Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would we be better off? OR WORSE?!
public spending would be less....economy would crash and London will crumble and the world will blow up
That's the conclusion I came to, but by a different route
are you including the Government abolishing itself in this?
Is it instantaneous or phased in?
every public service is auctioned out, if theres no buyer it simply ceases
civil war & mass emigration would ensue
Sheik Mansour would buy the Navy
Murdoch would buy the Met ... OH, HE ALREADY HAS!!!!!
plus in addition people who need the dhss will have to become feral and live from day to day. For the more able bodied of them this might entail preying on those with jobs/resource, luckily for them there will not be a police force to protect all of those with jobs/resource.....of course the very rich will hire private security which will mean that the feral preditors will have to target the not very well off.
Then there is the difficult question of how to keep the redundant soldiers occupied....If they are not snaffled up by private security firms but were just laid off, the If I were them I would try to keep some weaponary with which to prey on those with resources more easily, perhaps even giving them a shot at the very rich as prey.
you know that sort of thing. :D
it would speed all of that up.
I was jsut giving the man some detail...some people need example details of why it will all blow up
the downfall of civilisation
This works for everyone's suggestion. This is it, Jordan_229_2, look what you've done
Nice Dave, circa 2009
Well I'm glad thats all cleared up.
You're too patronising like the time I asked if I was a civil servant was and you was like 'pah! If you have to ask if you're a civil servant then you're obviously not one'
Private sector jobs are only done by hard-working individuals because any wasters or chancers are immediately found out and sacked so they can work in the public sector.
Are you saying I'm a waster?
Do you do a job like be a teacher? Or run a government department? Are you a police officer or work for the fire service? Or do you help charities or work in the NHS?
If not you're probably in the private sector and, as such, not a waster or chancer.
What absolute wasters.
and you're clear.
Although there are various forms of public ownership and tax-based funding. But yeah.
Common usage seems to be shifting to state and private education, I reckon.
basically, the public sector are jobs which are fully or partly funded by the government, and they provide services rather than products: schools, hospitals, councils, universities, local councils etc etc
Private sector is most other things: businesses, factories, shops etc etc. But it's been more blurred since the 'privatisation' of the 1980s when many public services were sold off to private companies: energy companies, railways etc.
Charities often call themselves the 'third sector', because although they're essentially businesses, they're not-for-profit and they work to provide help to the public.
This is all I needed to know. I really wasn't sure what it all meant. Thanks!
It's basically CG's PowerPoint presentation without the pictures.
The only way I knew how to vote yes or no to AV was because of some cat youtube video on it. If only they did one on how to actually mark the ballot papers....
And I'm glad that someone gave you a sensible, plain english answer.
And I'm glad that you now feel more confident about what the terms mean.
But I'm scared/worried/suprised/etc that you had to ask in the first place. Not a dig at you personally. Just a general feeling of... wowzers.
I hope it's the kind of thing which is taught now in Citizenship lessons.
It's more about teaching you where to go to for various services and what sort of society we aspire to be.
those things are useful too, but it would be good to teach people things you need to know as a grown-up: what they're talking about on the news, how to manage a household budget etc.
The citizenship test is more concerned with three things.
First it makes sure you weren't lying when you claimed you had an EL3 (or whatever) level of understanding because while the book and test couch things as multiple choice, the exam rephrases them in higher level English.
Second it emphasises things that (I presume) they feel are maybe less familiar to where most immigrants who take this test will come from, e.g. about when various groups in society got the right to vote, the right to divorce and Britain's history of welcoming oppressed people. (So yes, a fair amount of propaganda/aspiration.)
Third where you go with issues/problems, emphasising that you don't go to A&E with just any complaint and that there are various Council departments you speak to about social complaints rather than wasting police time with stuff that's a civil matter.
at school! Now part of the National Curriculum!
I didn't realise they were doing those.
THAT'S where they should teach people this stuff.
although I imagine that they end up focusing on drugs/contraception/things teenagers are more interested in, so may miss out discussing things like pensions. Hopefully schools will be discussing today's strike this week though.
but some people just aren't into that kind of stuff and don't want to sit on the internet for hours reading the guardian so I think its best I just ask questions when I don't understand what something means otherwise how else will I ever know? Did you know a lot about this stuff when you were 23? or did you take more of an interest in it as you got older and things started affecting you?
Its just not something I know and as it gets discussed a lot on here and there seem to be a lot of people that know what they're talking about/have good opinions, I think they're the best people to ask.
When I was at school (an inner London comprehensive) Thatcher was in power and you would have had a hard time avoid politics. The teachers were intensely political. We had the GLC being shut down for making life easier for working class people (that's a fact basically) along with ILEA going out too (which was there to make sure all schools in London had access to stuff that they weren't necessarily in a position to afford based on their Council's level of wealth).
We also still believed that politicians had a certain integrity, which I think by and large they actually did. Kinnock and Thatcher, regardless of what you think of their politics, were at least politicians who seemed to put policies and ideologies first. It's hard not to care in those environments.
Well the problem is that he's just cutting for the sake of it. It's an ideology he has any faith in or thought about, it's an old one that Tories had from years ago that he's dusted off and tried to apply to an economic situation that is unlike anything else. And he's only done it because he thinks it's what will win him most votes.
Do you actually know all that?
Because I'm not sure I can back your policy 100%!
And to answer your question, I don't know it, but it feels very much like we have a government right now with policies that are completely failing to work how they predicted. And moreover, you don't know if I'm wrong either.
As I said, it's not a personal dig. And I don't look down on people for not knowing stuff. Especially when they're prepared to ask questions. Like you did. Inquisitiveness FTW. It's just a bit of a jolt when I'm reminded that some stuff that I take for granted as being known is completely 100% outside of some peoples' sphere of knowledge. Everyone knows stuff other people don't know, though, so it happens in reverse, too.
To answer your Q, I defo knew the basics of the public/private split at 23. Most probably at 13, too - I remember asking why public schools are private at quite a young age - maybe it sprung from there. Still don't know how to bake a cake though (without following a recipe word for word) or knit properly (I can do a bit if someone casts on). And cake and scarves are much better than flaky old blokes arguing with each other, when all is said and done. So who's the big winner now?
so probably me.
this will work fine.
Get going, scientists.
Newcastle would eat the rest of the country by volume of muscles alone
sounds pretty marxist. so that's good i think.
it was amazing
don't worry, theo's just being theo. you have more important spelling issues.
But, y'know, if I or most other people on this site (being British) had written 'defence' then he'd not have picked it up.
As it is he didn't pick up this anyway: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4312127#r6429964
(Spelling is important. I'm sad you don't believe in that.)
less important than your point about a theoretical situation in this country?
P.S. I am learning about Wordpress themes at the moment.
We would be like one of those failed states, everything would fall apart, criminal gangs would rule by brute force
residents of Surrey would choke on their own froth at having no one to complain too about minor matters