[design2203]

Anything that is core to the function and well being of a state, being owned by a foreign nation poses a national security risk.

The U.K. has been stripped and laid bare of its assets since the era of privatisation. The U.K. needs to wake up and start innovating to take back control.

[LightBug1]

>>Anything that is core to the function and well being of a state, being owned by a foreign nation poses a national security risk.

You mean like water? ... I believe we're the only 'developed' country in the world to have sold off / privatised it's water.

It's all we do. Sell our country down the river for the benefit of a few wankers.

I signed up to the link in the original post, but don't have that much hope. We'll sell our grandma if it'll mean we get a 50p voucher or save 2 more minutes of our day.

[design2203]

Yes that’s exactly what I mean.

I’m working on stuff that I can’t say too much about. But let’s just say there is a way out from this - but it will require the smartest minds and folks starving for change to come together and create the change we want. Sometimes an environment that creates a desperate need for change can be a good thing.

It’s not going to happen via politics. It has to come by being creative from the outside in.

[nebula8804]

>I’m working on stuff that I can’t say too much about. But let’s just say there is a way out from this - but it will require the smartest minds and folks starving for change to come together and create the change we want. Sometimes an environment that creates a desperate need for change can be a good thing.

Let me guess, its a new Web Framework isn't it? :P

[stocksinsmocks]

I’m not very confident in the strategy of immiserating most people to drive positive change. This has been a Communist talking point for a century and a half that has yet to produce positive results, despite many attempts.

I am pleased to read someone is taking some initiative.

[design2203]

I don’t believe in the communism vs capitalist debate. The latter has furthered progress so clearly there are benefits to be had. But yet the dream of the former continues on.

Someone who is more open to a “take the best of what exists” is what is needed.

Appreciate the positive sentiment.

[thebruce87m]

> You mean like water? ... I believe we're the only 'developed' country in the world to have sold off / privatised it's water.

Wasn’t it both England and Wales?

[franktankbank]

I think the only reason this is done is because we are in an era of exceptional illegal kickbacks. Unethical/illegal behavior has become so normalized that if you aren't actively working for a party who is doing it/doing it yourself you are losing.

[Flere-Imsaho]

Our whole tech stack is foreign owned and built. Everything from the CPU to the operating system and more. We live in a globalised system and there's no undoing that. The very idea of "nation" is being challenged.

To me the NHS is a hang-over from the 20th century, out of date and struggling to keep up. A new system of health care needs to take over. I'm not smart enough to know what that is, but I hope it happens soon.

[giardini]

Democratic governments should not provide health care.

Politicians quickly learn to use government services/"rights" as a means of dividing and controlling the population. Instead of thinking about the survival of the nation, people focus on personal survival (e.g., should I vote to live another three years or help pay for a new weapon system?). To provide healthcare is akin to weighing the nations' pancreas on a balance scale against, for example, the Navy. What kind of a country is that? (Ans. "Almost every developed nation today!-(")

I believe the term for this is "incommensurability". Whilst money seems to make everything "commensurable" at first glance, it is a mistake to extend the application of money in this manner to government-provided healthcare.

https://healthcarereaders.com/insights/healthcare-fundamenta...

[Daishiman]

But this is actually not what happens and for the most part democratic governments that do provide health care are the ones with the best health outcomes worldwide, so what point are you trying to make?

[giardini]

My point is that governments should focus on national security and integrity of elections and law. Every dollar spent on healthcare is a dollar that cannot be used to enhance the nations' defense or legal systems. It also raises the cost of government b/c of the necessary added bureaucracy.

Let private businesses sell insurance. Let people buy what insurance they desire.

[Daishiman]

Yeah and we’ve seen that fail again and again and again. So no.

[giardini]

How do you define failure? When did "again and again" occur? I don't see that you have any valid argument or any supporting data whatsoever. Private health insurance exists and works.

Insurance doesn't have to cover everything: any aspect of coverage is debatable since it is a contract between buyer and seller with the courts as the deciding powers when either buyer or seller believes the contract has been violated.

[jacquesm]

> Democratic governments should not provide health care.

They absolutely should. And it should be free for all and private health care should be absolutely forbidden to force the rich to use the exact same health care system as the poor. That's the only way you get quality. Same with education.

[xtiansimon]

> “Democratic governments should not provide health care.”

I don’t know about this, but I’m positive employers should not provide health insurance.

Companies don’t have the right incentives to be controlling your healthcare plan, when you leave the company you don’t have a plan (unless you can afford COBRA), you might not even be eligible for health insurance from your company because of company-policy to not cover non-manager level or part-time——are they too not deserving of healthcare insurance? Employers coverage is good for some because incentives align, but it should not be the standard.

[re-thc]

> The U.K. needs to wake up and start innovating to take back control.

That's a nice dream.

[design2203]

Hopefully I can reply back to you in 2 years and laugh :)

[afavour]

It’s not impossible. The UK has a rich history of tech innovation but it’s long since been eclipsed by Silicon Valley and its funding (which the UK can only dream of).

But the UK government's GDS team is a fantastic example of doing tech right in government. I can see an expanded government involvement in tech for bodies like the NHS that is a clear alternative to the Silicon Valley model. The salaries would never reach US levels but could still afford a very comfortable life.

Problem is that it would require the government to spend money on itself and its employees, which successive governments are loathe to do because the press will punish them for it every time.

[TheOtherHobbes]

In many ways the UK is a tragic country: top tier talent in many areas, hamstrung by political, management, financial, and media culture rooted in the 19th century, and wholly colonised by offshore owners and foreign powers.

Many of the country's assets and infrastructure are now literally owned abroad, and run for the benefit of foreign owners.

You regularly get outbreaks of talent like GDS, and they regularly get sidelined/eaten/shut down if they're not aligned with corporate ownership.

[afavour]

Yes, I also think ossified social structures have a lot to do with it. You work up the chain of management and eventually you find the son of the Earl of Tossingham, who turns out to be completely ineffectual.

The US has avoided that fate up until this point but when I look at Larry Ellison’s son buying Paramount with dad’s money, the Trump juniors cashing in on their dads name (and to your point, all of them happily taking investment from the Saudis) I do have a sense of history repeating itself.

[tialaramex]

Nah, the US has always had the same problem except without titles. Robert F Kennedy Jr. is the same phenomenon. Why is the Earl or RFK in charge? Because of the name. That's what the Roark family in the Sin City stories is about, this happens in major US cities just like anywhere else.

It's worse if it's literally part of the design of the country's civil fabric, e.g. Saudi Arabia or indeed Britain's Royal Family but while Charlie and a handful of his family have that sort of connection a lot of those random Earls and other minor titles are just inherited power, same as a Kennedy or a Roark. And it's barely a century since Britain last had to do the "hard" (it's about an hour of parliament's time) work of just crossing out names on these lists (last century it was because some of our uh, nobles, were actually born and lived in Germany, and had thus become our Enemy in World War I)

To my mind, a big problem is that until extremely recently Britain's two major political parties both agreed on the Protestant Work Ethic, the idea that doing work is a moral necessity for people. There are a lot of scenarios where that breaks down, but neither Labour (because um, clue is in the name) nor the Tories could stomach the idea that maybe working isn't itself a valuable end. We are well past the point where it's mechanically necessary to employ everybody, and we may be approaching the point where doing so is actively harmful, a political party who can't even imagine that is a bad fit.