FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jeez.

“What they’ve done is underbid, made a lot of money out of it and then moved on,” Corbyn said. “When the East Coast mainline was publicly-owned, it paid in a handsome profit to the Treasury and it was well-run.

He's either lying or ignorant. The line is still returning a handsome "profit" to the Treasury- something like £525m over 2 years.

Labour's rail adviser, Ian Taylor, makes the nationalization case on the basis of reducing "friction points" between different organizations. There's lots to be said for that. No need to talk bollocks like Corbyn here.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I note in passing that Stella Creasy has been making some good comments re what to do about PFI contracts now.

You see, this is what Labour "moderates" should be doing. Party members will notice, as will the leadership (despite what SH claims to the contrary)

Whining and moaning in the bars to your favourite right wing hack (off the record, of course) just means you end up universally despised.

Creasy's is definitely in the wrong party. Her CLP hate her. She'll be out once deselection comes in in about 5 years or so.

No, she is Labour and could and would never be anywhere else. Chris "magic money tree" Leslie, on the other hand......

SpinningHugo wrote:
Given her CLP, she won't have any choice in the matter. Must be miserable, poor woman.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 65841.html

brexit-galileo-satellite-space-industry-move-from-london-to-spain

sorry if we've already done it

SpinningHugo wrote:

Again, I think you've conflated two things (see above)

1. The ACT of outsourcing. For something to be put out it needs to be in.

2. Whetehr something is in fact outseourced. For something to be out it may always have been out.

So, in the cleaning example, the work is outsourced (ie sourced outside the company). The fact that it was never sourced inside doesn't alter that.

But again, much more important than this linguistic trivia is whether goods/services should be delivered from within or without a corporation or public body. That cant be answered by whether it happens to be manufacturing goods, cleaning work, building, legal serices or whatever, It alway depends on other factors.

In business, outsourcing is "an agreement in which one company contracts-out a part of their existing internal activity to another company".[1] It involves the contracting out of a business process (e.g. payroll processing, claims processing) and operational, and/or non-core functions (e.g. manufacturing, facility management, call center support) to another party (see also business process outsourcing

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Again, I think you've conflated two things (see above)

1. The ACT of outsourcing. For something to be put out it needs to be in.

2. Whetehr something is in fact outseourced. For something to be out it may always have been out.

So, in the cleaning example, the work is outsourced (ie sourced outside the company). The fact that it was never sourced inside doesn't alter that.

But again, much more important than this linguistic trivia is whether goods/services should be delivered from within or without a corporation or public body. That cant be answered by whether it happens to be manufacturing goods, cleaning work, building, legal serices or whatever, It alway depends on other factors.

I was fairly certain I posted this definition earlier but as you seem to be deliberately dim today I'll make it in larger font.

In business, outsourcing is "an agreement in which one company contracts-out a part of their existing internal activity to another company".[1] It involves the contracting out of a business process (e.g. payroll processing, claims processing) and operational, and/or non-core functions (e.g. manufacturing, facility management, call center support) to another party (see also business process outsourcing

Do you understand this or not?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Barack Obama just announced a return to politics in 2018, and Trump should be worried

http://washingtonpress.com/2018/01/17/b ... p-worried/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote: Yes.

I think we've established that you think that an enterprise buying in services from a source outside, is not outsourcing, but instead an unnamed arrangement.

I suggest "sourcing out" as a label for this entirely different state of affairs.

Outsourcing (also sometimes referred to as "contracting out") is a business practice used by companies to reduce costs or improve efficiency by shifting tasks, operations, jobs or processes to an external contracted third party for a significant period of time.

Next phase of £150m Wolverhampton tram extension to move forward in March
The next phase of Wolverhampton’s £150m tram extension will kick off in March, it was revealed today.

In a statement, the Midland Metro Alliance, a consortium of companies responsible for the expansion of the network on behalf of the West Midlands Combined Authority, announced that it will get on with work on the extension of the existing tram route just before the current terminus at Wolverhampton St. George to Wolverhampton station in two months’ time.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Outsourcing (also sometimes referred to as "contracting out") is a business practice used by companies to reduce costs or improve efficiency by shifting tasks, operations, jobs or processes to an external contracted third party for a significant period of time.

ie: by changing from doing something you once did to getting someone else to do it.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Outsourcing (also sometimes referred to as "contracting out") is a business practice used by companies to reduce costs or improve efficiency by shifting tasks, operations, jobs or processes to an external contracted third party for a significant period of time.

ie: by changing from doing something you once did to getting someone else to do it.

Of course. I can't see how this is so hard for SH to understand.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Outsourcing (also sometimes referred to as "contracting out") is a business practice used by companies to reduce costs or improve efficiency by shifting tasks, operations, jobs or processes to an external contracted third party for a significant period of time.

ie: by changing from doing something you once did to getting someone else to do it.

Of course. I can't see how this is so hard for SH to understand.

...governments have behaved as though they are historically powerless to control the terms on which public goods are provided.
In fact, only government is powerful enough to set those terms.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... iled-model" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 wrote:(or indeed T R O L and L)

Centrica said it would make funds available to the government’s Insolvency Service to ensure that 480 staff who helped manage facilities at its buildings would continue to be paid.

National Grid, which used Carillion staff on its infrastructure programme, said work would continue on an overhead line between Richborough and Canterbury, which is designed to connect a Belgium-UK power cable to the grid, and a power cable at Wylfa in Wales for the planned new nuclear power station there.

A spokesperson said: “National Grid has contingency plans in place for all its projects with Carillion, using alternative suppliers if necessary. We believe that these plans mean we will be able to keep any disruption to a minimum.” The company did not say whether it would take on any Carillion staff or whether it had provided funding to ensure they continue to be paid.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frog222 wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:(or indeed T R O L and L)

I was FIRST, so there

Don’t fixate on a second Brexit vote. Focus instead on trade
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democracy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One thing has become clear from Brussels – that the EU negotiators are not interested in the good of the EU, let alone of Britain. They are about the self-interest of a cabal of unelected officials who have no love for Britain. They hate the reality: that the British had the guts to hold a referendum that few of them would dare in their respective countries.

AngryAsWell wrote:So I sent this to Labour :
Dear Jeremy
I have been a Labour member for many years.
Your stance on leaving the EU has me in despair, the very least you should be arguing on behalf of Labour members (majority of whom are for remin) is a referendum on the deal.

I am seriously on the point of leaving Labour and turning to a Party that supports EU Membership.

Regards

...and here is the fine-words-butter-no-parsnips reply

Thank you for contacting us about exiting the European Union.
Labour accept the referendum result and recognise that Britain is leaving the EU. But unlike the Conservatives, we believe that jobs and the economy must come first in the negotiations. That means rejecting ‘no deal’ as a viable option, negotiating strong transitional arrangements to ensure there is no cliff-edge for the economy and putting much greater emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Labour will not accept any watering down of workers’ rights and environmental standards as a result of Brexit. We will seek significant improvements to the Government’s Repeal Bill to ensure there is proper oversight of the use of new powers and no drop in EU rights and protections.
We are also clear that we would unilaterally guarantee rights for EU nationals living in the UK and seek reciprocal rights for UK nationals living in the EU. The Prime Minister’s limited and conditional offer is too little, too late.
We will seek a strong, collaborative new relationship with the EU – not as members but as partners. This means changing the tone of the negotiations, and seeking to remain a member of common European agencies that benefit the UK such as Europol, Eurojust and the Erasmus scheme.
The Prime Minister has no mandate or parliamentary majority for her Brexit strategy. Her belligerent approach has left Britain without allies or good will across Europe. As a result, Britain enters negotiations in the worst possible position.
The Prime Minister must now change her approach. She must drop ‘no deal’ as a viable option and put much stronger emphasis on jobs, the economy and retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union. She must also bring Parliament back into the Brexit process – it is vital that Parliament is involved throughout the negotiations, including through a truly meaningful vote on the final deal.
Only a Labour Government can prevent a reckless Tory Brexit, build a close and collaborative future relationship with the EU and deliver a Brexit deal that protects jobs, the economy, rights and living standards. As we hold this weak and unstable Tory administration to account on Brexit, we stand ready to take over the negotiations and to secure the best deal for Britain.

Best wishes,

Faye

Membership Services and Correspondence

The Labour Party

That's just waffle!

Willow904 wrote:The German verb ausgliedern is made up of the prefix "aus", which means both "outside" and "to exit", and the verb "gliedern", which means "to organise", so when translated into English it becomes "to outsource" or "to hive off".

So this suggests the Germans, at least, consider what we call "outsourcing" to apply to things which were internally organised but were then "exited" to become externally organised.

Hence, I suppose, the French term externalisation.

Of course, language is fluid and what we mean by a word changes with time and fashion, but personally I have always associated the word "outsourcing" with a transitional sense of moving from inside to outside. I derive this sense from the context in which the word is predominantly used and would be surprised if this wasn't the generally accepted interpretation of the word.

On it's own, it doesn't have a negative connotation, but when combined with public services it certainly seems to have attracted a negative sense. Is this because outsourcing of public services is bad or because public services have been outsourced badly? What I find strange is that rather than outsource public services to make them better we almost always seem to outsource them to make them cheaper. Is perhaps the biggest problem here a deficit in the desire to provide excellent public services and a willingness to raise the money to pay for them? When considered like this it's clear that Jeremy Corbyn is at least starting in the right place, while the Tories aren't even in the same race.

Willow904 wrote:The German verb ausgliedern is made up of the prefix "aus", which means both "outside" and "to exit", and the verb "gliedern", which means "to organise", so when translated into English it becomes "to outsource" or "to hive off".

So this suggests the Germans, at least, consider what we call "outsourcing" to apply to things which were internally organised but were then "exited" to become externally organised.

Hence, I suppose, the French term externalisation.

Of course, language is fluid and what we mean by a word changes with time and fashion, but personally I have always associated the word "outsourcing" with a transitional sense of moving from inside to outside. I derive this sense from the context in which the word is predominantly used and would be surprised if this wasn't the generally accepted interpretation of the word.

On it's own, it doesn't have a negative connotation, but when combined with public services it certainly seems to have attracted a negative sense. Is this because outsourcing of public services is bad or because public services have been outsourced badly? What I find strange is that rather than outsource public services to make them better we almost always seem to outsource them to make them cheaper. Is perhaps the biggest problem here a deficit in the desire to provide excellent public services and a willingness to raise the money to pay for them? When considered like this it's clear that Jeremy Corbyn is at least starting in the right place, while the Tories aren't even in the same race.

frog222 wrote:.dell.com/fr-fr/shop/ordinateurs-portables-dell/inspiron-15-3000/spd/inspiron-15-3558-laptop

http://www.dell.com/fr-fr/shop/ordinate ... 558-laptop

Is Window$10 worth €80 more than Ubuntu Linux ?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Some small acorns for HSOM and Wolverhampton.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/R ... d-in-march" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next phase of £150m Wolverhampton tram extension to move forward in March
The next phase of Wolverhampton’s £150m tram extension will kick off in March, it was revealed today.

In a statement, the Midland Metro Alliance, a consortium of companies responsible for the expansion of the network on behalf of the West Midlands Combined Authority, announced that it will get on with work on the extension of the existing tram route just before the current terminus at Wolverhampton St. George to Wolverhampton station in two months’ time.

The Midlands Metro was seen as underperforming for a long time, and likely helped knock back other tram projects. It's likely that a fair bit of its problems were down to it not going to the best terminus in Wolverhampton or Birmingham, but you can sort of understand that government thought that it would be good money after bad to change it.

Delighted that it's being done now though, and a case of what might have been before...

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/ ... t-drumming
Readers recommend: share your songs with great drumming

Hampstead1961
‏@Hampstead19612
27m27 minutes ago
More
Morons clapping and cheering him But let’s face it BBC has filled the audience with young university types to young to remember what happened in Mid-Staffs and what Andy Burnham did trying to bury the Francis report Vile man