• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Interesting.

Re Social Housing. I certainly agree there needs to be more, it would keep the cost of renting much more reasonable long-term as well imv. I do worry that in the long term the housing stock that was in government/Public hands then goes into private ownership and the amount of social housing stock goes down leading to more of what we have now (high demand for social housing partly leading to high cost of housing generally and exhorbitant rents for those who cannot afford them and should be able to access social housing). I think the short-term gain of allowing some families to take ownership and responsibility for their own homes (which of course frees up local goverment spending on their upkeep as well as allows government to pocket a one-off windfall) is likely to lead to more housing stock lost from the social housing system that could be used to house those that NEED it as you say. Unless newer homes are being built for social housing purpose at a fraction of the cost that is being generated in the right-to-buy scheme it looks likely to cost us all a lot more in the long-run.

The problem with this (and the last) right to buy scheme is that most councils with lots of social housing and all housing associations are very left leaning. This leads to them behaving in ways contrary to their own best interests and those of the people they are supposed to help as a way of opposing a Conservative government. It's probably not your cup of tea but if you read Margaret Thatcher's memoirs there's some fascinating stuff on the way local councils behave - much of it pretty much forced the creation of the Community Charge.

If I understand the message between the lines with this policy, the government will allow any housing association that doesn't reinvest into new houses to dwindle out of existence. This may mean a short term cost to the housing market but with a better long term result. I believe they will legislate that local councils have to reinvest.

Private Healthcare: When you say you've seen it pay for itself in your workplace can you explain what you mean by that? (I don't have private healthcare myself so i don't know enough to know exactly what you mean by this).
Also, what are the emergencies that occur that means your family has to use NHS instead of the private healthcare you already pay for?

A couple of examples:
One of our directors is very much the public face of our business. He's been in the industry as long as I've been alive and everyone in the industry knows (or knows of) him. He's highly respected and massively important to us - we're in a very competitive industry and he often makes the difference. A few years ago he needed a hip operation and eventually wasn't able to travel more than around 10-15 miles in a car due to the pain but we needed him to go to and from customers/suppliers as he normally does. He had a new hip fitted and was on the move within 8 weeks (the op has a 6 week recovery time). On the NHS he would have had to wait another 5-6 weeks before having the operation and was told by the specialist (who also works for the NHS) that the quality of the physio you see can easily add or remove a week or two to recovery time. We would have paid his health insurance 10 times over to get the benefit we did.

Another director has a wife with epilepsy. She went through a fairly bad phase and needed a lot of care (not constant, but he was in the office less than he'd have liked). Her specialist on the NHS was setting appointments 6 months away. By going through our private health insurance she was seen within 2 weeks and had changed medication and was nearly back to normal in two months.

All emergency treatment goes via the NHS - I don't know of any private hospitals with an A&E department. Once in an NHS hospital I would be guaranteed my own room and would be on the preference list (first seen after emergencies) for the specialist. Having your own room may not seem like much, but having spent 3 days in the same ward as an old man with no control of his bowels I can tell you it's invaluable. For anything other than an emergency I'm at the front of any waiting lists and usually would go to a private outpatients hospital.

Getting back to an earlier post of your Re Taxation, exempting oneself from the 'system' and asking for a tax break:
In your scenario yours say that your son will never use the state school system and hence you think you should be due a tax refund/break.
How far do you think is fair/reasonable/practical with regards to this?
For example, if somebody is completely into an 'Eco-lifestyle' and doesn't believe in the use of cars and hence the road system, can they in your opinion say they need a tax refund that equates to what they would have contributed to the building and maintenance of the road system? Can they say that seeing as they live a fully self-sufficient lifestyle requiring no car use and no road use that they should receive a partial tax rebate based on what is spend by governments on roads? Also what if an extreme hippy believes that all wars are wrong and that they don't believe their government should take their taxes and spend some of it on the army/defence? In fact, what if they were very much against the Iraq war (the 2003 one) and that they wanted a tax rebate on what was spent on it over the years as they did not believe it was a good use of their taxes and they were against the government having an army anyway?

You brought up and interesting point about tax and spend and what is good use of the income taken in taxes and i'm just trying to get a feel for where the lines can be drawn, in your opinion.
I assume the hippy would use a bike, walk on the pavement, use a bus or a train? The reason I brought up roads. streetlighting and defence earlier is that they are very good examples of things that cannot be split down to use. Some things simply cannot be distributed on a per use basis.
 
The problem with this (and the last) right to buy scheme is that most councils with lots of social housing and all housing associations are very left leaning. This leads to them behaving in ways contrary to their own best interests and those of the people they are supposed to help as a way of opposing a Conservative government. It's probably not your cup of tea but if you read Margaret Thatcher's memoirs there's some fascinating stuff on the way local councils behave - much of it pretty much forced the creation of the Community Charge.

If I understand the message between the lines with this policy, the government will allow any housing association that doesn't reinvest into new houses to dwindle out of existence. This may mean a short term cost to the housing market but with a better long term result. I believe they will legislate that local councils have to reinvest.



A couple of examples:
One of our directors is very much the public face of our business. He's been in the industry as long as I've been alive and everyone in the industry knows (or knows of) him. He's highly respected and massively important to us - we're in a very competitive industry and he often makes the difference. A few years ago he needed a hip operation and eventually wasn't able to travel more than around 10-15 miles in a car due to the pain but we needed him to go to and from customers/suppliers as he normally does. He had a new hip fitted and was on the move within 8 weeks (the op has a 6 week recovery time). On the NHS he would have had to wait another 5-6 weeks before having the operation and was told by the specialist (who also works for the NHS) that the quality of the physio you see can easily add or remove a week or two to recovery time. We would have paid his health insurance 10 times over to get the benefit we did.

Another director has a wife with epilepsy. She went through a fairly bad phase and needed a lot of care (not constant, but he was in the office less than he'd have liked). Her specialist on the NHS was setting appointments 6 months away. By going through our private health insurance she was seen within 2 weeks and had changed medication and was nearly back to normal in two months.

All emergency treatment goes via the NHS - I don't know of any private hospitals with an A&E department. Once in an NHS hospital I would be guaranteed my own room and would be on the preference list (first seen after emergencies) for the specialist. Having your own room may not seem like much, but having spent 3 days in the same ward as an old man with no control of his bowels I can tell you it's invaluable. For anything other than an emergency I'm at the front of any waiting lists and usually would go to a private outpatients hospital.


I assume the hippy would use a bike, walk on the pavement, use a bus or a train? The reason I brought up roads. streetlighting and defence earlier is that they are very good examples of things that cannot be split down to use. Some things simply cannot be distributed on a per use basis.

Thanks for your reply. I want to pick you up on the bolded bit though; surely education and schooling are in the same bracket in that they can't be distributed on a per use basis? Surely a school has to be built and teachers employed based on pooled money for the mass populace as opposed to a per-use basis?
Like roads they will be used by most for the societal need (as in everyone should have a basic education for society to function fairly well/efficiently)?
 
Thanks for your reply. I want to pick you up on the bolded bit though; surely education and schooling are in the same bracket in that they can't be distributed on a per use basis? Surely a school has to be built and teachers employed based on pooled money for the mass populace as opposed to a per-use basis?
Like roads they will be used by most for the societal need (as in everyone should have a basic education for society to function fairly well/efficiently)?
The data show that the ROI for education and health are massive in undeveloped countries, far less so in more developed ones. So there's a certain base level of health and education that worth being paid from a central pot. I refuse to believe, though, that society requires a £100Bn+ health service to operate - especially not one that spends £6Bn+ on the direct cost of fatties.

All the time teachers are unionised we will never get a decent education system. Good teachers do a very good and difficult job and deserve to be rewarded for doing so. Unfortunately, as anyone who has met more than a handful of teachers will be able to tell you, the ability/effort spread is very, very wide in teaching. Pretty much every decent size department will be able to point out at least one unsackable stone around their department's neck. If you're a teacher and you don't know one - it's probably you! Schools need to be set up to cater for what the students need - some kids just aren't academic by nature and need to learn more job skills and academic kids shouldn't be dragged back by them.

As I said, there is some level of state provision required but it should be under two basic tenets - provide the very minimum that is needed giving everyone the opportunity to make more for themselves and no state monopolies (like the NHS and schools).
 
Surely if you don't vote you have no real right to moan?
I shall be going to the ballot box, if I were mature i would put none of the above. I am not mature so shall deface the paper with a crudely drawn picture of a penis and cum shooting out of it.

I like parts of most of the parties but none enough to vote for.
 
I'd say a mature vote would be the one closest to your ideal

the platter may just be brick sandwiches, but you still have to eat

if you are that misaligned with the available choices you should consider running yourself, it's unlikely your views are unique
 
I am in Bramber in West Sussex not even sure who the MP is. Do not have the time to stand I am so busy at the moment with working a new job.
 
I'd say a mature vote would be the one closest to your ideal

the platter may just be crud sandwiches, but you still have to eat

if you are that misaligned with the available choices you should consider running yourself, it's unlikely your views are unique
Did you enjoy Paris-Roubix at the weekend?
 
I am in Bramber in West Sussex not even sure who the MP is. Do not have the time to stand I am so busy at the moment with working a new job.
I think that's in the Arundel & South Downs constituency - the next one along from me. If so, your MP is Nick Herbert - a very capable MP in a very safe seat.

You'd have to really care to try and stand against him.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...med-encouraging-minorities-register-vote.html
:confused: o_O

27982F7E00000578-0-image-a-114_1429105313403.jpg


FACEPALM

Sorry for posting and running. I'm reading the thread but don't want to get involved in fear of upsetting the cotton wool lefties amongst us. I'm sure I wouldn't add anything anyway. :p:D
 
Sorry for posting and running. I'm reading the thread but don't want to get involved in fear of upsetting the cotton wool lefties amongst us. I'm sure I wouldn't add anything anyway. :p:D

I don't think you'll upset any of us 'cotton wool lefties' though we may disagree with you. We're all just humps on a football message board, so I wouldn't worry about adding anything either! Seems a fairly even split between left and right on here, that's my perception anyway.
 
I don't see what the problem is with that advert itself? I think it was a poor choice of model considering his tedious comments about not being England Manager/London Mayor/Blue Peter Presenter because he's black.
 
The data show that the ROI for education and health are massive in undeveloped countries, far less so in more developed ones. So there's a certain base level of health and education that worth being paid from a central pot. I refuse to believe, though, that society requires a £100Bn+ health service to operate - especially not one that spends £6Bn+ on the direct cost of fatties.

All the time teachers are unionised we will never get a decent education system. Good teachers do a very good and difficult job and deserve to be rewarded for doing so. Unfortunately, as anyone who has met more than a handful of teachers will be able to tell you, the ability/effort spread is very, very wide in teaching. Pretty much every decent size department will be able to point out at least one unsackable stone around their department's neck. If you're a teacher and you don't know one - it's probably you! Schools need to be set up to cater for what the students need - some kids just aren't academic by nature and need to learn more job skills and academic kids shouldn't be dragged back by them.

As I said, there is some level of state provision required but it should be under two basic tenets - provide the very minimum that is needed giving everyone the opportunity to make more for themselves and no state monopolies (like the NHS and schools).

ROI for education and health: this is interesting. In terms of education, I would have thought that the ROI may not necessarily be massive but more that the cost of NOT investing in education at the current levels would be much more devestating for a developed one - perhaps to the point whereby the country itself being defined as 'developed' being at risk. In the UK i believe we struggle to keep up with competition from the likes of China, India, Germany and other key industrial nations as it is in terms of qualifications and job competitiveness. In fact, if not for our language, and all the advantages that entails in a global economy, i beleive we would have gone under long ago in terms of job competitiveness.

Health: do you have a source for this £6Bn direct cost of 'fatties'? I'd be surprised if the costs were not also heavily made up from the cost of long term conditions directly linked to smoking, people living longer who have dementia/alzheimers or similar diseases as well as those who are receiving HIV treatment.
Also, do you have a data source on ROI for education and health with regards to countries (both developed and undeveloped)
Teaching profession: I certainly agree that they do a very difficult job. Their profession is probably the most important that a civilised society needs to have as you are potentially shaping future generations in terms of their ability to build/rebuild society, wealth generation and general civility. They seems to always be the political footballs as their targets, job descriptions etc change from year to year, sometimes within the same school year. Something like phonics which was not considered a viable method of teaching one year is then next year introduced randomly as what every teacher should be doing, no doubt before being labelled as 'not efficient' a further two years later. The Government chops and changes what they want teachers and the teaching profession to be every time the wind blows. Good and experienced teachers who see the (imo civil service sponsored, to show they are 'being innovative/new') BS and refuse to toe the ever-changing and often downright silly lines are leaving in their droves it seems. Unionised of not, the teaching profession is being turned into one where only mugs will go into it in years to come. Some teachers are now being employed as full-time teachers without actually having qualifications now! I can imagine that it is a job that you mostly learn on the job, but on a base level it's like Spurs making Sherwood Chief Financial Officer. Madness imo.
I agree with you that schools need to cater better for non-academic students for sure. In fact the last 20 years imo things seem to have gone backwards in this regard.

State monopolies in terms of NHS and schools: I think in our cultural climate we have continually shown that we need the Government as (relatively) neutral providers or arbitars in these sectors: Private companies do what they do which is make profit, which is fine for many sectors but i'm not sure as a whole they could be trusted to provide a neutral long-term view in terms of healthcare and school provision that is best for the country. The Government (whatever colour they may be) can be tasked with taking a long-term and national view in terms of these things and try (as best as is possible) to think of the 'common good', whilst corporations naturally will be interested in the bottom line/profits, their own corporate interests etc. As i say, this is fine in many sectors but i think the risks of what would happen if, say, purely profiteering ENRON-style policies were applied to the nation's health and education systems would be too grave in my opinion and would take far more time to rectify than any of the current ills (and i know there are many as the current systems are nowhere near perfect). Also, Government will always be here (unless we are invaded or suffer a military coup!) and if they rooster-up, they can be voted out and another motley crew voted in to try as best as possible to rectify whatever mess the previous lot make of education and health. I don't see this as being so easy if large multinationals are tasked with running AND administering the education and healthcare systems.
 
Personally, I think a party wide 'consortium' so to speak, should take control of the NHS as this would provide a longer term view of the health service. A major issue is the NHS being used as a vehicle to point score between parties, and this in my view plays out during a term in power where many changes are made and this puts the NHS under further pressure.
 
Personally, I think a party wide 'consortium' so to speak, should take control of the NHS as this would provide a longer term view of the health service. A major issue is the NHS being used as a vehicle to point score between parties, and this in my view plays out during a term in power where many changes are made and this puts the NHS under further pressure.

It's good that changes are made every five years or so. They're needed. The world changes all the time, the demands on the NHS change all the time, so should it change with the times.
 
It's good that changes are made every five years or so. They're needed. The world changes all the time, the demands on the NHS change all the time, so should it change with the times.

I think there is a tendency to get vote winners, without thinking through the longer term implications for the NHS. By making changes every five years, you ensure the next five years are used working towards previous promises, I would rather have a longer term management which addresses the challenges we will face than a headline grabbing five year plan. I think that a cross party arrangement or agreement would achieve this better than a five year plan ever could.
 
I do agree that there are always populist policies introduced, but this applies to all public-sector organisations, from the NHS, MOD etc. I can see where you're coming from. What i'd rather see however, for all major public services, is regional devolved powers. I think local communities have very different needs.

The NHS is run as a national body, but the needs of local NHS trusts in large urban areas, such as Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and West Midlands are completely different to the needs in e.g., Devon & Cornwall, Northumberland, North Yorkshire.

Regional assemblies with control over budgets and structure would be better served to control the performance and needs of public services in their local areas.

This is even more relevant as the population continues to grow and change.
 
Back