Yeah, but, yeah, but

None of these facts hold true in the case of public services. The possibility of failure cannot be comprehended in those services. To even consider adopting that mentality is wrong. It was wrong when train operators walked away from their franchises and hospital contracts. It will be wrong in every other circumstance where it might arise and the alternative option of state supply has been removed by the abandonment of appropriate skills to provide the services within the state sector.

But what if state provision does fail? Like, say, Islington child care services did?

It’s no good saying “we cannot let State services fail” when we have any number of cases we can point to and say “State services failed there”.

Is it?

28 thoughts on “Yeah, but, yeah, but”

  1. “The possibility of failure cannot be comprehended in those services.”

    That’s amusing. There are many, many things that the public sector does not comprehend, but “failure” is not one of them!

  2. “But what if state provision does fail? Like, say, Islington child care services did?”

    Simple: you impune the integrity of the whistle-blower, start legal proceedings against them, rubbish their claims, blame the victims, shred the documentary evidence. And when a bit of time has passed, you reinvent yourself as scourge of corporate parasites, failing to mention your own little issue regarding that anstalt.

    Surprised you needed to ask really Tim.

  3. It doesn’t matter what shit Murphy says as when you expose what shit it is he simply says that isn’t what he meant.

    Like the crap about paying workers enough to buy the companies products being essential for success. When its comprehensively demonstrated that this is bollocks he first splutters a bit then wriggles around then claims he mean success more widely for society than for the business itself….

    Utter twat.

  4. The man’s a complete wanker:

    “Why on earth would they be referred to the competition commission?

    They are responding to what actions they would take if costs (in this case labour) were to increase.

    This is no different to how any business would respond to an increase in costs, whether it be raw materials, admin, transportation, whatever.

    There will be some combination of increased prices, attempts to increase productivity, reduce other costs or accept lower margin.

    The distribution of these effects will depend on the specifics of the business and the industry, but it is certainly not something that the competition commission would be involved in.

    Richard Murphy says:
    September 11 2015 at 6:09 am
    If a company can pass on cost without constraint then the market has failed

    In that case the condition of monopoly exist

    In which case a Competition Commission enquiry might be reasonable

    This is rather basic economics”

  5. I see there was a post he allowed congratulating him on his professorship from a Peter Sutcliffe.

    His capacity to be rational evaporates with a bit of simple ego-stroking, doesn’t it?

  6. AndrewC:

    That thread is priceless. From the original blog:

    “paying people enough so that they can afford to buy the products business wants to sell is the most basic pre-condition of success?”

    A short time later:

    “I would never say it was the condition of business success”

  7. The ‘logic’ of the entire post, which is written in his usual stultifying and grammatically challenging prose is that the State should effectively run all public services and all private sector involvement should cease. By this logic one should look at nationalising supermarkets, agriculture, ports and god know what else.

    Oddly even the Courageous State, facing potential famine and crippling shortages of goods has allowed some private markets within its borders – despite them being mostly in line with Murphy’s thoughts on this.

    It’s as though the last 4 decades never happened – I know several on this site have postulated some deep mental trauma that the guy has suffered. It does beg the question

    ‘He can’t be this stupid – can he?’

  8. Consider the possibility that Islington child care services didn’t fail but achieved exactly what those in power wanted.

  9. Ask a leftie to define “public service” and they won’t. Because at the end of the day anything used by people could conceivably be a public service. If they admit that then they out themselves as an all out commie.

  10. Dongguan John

    He’s definitely got my number so can’t take credit – all of Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi and Isaac Zelensky have failed moderation – am heading back to the drawing board to try and get some more ‘Courageous State supporters’ into the comments….

  11. Is it just me, or is the spectacle of Howard Reed.and Richard Murphy having g Ernest discussions on Sinn Fein’s tax policies whilst that party is being implicated in murder just a little bit sickening?

  12. Ironman

    You know both of these have always been comfortable with the concept of judicious use of execution as a tool of public policy if those targets are ‘deserving’ – but I agree, nauseating doesn’t begin to cover it – I wonder what the dreadful Carol Willcox makes of it all? Makes me nostalgic for Ivan Horrocks…..

  13. Ironman:

    No, not just you.

    I’ll be honest, I’ve never looked at Sinn Fein policies (the support for murderers put me off them just a little). I thought that they were Marxists?

  14. GlenDorran

    Your understanding wasn’t wrong. Ritchie himself today commented that it is a party of the left but lamented that people “ignore that”. One wonders why.

  15. Van Patten

    I’m wondering why Andrew.Dickiw hasn’t been on to laud Sinn Fein’s contribution to humanity. Sure, they haven’t built tractors like Stalin did, but they have built rockets…sort of.

  16. Ironman:

    “the fact (long ignored) that it is a party on the left of politics that has presented anti-austerity programmes.”

    That is unbelievable. To think that people have overlooked their income tax policies and are more concerned about Adams and McGuinness being, at best, apologists for murder.

    He’s falling in to step with Corbyn on almost everything now. Next step: Hamas aren’t so bad and are anti-austerity?

  17. Some more vintage Murphy:

    Roger Morbeck says: September 9 2015 at 6:49 pm:

    I have no problem with some redistribution, Richard, but I think the goal should be to ‘maximise the minimum’, not ‘minimise the maximum’. I want the best deal for those at the bottom of the heap; but I don’t want to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

    Reply Richard Murphy says: September 9 2015 at 9:54 pm:

    The geese are not laying golden eggs They’re cuckoos –

  18. “A relentless self-promoter, Murphy clearly enjoys the limelight,”

    Even Guardian writers, dying to love him, find his self-adoration too much. Sit tight, he is about to become one of the great figures.of fun for the press. Fly Icarus, fly high.

  19. “It was wrong when train operators walked away from their franchises and hospital contracts”

    How many hospital contracts were being run by train operators?

  20. GlenDorran

    Not a word about reserves or convertibility. Is the word you use ‘Barmpots’? (I really don’t know the word but think it goes something like that. Either way, there it!)

  21. There are 4.1 million registered voters in Scotland. £250 x 4.1 million is, oh, difficult arithmetic, a bit over a billion quid.

    1. Where’s the effing money coming from?

    2. To generate a £S15 million annual surplus? 1.5%? I a bound to massively deprecate currency*? You’d be better off sticking it in the bank.

    3. When did “not economics frankly” give up on the pretentious e e cummings dickheadery?

    * they’ve got the old pound scots historically accurate, at least.

  22. Surreptitious Evil

    “Where’s the effing money coming from?”

    The idea that an issuing bank needs reserves is a neoliberal myth. You are a neoliberal troll.

  23. Ironman,

    Yes, I know I am at least a liberal troll – hence the nym.

    Whether I am a “neoliberal” one depends on the definition of ‘neoliberal’ that the leftie is using. If it is the usual, “Pepul I hatz” meme, then I’m happy to subscribe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *