I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.
Polly Toynbee has written a well-researched article and come to the inevitable conclusion.
I keep harping on about this: although the public sector is enormously wasteful, rather less than half of government spending (excl. welfare and pensions) actually goes on public sector pensions and salaries (which aren't particularly high in most cases, there are just far too many of them) and rather more than half is money given to 'private' businesses.
So while the Lib-Cons are pruning back public sector salaries and pensions (and welfare payments) ever so slightly, they are merrily giving even more money to 'private' businesses, which is why total government spending is not expected to fall markedly over the term of this Parliament (and that is by their own official admission).
Elevate their cause?
11 hours ago
19 comments:
The problem is that much like Prince Charles, even when she reaches the right conclusion, it's based on faulty working.
She only really objects to crapola companies like Serco, A4E, Deloitte etc because they make profits. If the government were pissing the same money away on a useless company that happened to be a charity that she worked with, she wouldn't mind.
JT, when has Prince Charles ever been right about anything, ever?
In support of JT - from Tonybee's article: "Last week the government announced who had won contracts for the work programme: there was shock when, out of 40 contracts worth between £3bn and £5bn, only two went to not-for-profit groups. Not so much "big society" as big Serco."
I completely agree that the objection based on it being a big "profit" making company rather than a "not-for-profit" organisation being awarded the contract is just total horse shit.
SOME "not-for-profit" organisations WOULD make profit if remuneration were taken in a more efficient manner. They actually do make money from the "service" they provide but then dish it out in massive fatcat salaries BUT that's ok as long as on paper they are a "not-for-profit" organisation and they do "good" things. A prime example of this - following on from our esteemed colleague Mr. Wadsworth's posting on Bob Crow would be Unions of course!!
JT, SW, all right, you've twisted my arm, she's right for partly the wrong reasons.
Mark,
The main one is his objection to hideous modern architecture. He'd be right about how the likes of Le Corbusier produced some of the ugliest shit around, except his solution is that the peasants should instead living in neo-classical architecture (rather than good, modern buildings).
JT
The trouble is that the peasants (even the middle-class ones) like living in "neo-classical" (= non-modern) buildings. Anecdotal evidence I admit, but here in the fastness of Muswell Hill, where most of the housing is redbrick Edwardian with a sprinkling of early post-WW1 stuff, no-one ever moves out. Muswell Hillbillies upscale to the 5/6 bedroom gentlemen's villas or down-scale to a few of the artisan's cottages still in the area or leave MH in a box.
Mostly, the Prince of Wales is certifiably loony. However, on modern architecture (not the very rare good stuff but the general "modern" crap which disfigures the environment) he is right on the button. Look, for instance, at the Candy Bros bollocks in Knightsbridge and, particularly, the pile of concrete excreta which Palumbo bullied his way into constructing at the Mappin & Webb site in the City.
JU, U, hang about here, I like Edwardian brick built terraces above all other forms of architecture, and if there weren't silly restrictions on the amount of land we can build on and assuming that this is what most people want, then this is what builders would build.
If Cnady Bros' clients want to live in a steel and glass high rise, good luck to them, I don't see why it's anybody else's business.
Toynbee is not to be trusted. If she makes sense, one needs to look carefully at her motivation.
"rather more than half is money given to 'private' businesses"
Given away? Is buying for example MRI machines money given away?
Surely some of it is spent on useful things?
Anon, how many MRI scanners can you get for £281 billion a year?
Look at the NHS (for example). Budget well over £100 billion a year, they have 400,000 nurses at (say) £30,000 each = £12 bn; 130,000 doctors at (say) £100,000 a pop = £12 billion = total £25 billion. The NHS spends £12 billion a year on drugs, total £37 billion. Where does the rest of it go?
Sure, refuse collection is sub-contracted, that's a laughable £1 or £2 billion a year, and school dinners might be sub-contracted, that's another £0.5 billion.
If there's one thing you can rely on, it's half of the money the government gives private companies is for complete crap anyway (like all the IT or in 'back to work' providers) and when they buy something useful, they usually overpay by about 100%, so I'd be surprised if more than £70 bn of that £281 bn is spent wisely.
"I like Edwardian brick built terraces above all other forms of architecture, and if there weren't silly restrictions on the amount of land we can build on and assuming that this is what most people want, then this is what builders would build. "
Surely some mistake, Mark. People like terraces. Terraces are more space-efficient than detached houses. Building land is in short supply. Builders build what people like. Why then, do builders usually build 4-bed detached houses with a double garage?
"If Cnady Bros' clients want to live in a steel and glass high rise, good luck to them, I don't see why it's anybody else's business."
It's because we all have to look at it from the outside. They can't see it because they are inside, working. "My face I don't mind it for I am behind it, the people in front get the jar"
B, obviously others prefer detached houses with a double garage, however badly built. That's their call, not mine. And I thought the Candy Bros' building looked quite nice. If you don't want to look at it, don't walk down that particular road in Chelsea.
I was making the point, that architecture, being a public art, usually affects, and therefore is the business of, more than just its owners.
B, how we can encourage people to build "buildings that look nice" is a tricky topic and the matter is subjective. But the Italians manage - even their factories look nice.
As ever, LVT-man rides to the rescue. A sensible council would refuse planning for buildings that are so ugly that they depress local land values.
Umbongo,
Yes, but should Prince Charles be able to try to impose his will on people who are happy with modern styles of buildings?
There's an estate in the Upton area of Northampton where he managed to get his stupid ideas introduced. There's no uPVC allowed, materials have to be local (despite there being nothing particularly distinctive about the architecture of Northampton), and there's barely enough car parking, what with it being ecobollocks.
People bought them just before the crash in desperation and now struggle to sell because no-one wants to buy houses without sufficient parking that are 3 miles from the centre of town.
"A sensible council would refuse planning for buildings that are so ugly that they depress local land values"
That is predicated on the assumption that a council will have the ability to hav e judgement good enough to determine what is ugly and also be bothered to cat on it. - huge assumption
JT
"Yes, but should Prince Charles be able to try to impose his will on people who are happy with modern styles of buildings?"
As Bayard implied, unfortunately buildings aren't invisible: we all have to live with them. The Chelsea Barracks development as planned and (pace MW) the Candy Bros insult to Londoners in Knightsbridge are just awful and completely out of place.
As to imposing one's will on others, certainly all the planning hoops were gone through for the Chelsea Barracks but how much genuine local support was there for this monument to the cupidity of the Candys and Richard Rogers? Apropos of imposing personal taste, Richard Rogers was in love with Robin Hood Gardens (not that he'd dream of living there or having it built at the end of his garden). However, he's quite happy to ignore planning consents when it suits him personally. There again, Rogers is the worst type of lefty entitlement rentier who makes the Prince of Wales look positively modest in comparison.
Hovis, there is this thing called 'experience' or 'listening to people'. In olden times this all worked fine because we didn't have ego-maniac architects wanting to immortalise themselves, every builder just copied from surrounding buildings and so they all looked the-same-but-a-bit-different.
In a modern context, the council agrees with developer he can build x units of housing, and he proposes a few designs and people living opposite can choose their favourite one. Or something.
Like I said, there are so many towns and cities all round the world (including vast tracts of Victorian or Edwardian London) where the buildings all fit in and 'look nice', my favourite being 'anywhere in Italy' (I've never been to Milan, apparently that's horrible).
U, JT, I don't know how we got onto this topic. Try going down to Canary Wharf, it's all lovely shiny steel and glass and new, and IMHO it looks absolutely lovely.
Even 'planned cities' can look nice (think Mannheim, most of Berlin, Valetta, Barcelona) or nasty (think Milton Keynes).
Good on her. Dont forget the biggest benefits scroungers are in the private sector too. This is all inevitable. They system and present social organisation demands it as follows:
http://highpaycommission.co.uk/submissions/the-cause-of-high-pay/
This is not socialism speaking. It is merely pointing out what is there. Monopoly power.
Toynbee wont speak about the Single Tax till now. She is a humanist. She knows George was a Christian. I have a feeling that is why. Oh... except she is also a homey.
Post a Comment