Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    We spend less on school meals now, for example, than under Thatcher. The gap between rich and poor has grown. Child poverty is once again on the increase. Market forces into higher education, and the much hated academies.

    I will admit that school buildings are a lot bettee, no longer are kids being taught in mobiles with no roofs.
    It was Thatcher that got rid of school milk and it was Thatcher who sold out the contracts for school meals to private companies so the fact that they spend less is not the government's fault.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur303)
    It was Thatcher that got rid of school milk and it was Thatcher who sold out the contracts for school meals to private companies so the fact that they spend less is not the government's fault.
    No it's the councils' faut for giving 25 year contracts out. Kind of defeats the point of privatisation, doesn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    No it's the councils' faut for giving 25 year contracts out. Kind of defeats the point of privatisation, doesn't it?
    Yes that was a foolish decision. But then it was an equally foolish decision to sell the contracts out anyway, what happened is what invariably happens when companies are concerned, costs were cut in order to make a profit. Hence today the kids in schools are fed whatever cheap crap the companies can get their hands on in order to make a profit. Thatcher could have also introoduced legislation to prevent the councils from giving such long contracts in any event.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur303)
    Yes that was a foolish decision. But then it was an equally foolish decision to sell the contracts out anyway, what happened is what invariably happens when companies are concerned, costs were cut in order to make a profit. Hence today the kids in schools are fed whatever cheap crap the companies can get their hands on in order to make a profit. Thatcher could have also introoduced legislation to prevent the councils from giving such long contracts in any event.
    She didn't because noone knew someone could be that stupid.

    When privatisation works properly it achieves wonderful results. The council could have renewed the catering contract every year. This way the companies would have been forced to strike a balance between reducing costs and providing good food. If their service was not up to scratch they would not get the contract next year and thus ther would be a natural incentive to feed the school children well.

    You do not get this with public catering where the staff have no incentives whatsoever. They will get paid whatever happens, short of the kids getting salmonella. There is also no incentive to increase efficiency because public organisations do not have to worry about costs.

    As an example I would like to use the catering in NHS hospitals and private ones. The NHS food is cheap, nasty and probably not that healthy. In a private hospital on the other hand, you get fresh ingredients, well presented meals on clean cutlery. Do you see costs being cut in order to make a profit here?

    Right, I'm off to Tesco to buy bread... I'll reply to your reply in about 20 mins.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    She didn't because noone knew someone could be that stupid.

    When privatisation works properly it achieves wonderful results. The council could have renewed the catering contract every year. This way the companies would have been forced to strike a balance between reducing costs and providing good food. If their service was not up to scratch they would not get the contract next year and thus ther would be a natural incentive to feed the school children well.

    You do not get this with public catering where the staff have no incentives whatsoever. They will get paid whatever happens, short of the kids getting salmonella. There is also no incentive to increase efficiency because public organisations do not have to worry about costs.

    As an example I would like to use the catering in NHS hospitals and private ones. The NHS food is cheap, nasty and probably not that healthy. In a private hospital on the other hand, you get fresh ingredients, well presented meals on clean cutlery. Do you see costs being cut in order to make a profit here?

    Right, I'm off to Tesco to buy bread... I'll reply to your reply in about 20 mins.
    Just in the spirit of capitalism! Remember that private hospitals have generally very wealthy people coming in for treatment. The private hospitals have therefore more disposable money to spend on food. They can make a profit anyway because they charge so much. I agree there are instances of privatisation where it works well, BT for example. But there are many where it has produced terrible results. The railways for example should never have been sold off. With different companies controlling the track, trains, stations, maintenance etc its a complete mess with no central planning. This has led to the generally shambolic system we have today. And with respect surely as Prime Minister Thatcher would have had people to forsee what may happen with the school dinners and then taken steps to prevent it. If privatisation is to happen it must occur with great care and be appropriate. The railways is a classic example of where neither was the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur303)
    Just in the spirit of capitalism! Remember that private hospitals have generally very wealthy people coming in for treatment. The private hospitals have therefore more disposable money to spend on food. They can make a profit anyway because they charge so much. I agree there are instances of privatisation where it works well, BT for example. But there are many where it has produced terrible results. The railways for example should never have been sold off. With different companies controlling the track, trains, stations, maintenance etc its a complete mess with no central planning. This has led to the generally shambolic system we have today. And with respect surely as Prime Minister Thatcher would have had people to forsee what may happen with the school dinners and then taken steps to prevent it. If privatisation is to happen it must occur with great care and be appropriate. The railways is a classic example of where neither was the case.
    But private hospitals could make even more of a profit if they reduce costs dramatically. But they won't because their customers won't like teh reduction in servie quality. The same stands or private vatering in school. When done properly by people who know how contracts work, the companies won't reduce costs because it will decrease quality and lose them the contract.

    It is simply incredible that the souncils could have been so stupid as to give out 25 year contracts. Legislating against that would have been a little like legislating against them giving away the entire budget to a pidgeon.

    Yeah, the railways were mucked up. I don't know about this though... Anyone wanna help me out? Where's objectivism when you need him?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur303)
    Just in the spirit of capitalism! .
    Tesco rocks, now the proletariat can afford to get fat!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Tony Blair introduced running water and aquaducts, he also built roads and heated baths.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    a conservative supporting hra? - theres a first for everything.......
    It seems to fall to me to gatecrash the party and state that I disapprove of the HRA. It appears to me to be a work of political correctness and heralds the introduction of a compensation culture. That is why I oppose it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AMM)
    Tony Blair introduced running water and aquaducts, he also built roads and heated baths.
    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He's done a ***** load for child poverty.

    Minimum wage, welfare to work, children's tax credit and family tax credit etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well ok then, while more could be done, I am satisfied that he is alright.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Yeah, the railways were mucked up. I don't know about this though...
    The problem with the train system is that it is a natural monopoly. It is more or less impossible for it to be a success in privatisation terms as you would need two (or more) tracks running parallel on every route to allow two (or more) train companies to compete directly.

    It annoys me when those against privatisation use the trains as an example because it is the exception to the rule. Before privatisation British Rail was losing £1m a day at a cost to the taxpayer. Privatisation hasn't made the system worse in my opinion but it could never really succeed as much as other privatisation projects.

    Another problem, apart from the natural monoploy, is that there are still serious constraints on the private companies. The cost of train tickets are considerably below market price due to government restrictions. This is the reason trains are overcrowded and also why there isn't the necessary investment.

    It's kind of ironic that it is the natural monopoly of the railways - that means the competition that drives success in the private sector isn't there - creates the problems. If the advantage of this natural monopoly could be utilised - the market price could be charged - the train companies would have the money to invest and improve the system (although there still wouldn't be the incentive of competition).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John82)
    The problem with the train system is that it is a natural monopoly. It is more or less impossible for it to be a success in privatisation terms as you would need two (or more) tracks running parallel on every route to allow two (or more) train companies to compete directly.

    It annoys me when those against privatisation use the trains as an example because it is the exception to the rule. Before privatisation British Rail was losing £1m a day at a cost to the taxpayer. Privatisation hasn't made the system worse in my opinion but it could never really succeed as much as other privatisation projects.

    Another problem, apart from the natural monoploy, is that there are still serious constraints on the private companies. The cost of train tickets are considerably below market price due to government restrictions. This is the reason trains are overcrowded and also why there isn't the necessary investment.

    It's kind of ironic that it is the natural monopoly of the railways - that means the competition that drives success in the private sector isn't there - creates the problems. If the advantage of this natural monopoly could be utilised - the market price could be charged - the train companies would have the money to invest and improve the system (although there still wouldn't be the incentive of competition).
    There is always teh competition with other types of transport.. a competition that I suppose the railways cannot win because of the high cost of supporting the infrastructure. Perhaps just as teh canals were, railways are doomed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It was Thatcher that got rid of school milk and it was Thatcher who sold out the contracts for school meals to private companies so the fact that they spend less is not the government's fault.
    And it's New Labour who haven't done anything about it. It\s New Labour who have not renationalised rail. It is New Labour who has kept the Thatcherite trade union laws. It is New Labour...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It was Thatcher that got rid of school milk
    Good thing too, i should not have my money going to pay for someone's milk. People haven't been having free milk for decades but people arn't collapsing due to weak borns. Its unneccessary and a waste of money. If they must spend people's money spend it on books not milk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Good thing too, i should not have my money going to pay for someone's milk. People haven't been having free milk for decades but people arn't collapsing due to weak borns. Its unneccessary and a waste of money. If they must spend people's money spend it on books not milk.
    Well in that case, why should my money go to maintenance the roads?? I think we should all have our own private roads constructed so no-one else has to have the inconvenience of having to pay for them. Anyone who can't afford to have their own private road can walk. But not on one of my private pavements that is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blur303)
    Well in that case, why should my money go to maintenance the roads?? I think we should all have our own private roads constructed so no-one else has to have the inconvenience of having to pay for them. Anyone who can't afford to have their own private road can walk. But not on one of my private pavements that is.
    Firstly your example is wrong, given that roads are infrastructure without them all suffer as they are needed for the economy, free milk is not as i have pointed out. Also there is a case for private roads

    http://www.lp.org/lpn/9801-highways.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    People haven't been having free milk for decades but people arn't collapsing due to weak borns.
    So you don't think that there is an issue of malnutrition amongst the poorest children in society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Firstly your example is wrong, given that roads are infrastructure without them all suffer as they are needed for the economy, free milk is not as i have pointed out. Also there is a case for private roads

    http://www.lp.org/lpn/9801-highways.html

    Without a healthy child population the country's economy will one day stagnate. Someone has already pointed out there is a massive malnutrition problem in the children today, particularly with the poorer kids. These kids may not get milk at home, instead only cheaper soft drinks. Surely even you can't be opposed to giving some of these kids a healthy diet. Oh no I forgot, you couldn't care less about everyone else as long as the wealthy elite is prospering. I suppose you would like your own private road, keep the poor unruly masses away I suppose.
 
 
 

1,616

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.