We pay taxes, and we get a service in return, you may quibble about the quality or value for money you get from that service, but to compare it to work-dodging dole collection is unreasonable.--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
Ditto the percentage who are incompetent. Trouble is, incompetence will always exist.
* Except in cases of "state capitalism" noted by Theo below.
Q: How many socialists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.
Anyway, the comment may have been triggered in part by having done work for about a dozen or so public organizations over the past few years, which, once we got a look into what they were actually doing, none them seemed to be doing anything remotely useful. But everyone working there all had great benefits, excellent downtown offices, better job security than one can usually expect in the real world, etc.
It's one thing to read abstract ideological arguments for large public sector, it's another to actually see where the money is actually going and how it's being used (or wasted.)
Still, I'm not calling for the abolishment public health care or homeless shelters.
Now I'm normally in favour of reducing the size of the state apparatus. If you remember
my manifesto I wanted to shut down the DWP
entirely and privatize all but a rump of the NHS.
But the comparisons in that article seem a bit odd. It's comparing particular regions
to entire nations like Hungary and Slovakia. But a more useful comparison would be
to how the state-dependent regions of the UK compare to state-dependent regions in
other countries. Or, how the overall state-dependence of the UK compares to other nations.
The fact they don't bother quoting any overall figures for the size of the UK state sector,
suggests to me they're trying to be scary.
For instance, it would be handy to know if, corresponding with the UK regions with
exceptionally large state sectors, there are some regions with exceptionally small
state sectors, averaging out to a fairly normal-sized state sector.
I'd also be quite interested in the methodology. One of the things that concerns me
most about recent UK spending is the intertwining of the govermment with big business
into a kind of state capitalism, more like Mussolini's Corporatism than a free market.
So for the NHS, the state increasingly delivers services by outsourcing them to private
companies. With PFI, private capital finances development for the state. So how has
that study tried to disentangle them?
Finally, both Conservative and Labour governments, over a long period, have made a
conscious effort to move state bureaucracies away from the capital and into the provinces,
to boost employment there. As far as I know, most other countries don't do this very much.
So I'm wondering if that could be responsible, and if it's such a bad thing compared
with the alternatives.--It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
Remember that the "Soviet Britain" article is judging the relative influence of the state by money spent, not by number of jobs.
I know you like the theory that Labour is creating a vast army of Labour-voting non-jobs, but I'm not seeing a lot of actual evidence towards it.
The rest of the UK would probably be better off forgetting London and just getting its finance from Frankfurt instead.--It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?