The Lemon Fool

British public sector

1nvest wrote:British public sector

Well quite. Welcome to the world of "Private good; public bad"

Birmingham’s cuts reveal the ugly truth about Britain in 2024: the state is abandoning its people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/17/birmingham-britain-state-cuts-austerity-local-services

First it was austerity. Now it’s something even worse: the suggestion that people didn’t need vital local services to begin with

XFool wrote:First it was austerity. Now it’s something even worse: the suggestion that people didn’t need vital local services to begin with

15/20/25 years ago it seemed clear to me that councils were trying to do far too much. Their budgets and staff numbers were increasing, the Wednesday Guardian was crammed full of job ads for £80,000 a year plus car LA middle managers, and fancy new council buildings were sprouting up everywhere.

Something had to give and since councils never voluntarily downsize themselves, it had to be done for them. If they did too much before, how will we know when they do too little?

As for Birmingham have you seen the lavish scale of its new public library? I walked by it a few weeks ago. It makes Louis 14th's follies look modest and understated in comparison.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:First it was austerity. Now it’s something even worse: the suggestion that people didn’t need vital local services to begin with

15/20/25 years ago it seemed clear to me that councils were trying to do far too much. Their budgets and staff numbers were increasing, the Wednesday Guardian was crammed full of job ads for £80,000 a year plus car LA middle managers, and fancy new council buildings were sprouting up everywhere.

You mean there once actually was investment in the future in the UK, 15/20/25 years ago? You could well be right.

Have no fear. After 14 years of Conservative government(?) in the UK the future has been cancelled.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:15/20/25 years ago it seemed clear to me that councils were trying to do far too much. Their budgets and staff numbers were increasing, the Wednesday Guardian was crammed full of job ads for £80,000 a year plus car LA middle managers, and fancy new council buildings were sprouting up everywhere.

You mean there once actually was investment in the future in the UK, 15/20/25 years ago? You could well be right.

Have no fear. After 14 years of Conservative government(?) in the UK the future has been cancelled.

So in your considered opinion, councils can never be too big, spend too much money and can never be wasteful or incompetent?

It's all the fault of the Tories, even when the failing council is run by Labour, as is Birmingham?

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:You mean there once actually was investment in the future in the UK, 15/20/25 years ago? You could well be right.

Have no fear. After 14 years of Conservative government(?) in the UK the future has been cancelled.

So in your considered opinion, councils can never be too big, spend too much money and can never be wasteful or incompetent?

Your opinion about my opinion is not my opinion.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:So in your considered opinion, councils can never be too big, spend too much money and can never be wasteful or incompetent?

Your opinion about my opinion is not my opinion.

I will take that as a "yes". Councils are being right-sized as part of an inevitable process that is probably closer to its end than its start. My sense is that a return to core services and a scaling back of scope has broad support. And Labour's policies in LAs are not a lot different than now - there will be no cash bonanza like there was under Blair. The days of excess and pork are long gone.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:Your opinion about my opinion is not my opinion.

I will take that as a "yes".

You can "take" it any way you like - but it's still your nonsense. Nobody else's.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:I will take that as a "yes". Councils are being right-sized as part of an inevitable process that is probably closer to its end than its start. My sense is that a return to core services and a scaling back of scope has broad support. And Labour's policies in LAs are not a lot different than now - there will be no cash bonanza like there was under Blair. The days of excess and pork are long gone.

You can "take" it any way you like

And yet it is my views on this subject (see above) that correspond to the reality of what is happening across the country. And you are the one complaining about the situation, apparently unhappy about it.

So it would appear that, at least on this topic, I am getting my way and you are not. And winning in real life is much more important than any claims to "win" recreational online debates here or elsewhere.

Lootman wrote:So it would appear that, at least on this topic, I am getting my way and you are not. And winning in real life is much more important than any claims to "win" recreational online debates here or elsewhere.

Is this another of your "I'm really rich" posts? Maybe there should be a special board for such things.

MrFoolish wrote:

Lootman wrote:So it would appear that, at least on this topic, I am getting my way and you are not. And winning in real life is much more important than any claims to "win" recreational online debates here or elsewhere.

Is this another of your "I'm really rich" posts? Maybe there should be a special board for such things.

Do you think that views expressed here should never be assessed against a reality benchmark?

And there are other Lemons here who are more "really rich" than I am. But they do not need to say who they are, as it is obvious. It is tacky to play the success card, although it also does not offend me the way it clearly bothers you.

Lootman wrote:Do you think that views expressed here should never be assessed against a reality benchmark?

And there are other Lemons here who are more "really rich" than I am. But they do not need to say who they are, as it is obvious. It is tacky to play the success card, although it also does not offend me the way it clearly bothers you.

I just feel your comment had nothing to do with Birmingham council, which you were discussing at the time, and you just threw it in gratuitously.

As you say, it is tacky to play the success card.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:15/20/25 years ago it seemed clear to me that councils were trying to do far too much. Their budgets and staff numbers were increasing, the Wednesday Guardian was crammed full of job ads for £80,000 a year plus car LA middle managers, and fancy new council buildings were sprouting up everywhere.

You mean there once actually was investment in the future in the UK, 15/20/25 years ago? You could well be right.

Have no fear. After 14 years of Conservative government(?) in the UK the future has been cancelled.

Given this is an investment site, it surprises me there are still people here who (like many in the media) don't differentiate between revenue spending and capital investment.

Salaries fall firmly into the 'revenue' category in my book. Fair enough the fancy new office buildings were capital but salaries? C'mon!!

MrFoolish wrote:

Lootman wrote:Do you think that views expressed here should never be assessed against a reality benchmark?

And there are other Lemons here who are more "really rich" than I am. But they do not need to say who they are, as it is obvious. It is tacky to play the success card, although it also does not offend me the way it clearly bothers you.

I just feel your comment had nothing to do with Birmingham council

My point was about councils in general, and how their previous excesses inevitably led to their current problems. If you did not see this coming then all I can say is that you should have done.

Mike4 wrote:Given this is an investment site, it surprises me there are still people here who (like many in the media) don't differentiate between revenue spending and capital investment.

Salaries fall firmly into the 'revenue' category in my book. Fair enough the fancy new office buildings were capital but salaries? C'mon!!

There's plenty of inflated salaries at the top of British businesses too. Often for lamentable underperformance it would seem. And apparently we are meant to encourage these people - laffer curves and all that.

MrFoolish wrote:

Mike4 wrote:Given this is an investment site, it surprises me there are still people here who (like many in the media) don't differentiate between revenue spending and capital investment.

Salaries fall firmly into the 'revenue' category in my book. Fair enough the fancy new office buildings were capital but salaries? C'mon!!

There's plenty of inflated salaries at the top of British businesses too. Often for lamentable underperformance it would seem. And apparently we are meant to encourage these people - laffer curves and all that.

But any alleged "overpaid" private employees are at the cost of the shareholders, and they have a choice about whether to pay and whether to invest in that entity.

The fat suits in the public sector leech off the taxpayers, and we have no choice about funding them.

Lootman wrote:But any alleged "overpaid" private employees are at the cost of the shareholders, and they have a choice about whether to pay and whether to invest in that entity.

I think you'd have to admit that in the real world, underperformance continues to be handsomely rewarded. There's too much mutual back scratching in the City.

Perhaps the American market is more ruthless, I wouldn't know.

Lootman wrote: But any alleged "overpaid" private employees are at the cost of the shareholders, and they have a choice about whether to pay and whether to invest in that entity.

The fat suits in the public sector leech off the taxpayers, and we have no choice about funding them.

That depends on the democratic system, our choice comes when we have elections. And if you get a councillor you didn't vote for it's because of our voting system. But it's a collective "we" in the public services, rather than individuals in the case of private shareholders. Which takes us to the question of how collectivised vs individualistic we want society to be.

Lootman wrote:
As for Birmingham have you seen the lavish scale of its new public library? I walked by it a few weeks ago. It makes Louis 14th's follies look modest and understated in comparison.

You're kidding surely. A lavish new public library now, when the internet has made such things broadly redundant? Now wonder they are in deep doo-doo.

But developing the theme, as a skool kid I never quite understood why we had free public libraries. Even as a 12 year old it struck me as profligate and unnecessary. Yes they were jolly handy but why should they be provided free by the council?