Page 4 of 5

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 10:46 am
by Myles Francis
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:I would agree further to say that in my experience, the public sector often brings in higher paid employees specifically to get rid of lower paid employees, often with no sensible measure of real or long term savings or efficiencies for the department, or country as a whole. In addition, large swathes of the public sector are incredibly top heavy, and the country can do without these excessive costs.
From the inside, I would agree with that. I would also point out that the public sector likes to avoid redundancies at all costs and relies a lot on natural wastage. Typically there is a lot more &quotchurn&quot at lower, administrative grades and when people leave, they simply aren't replaced. Although this may deliver the notional &quotefficiency savings&quot it often results in the delivery of front line services coming under greater and greater strain, but middle and upper management continuing unaffected.

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 10:51 am
by GodalmingYellow
&quotYF Dan&quot wrote:Isn't that funny because I'd genuinely sit there cringeing at the pro-Tory bias I percieved.

I guess it says more about us as people than the Beeb.
Richard Bacon, Sheilagh Fogarty and Victoria Derbyshire are openly Labour members. They &quotcame out&quot when Blair was in office.

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 10:55 am
by YF Dan
Nick Robinson was a member of the Young Conservatives

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:10 am
by boris
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
Richard Bacon, Sheilagh Fogarty and Victoria Derbyshire are openly Labour members. They &quotcame out&quot when Blair was in office.
That was the time when most original Labour members left the party or were entirely alienated by its inexorable drift to the right.

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:19 am
by GodalmingYellow
&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
Richard Bacon, Sheilagh Fogarty and Victoria Derbyshire are openly Labour members. They &quotcame out&quot when Blair was in office.
That was the time when most original Labour members left the party or were entirely alienated by its inexorable drift to the right.
To be honest I would be delighted to see Labour go much further to the left. It would prevent them taking office and wrecking our economy ever again! :lol:

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:48 am
by Sackcloth Ox
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotYF Dan&quot wrote:Isn't that funny because I'd genuinely sit there cringeing at the pro-Tory bias I percieved.

I guess it says more about us as people than the Beeb.
Richard Bacon, Sheilagh Fogarty and Victoria Derbyshire are openly Labour members. They &quotcame out&quot when Blair was in office.
Robinson, Marr = tory, it's obvious

Radio 5 crew, well most of them are dimbrains imo. Campbell has a mind of sorts but clothes it in 'hey I'm a radio personality' rubbish. Best guy on Radio 5 is the old fella, Allen. He sounds like a Tory to me as well.

Overall TV coverage Ok. I was at Uni with Sopel, think he was Labour back in the day but who knows now?

Most cringeworthy event , the celebs on the boat. (That cost the Beeb £30K btw. Again, why?)

Joan Collins saying that she wasn't sure what was happening, she supported Cameron, he was a nice man because he looked after families being the nadir. She would support the family of course, she's been married 5 times. :roll:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:51 am
by Roo

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:54 am
by SmileyMan
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Always worth a read. As for Nick Robinson, he's not known as &quotToenails&quot for nothing.....

As for the assertion that companies need management, every good Trot knows that this is nonsense. Collectivism is not just an ideal, it's an aim.

Personally, I think we should sack everyone whose job involves a pen, or computer. That should do the trick.

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:01 pm
by GodalmingYellow
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Always worth a read. As for Nick Robinson, he's not known as &quotToenails&quot for nothing.....

As for the assertion that companies need management, every good Trot knows that this is nonsense. Collectivism is not just an ideal, it's an aim.

Personally, I think we should sack everyone whose job involves a pen, or computer. That should do the trick.
Oi!

Actually I have a dream of owning a rural self sufficient small holding. I'm all for localism.

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:08 pm
by Myles Francis
&quotSackcloth Ox&quot wrote:Joan Collins saying that she wasn't sure what was happening, she supported Cameron, he was a nice man because he looked after families being the nadir. She would support the family of course, she's been married 5 times. :roll:
I got Private Eye yesterday too! :lol:

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:24 pm
by Sackcloth Ox
&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:
&quotSackcloth Ox&quot wrote:Joan Collins saying that she wasn't sure what was happening, she supported Cameron, he was a nice man because he looked after families being the nadir. She would support the family of course, she's been married 5 times. :roll:
I got Private Eye yesterday too! :lol:

So what, I knew that before. My wife subscribes to Hello
:wink:

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:25 pm
by SmileyMan
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Always worth a read. As for Nick Robinson, he's not known as &quotToenails&quot for nothing.....

As for the assertion that companies need management, every good Trot knows that this is nonsense. Collectivism is not just an ideal, it's an aim.

Personally, I think we should sack everyone whose job involves a pen, or computer. That should do the trick.
Oi!

Actually I have a dream of owning a rural self sufficient small holding. I'm all for localism.
I was actually joking, of course. I like a joke before I go hunting gay babies with foxes (is that right? I can never keep up with the latest stereotype)

The interesting question is, should you be encouraged or discouraged from your smallholding? On the one hand, it's a really inefficient use of land, but it's environmentally pretty sound.

I like the liberal capitalist view - try and regulate behaviour through the creation of artificial &quotmarkets&quot to prevent a tragedy of the commons. If they stopped fucking around with carbon trading, we could be reducing CO2 pollution already.

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:06 pm
by GodalmingYellow
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Always worth a read. As for Nick Robinson, he's not known as &quotToenails&quot for nothing.....

As for the assertion that companies need management, every good Trot knows that this is nonsense. Collectivism is not just an ideal, it's an aim.

Personally, I think we should sack everyone whose job involves a pen, or computer. That should do the trick.
Oi!

Actually I have a dream of owning a rural self sufficient small holding. I'm all for localism.
I was actually joking, of course. I like a joke before I go hunting gay babies with foxes (is that right? I can never keep up with the latest stereotype)

The interesting question is, should you be encouraged or discouraged from your smallholding? On the one hand, it's a really inefficient use of land, but it's environmentally pretty sound.

I like the liberal capitalist view - try and regulate behaviour through the creation of artificial &quotmarkets&quot to prevent a tragedy of the commons. If they stopped fucking around with carbon trading, we could be reducing CO2 pollution already.
Inefficient use of land?

I would have thought that use of sufficent land to be self supporting is entirely efficient use.

Don't even get me started on environmental issues... :lol:

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:19 pm
by tomoufc
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:
I like the liberal capitalist view - try and regulate behaviour through the creation of artificial &quotmarkets&quot to prevent a tragedy of the commons. If they stopped fucking around with carbon trading, we could be reducing CO2 pollution already.
Are we talking the same Liberal Capitalist view that has been running the world in the past few decades? The one that keeps starting wars, that has no answer to the boom and bust of capitalism and that consignes the vast majority of the world's population to wage slaverly and starvation? Or a different one that I've never heard of?

Re:

Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:30 pm
by boris
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: Inefficient use of land?

I would have thought that use of sufficent land to be self supporting is entirely efficient use.
It depends on what you use the land for. Self-sufficiency per se doesn't guarantee efficient land use.