The idiot left-winger is trying to throw the election!

#2
'Under Tory plans, employee-owned co-operatives would be able to decide on management structures, "innovate" to cut costs and improve the standard of service'
In other words do the jobs of the managers, who are paid to do that bit.

'and share any financial surpluses among the staff'
This must be a mis-print.....

Edited to add... This really shows up one of the key problems of politics today ie everyone is trying to be the same. Whatever happened to the good old days when the tories were tories and the labourites were neo-commies? You knew where you stood.

Eveyone suffers from 'initiative-itis'. Just run the country properly without trying to be clever ffs.
 
#3
Bazzinho1977 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8515949.stm

I mean it is one thing to start bleating on about co-operatives and workers rights - and ignoring the fact that the public sector workers would rip the place to pieces to make themselves richer.

But to then suggest, after a global recession based on too many people believing they could own their own home, that RTB was a positive revolution?

Madness
Didn't "call me Dave" once say he "admired Blair"? :?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
This is absolutely moronic. Where's a decent Tory party when you need one?
 
#5
In his speech, he sought to reach out to disillusioned Labour and Lib Dem voters who had never voted Tory before, telling them: "We are not the same old Conservative Party. We are the party of the mainstream majority in our country."
Reminds me of a bit of rebranding in 1997 - 'New Labour', and we all know how well that worked out.
 
#6
because maggie won changed the political landscape so blair was following in her footsteps.
people don't want radical ideas they want competant management "which is about as likely in westminster as drunk in mecca :D
 
#7
seaweed said:
This is absolutely moronic. Where's a decent Tory party when you need one?
I would be genuinely interested if you would list the top five issues a decent tory party would address. It would help if you could say why you feel they would be vote winners, rather than scare away floating voters. Not a wind up a genuine request.
 
#8
seaweed said:
This is absolutely moronic. Where's a decent Tory party when you need one?
I've been wondering the same thing. I've never felt I could trust Cameron - too Blairish - and some of the ideas being floated at the moment are frankly worrying. I really don't know how to vote at the General Election - I like my Conservative PPC and think he will be a genuinely hard-working MP, but the Conservatives as a whole are certainly 'least worst' rather than most favoured choice.

I genuinely wish I could feel passionately about the Conservative Party, given my absolute (and well-earned) loathing of The Labour Party, but I can't. In all honesty, I worry about the future of the country in the hands of any of the parties touting for votes.
 
#9
Sounds like the Boy Osbourne has been taking the wrong Meds. We don't want another woolly minded, Pseudo-Marxist thinking coming from the Tory Party. Cameroony really wants to get a hard grip on his Shadow Cabinet.

Osbourne sounds like he is more than a little confused..... maybe he should resign and let somebody in the Conservative Party into the post who knows what they are talking about.....

Get a grip Dave..... you have only weeks to go before McBalloon b*ggers off into the Dumpster of History............ 8O
 
#10
Cameron is aping Blair who aped Hitler. Both Blair and Hitler used personal popularism as a means to party progression. Hitler was a great believer in giving the crown what it wanted. He had the Versailles Agreement to unite his audience, he had the the 'culprits' (whipping boys) to unite people against and, because he made a point of being all things to all men he was able to attract very diverse sections of the country. Blair had the sleaze of the Major incumbency to unite the country and polarise them and he used the same tactics of popularism and being all things to all men. Blair spelled out no major policies in the run up to the election, even his manifesto was a masterpiece of 'in the eye of the beholder interpretation' you could make of it what you wanted, there was plenty of everything in there for everyone and because the phraseology was so loose you could nearly always see a perceived advantage. He started his career not by fleshing out major policy but by packing No 10 with all the b, c & d list celebs he could talk into going there to give everyone the message, "I'm young and trendy and liked by the people you like so I must be great."
Cameron should stand up for what he believes in and be a strong leader. Blair came out with that cock about going in to Iraq with or without the mandate because it makes him look charismatic and a strong leader ready to make the tough decisions and save the world rather than the weak publicity seeker who wanted to court the Americans and because he'd seen what the Falklands and GW1 did for the Tories and thought he'd get more of the same. Hard times need strong decisive leaders from the front not shallow publicity seekers or burned out prematurely senile puppets for corrupt disgraced ministers.
 
#11
Mr Cameron said: "I know that there are millions of public sector workers, that work in our public services. and who frankly today feel demoralised, feel disrespected, feel a lack of recognition.

"We will not only get rid of those targets and that bureaucracy that drives you so mad, we will give you the power in a way that is as radical as the right to buy your council home."
To be honest, this doesnt sound like that bad an idea!

I think it will have two main effects:

1. Kill off middle managers.
2. Improve productivity.

Both of which are the bane of the modern Public sector.

But of course, the detail is missing on how exactly it will work, and the detail is where this will succeed or fail.
 
#12
seaweed said:
This is absolutely moronic. Where's a decent Tory party when you need one?
Look behind you. It's back in the 1960s where the party left it.
 
#13
I haven't thought this through, so it's a knee-jerk reaction. As a socialist, I think workers' co-operatives are a wonderful alternative to capitalist businesses, but my initial reactions are thus:

1) So there is no question of the armed forces becoming workers' co-operatives?

2) It might be a good idea for health services, but has the NHS not been fcuked up already by being tied into ridiculously expensive PFI contracts. Would the workers' co-operatives have to take on that ridiculous burden?

EDIT: Have just (partially :roll: ) engaged brain and had a "flash of the blindingly obvious" that, instead of being publicly-owned (non profit-making), they are suggesting that, in addition to ones salary, the workers co-operative might be encouraged to try to make a profit from providing the service. :omfg: As if the PFI (Profit From Illness) was sufficiently scandalous. :omg:
 
#14
Majorpain said:
Mr Cameron said: "I know that there are millions of public sector workers, that work in our public services. and who frankly today feel demoralised, feel disrespected, feel a lack of recognition.

"We will not only get rid of those targets and that bureaucracy that drives you so mad, we will give you the power in a way that is as radical as the right to buy your council home."
To be honest, this doesnt sound like that bad an idea!

I think it will have two main effects:

1. Kill off middle managers.
2. Improve productivity.

Both of which are the bane of the modern Public sector.

But of course, the detail is missing on how exactly it will work, and the detail is where this will succeed or fail.
But by killing off middle managers they will end up with nurses being compliance and H&S officers instead of nursing. So simply replace one lot of middle managers with another.

I have some experience of trying to rip out these "middle managers" and "interfering accountants". Most of them are working bloody hard doing difficult jobs but give a nice easy target.

No amount of calling them a co-operative is going to protect these organisations from complying with relevant workplace legislation, for example.
 
#15
Bazzinho1977 said:
Majorpain said:
Mr Cameron said: "I know that there are millions of public sector workers, that work in our public services. and who frankly today feel demoralised, feel disrespected, feel a lack of recognition.

"We will not only get rid of those targets and that bureaucracy that drives you so mad, we will give you the power in a way that is as radical as the right to buy your council home."
To be honest, this doesnt sound like that bad an idea!

I think it will have two main effects:

1. Kill off middle managers.
2. Improve productivity.

Both of which are the bane of the modern Public sector.

But of course, the detail is missing on how exactly it will work, and the detail is where this will succeed or fail.
But by killing off middle managers they will end up with nurses being compliance and H&S officers instead of nursing. So simply replace one lot of middle managers with another.

I have some experience of trying to rip out these "middle managers" and "interfering accountants". Most of them are working bloody hard doing difficult jobs but give a nice easy target.

No amount of calling them a co-operative is going to protect these organisations from complying with relevant workplace legislation, for example.
and the workers will start looking to recruit a layer below them to take on the jobs they don't like doing so then the original workers become............oh yes, middle managers.
 
#16
Lets not forget the people who will need to be recruited to administer these "co-operatives", yes they will be judged on the standards (Ofsted etc), but now we will need to recruit more staff to check on the co-operatives to ensure they are delivering per KPI, SLA and contract.

This is not a good idea! Another wooly idea from that idiot Osborne. Maybe he should stick to formulating some economic policies, rather than flailing around on dumb ideas like this.
 
#17
Bazzinho1977 said:
But by killing off middle managers they will end up with nurses being compliance and H&S officers instead of nursing. So simply replace one lot of middle managers with another.
That had already become pretty much the case when I left NHS nursing in 2003.
 
#18
Majorpain said:
David Cameron said:
"We will not only get rid of those targets and that bureaucracy that drives you so mad, we will give you the power in a way that is as radical as the right to buy your council home."
To be honest, this doesnt sound like that bad an idea!

I think it will have two main effects:

1. Kill off middle managers.
2. Improve productivity.

Both of which are the bane of the modern Public sector.

But of course, the detail is missing on how exactly it will work, and the detail is where this will succeed or fail.
Unfortunately you're living in a dreamworld.

Every time there's an election, the easiest thing in the world is for the parties to stand on a platform of "cutting red tape", getting rid of bureaucracy and scything out layers of middle management. But they never ever deliver. It's the oldest election trick in the book and it's designed to appeal to people who are a bit thick.

It doesn't matter who you vote for - the government always gets in.
 
#19
The lurch towards Marxism by Labour in the 1980s and the lurch to the right by the Tories under Hague and Howard proved one thing above all else. Most UK voters abhor the very notion of political extremism. Move away from the centre ground and may keep the frothing at the mouth wing of your party happy, but you'll alienate the people whose votes you need.

At the 1997 Labour conference, there were loud calls for a return to 'traditional' Labour policies now that the party was in power. Blair's response was 'Your choice is not between the Labour government you've got and the Labour government of your dreams. Your choice is between the Labour government you've got and a Tory government.' IMHO Dave is doing well to heed that bit of Blair wisdom.

Don't have any delusions about the task before the Tories. To get even a one seat majority, Dave will very nearly need to pull off the biggest swing in Britain's electoral history. In 1997, Tony's record breaking landslide delivered 253 more MPs than the Tories on the back of 13% more votes. The 2005 election gave him 80% more seats on the back of 3% more votes.

The polls currently predict a 10% lead for the Tories. That's only 3% less than Tony's 1997 landslide but it'll yield a hung Parliament for the Tories instead of a majority measured in the hundreds. Until Dave can sign the lease on No 10 and address the outrageous gerrymandering that has taken place over the last 13 years, he's going to have to fight tooth and nail for every vote he can get.

In addition to that hurdle, Dave is facing the rump of the finest propaganda machine since Dr Goebbels walked into the Reich Chancellery. Bad Al and Co are taking messages like 'Tories will give you cancer' and making people believe them. Although they've got more money, The Tory spin machine isn't in the same league.

This week, the Tories are trying to attract disenchanted, middle class Labour voters. Well meaning, Islington tofu munchers who thought they'd be effortlessly saving the world by paying a few pennies more in tax are seeing Gordon grab over 100% of their income while parts of Britain join the third world instead of saving it. Now that they're having to pull little Winnie and Nelson out of St Goodchilds and put them into, gulp, state schools, they're thinking twice about who to vote for.

Dave's trying to be all things to all men - but he has to be in order to prise Gordon's fingers from the levers of power.
 
#20
railtrack got rid of all its middle managers that worked well :( for awhile untill the brown stuff hit the fan and then it was discovered all the unprofitable stuff and old fashioned stuff kept the railways working :(

nice lot of money to be made running co-op management companies :twisted:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads