Hmmmm I'm not sure now. I will admit I voted Red Tony in and my heart is a lefty. I am now rather disapointed with Labour and how it effects me.

I don't know what to do but;

I own a business, I built the business from scratch from my front room. My first desk cost £30 from IKEA and I had an old chair. The business has grown and now does over a million quid a year and I employ 20 people. My desks now cost £500 each and the chairs are Orangebox (made in UK) again about £400. Its taken me 7 years of very hard work to be able to afford these.

We have done some work for the odd Quango (Energy Saving Trust, DWP, etc) Trust me these guys p155 money up the wall like it's on tap. They also have the best of everything Herman Miller Aeron chairs (£1200 each), Steel framed desks, multi faith break out rooms, etc. So when you've worked hard buy cheap and work your way up and you pay tax (and boy do I pay a lot of tax) it grates somewhat when you see this excess in the public sector.

Also if you do run a business you create employment, now for every 30k salary I pay, I have to pay an extra 12.8% employers NI. so if that goes up 1% every month my little company will have to pay more tax. It does feel a bit like well you've created 20 jobs thanks we'll tax you extra for that spend it on expensive German chairs but it will keep the economy going but you need to watch every penny.
So currently we prob pay about £75,000 because I have created jobs
An extra 1% is £7500 to and we’re just a small tiny weeny business

So where I'm going is I think I agree with Dave but I just can't bring myself to vote for him.

I don't mind tax I really don't, as they say in Yorkshire, you only pay it if you earn it but how about a bit of incentive if you help the economy rather than more tax.

thatscold
Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.

go on – I'm bored I';; have this one.

I think the only answer is Really?

Hundreds of thousands of nurses.

70 000 total employees of the inland revenue

Thank you for your post Tiger6791. I found it to be a very interesting insight into the cost of office furniture 8)

I remember quite clearly the big culture-change of the unemployed being 'helped' onto claiming disability benefit.(It was even suggested, by the benefit office, to me at one period of eighties unemployment!)
It was done fairly openly as a way of deliberately massaging the unemployment figures.
Don't remember a Labour government at the time though…

ernie_lynch, if you want to know the costs of any other office based consumables I'm your man.
Still don't know who to vote for though

Ernie Lynch – We sold the gold for euros so it is possible to calculate the difference in the value between the two in sterling terms, euros will have gone up slightly say 25% compared to 500% for gold. It wasn't only the timing of the sale, it was the telegraphing of the intention to the markets.

TJ – Inland revenue does not exist anymore as such, it is now HMRC, don't know about employee numbers. And Labour interited a golden legacy from the previous Conservative government, there wasn't any need to restore the economy. It has now been well and truly blown, some benefit has been obtained but the cost has been too high to be sustainable because public sector productivity has gone down, the real debt is considerably higher because GB took a leaf out of Enron's book and has kept £170 billion off balance sheet through PFI and there is also the National Rail debt that is off balance too. That increases our debt by more than 10% as a percentage of GDP. There are going to be savage cuts whoever is in power because generally cutting expenditure does less harm to the economy than tax rises which stifle growth. Economic theory is pretty unanimous on this.

Gordon Brown could have been the greatest chancellor of all time, his problem was he didn't retire on his second day in office.

TJ, stop trying to correct all his lies, you know perfectly well that doesn't work 🙁

Don't remember a Labour government at the time though…

Didn't say it was down to any one party, just that it makes comparing unemployment rates against anything pre-80's irrelevant and complicates pre-90's comparison as well.

The big change happened under the Tories in the 80's but has continued to change for some key segments under NuLab.

Spectator: I think it was "Blessed are the chairmakers".
Mrs Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the chairmakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of seating products.

🙂

Why is STW so blindly left wing? Labour have been in for 13 year, and they've messed it up. Can you not see this?????

Because some of us are more than 12 years old ?

In modern history, every time we have had a Labour government there have been more people unemployed when they have left office than when they took office.

But also more people in work – paradox eh?

I wonder if the population could be going up?

Sorry to keep picking on your comments thatscold, nothing personal, but you do seem to be trotting out a good few cliches without really thinking them through.

You also say:

We currently have the biggest budget deficit of all time

I'd be very interested to hear why you think this (taken on its own) is so important – really, I would. Do you know what it means? Do you know where money comes from, how the budget deficit relates to the national debt. How both relate to inflation? How both relate to economic growth?

Personally I think that much of the economic story we are being spun is verging on voodoo. We have a financial system that has been made increasingly complex to the point where no individual or organisation can understand or control it, and yet people are quite happy to trot out lines like "We currently have the biggest budget deficit of all time" as if that explains everything. Sorry – I don't think it tells us very much at all.

If you look at the length of term that the two last governments have served, it seems that both times the incoming party has been safe until enough young people (that don't remember what the last party was like) have reached voting age.

it seems that both times the incoming party has been safe until enough young people (that don't remember what the last party was like) have reached voting age.

You're right, that's probably why I find it inconceivable that anyone would be willing to give the Tories another chance after the last time
As a young man in Northern England in the 80s, I got 1st hand experienced of just how nasty & vindictive they are.

>You're right, that's probably why I find it inconceivable that anyone would be willing to give the Tories another chance after the last time

Using that argument you'd never change the governing party.

Tiger, I'm sure there's an option to replace the desks and chairs with more expensive one's and off-set the cost against your tax

As you can justify a spend of £18k on desks and chairs, just treat the increased NI as another flush of the chain…

Personally, I think the debate has been the best thing to happen to British Politics in my lifetime.

TJ's early point is not entirely wrong, although I do subscribe to the "you can't have it both ways" view

TandemJeremy – Member
Its actually supranational as it encompasses 4 nations.

Just trying to get you littleminded people to understand why the continual whinge from the SNP – its because the London based parties deliberately squeeze out the sirtime the SNP can get. This has been going on for decades and is really rather tiresome to see.

So it has some validity in that the two main parties have very much had things their own way and stifled change as a result. I think Clegg's point that instituionalised "jobs for life" style politics has led to complacency and corruption. So for that reason alone I would love to see him do well and a fairer more representative system come in as a result. Basically we have become used to a pendulum swing between Tory and Labour policies for far too long.

Face it the vast majority of people in this ocuntry are moderate and frankly need representing properly. On balance I'm left leaning, but not so far as to think that everything that the Tories stand for is wrong or that everything that Labour does is right. So how about I and the millions like me get represented for a change??

Last nights debate result for me

Cameron: (Of the high media expectations) : Disappointed Again
Clegg: (Of the heightened expectations) : Held up well
Brown: (Of the low expectations and difficult incumbent position) : Much better than last time and at least on a par with the other two.

Using that argument you'd never change the governing party.

Hows that?

The Labour party have always had tax and spend at the heart of their philosophy. At the moment for every £4 the government spends it borrows £1. This is simply unsustainable.

There is no denying that we have seen improvements to hospitals and schools, but not anywhere near the level that should have been achieved given the sums spent. Labour have had their chance, and as I said previously they have messed it up.

Your opinion and given how much of what you have said is rubbish?

How do you know the improvement in hospitals is not as good as it should have been? Where do you get your data from? How do you measure service improvements?

Much of the money has gone on repairing the damage from the last Tory government.

The financial crisis is a worldwide one – not labours fault and Browns response to it is considered the best approach worldwide.

why I find it inconceivable that anyone would be willing to give the Tories another chance after the last time

yeah, but prior to the Tories fall from grace in the mid 90s a hell of a lot of people would have said the same about Labour, winter of discontent anyone?

I think most people would agree that Blair's Labour Party was quite a different beast to Callaghan's Labour, the question is whether Cameron's Conservatives are different, in a positive way, to Thatchers. I think they are aware of this and are stressing 'society' more and more.

I'm happy to give Labour a further term tbh.

I think cameron has decent instincts but does not have the background to realise how important society and looking after the less fortunate is.

He is also very weak and beholden to the far right of the party – hence the stupidity of the cobbling together a new far right grouping in Europe and in cutting inheritance tax for example.

He is beholden to too many special interests.

How do you know the improvement in hospitals is not as good as it should have been? Where do you get your data from? How do you measure service improvements?

The Office of National Statistics produces figures for public sector productivity which show that it fell by 3% between 1997 and 2007 which in itself does not look a bad result. But what you have to do is look to the private sector to determine what the economy achieved generally and is therefore achievable through technology improvements etc. This is where the gap between what can be achieved and what was becomes obvious because private productivity grew by 1.8% per annum so there was a difference of 2.1% per annum which is pretty large and indicates that money could have been spent considerably better.

The financial crisis is a worldwide one – not labours fault and Browns response to it is considered the best approach worldwide.

You trot this line out pretty regularly as does the Labour Party. He was responsible for designing the system of regulation for one of the two financial centres where the products that gave rise to the crisis were designed and traded. He after all took regulatory responsibility from the Bank of England and handed it to the newly formed FSA, this critically separated the institution that monitored the market (BofE) from the one that monitored the firms (FSA). This meant the liquidity issues facing Banks were never sufficiently clear to any one body and were not addressed.

His other flaw was that he carried on running a budget deficit (i.e. borrowing to spend) thus breaking his own golden rule that you should run a balanced budget over the cycle. He did this year after year by saying he had abolished boom and bust and extending the term of the cycle so he could continue borrowing. Unfortunately, when the inevitable bust came, he had never got round to running the budget surplus (i.e. collecting more money that he spent on a year on year basis) that was needed to meet his own golden rule. Hence the parlous state of the country's finances, which will take at least one generation to sort out.

mefty said

This is where the gap between what can be achieved and what was become obviuos because private productivity grew by 1.8% per annum so there was a difference of 2.1% per annum which is pretty large and indicates that money could have been spent considerably better.

No it doesn't. Maybe money could have been spent better but those statistics don't show that. The most obvious problem with trying to sum up the whole of the NHS and the whole of the national economy in those 2 numbers (just pause for a minute to consider how ridiculous it is to draw a conclusion from that) is that the NHS is essentially a service industry that cannot be automated, whereas in the national economy there are many manufacturing jobs that can be automated. It is far easier to make gains in productivity by taking people out of manufacturing than to get people in a service industry to do more in less time.

Indeed rightplacerighttime

One of the things that comes out as reduced efficiency is improved care! If you improve care but it costs more then this looks like reduced efficiency.

the other aspect is waiting lists – to reduce waiting lists you have to increase capacity – this means at points of low demand then service run below capacity

Biggest change, and the only one I really noticed when Labour got in?
The logos got better.

Service industries can improve productivity as much as manufacturing businesses. The use of email etc can massively increase the efficiency of communication (although I must admit I am a bit old fashioned and don't think it has), use of databases can massively shorten the time it take to find information etc etc. Unfortunately I can't find figures for service industry productivity growth over an equivalent period but it will have grown. I think the comparison whilst not perfect is a perfectly valid indicator of the order of magnitude of what could have and hasn't been achieved.

The official figures aim to quantify quality of care as well hence the following extract from their publication

Public service output, whether individual or collective in nature, should be estimated as a volume measure, similar to that for market output in the National Accounts. A volume measure is comprised of two separately observable characteristics:
? the quantity of a good or service
? the quality of a good or service

I don't know how they do this and I don't have the time to find out. However, when drawing a conclusion I am afraid I give a little more weight to the findings of a independent government department than your anecdotal evidence, TJ.

…and of course, reduction in waiting lists will be taken into account as well.

Mefty – and it shows how little you understand.

If you take a system running flat out that does not meet demand to one that does meet demand it will naturally not be flat out all the time as demand fluctuates. this efficiency has decreased

sorry mefty – you imply do not understand what is happening and how what is measured to show "inefficiency" is actuall much more complex.

The use of email etc can massively increase the efficiency of communication

Email – we all now have access to e mail and all medical tests x rays and so on are available on line – many terminals in each area. Much increased efficiency.

One place where you show your ignorance

TJ, you are shooting the messenger, they are not my statistics or my methodology, they are government statistics and if you look at their publication you will see that they recognize the complexities and I would hazard a guess they understand them slightly better than you.

Did I say that the NHS did not have access to email? As my wife used to be responsible for the computerization of GP practices in one of the London health authorities, I was aware that email existed in the NHS. I was illustrating that technological advances can lead to efficiency gains in the service sector as much as they can in the manufacturing sector.

Mefty – no I am laughing at your ignorance and your mad desire to twist stuff to fit your peculiar world view.

I don't know how they do this and I don't have the time to find out.

But you know that it produces numbers that are not only enough to satisfy you, but that you are confident enough about to put forward as an argument to other people?

One thing the statistics don't show is the "non monetary" costs of the productivity gains in the private sector. They have geared manpower to minimal levels and when it gets busy the pressure is on the employees pick up the slack. Add in holidays and sickness and suddenly everyone is working sixty hour weeks, and frequently not getting paid for it.

Add in holidays and sickness and suddenly everyone is working sixty hour weeks, and frequently not getting paid for it.

But I'm sure everyone is jolly happy to be part of such a productive system 😀

TJ – that's a bit rich coming from you. I have put forward my case in what I believe is a reasoned manner using independent statistics. Try it some time.

It's easy to bang on about budget deficit, but would the Tories have borrowed less? The reason for the deficit is the global recession – did you not notice that? Every country has these problems, and compared to the rest of the world we are doing ok. So that to me means that Labour handled it well.

What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that, because labour were in power when it rained, that labour made it rain.

Would you like to address the above point? Specificaly, what would any other party have done differently re the recession, and why would it have helped?

But you know that it produces numbers that are not only enough to satisfy you, but that you are confident enough about to put forward as an argument to other people?

Yes, I am happy to recognise some people might be better than me at certain things – sadly there are an awful lot of both. But if you set the bar so high, does that mean we should all shut up? Might not be a bad idea.

Mefty – really? – lets see some numbers with refeerences that are relevant then? None that you have posted so far.

I on the other hand gave you two different explanations as to why productivity is down. service improvements mean reduced efficiency – they are two sides of the same coin. Its all very complex but if you improve care or reduce waiting lists then this appears to be reduced efficiency.

International comparisons are more useful – where the NHS is shown to be extremely efficient spending less on management and administration and providing more care for less money than any comparable system.

It's easy to bang on about budget deficit, but would the Tories have borrowed less?

Yes.

Every country has these problems, and compared to the rest of the world we are doing ok. So that to me means that Labour handled it well.

When add in all of the off balance sheet liabilities, we are not. Plus, we have far larger levels of private sector debt than any other European counterpart so we are not doing ok by any means.

What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that, because labour were in power when it rained, that labour made it rain.

No, I put forward reasons why I think they were part of the cause of the problem.