Labour: Borrow more now, Spend more now, Cut more later

pqrdef

The_White_Horse wrote: »

exactly, but as you say, the private sector's waste is not my concern. it is the shareholders. if the private sector company is not providing value for money in terms of their product I will use another provider. unfortunately we don't have that choice in the public sector.

Well I tried switching my train provider, but when I got on a different colour train it took me to the wrong place. And I keep trying to switch my water provider, but none of the others seems interested.

Not been too happy with Sky Sports lately either, but nobody else seems to show the same football.

But when it comes to schools, universities, hospitals, GPs, parks, libraries, roads, things like that, there seems to be plenty of choice.

Wookster

pqrdef wrote: »

I don't agree. Waste in the private sector concerns everybody, because it's just as much a drain on the nation's resources as waste in the public sector. There's no useful distinction.

If shrinking the public sector makes people and money available for more productive use, the same goes for the bloat in the private sector.

I'd say some of the worst excesses of private sector waste arise from entanglements with the public sector. All those massive infrastructure projects, defence projects, IT projects etc.

Why contractors like EDF, BAE, Capita, Accenture, Cap Gemini (those last three names are mud IMO) aren't really held to account for overruns is astonishing. This is 'entitlement' at the other end of the spectrum.

For companies with very little overlap with the state, who are operating in a market where failure i.e. bankruptcy is possible then the mostly efficient market will eliminate the most bloated players.*



*However excess packaging will always wind me up

Thrugelmir

pqrdef wrote: »

This is what Blair/Brown/Balls totally screwed up pre-2007.

Blair is on record as saying that spending plans should have been curtailed in 2005.

Guess he gave into Brown in order to remain as PM without an internal fight.

Wookster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Guess he gave into Brown in order to remain as PM without an internal fight.

Or just let him fall on his sword, which he did.

pqrdef

Wookster wrote: »

For companies with very little overlap with the state, who are operating in a market where failure i.e. bankruptcy is possible then the mostly efficient market will eliminate the most bloated players.

Ah yes, the legendary market. And yet, there are still hairdressers and tanning salons. This doesn't fill me with confidence in the market's ability to discern value for money.

Thrugelmir

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

(a decade ago the annual travel budget was over £8 m,

Times have changed in the past decade.

IronWolf

pqrdef wrote: »

I don't agree. Waste in the private sector concerns everybody, because it's just as much a drain on the nation's resources as waste in the public sector. There's no useful distinction.

If shrinking the public sector makes people and money available for more productive use, the same goes for the bloat in the private sector.

But the private sector works because if one company is wasting money and overcharging customers, another will come along and do it right and undercut their prices. That's the nature of capitalism.

With the state, there is no competition to force efficiency.