Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour leadership: Owen Smith wants 'new industrial revolution' watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why should health and education be given to the free market but not defence? Is it not in the state's interests to ensure we have a good education and can get treatment, which are both also fiscal multipliers?
    Private Health and Education can be more effective, especially seen in education however that doesn't mean the state shouldn't control the sector. The state still dominates the Health and Education sectors, G4S is a private run company in a state controlled industry, G4S has had its problems but it's helped the state in areas it was struggling in. The free market simply won't provide national defence because it's not profitable, it's GCSE economics mate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why should health and education be given to the free market but not defence? Is it not in the state's interests to ensure we have a good education and can get treatment, which are both also fiscal multipliers?
    Look at the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, they both were highly successful powers of their times that subsequently went down the *****er when they started relying on mercenaries rather that homegrown(and therefore loyal and committed) troops.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    "Corbyn may not be very organised, a slick operator or a conventional leader, but he is definitely not in the game for himself." haha you you said he'll do all he can to combat inequality but yet lacks these basics skills, he won't get far. It's all attractive and stuff to be different and not fit the mold but guess what?? most politicians have this mold because it's called "professionalism" they advertise themselves to fit the job. You cannot be unorganised, slickly operative and not be able to lead whilst living in Number 10 and running the UK.
    At least he would be running it for us and not himself. Can't see the point of having the most professional person in the world if they don't act in our interests.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    At least he would be running it for us and not himself. Can't see the point of having the most professional person in the world if they don't act in our interests.
    No, he wouldn't be able to run anything. That's the bottom line. His intentions may be in a good place but what's the point in that when you can't do anything or get anywhere. You're actually delusional it's unbelievable. Do you know why Gordon brown lost in 2010? Becuase people thought he was going left, do you know why Miliband lost even more seats? Becuase he went even more left. Corbyn's extreme left clearly won't satisfy the majority of the electorate who are right wing and centrists. He can't even gain support from the centre-left or the left. His only support is from the militant left. I can't see the point in a person who says he'll act for the people if he can't even get into office.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Privatisation? Let the free market do its thing?
    Why is the state better at owning and controlling our defense systems than the free market?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This assumes there is a profit to be made in defense. This isn't necessarily the case.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I looked it up and I calculate the medieval state (1320s, Edward II) was around 1% of GDP. The only services it really provided was the exchequer, the courts and the sheriffs.

    Would you advocate still smaller?
    Yes, indeed. You are attempting to compare two very different types of governments, operating in two very different periods in history.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This assumes there is a profit to be made in defense. This isn't necessarily the case.
    The point I was trying to get across was that you admit in some areas, the state is better than the free market. I think similar arguments can be made for transport, health and education where a lack of profit motive can mean a better service is produced. I'm sure we could find a way to make a profit in defense if we wanted, say through sponsorship or outsourcing. But just because a profit can be made, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should.

    I believe that in many areas the free market is better, but in many others the state is better.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The point I was trying to get across was that you admit in some areas, the state is better than the free market. I think similar arguments can be made for transport, health and education where a lack of profit motive can mean a better service is produced.

    I believe that in many areas the free market is better, but in many others the state is better.
    I do not admit that the state is better at it; I am stating that the alternative is not possible, as the private sector will only get involved if there is a profit to be made.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I do not admit that the state is better at it; I am stating that the alternative is not possible, as the private sector will only get involved if there is a profit to be made.
    There could be an alternative though, you could allow for sponsorship or the outsourcing of contracts like we have done with the NHS or Prisons, or academies.

    So why don't we privatize defence?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    the state is better than the free market. I think similar arguments can be made for transport, health and education where a lack of profit motive can mean a better service is produced.
    Would you like to explain how, if the state is so much better at education, the private sector has the reputation for being better and turns out better exam results, even in areas where selective state schools are allowed?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Can labour just let the adults handle the current situation please
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Would you like to explain how, if the state is so much better at education, the private sector has the reputation for being better and turns out better exam results, even in areas where selective state schools are allowed?
    You've missed the point.

    I wasn't talking about private schools, which only a few can afford. I was talking about the increased private involvement in state schools through academisation which takes local schools out the hands of elected local authorities and into the control of private academy chains.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There could be an alternative though, you could allow for sponsorship or the outsourcing of contracts like we have done with the NHS or Prisons, or academies.

    So why don't we privatize defence?
    Outsourcing contracts to third parties does not change the fact that the decision-making power remains in the government's hands. Privatising would require decisions to be dictated by the free market.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There could be an alternative though, you could allow for sponsorship or the outsourcing of contracts like we have done with the NHS or Prisons, or academies.

    So why don't we privatize defence?
    The decision-making is still done by the government. Privatising would require this to be done by the free market.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There could be an alternative though, you could allow for sponsorship or the outsourcing of contracts like we have done with the NHS or Prisons, or academies.

    So why don't we privatize defence?
    The decision-making is still done by the government. Privatising would require this to be done by the free market.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You've missed the point.

    I wasn't talking about private schools, which only a few can afford. I was talking about the increased private involvement in state schools through academisation which takes local schools out the hands of elected local authorities and into the control of private academy chains.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You have missed the point. Academisation gives privately-managed education (which is proven to be better state-managed education) without fees. What is not to like?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You have missed the point. Academisation gives privately-managed education (which is proven to be better state-managed education) without fees. What is not to like?
    The fact that academisation doesn't improve performance. The fact that it allows money to be leached out the education system and given to the private academy chain officials.


    Where is your evidence that it improves performance?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The decision-making is still done by the government. Privatising would require this to be done by the free market.
    Why can't we do the same with defense and allow private contractors?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Yes, indeed. You are attempting to compare two very different types of governments, operating in two very different periods in history.
    It's a valid comparison insofar as the only "services" the medieval state provided was the court system and the sheriffs. I'm guessing we could provide that now with a comparable proportion of GDP (less than 1%).

    Would you approve of that level of government spending and service provision?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The decision-making is still done by the government. Privatising would require this to be done by the free market.
    No it doesn't. The government as the client gives the orders, the contractors obey. You could even enact a law putting the private armies contracted to provide defence services under a form of chain of command.

    So why not do it? Or do you accept that this (like other areas) is something that really only government can do, and that only the state can really be trusted to do it?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why can't we do the same with defense and allow private contractors?
    Indeed. There's no reason the government couldn't, in theory, contract out everything while still retaining operational control as the "client". Hell, why not go further and just outsource our intelligence services completely?

    Of course in reality even uber-libertarians concede that there are some things that only the state can really be trusted to do. And in making that concession, they admit that the self-interest of the profit motive and director's obligations to shareholders is inconsistent with, or even repugnant to, the conduct of core state functions if they are to be conducted safely, properly, with integrity, and so on.

    There's no question that sometimes you have misconduct in government/military/intelligence services. But it is typically where you have a bad apple or where they are doing something bad which they believe is in the country's best interests. You wouldn't have, for example, the management of MI6 sell out to a rival foreign service one of their own case officers working in the field simply because they calculated it was a good deal financially. Ultimately the same concept has to be applied to healthcare and education imho, though to a different degree
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.