders have huge financial incentives, and are therefore prepared to commit huge resources to their bids, but DfT are always looking to contain their costs. If Dft were run like a private sector organisation, they would be asking themselves, if we spend an extra £x on evaluating and negotiating these bids, are we likely to be able to secure a deal that's £y better for the public purse, and is y>x? - but they don't think like that.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
So you think the foundation it was built on was to give unattractive people some redeeming features, or people who would rather be a woman or man some gender re-assignment, or those who are already on borrowed time a little extra borrowed times at disproportiate cost to to the tax payer. It should be scrapped in its current form and be a much leaner and no nonsense organisation.Hopefully a Tory/UKIP alliance will do just that. The view that limitless spending on the NHS needs challenged, and it will be...
Click to expand...
In your world view, it's not the published policy of any party. The NHS is something you should be proud of, it's one of the best things about this great land of ours that you pretend to be 'patriotic' about.
But like most professed patriots, the country you're fond of is a construct of your imagination.
ST4 said:
...
To see if the east coast route could be made even better? Turns out it could be, and that bid was made by Virgin. Why not put the service out to tender, why not have the government do less in our lives and services rather than more.
Click to expand...
Because that's dogma. And when you let dogma in instead of doing things that are right, you're making idiotic decisions. We have to wait and see if it can be made better, and if it can, why couldn't it be made better whilst still government run?

The whole idea of 'small government' is small minded. The government should be the size it needs to be to run the country successfully. Making it smaller and s*** makes as much sense as making it large and s***. The only difference is that when its big it's easier to see where the 'waste' is, whereas when it's small our taxes are just invisibly slipping into the already fat bank accounts of international business.
 
ST4 said:
To see if the east coast route could be made even better? Turns out it could be, and that bid was made by Virgin.
Click to expand...
Hold your horses - they've only had the franchise since 1 March so plenty of time to 'do a National Express'.

And the bid was really by Stagecoach, who owns 90% of the franchise entity.
 
StewartR said:
I honestly don't know. That all happened after I left the rail industry and I haven't bothered myself with the details. I know the DfT evaluation process was found to be flawed - and I'm not surprised, to be honest, because my impression was that the DfT teams were rarely as capable as the bidders' teams - but I don't have any knowledge beyond that.
Click to expand...
Which is the massive problem with all govt outsourcing. No one wants to pay millionaire lawyers to work for government letting contracts, so the millionaire lawyers working for the private sector get to fleece us all at every turn.

It was interesting watching this last governments slow and silent UTurn on how govt contracts are let. As they came into power it was 'ridiculous that there are 200 different govt contracts to buy photocopier paper' because the simplistic assumption is that larger contracts are cheaper, of course the opposite is true when contracts are huge, there's a small pool of contractors who know they can take advantage of the fact.

By the end of their term they'd started in-sourcing massive new IT projects because the private sector just sees govt contracts as a cash cow. They're creating their own academies to train their own programmers, and have even brought back in house people who were sold to the private sector 20 odd years ago.
 
Phil V said:
The whole idea of 'small government' is small minded.
Click to expand...
We've agreed on a few things here Phil, despite our different outlooks, and I can certainly see where you're coming from here. But in the spirit of friendly banter I'd like to offer you an alternative point of view.

Everything you ever need to know about government spending was set out very articulately by the American author P J O'Rourke in his book "All the trouble in the world". Basically, he says, there are four different types of spending.

1. You spend your money on yourself.
You’re motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price.
This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.

2. You spend your money on other people.
You still want a bargain, but you’re less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse.
This is why children get underwear at Christmas.

3. You spend other people’s money on yourself.
You get what you want, but price no longer matters.
The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Harvey Nichols.

4. You spend other people’s money on other people.
And in this case, who gives a ****?

And of course, government spending is all type 4. Spending other people's money on other people. Who gives a ****?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
StewartR said:
We've agreed on a few things here Phil, despite our different outlooks, and I can certainly see where you're coming from here. But in the spirit of friendly banter I'd like to offer you an alternative point of view.

Everything you ever need to know about government spending was set out very articulately by the American author P J O'Rourke in his book "All the trouble in the world". Basically, he says, there are four different types of spending.

1. You spend your money on yourself.
You’re motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price.
This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.

2. You spend your money on other people.
You still want a bargain, but you’re less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse.
This is why children get underwear at Christmas.

3. You spend other people’s money on yourself.
You get what you want, but price no longer matters.
The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Harvey Nichols.

4. You spend other people’s money on other people.
And in this case, who gives a ****?

And of course, government spending is all type 4. Spending other people's money on other people. Who gives a ****?
Click to expand...
We do Stewart. We give a s***! The Tory press like to pretend all government spending is done without care or scrutiny, but the truth is that there's more scrutiny and accountability when our taxes are spent than happens anywhere in the private sector.

Here's a real world example:
You spent a few nights away from home at The photography show, all your expenses, no matter how extravagant were charged to your business, I'd guess that Nikons bar bill was eye watering.

When a civil servant has to work away from home, they can't travel 1st class even if it's the cheapest ticket, they have very mediocre sums to buy food and can't claim for alcohol at all. The reality is that for many of them, travelling for work actually costs them money from their own pocket. I can see the reason for the tightening of budgets, but hard working underpaid staff shouldn't be subsidising their employers no matter who they work for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
ST4 said:
Why should alcohol feature for the tax payer funded expense account?
Click to expand...
It's not an 'expense account', it's a reimbursement for out of pocket expenses whilst carrying out work on behalf of an employer.

I'm not saying it should be allowed, nor am I suggesting all public servants should be using first class travel, I was pointing out how government expenditure is much more tightly regulated than the private sector (even where it's not the best VFM but looks 'better'). Despite what people assume, of course you fixated on that aspect because ...

Maybe because the 'facts' disagree with your under educated opinions. I can only surmise, but some might say the evidence speaks for itself.:D
 
Phil V said:
It's not an 'expense account', it's a reimbursement for out of pocket expenses whilst carrying out work on behalf of an employer.

I'm not saying it should be allowed, nor am I suggesting all public servants should be using first class travel, I was pointing out how government expenditure is much more tightly regulated than the private sector (even where it's not the best VFM but looks 'better'). Despite what people assume, of course you fixated on that aspect because ...
.
Click to expand...

The private sector is different, it is accountable to its shareholders and needs to make a profit to survive. The public sector hasn't got anything like the same account-abilities.

I've never seen a first class ticket be cheaper than a second/standard class one. I travel first class for my leisure if the price is right, it is a nice way to travel, but why ordinary tax payers should foot the bill for others to travel in luxury in their line of duties beats me. Others in my work do travel, and they go standard class unless they are very very senior.
 
ST4 said:
The private sector is different, it is accountable to its shareholders and needs to make a profit to survive. The public sector hasn't got anything like the same account-abilities.

I've never seen a first class ticket be cheaper than a second/standard class one. I travel first class for my leisure if the price is right, it is a nice way to travel, but why ordinary tax payers should foot the bill for others to travel in luxury in their line of duties beats me. Others in my work do travel, and they go standard class unless they are very very senior.
Click to expand...
You could have just written 'more dogma'. :)
Only senior civil servants could once travel 1st class, but a couple of MP's got a hiding from the press about their travel so, all 1st class travel was banned. There are rare occasions when a 1st class ticket becomes cheaper, it's a quirk but it happens.

I was about to pose another question, but you keep ignoring them so I'll not bother.
 
@ST4
And what kind of treatments, covering what illnesses, would be, in your opinion, "buying extra time for those on borrowed time"?
 
ST4 said:
I prefer Ed Millibands kitchen extravaganza, using his second, more modest kitchen in his anex of his large expensive house as the back drop to show he's a man of the people.

Where did he go to school again?
Click to expand...
The story in the Mail, how many kitchens did the writer of the story have? And the original article came from where? And do you think Ed had artistic control of where the image was shot (that's pertinent and should be easy you're a photographer).
So that really was a non story, you know that. Of course, if you were a bit brighter I'd have saved all those words by pointing out it was in the Mail.

Back to the Tories inventing a letter proving they're the best party for business, and begging people to sign it and then it being signed fraudulently to make up the numbers.
 
StewartR said:
That is absolutely brilliant. Great find!
Click to expand...
I didn't work on it, it's all over my Twitter and FB feed today, there's Andrew Neil on video giving them a hard time too.
 
viv1969 said:
@ST4
And what kind of treatments, covering what illnesses, would be, in your opinion, "buying extra time for those on borrowed time"?
Click to expand...

Have a think about it. Consider the cost of the treatment, the additional length of time bought, and the quality of the extended life bought. It might seem callous to put a price on a few months of low quality life with pain and suffering, but its practical and economical. I've seen so called good surgery buy someone say six months, it buys them six months of living hell at huge cost to the rest of us.

If life couldn't be extended more than say 1 year at a good quality, I wouldn't have that paid for by the NHS.
 
Phil V said:
The story in the Mail, how many kitchens did the writer of the story have? And the original article came from where? And do you think Ed had artistic control of where the image was shot (that's pertinent and should be easy you're a photographer).
So that really was a non story, you know that. Of course, if you were a bit brighter I'd have saved all those words by pointing out it was in the Mail.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain why major business leaders outwith the country are worried at the thought of a labour/SNP government but comforted by a conservative one.

I think Ed Chose that spot deliberately, and the Mail is a fine publication that reports what a lot wouldn't wish or want to report. I know you don't like the conservatives, but they have proven time and time again they are the best party for the country.
 
ST4 said:
Have a think about it. Consider the cost of the treatment, the additional length of time bought, and the quality of the extended life bought. It might seem callous to put a price on a few months of low quality life with pain and suffering, but its practical and economical. I've seen so called good surgery buy someone say six months, it buys them six months of living hell at huge cost to the rest of us.

If life couldn't be extended more than say 1 year at a good quality, I wouldn't have that paid for by the NHS.
Click to expand...

And I've seen people seemingly coming to the end of their lives who have then gone on to be saved by transplant or repeated chemotherapy....people who under your rules would have been offed with a quick injection, but who are alive and kicking now because they nor the NHS gave up.

Most of the time you just make me laugh.
Sometimes though your "if it ain't good for me then fcuk it" outlook really makes me want to vomit.
 
ST4 said:
Can you please explain why major business leaders outwith the country are worried at the thought of a labour/SNP government but comforted by a conservative one.

I think Ed Chose that spot deliberately, and the Mail is a fine publication that reports what a lot wouldn't wish or want to report. I know you don't like the conservatives, but they have proven time and time again they are the best party for the country.
Click to expand...
This is a joke right?
I mean really?
Just tell me who wrote the article about Millibands kitchen in the Mail.
 
ST4 said:
The private sector is different, it is accountable to its shareholders
Click to expand...
Hahahaha. Are you for real?

Most shareholders are passive and silent, and even the most activist shareholder doesn't ask to see the business travel expense policy.
I've personally seen multi-million dollar IT products shelved without fanfare. A $10 beer from the minibar isn't likely to get the AGM rocking.
 
viv1969 said:
And I've seen people seemingly coming to the end of their lives who have then gone on to be saved by transplant or repeated chemotherapy....people who under your rules would have been offed with a quick injection, but who are alive and kicking now because they nor the NHS gave up.
Click to expand...

Saved for how long and at what quality of life? Seriously, do you think its worth spending tens of thousands to keep someone going for six more months of misery and pain? I do not.
 
Llamaman said:
Hahahaha. Are you for real?

Most shareholders are passive and silent, and even the most activist shareholder doesn't ask to see the business travel expense policy.
I've personally seen multi-million dollar IT products shelved without fanfare. A $10 beer from the minibar isn't likely to get the AGM rocking.
Click to expand...

if a private sector company goes bust and fails its leaders lose their jobs and it goes bust. If a public sector body doesn't do well they say "ah fck it, we will ask for more budget for next year and Gordy Cloon will print money and chuck it at us"...

These days were numbered 5yrs ago and hopefully again now :D
 
ST4 said:
if a private sector company goes bust and fails its leaders lose their jobs and it goes bust. If a public sector body doesn't do well they say "ah fck it, we will ask for more budget for next year and Gordy Cloon will print money and chuck it at us"...

These days were numbered 5yrs ago and hopefully again now :D
Click to expand...
You really are a clueless arse.

Get your head out of the Daily Mail, educate yourself, read some books, stop being a tory media clown.

And answer my question, what super independent brilliant journalist wrote the Daily Mail article about Ed's kitchen?
 
Phil V said:
You really are a clueless arse.

Get your head out of the Daily Mail, educate yourself, read some books, stop being a tory media clown.

And answer my question, what super independent brilliant journalist wrote the Daily Mail article about Ed's kitchen?
Click to expand...

resorting to personal insults again. I don't see why the name of the actual journalist matters either.

I don't know why I stoop so low as to to engage with conversation with you when the ignore feature is there.
 
ST4 said:
Saved for how long and at what quality of life? Seriously, do you think its worth spending tens of thousands to keep someone going for six more months of misery and pain? I do not.
Click to expand...

A friend declared terminal with aplastic anaemia and given just a couple of months. Received a bonemarrow transplant in 2002.
Still alive and as healthy as anyone else.

A colleague who was the recipient of an emergency kidney transplant in the same year...not a good match on paper. Yet with the right cocktail of drugs...still ongoing...is still around. Working full time...has married and had two children.

And my sister in law who has had a form of leukaemia for eight years. This particular leukaemia can't be cured, but again with the right cocktail of medication she's surviving with an excellent quality of life and relatively symptom free. Yet her condition is officially terminal. Would you have denied her the treatment she receives because it was expensive, experimental. ...yet proving damned efficient after eight years?

What about people with relapsing/remitting Multiple Sclerosis? Eventually their condition will develop into secondary progressive MS, but will you deny them the treatment that can delay that progression for years simply because again, on the whole, MS is a fatal disease?
 
ST4 said:
Saved for how long and at what quality of life? Seriously, do you think its worth spending tens of thousands to keep someone going for six more months of misery and pain? I do not.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

I agree with you on some of the things the NHS does, like the boob jobs for wannabe glamour models etc... However, the NHS should have 3 main areas to fulfil.... a) emergencies (like heart attacks, RTAs etc), b) short or long term illness (cancer, ongoing issues, mental health, pregnancy etc...), c) end of life care (maximising the quality and length of life should that person want it).

Waste does need to be looked at, and there does need to be a focus on inefficiency and how the NHS works with social care but I would like to feel that if I was seriously ill, I would have the choice to try to hang on as long as possible.
 
ST4 said:
Have a think about it. Consider the cost of the treatment, the additional length of time bought, and the quality of the extended life bought. It might seem callous to put a price on a few months of low quality life with pain and suffering, but its practical and economical. I've seen so called good surgery buy someone say six months, it buys them six months of living hell at huge cost to the rest of us.

If life couldn't be extended more than say 1 year at a good quality, I wouldn't have that paid for by the NHS.
Click to expand...


and how do you think new treatments are developed?
 
viv1969 said:
A friend declared terminal with aplastic anaemia and given just a couple of months. Received a bonemarrow transplant in 2002.
Still alive and as healthy as anyone else.

A colleague who was the recipient of an emergency kidney transplant in the same year...not a good match on paper. Yet with the right cocktail of drugs...still ongoing...is still around. Working full time...has married and had two children.

And my sister in law who has had a form of leukaemia for eight years. This particular leukaemia can't be cured, but again with the right cocktail of medication she's surviving with an excellent quality of life and relatively symptom free. Yet her condition is officially terminal. Would you have denied her the treatment she receives because it was expensive, experimental. ...yet proving damned efficient after eight years?

What about people with relapsing/remitting Multiple Sclerosis? Eventually their condition will develop into secondary progressive MS, but will you deny them the treatment that can delay that progression for years simply because again, on the whole, MS is a fatal disease?
Click to expand...

Which proves my point, there comes a point where life cannot be extended or preserved for any meaningful length of time, yet the NHS do this at huge costs to the rest of us. Is it right? I am not 100% sure it is.

Being pendantic, life is terminal. But there is terminal illness with no hope of cure or quality of life yet we throw thousands and thousands at cases, to give them just a bit more pain free life. Is it worth it?
 
ST4 said:
Which proves my point, there comes a point where life cannot be extended or preserved for any meaningful length of time, yet the NHS do this at huge costs to the rest of us. Is it right? I am not 100% sure it is.

Being pendantic, life is terminal. But there is terminal illness with no hope of cure or quality of life yet we throw thousands and thousands at cases, to give them just a bit more pain free life. Is it worth it?
Click to expand...

You've just condemned my friends and family to death.

I pity you.

I'm sure you'll come up with some (less than) witty reposte....but my pity for you and anyone associated with you remains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top