Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All utilities and industries that are critical to the national interest (naval ship maintenance, military aircraft maintenance ordinance production, storage and maintenance should be publicly owned and funded, roads, rail, air-transport infrastructure (commercial airports and air traffic control)) Police, prisons, coastguard and border control services and all official ports of entry to the UK. I also believe that there should be a publicly owned (not for profit) bank offering basic banking and insurance services, so that all citizens have a viable option of not entrusting their financial well-being to commercial banks that have a track record of defrauding lenders and depositors."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So to break off from brexit, or try to... What services and/or utilities do you think should be tax psyer funded, and what should be private, private as in no gov sponsorship or handouts - run fully on free market competition. Are there any services which should at their core public, but with additional services contacted through private means?" Core services and utilities “should” be in public ownership but, our current system of government would have to fundamentally change to stop Govt controlled entities from becoming political pawns. Take a look at the way that the NHS is played with, depending on the particular Govt that is in power - imagine that replicated... The NHS and any other public owned entities should be responsible to, but remote from the sitting Govt and have funding and organisation delegated to an entity that cannot be manipulated at the whim of the sitting Govt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Essential services should by and large be state owned and managed - health, public infrastructure such as roads, railways, power generation and supply, public transportation, water, environmental health and food standards etc. " I agree with all of this but how do you do this and ensure it keeps up to speed with demand and changing technology, whilst not being a huge administrative jugrnaught and cost on the tax payer. Obviously I understand that state run services will cost heavily, and that beauraucracy is needed to manage complex systems, but are there more efficient ways to do this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Essential services should by and large be state owned and managed - health, public infrastructure such as roads, railways, power generation and supply, public transportation, water, environmental health and food standards etc. " Due to my location I manage my own water & sewer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously I understand that state run services will cost heavily, and that beauraucracy is needed to manage complex systems, but are there more efficient ways to do this?" outsource these services by paying carillion multi-billions to run them, then pay another load of multi-billions to clean up the mess after they collapse and leg it with tax-payers dosh ... simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Essential services should by and large be state owned and managed - health, public infrastructure such as roads, railways, power generation and supply, public transportation, water, environmental health and food standards etc. Due to my location I manage my own water & sewer " We get it you live in one of the last few bits of near wilderness left in britain... Kind of on about how to manage essential services for the vast majority of the urban and sub-urban population | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously I understand that state run services will cost heavily, and that beauraucracy is needed to manage complex systems, but are there more efficient ways to do this? outsource these services by paying carillion multi-billions to run them, then pay another load of multi-billions to clean up the mess after they collapse and leg it with tax-payers dosh ... simple " Good one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Essential services should by and large be state owned and managed - health, public infrastructure such as roads, railways, power generation and supply, public transportation, water, environmental health and food standards etc. I agree with all of this but how do you do this and ensure it keeps up to speed with demand and changing technology, whilst not being a huge administrative jugrnaught and cost on the tax payer. Obviously I understand that state run services will cost heavily, and that beauraucracy is needed to manage complex systems, but are there more efficient ways to do this?" Perhaps we could send people to countries where they do this successfully so that we can learn from them. Germany, perhaps. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's true they should learn from the EU countries, and this is why this country is so crap every thing has gone to pot. I get fed up with calls from the different utilities it's a headache trying to sort. You dont know we're you are with all the different tariffs. Every one should pay the same fair price. " They way I see it is that greater diverity of private enterprise in anything is meant to reduce price, yet it has failed to do so in regards to energy, water and housing costs - so where are they failing? Is it just that there isnt enough competition, or that they are passing their costs onto the consumer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They way I see it is that greater diverity of private enterprise in anything is meant to reduce price, yet it has failed to do so in regards to energy, water and housing costs - so where are they failing? Is it just that there isnt enough competition, or that they are passing their costs onto the consumer?" the trouble with capitalism is that it soon runs out of everybody elses money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All utilities and industries that are critical to the national interest (naval ship maintenance, military aircraft maintenance ordinance production, storage and maintenance should be publicly owned and funded, roads, rail, air-transport infrastructure (commercial airports and air traffic control)) Police, prisons, coastguard and border control services and all official ports of entry to the UK. I also believe that there should be a publicly owned (not for profit) bank offering basic banking and insurance services, so that all citizens have a viable option of not entrusting their financial well-being to commercial banks that have a track record of defrauding lenders and depositors." We had publicly owned in the 60's and 70's and look how that panned out. A few reminders. Post office telephones when you had to wait months to get one installed, British Rail LOL, British Steel that managed to spunk a million quid a day (probably a billion in today's money) of taxpayers cash, TSR2, Concorde a great idea that nobody wanted (well apart from the national airlines of the two countries that built it  ) and cost a bloody fortune, and finally that cutting edge of automotive technology, the Austin Allegro, enough said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All utilities and industries that are critical to the national interest (naval ship maintenance, military aircraft maintenance ordinance production, storage and maintenance should be publicly owned and funded, roads, rail, air-transport infrastructure (commercial airports and air traffic control)) Police, prisons, coastguard and border control services and all official ports of entry to the UK. I also believe that there should be a publicly owned (not for profit) bank offering basic banking and insurance services, so that all citizens have a viable option of not entrusting their financial well-being to commercial banks that have a track record of defrauding lenders and depositors. We had publicly owned in the 60's and 70's and look how that panned out. A few reminders. Post office telephones when you had to wait months to get one installed, British Rail LOL, British Steel that managed to spunk a million quid a day (probably a billion in today's money) of taxpayers cash, TSR2, Concorde a great idea that nobody wanted (well apart from the national airlines of the two countries that built it ) and cost a bloody fortune, and finally that cutting edge of automotive technology, the Austin Allegro, enough said. "I think that manufacturing should be private, with the exception of infastructure and military projects - currently anyway. Im curious how services which should realistically need a gradual increase in demand once sent up correctly can fail so dramatically when it comes to cost inefficiencies. Is it individuals at the top spending needlessly, or general mismanagement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies." Out of curiousity do those foreign state backed operators pay tax here or in their state? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies." Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies. Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy?" Too many right wing governments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies. Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy? Too many right wing governments. " I thought they'd want to encourage our utilities in aggressive competetor expansion? Or do you mean they were sell outs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies. Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy? Too many right wing governments. I thought they'd want to encourage our utilities in aggressive competetor expansion? Or do you mean they were sell outs?" They sold everything off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"18 out of 25 rail franchises are currently run by foreign state-backed operators,UK passengers are paying their money to Holland, Germany, France and Italy all of whom currently own our train operating companies. Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy? Too many right wing governments. I thought they'd want to encourage our utilities in aggressive competetor expansion? Or do you mean they were sell outs?" Ideology. Public ownership of any of the means of production is an anathema to free-market capitalists. They often use the lie that private companies are "more efficient" to push this agenda. The problem with allowing private interests to run infrastructure is that on the market, anyone can buy these concerns, and in this case, foriegn nationally owned rail companies did (see also: electric). It's a bit of a PR fail for the more nationalist right, who try to play this down, but the internationalist right don't care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We had publicly owned in the 60's and 70's and look how that panned out. A few reminders. Post office telephones when you had to wait months to get one installed, British Rail LOL, British Steel that managed to spunk a million quid a day (probably a billion in today's money) of taxpayers cash, TSR2, Concorde a great idea that nobody wanted (well apart from the national airlines of the two countries that built it ) and cost a bloody fortune, and finally that cutting edge of automotive technology, the Austin Allegro, enough said. "See above for most of your examples. However the cancellation of TSR2 was a political decision, (one I think was wrong), which like the cancellation of our fully independent nuclear delivery system and our space program that were driven by influence exerted by a hostile foreign power. Maybe you would also like to remember that in the 60's there was a housing crisis caused by Rachmanism and that it was building publicly owned social housing that drove slumlords out of business, made private home-owning a realistic aspiration for all and was a significant influence in improving public health. Since the forced sale of of the majority of council owned social housing and blocking their replacement we have seen a return to the bad old days of Rachmanism and the housing market become so expensive that those entering work today will not realistically be able to afford the deposit to buy their own home until in their late 30's early 40's. Of course on top of that in the bad old 60's and 70's that you remember. Both further and higher education was free for all that qualified by dint of ability, further if because of family background a person was unable to afford to support themselves there were maintenance grants available to support students during term time and social security payments available during vacations. Of course for the older generations that missed out because those opportunities were unavailable when they younger there was the OU which was also free for all those who could not afford to pay to improve their education and therefore prospects and social mobility. All (non elective) healthcare including dentistry, eye care and hearing care were free, as was care of the elderly (all run by the NHS). We have had 40 years of this new privatised capitalist utopia in the UK (that you keep extolling from Germany) and how much of what was free for all but the super rich, is now so expensive that the poor can no longer afford those services. And how many can no longer even afford to rent a room to live in? To be honest I would willingly trade the problems of today for those of the 60's and 70's. But then I am not a greedy capitalist shit who thinks that corporate, banking and insurance frauds run to enrich a few at the top to the detriment of the vast majority is something to be proud of. Seems you do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The public sector is inefficient, not agile and riddled with those unwilling to adapt and change. So use it as little as possible." What you say is true at times. However the same can be said of the private sector. Those at the top will always promote those that make them look good and either block the advancement or find a way to force out those that threaten to supplant them, as a result all enterprises, public or private, tend to inefficiency and incompetence over time, unless all employment and promotion is determined by competitive examination (as set up by Samuel Pepys as 'Chief Secretary to the Admiralty' and still used by HM Royal Navy). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Out of curiousity do those foreign state backed operators pay tax here or in their state?" Red herring. The fact is we the taxpayer pay subsidies to these operators who then transfer profits that are by dint of those very subsidies effectively taxpayer handouts, out of the UK rather than into our treasury. "Also if they could do this why did we not? Were we too broke or just not savy?" Because the Tories are ideologically opposed to anything being publicly owned and run for the benefit of the UK population by any part of the British state. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Buying them back is fantasy as it costs to much and seizing them would be 100% wrong as capitalism is good if run properly and directors follow strict rules.It is lack of control that is the problem not privatisation" Give them back the face value of the assets (at the time they were sold off) and refund upgrade investment costs (not the cost of replacing worn out infrastructure) less all paid subsidies, after all the private owners have been running them as profit-making enterprises and therefore have made their money many times over the last 3 or 4 decades. Remember investment value can go down as well as up... 
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Buying them back is fantasy as it costs to much and seizing them would be 100% wrong as capitalism is good if run properly and directors follow strict rules.It is lack of control that is the problem not privatisation Give them back the face value of the assets (at the time they were sold off) and refund upgrade investment costs (not the cost of replacing worn out infrastructure) less all paid subsidies, after all the private owners have been running them as profit-making enterprises and therefore have made their money many times over the last 3 or 4 decades. Remember investment value can go down as well as up...
"That my friend is where we disagree as I do not believe in communism I am a democratic capitalist.Your way is the recipe for hyper inflation and starvation,history of other nations proves this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Buying them back is fantasy as it costs to much and seizing them would be 100% wrong as capitalism is good if run properly and directors follow strict rules.It is lack of control that is the problem not privatisation Give them back the face value of the assets (at the time they were sold off) and refund upgrade investment costs (not the cost of replacing worn out infrastructure) less all paid subsidies, after all the private owners have been running them as profit-making enterprises and therefore have made their money many times over the last 3 or 4 decades. Remember investment value can go down as well as up...
That my friend is where we disagree as I do not believe in communism I am a democratic capitalist.Your way is the recipe for hyper inflation and starvation,history of other nations proves this."I think he's being generous, personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Essential services should by and large be state owned and managed - health, public infrastructure such as roads, railways, power generation and supply, public transportation, water, environmental health and food standards etc. I agree with all of this but how do you do this and ensure it keeps up to speed with demand and changing technology, whilst not being a huge administrative jugrnaught and cost on the tax payer. Obviously I understand that state run services will cost heavily, and that beauraucracy is needed to manage complex systems, but are there more efficient ways to do this?" I think that the many instances where services have been outsourced and qualities have decreased, even though public funds continue to pay, help to show that the public =bad, whilst private is good, are amongst some of the fallacies that right wing ideologies have tried to push into society. Effective management doesn't become something that any political creed should avoid - it is open to all. Funding is the key that governments should ensure remains available and to be sold to the populace. Efficiency isn't something that one approach has a monopoly upon - public or private. This follows good management practices and employees being valued. At present we see instances of privatized utilities like water compatible that don't respect our infrastructure, having high leakage levels with insufficient investment to stop them - one of many instances where private is bad but public ownership could be better. We've shown that we recognize little of the value in our infrastructure, when we've allowed others like vultures picking away the strength and muscles, as they often weaken what remains - the East Coast train line that ran without subsidy but has just had Virgin and Stagecoach escape from a lengthy contract without penalties, messing up national investment plans. It's not a simple project to turn conflicting styles of contract back into operating solely for the public good - and probably not something that could just be done in one parliament but we should have our key infrastructure with appropriate long term strategy that focuses it on public wellbeing, without needing to push public funds into the pockets of the very few. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That my friend is where we disagree as I do not believe in communism I am a democratic capitalist.Your way is the recipe for hyper inflation and starvation,history of other nations proves this." I take it you do not actually understand what communism is. For starters although in theory Marxism is the best economic system there is I am a realist and understand that human greed and self-interest will always make such a system fail whenever it is used in anything but the smallest of scales. (Of course you realise that virtually every nuclear family functions internally in a Marxist fashion.) I am a believer in running a mixed economy with a highly regulated capitalist foundation. As for your claim that my way causes hyperinflation and starvation please provide an example, as again I think you mistake a capitalist command economy with a Marxist economy. As for the idea that nationalisation always has a bad outcome you may like to google the history of Aramco, or for that matter British Rail (taking into account the state of the railways prior to nationalisation). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The public sector is inefficient, not agile and riddled with those unwilling to adapt and change. So use it as little as possible." Exactly. Put it all in the hands of companies like Carillion.......what can go wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"guy hands has fucked the country for £4.2 billion over military housing since it was sold off in 1996 .... the current contract runs out in 2021 and he intends to double the rent take from the tax payer the trouble with capitalism is that it soon runs out of everyone elses money" The trouble with capitalism is that without rigorous government/press scrutiny and intervention where needed, a capitalist democracy can quickly become a plutacracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All utilities and industries that are critical to the national interest (naval ship maintenance, military aircraft maintenance ordinance production, storage and maintenance should be publicly owned and funded, roads, rail, air-transport infrastructure (commercial airports and air traffic control)) Police, prisons, coastguard and border control services and all official ports of entry to the UK. I also believe that there should be a publicly owned (not for profit) bank offering basic banking and insurance services, so that all citizens have a viable option of not entrusting their financial well-being to commercial banks that have a track record of defrauding lenders and depositors. We had publicly owned in the 60's and 70's and look how that panned out. A few reminders. Post office telephones when you had to wait months to get one installed, British Rail LOL, British Steel that managed to spunk a million quid a day (probably a billion in today's money) of taxpayers cash, TSR2, Concorde a great idea that nobody wanted (well apart from the national airlines of the two countries that built it ) and cost a bloody fortune, and finally that cutting edge of automotive technology, the Austin Allegro, enough said. "none of your points make sense if you don't recognise the way Treasury cash limits prevented those services like the GPO or British Rail from innovating or growing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So to break off from brexit, or try to... What services and/or utilities do you think should be tax psyer funded, and what should be private, private as in no gov sponsorship or handouts - run fully on free market competition. Are there any services which should at their core public, but with additional services contacted through private means?" . In a truly free and competitive market I don't think you need government for anything except regulating it  .
We don't really have free competition though do we, what we really have it cronieism, where large companies bribe politicans for advantage over smaller rivals giving them just enough to pull the wool over the eyes of the customers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That my friend is where we disagree as I do not believe in communism I am a democratic capitalist.Your way is the recipe for hyper inflation and starvation,history of other nations proves this. I take it you do not actually understand what communism is. For starters although in theory Marxism is the best economic system there is I am a realist and understand that human greed and self-interest will always make such a system fail whenever it is used in anything but the smallest of scales. (Of course you realise that virtually every nuclear family functions internally in a Marxist fashion.) I am a believer in running a mixed economy with a highly regulated capitalist foundation. As for your claim that my way causes hyperinflation and starvation please provide an example, as again I think you mistake a capitalist command economy with a Marxist economy. As for the idea that nationalisation always has a bad outcome you may like to google the history of Aramco, or for that matter British Rail (taking into account the state of the railways prior to nationalisation)." I do understand communism and socialism but I have misunderstood you,I apologise for that but on here we form quick impressions of others | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do understand communism and socialism but I have misunderstood you,I apologise for that but on here we form quick impressions of others" Not a problem, no apology needed. Applying simple labels to complex issues is something done all the time (generally to confuse and distort the issue being labelled). I hope your new insight and understanding of my politics will lead to better communications between us (and in turn others). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
The question seems to be more about how you can encourage good behaviour/ discourage bad behaviour in individuals in the state sector.
I guess there has to be a genuine fear of the sack for being lazy and a genuine reward for being good.
Same problem as the private sector then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There isn't much disagreement here about what people think should be state run. How's that possible?
The question seems to be more about how you can encourage good behaviour/ discourage bad behaviour in individuals in the state sector.
I guess there has to be a genuine fear of the sack for being lazy and a genuine reward for being good.
Same problem as the private sector then "The answer is simple, introduce a promotion by competitive examination system similar to that used by the RN for Officer selection and promotion, and do away with the status quo of patronage in candidate selection. Of course this will not happen because it is the very patrons that would be removed from the selection process that would have to adopt and implement such a change. Educated turkeys do not vote for turkey-day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There isn't much disagreement here about what people think should be state run. How's that possible?
The question seems to be more about how you can encourage good behaviour/ discourage bad behaviour in individuals in the state sector.
I guess there has to be a genuine fear of the sack for being lazy and a genuine reward for being good.
Same problem as the private sector then
The answer is simple, introduce a promotion by competitive examination system similar to that used by the RN for Officer selection and promotion, and do away with the status quo of patronage in candidate selection. Of course this will not happen because it is the very patrons that would be removed from the selection process that would have to adopt and implement such a change. Educated turkeys do not vote for turkey-day."Is examination the best way to measure competence? I agree though that an objective assessment of some sort would would be preferable. Could people be realistically dismissed too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There isn't much disagreement here about what people think should be state run. How's that possible?
The question seems to be more about how you can encourage good behaviour/ discourage bad behaviour in individuals in the state sector.
I guess there has to be a genuine fear of the sack for being lazy and a genuine reward for being good.
Same problem as the private sector then ". The ultimate encouragement of good behaviour is customers satisfaction and there ability to go elsewhere easily if not satisfied. All you need government for is to regulate the above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is examination the best way to measure competence? I agree though that an objective assessment of some sort would would be preferable. Could people be realistically dismissed too?" RN promotion examinations are both practical and theoretical. Although the Board of The Admiralty was disbanded and its duties given to the Defence Council on its formation the method of selection was kept, as were the selection systems of the other services. As a result we still have a system where patronage and social rank are at least as important as ability in the Army, while the Navy is purely a meritocracy regardless of social rank. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is examination the best way to measure competence? I agree though that an objective assessment of some sort would would be preferable. Could people be realistically dismissed too? RN promotion examinations are both practical and theoretical. Although the Board of The Admiralty was disbanded and its duties given to the Defence Council on its formation the method of selection was kept, as were the selection systems of the other services. As a result we still have a system where patronage and social rank are at least as important as ability in the Army, while the Navy is purely a meritocracy regardless of social rank." Well we wouldn't want any old riffraff getting d*unk in the Officer's Mess, would we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is examination the best way to measure competence? I agree though that an objective assessment of some sort would would be preferable. Could people be realistically dismissed too? RN promotion examinations are both practical and theoretical. Although the Board of The Admiralty was disbanded and its duties given to the Defence Council on its formation the method of selection was kept, as were the selection systems of the other services. As a result we still have a system where patronage and social rank are at least as important as ability in the Army, while the Navy is purely a meritocracy regardless of social rank. Well we wouldn't want any old riffraff getting d*unk in the Officer's Mess, would we? "Ward Room old chap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is examination the best way to measure competence? I agree though that an objective assessment of some sort would would be preferable. Could people be realistically dismissed too? RN promotion examinations are both practical and theoretical. Although the Board of The Admiralty was disbanded and its duties given to the Defence Council on its formation the method of selection was kept, as were the selection systems of the other services. As a result we still have a system where patronage and social rank are at least as important as ability in the Army, while the Navy is purely a meritocracy regardless of social rank. Well we wouldn't want any old riffraff getting d*unk in the Officer's Mess, would we?
Ward Room old chap."Don't you go giving me any of that pansy Navy talk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
