| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
I was listening to a couple of engaging buffers talking about major railway projects and heard one of them come up with this pearl
| There's only one thing harder than getting the government to turn on the spigot to get a good scheme rolling and that's getting them to turn off the spigot when they turn out to bad ones. |
So naturally I turned my mind to things that have been around forever, cost the earth, but should no longer walk it. I immediately came up with two biggies.
You are all cordially invited to throw in your own suggestions (and/or slag off mine). Big or small. Governmental or not. British or not. Do not, at this stage, worry about the 'Well, that'll never happen' factor, but try to avoid mere Old Stagers' Gripes.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'll start with my old bugbear, the universities. God only knows what their function is. Especially as they are breeding grounds for malcontents as opposed to the old idea--places where malcontents could be parked instead of being let loose where they might do harm. Even I wouldn't argue that half the age-group are malcontents. Though all of them might well be.
Universities are (just about, I think) expanding. And not in directions where theoretically they might have some use: science, technology, computing. Some sanity might have been imposed by eighteen-year-olds having to pay for it themselves (for life!) but that has surely been counteracted by 'Well, if I'm paying for it myself, I might as well do something that's easy and enjoyable, rather than science, technology or computing.'
In fact abolishing eighteen-year-olds might be a start. If you have a gap year of, say five years, you might ask yourself why you're bothering. You might as well go on the dole straight away.
But I won't go on, my views about universities are only too well-known. My next Big Thing ready for the axe will, I trust, be more controversial...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Next on my list-for-banning is the Unions. In 1905, British courts ruled that it should be legal to
| use threats of harm to force someone to comply with an unwarranted demand, most commonly to gain money (AI describing the Theft Act) |
so long as you were organised in a trade union. It was argued at the time this was essential because, otherwise, the demandees would do to you what you wanted to do to them. And, Britain being a democracy, it was felt the interests of millions of cloth-capped employees should outweigh what a tiny number of silk-hatted employers thought was their due.
This was despite the fact that everyone in the country could (inter alia)
1. vote with their feet by working for someone offering more money
2. be obliged to pay more for goods produced by unionised employees
3. be inconvenienced while union action was preventing goods being produced
4. feel sorry for people in a line of work where unionisation was difficult and would thereby be rendered permanently if relatively poor.
And after 1905 things got steadily worse... /more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Obvious one for me is the BBC.
When there were only four channels they could tell us that if the BBC was abolished we would end up with fifty channels and they'd all be crap, just like America. But now they make us pay three billion a year and present us with Mrs Brown's Boys on Christmas Day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | Obvious one for me is the BBC. |
It's undoubtedly true that what most people think of as 'the BBC' (i.e. BBC-1 and BBC-2) are truly terrible. I can go days without bookmarking a single programme from either, save for Newsnight (which is truly terrible).
If we move on to the plethora of BBC cable channels (plus BBC-4), the whole slew could be sold off to one of the cable majors for (re-) reshowing over the next many years. We can probably stagger on without the benefit of any new content that pitches up there (because it wasn't good enough even for BBC-1 or 2)
Yet, ironically, I watch more BBC stuff than any other. Or, rather, listen. It's Radio 4, Radio 4X and the talky bits of Radio 3. But that's just me. It doesn't amount to a licence fee's worth for the country as a whole. But there we come to an odd point. It's £14.54 a month. If you compare that with a Netflix et al subscription, most of us watch a lot more BBC than we do any individual paid-for service we might be in for.
But there's more...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I don't really see the libertarian logic on banning the BBC, there is no requirement to pay a licence fee if folks don't insist on watching live TV.
In essence people are paying for something, (Why?) watching it, (Why?) not liking the content (fair enough), then advocating abolishing it for everyone (Why?) rather than just, say, simply not watching it and paying for it. (Why?)
I suspect it is for the same reason that some folks want to ban GB news. (Why?)
We are perfectly entitled to watch ITX without a licence and the rest on "catch up", and in fact most streamers put on their content now before it appears live. ie you can see many shows before the folks watch it on live.......in fact you can easily binge it whilst they remain stuck on episode 1.
What is the problem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | I don't really see the libertarian logic on banning the BBC, there is no requirement to pay a licence fee if folks don't insist on watching live TV. |
That's ridiculous. Everybody in the world can (and does) watch 'live' (as you call it, network as everybody else calls it) TV. To make people in Britain pay £174.50 to do so is a dead liberty (unless there are good reasons).
| In essence people are paying for something, (Why?) watching it, (Why?) not liking the content (fair enough), then advocating abolishing it for everyone (Why?) rather than just, say, simply not watching it and paying for it. (Why?) I suspect it is for the same reason that some folks want to ban GB news. (Why?) |
I've no idea what why's you are asking. You might have an argument if people could have radios and tellies, shorn of BBC content, and pay by watching adverts instead of paying £174.50.
| We are perfectly entitled to watch ITX and the rest on "catch up", and in fact most streamers put on their content now before it appears live, ie you can see many shows before the folks watch it on live.......in fact you can easily binge it whilst they remain stuck on episode 1. What is the problem? |
The problem is that's not the way people watch telly. They sit down with their fish suppers, twang their braces, and watch the five national networks. You are being highly ideological, Wiley.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| That's ridiculous. Everybody in the world can (and does) watch 'live' (as you call it, network as everybody else calls it) TV. |
I think you are saying that you still watch so-called "live", like tuning into your daily Newnight. As such you have a perfect right to complain about the service and the cost. After all you choose to pay for it.
25% of Brits are now not watching live TV. They choose not to pay for it. There is clearly a valid and popular alternative to live TV, ie folks rationally choosing to watch what they want, when they want, "on demand", and opt out of paying for a TV licence (these still exist in many countries) . Folks are just looking at the cost and working out that they could get the equivalent of 2 streaming services (more if they accept ads) and opting for what is best for them.
There is no need to ban the BBC or get rid of the licence, if people think the licence offers value for money they will stick with it, ie ee won't end up like the US where streamers now have 70% plus of the market. We don't need a paternalistic government ban when people can choose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | That's ridiculous. Everybody in the world can (and does) watch 'live' (as you call it, network as everybody else calls it) TV.
I think you are saying that you still watch so-called "live", like tuning into your daily Newnight. As such you have a perfect right to complain about the service and the cost. After all you choose to pay for it. |
No, I am forced to pay to watch Newsnight. Why can't I have adverts instead? (I'm not saying I'm against the licence fee, by the way, only discussing the libertarian issues raised by it.)
| 25% of Brits are now not watching live TV. They choose not to pay for it. There is clearly a valid and popular alternative to live TV |
No it isn't. The overwhelming majority (75%, I'm told) watch live TV.
| i.e. folks rationally choosing to watch what they want, when they want, "on demand", and opt out of paying for a TV licence (these still exist in many countries) |
Bully for them. I want to do both.
| Folks are just looking at the cost and working out that they could get the equivalent of 2 streaming services (more if they accept ads) and opting for what is best for them. |
If you know anybody who would opt for two streaming services and watch nothing else, you know some very dodgy people.
| There is no need to ban the BBC or get rid of the licence, if people think the Licence offers value for money they will stick with it. |
That's a bogus list. Getting rid of the licence fee would automatically 'ban' the BBC. The licence fee may pay for the BBC but whether the BBC is value for money or not is irrelevant. You need a licence to watch ITV, Channel 4 and Five (and other stuff probably... I don't know the actual situation in detail).
| ie we won't end up like the US where streamers now have 70% plus of the market. We don't need a paternalistic government ban when people can choose. |
I haven't followed the logic here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| A union leader wrote: | | Provided we've got national agreements and national bargaining, which allows us to deal with change in a way that makes sense, there shouldn't be problems. |
I've put this up because it's just flashed across my Youtube screen. It sounds oh-so-reasonable. But this is what it means in practice. Let's say
1. To get workers in London costs £20 an hour
2. To get workers in Scotland costs £15 an hour
3. You have to pay £20 an hour to ensure you've got London covered
4. It's a national agreement so Scottish workers get £20 an hour
5. The consumer or the taxpayer has to pay the extra.
You might think this is 'fair' though the reason Scottish workers will work for less is because the cost of living is lower in Scotland. So it is not fair, it is just rewarding some people at the expense of other people (who might be richer or poorer than these Scottish workers).
But that is not the end of the matter. The Scottish 'product' is now to some extent uncompetitive so the trend will be that, whatever it is, it won't be made in Scotland so much. The overall national product may be uncompetitive too, and not be made in Britain as a whole.
But that's way in the future, the current workforce will be safe enough. They're all for 'national agreements' whether they live in London or Scotland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You need a licence to watch ITV, Channel 4 and Five (and other stuff probably... I don't know the actual situation in detail). |
You do not need a licence for on-demand (catch-up) content on ITVX or other services like All 4/My5.
The key distinction is are you watching live TV, when you need a licence, or are you watching so-called "catch-up" or "on demand" (ie what you want, when you want).
So the 25% opting out of the licence have much more free TV than the 2-3 sreaming services they are paying for. They are just unable to watch live as it goes out (or i player).
That is why that 25% will keep rising and rising until, that is, the BBC starts providing better value.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Some of you may recall the saga of 'the London night tube'. TfL (Transport for London) spent a vast amount of time and (public) money on setting up an experimental twenty-four hour service on a few selected London tube lines. This was highly necessary and hugely welcomed in our new go-go metropolitan economy.
It did not require any changes in working practices because all tube employees operate on a twenty-four hour timetable (the new scheme only closed the gap between 1 am and 5 am). But the drivers (who are virtually all in ASLEF) spotted an opportunity and refused to work the new schedules.
For nearly a year the whole scheme remained moribund as ASLEF stood their ground and the government (local and national) refused to 'give in to blackmail'. Eventually there was no alternative but to pay the drivers a stupendous amount of money in return for their agreement to do nothing they weren't already doing.
Whereupon the station staff (who are in the RMT) refused unless etc etc. So now London has a Night Tube of sorts. You probably haven't heard about it because TfL can't afford to expand it to a full service. As far as I know, no other British Big City has decided to go round the clock.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
While I'm on the subject, I suppose I'd better tell you what will happen when, by the end of next year, all the existing rail franchises will have been gathered together in the nationalised Great British Railways.
For the last thirty years, the franchisees have been waging guerilla wars with the unions about working practices and how much it will cost the franchisees to get rid of all the extraordinary arrangements that had grown up in the decades of the nationalised British Rail. On top of this each franchisee has had to come to individual agreements about pay scales for their own particular line.
All this will be dumped into Great British Railways' in tray. Great British Railways will be answering to a government that, generally speaking, gives in to union demands. Do you suppose that GBR and HMG will take this opportunity to ensure that
* the best working practices will be extended to all the railways in Britain and
* the most sensible pay scales will operate depending on local circumstances?
Or do you suppose that ASLEF and the RMT will take this opportunity to ensure that
* working practices favoured by the unions will be generally adopted or their mouths stuffed with gold if they aren't
* wage scales will be based on the largest amounts of Danegeld paid out by the most profitable of the franchises and made 'national'.
There is, however, one bit of golden lining. GBR will be running such an expensive railway, requiring such a vast amount of subsidy from the public purse, with fares so high they will drain the travelling public's purses, that it will bring nationalisation into severe disrepute.
(Which, by the way, under different circumstances, I would be mildly in favour of.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Next on my list is the National Health Service. Before I put both barrels into its bloated carcass I should point out that it has been my boon and saviour all my life. Which is almost exactly covalent with it. Whatever replaces it must retain its one saving grace:
| Free at the point of delivery |
This is what opponents --especially American opponents -- always get wrong. You can be treated efficiently or inefficiently for all your ills but the treatment you get will be within quite a short range of efficiency. That's because what is known is known to everyone, efficient treatment suppliers and inefficient treatment suppliers alike. You'll end up getting roughly the same treatment.
So that's not the big issue. It's worry about paying for the treatment that causes so much torment. Various way of paying for your -- and often more important, your loved ones' -- health provision have been tried out and everyone paying for it via taxation has been found to be the best way by an enormous margin. Anybody who disagrees with this is in an ideological web of their own making.
So now we can get down to the National Health Service....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize (but I'm open to tossing them all)
When neither Philip Roth nor John Updike won the Literature Prize before dying, I decided I wouldn't pay attention anymore (and failed at that).
They recently picked someone who has horrible thoughts, namely about Trump, namely that he deserves her peace prize. If the committee can't see into the hearts of its chosen peaceniks better than that, it's time to hang up their prize-bestowing skates.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
