|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 2, 2024 10:59:01 GMT
Public sector workers are not generators of tax but costs to the taxpayers. They do not pay for themselves and too many people work in the public sector. We need to grow the private sector and we cannot do that by strangling it. The private sector creates the tax revenues the public sector spends. Public sector staff may repay some of their wages as tax but it isn't fresh tax, it is recycled tax. A fair point. As Labour have committed to enlarging the size of the public sector then good growth from what remains of the private sector is essential. Unfortunately the only policy that has been announced so far that would increase growth is the expansion of City Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 2, 2024 12:32:04 GMT
Growth GROWTH guys
The UK’s manufacturing sector grew at its fastest pace for more than two years last month as inflationary pressures for firms and customers showed signs of easing, according to new data,
The closely watched S&P Global UK manufacturing PMI survey recorded a reading of 52.5 for August, up from 52.1 in the previous month.
The reading, which was the highest for 26 months, was in line with analysts’ expectations.
Any reading above 50 means a sector is in growth while a score below this means it is contracting.
Rob Dobson, S&P Global Market Intelligence
Rob Dobson, director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said: “The UK manufacturing sector remained a positive contributor to broader economic growth in August.
“The upturn is broad-based across manufacturing, with the investment goods sector the standout performer.”
ADVERTISING
It represents the fourth consecutive month of growth for the sector.
Factory firms reported an increase in output, new orders and employment as the industry’s recovery continued to gather pace.
ADVERTISEMENT
▼Scroll for more▼
Manufacturing production increased for the fourth successive month in August, as companies raised output after witnessing an increase in orders, as well as efforts to clear previous agreed contracts.
New business grew as firms reported “better market sentiment” after a reduction in interest rates.
It reported that the UK market drove growth in new contracts, as export orders decreased for the 31st consecutive month, amid weaker demand in Europe and the continued slowdown in mainland China.
Mr Dobson added: “The trend in export orders remain a key cause for concern, with new business from overseas having fallen continuously since early in 2022.”
Meanwhile, job creation improved at manufacturers as a result of higher output and new order volumes, with growth reaching its highest reading in more than two years.
ADVERTISING
Firms also reported that input costs rose again, but at a slower rate, with increases for selling prices also slowing down over the month.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Sept 2, 2024 12:39:14 GMT
Of course the alternative argument is that a chunk of money called "The Profit Margin" could be used to either re-invest in public services or go to The Treasury.
If an academy run by a private company is contracted to provide state education, that academy will not undertake such a contract unless it can make money. The only economic conclusion here is that "The State" must be able to provide the same service for less, because state education does not seek to make a profit.
Private ambulances, privatised cancer care, eye clinics run by Vision Express, these are all money making excercises and the primary aim is to make a profit, the secondary aim is to provide a public service.
I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to public services been run by the private sector
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2024 12:53:05 GMT
Of course the alternative argument is that a chunk of money called "The Profit Margin" could be used to either re-invest in public services or go to The Treasury. If an academy run by a private company is contracted to provide state education, that academy will not undertake such a contract unless it can make money. The only economic conclusion here is that "The State" must be able to provide the same service for less, because state education does not seek to make a profit. Private ambulances, privatised cancer care, eye clinics run by Vision Express, these are all money making excercises and the primary aim is to make a profit, the secondary aim is to provide a public service. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to public services been run by the private sector I broadly agree but there is another part there in that for profit to occur there has to be efficiency and efficiency is a function of pressure to achieve it. In the private sector it may be one person can do a job due to efficiency pressure with a small margin of profit to shareholders, in the public sector it may be two people are required to do the same job as the efficiency pressure is much less. This means that the public sector costs more. It is not an unknown situation and in fact was often commented on as being a problem with the public sector. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Sept 2, 2024 14:09:26 GMT
Of course the alternative argument is that a chunk of money called "The Profit Margin" could be used to either re-invest in public services or go to The Treasury. If an academy run by a private company is contracted to provide state education, that academy will not undertake such a contract unless it can make money. The only economic conclusion here is that "The State" must be able to provide the same service for less, because state education does not seek to make a profit. Private ambulances, privatised cancer care, eye clinics run by Vision Express, these are all money making excercises and the primary aim is to make a profit, the secondary aim is to provide a public service. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to public services been run by the private sector I broadly agree but there is another part there in that for profit to occur there has to be efficiency and efficiency is a function of pressure to achieve it. In the private sector it may be one person can do a job due to efficiency pressure with a small margin of profit to shareholders, in the public sector it may be two people are required to do the same job as the efficiency pressure is much less. This means that the public sector costs more. It is not an unknown situation and in fact was often commented on as being a problem with the public sector. In some respects I agree, but is it not the case that the opposite side of the coin is Cutting Corners to drive down costs ?, three people to clean a hospital ward in 30 minutes instead of 1 hour, reducing the staff, reducing the time expected to complete a task. It has always been reckoned that privatising hospital cleaning was a cause of hospital infections. Whenever I attempt to get through to BT or the Electric supplier, I often sit there listening to music and the pre-recorded tape telling me how important my call is, and I think back to the old days of The Electricity Board, where someone in the local office or depot always answered the phone, and knew your address. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 2, 2024 14:47:23 GMT
Public sector workers are not generators of tax but costs to the taxpayers. They do not pay for themselves and too many people work in the public sector. We need to grow the private sector and we cannot do that by strangling it. The private sector creates the tax revenues the public sector spends. Public sector staff may repay some of their wages as tax but it isn't fresh tax, it is recycled tax. A fair point. As Labour have committed to enlarging the size of the public sector then good growth from what remains of the private sector is essential. Unfortunately the only policy that has been announced so far that would increase growth is the expansion of City Airport. Without industry, we have no way of mass employment for the ordinary majority. Local industry has a fraction of the carbon cost of imports. Make things locally again. And tax the profits fairly. That's how to get the economy growing and the public sector sustainable. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2024 15:10:38 GMT
I broadly agree but there is another part there in that for profit to occur there has to be efficiency and efficiency is a function of pressure to achieve it. In the private sector it may be one person can do a job due to efficiency pressure with a small margin of profit to shareholders, in the public sector it may be two people are required to do the same job as the efficiency pressure is much less. This means that the public sector costs more. It is not an unknown situation and in fact was often commented on as being a problem with the public sector. In some respects I agree, but is it not the case that the opposite side of the coin is Cutting Corners to drive down costs ?, three people to clean a hospital ward in 30 minutes instead of 1 hour, reducing the staff, reducing the time expected to complete a task. It has always been reckoned that privatising hospital cleaning was a cause of hospital infections. Whenever I attempt to get through to BT or the Electric supplier, I often sit there listening to music and the pre-recorded tape telling me how important my call is, and I think back to the old days of The Electricity Board, where someone in the local office or depot always answered the phone, and knew your address. Which means that efficient regulation and contracts have to be managed by government to ensure that the private sector are carrying out the work they are supposed to do in all respects. The point about private cleaners is that there seems to have been a lack of powers to inspect the quality and to enforce repeat cleaning. It is also imperative that a right to dispense with unsatisfactory services is included. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 2, 2024 17:00:12 GMT
Of course the alternative argument is that a chunk of money called "The Profit Margin" could be used to either re-invest in public services or go to The Treasury. If an academy run by a private company is contracted to provide state education, that academy will not undertake such a contract unless it can make money. The only economic conclusion here is that "The State" must be able to provide the same service for less, because state education does not seek to make a profit.
Private ambulances, privatised cancer care, eye clinics run by Vision Express, these are all money making excercises and the primary aim is to make a profit, the secondary aim is to provide a public service. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to public services been run by the private sector What makes you think that there will be any profit if the business is run by the State. State run organisations are notoriously inefficient when compared to those in the private sector, so the idea that the State can provide the same service for less is interesting to say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 2, 2024 19:00:14 GMT
New rates will benefit first-time buyers, home movers and those remortgaging
Mortgage rates will fall again from tomorrow after three major high street banks all announced they will be slashing home loan costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 2, 2024 21:24:03 GMT
New rates will benefit first-time buyers, home movers and those remortgaging Mortgage rates will fall again from tomorrow after three major high street banks all announced they will be slashing home loan costs. That was the point of the BoE reducing the base rate last month. At least finally it is being passed on - funny how it always goes up faster than it comes down.. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 3, 2024 6:33:05 GMT
Of course the alternative argument is that a chunk of money called "The Profit Margin" could be used to either re-invest in public services or go to The Treasury. If an academy run by a private company is contracted to provide state education, that academy will not undertake such a contract unless it can make money. The only economic conclusion here is that "The State" must be able to provide the same service for less, because state education does not seek to make a profit. Private ambulances, privatised cancer care, eye clinics run by Vision Express, these are all money making excercises and the primary aim is to make a profit, the secondary aim is to provide a public service. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to public services been run by the private sector... I'm inclined to agree. ...State run organisations are notoriously inefficient when compared to those in the private sector, so the idea that the State can provide the same service for less is interesting to say the least. Well you say that. However, in my job I have the misfortune of dealing with private sector service providers. And they are awful. Take logistics: They have one job to take stuff from A to B. And half the time they can't even manage that. "The driver's gone sick, the van's broken down..." Blah, blah, blah. We're supposed to bill them for any failures but I bet we don't. We used to employ in house couriers, now half the time we have get stuff ferried around by Uber (having already paid the official contractor for the service). That's hardly a saving and it's hardly more efficient. Indeed, a friend of mine is a manager in an NHS trust and they had so many similar issues with their IT contractor that they decided to take many of the functions back in-house, so this is hardly an isolated issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 3, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
The Public Sector does seem to have a problem with negotiating and enforcing contracts with suppliers which the private sector does not - even with the same suppliers.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 3, 2024 6:55:56 GMT
The Public Sector does seem to have a problem with negotiating and enforcing contracts with suppliers which the private sector does not - even with the same suppliers. I think that is the point. The private sector screws sub contractors to the bone and dispenses with them if they cannot fulfil a contract, the public sector gives contractors every chance to get it right. The whole point is if a private contractor fails he goes to the wall and someone else comes in. Giving private contractors too much leeway means they take the piss. |
|
