Forum menu
[i]1. Demand is rising faster than inflation due to an ageing obese alcoholic population
[/i][b]
And this can't be changed? It's not inevitable that people will continue to eat sh*t and drink lots. It's all connected. Obesity and drug dependence are closely related to poverty, income levels, class and education. Reduce poverty, and you'll see the health services demand reduce.
It can be changed but only if we / society are ready for change, and it's fair to say that we're not. The link between alcohol misuse and income is not consistent - many of those drinking the most are not in deprived wards, they are people in the 50s and 60s with good incomes drinking several bottles of wine a week. Obesity appears to be spread across all levels of society with the highest growth in the young. Income and extent of obesity is also not directly linked - it's perfectly possible (and in many cases cheaper) to eat food prepared at home that processed rubbish from the high street.
A better plan would be to make state education so good that no-one WANTS private education.
Well yes, you're talking about an implementation strategy, I was talking about the principle. I agree that if the abolition of private schools were the aim, this is probably the best way to achieve it, along with removing some preferential benefits the private school industry enjoys as Miketually said.
The state interfere in our lives the world over more than at any point in time
Really? So the state is more interfering now than in the 60s/70s? Don't be silly. The power of the state has been vastly reduced in the past 30 years. It's plain fact that in many areas the market has failed. Wealth has not 'trickled down', opportunity is not available to all, and open competition is the exception rather than the norm. If ever there was a time for more state intervention to correct the failures of the market it's now.
Agree with just5mintues, I think the obesity problems we have are more to do with society and our culture. We want quick convenience food and have lost our love for quality and instead prefer quantity.
My mum is a great cook and have been bought up with freshly made food with little processed ingredients. I also have a keen interest in cooking and also try to make food from fresh ingredients rather than the processed alternative. I'm always surprised when I go shopping and occasionally decide to be lazy and go for a few of the convenience options, how much extra the total is at the end.
But then you might argue, who has the time to regularly cook food from scratch while holding a job and looking after a family etc.. Well if some of the social changes that Molgrips was talking about were implemented eg free / cheaper child care. Flexibility to work from home or local office. We might all have a bit less stress and more time for some of the other things in life?
abolition of private education is what I class as "authoritarian", so if you wanted that policy to be not authoritarian, you'd have no choice but to make state education so good that private becomes ever diminishing returns. a negligible minority would ship themselves overseas. if prevented from doing so, then it's authoritarian again.
ah do love ideology. nice idea, won't happen.
Well if some of the social changes that Molgrips was talking about were implemented eg free / cheaper child care. Flexibility to work from home or local office. We might all have a bit less stress and more time for some of the other things in life?
Absolutely. A large part of the need for convenience food IMO is probably due to pepole coming home exhausted at 7pm and needing something quick. If you'd finished work at 4 or earlier, and you'd been out to the shops to pick up some ingredients in your now-rejuvenated village for a mid morning walk, you'd be in a far better frame of mind to cook.
Well yes, you're talking about an implementation strategy, I was talking about the principle.
Fair enough, but you have to appreciate that actually banning something is a completely different thing to simply encouraging the alternative!
Incidentally - why aren't we being asked what we'd like, by the current or previous governments?
Were any of you asked?
but educational trips and holidays don't make half the difference that middle class parents would like to think they do
you need to save that for the "I want to take little jonny skiing in term time thread"
Fair enough, but you have to appreciate that actually banning something is a completely different thing to simply encouraging the alternative!
Well ok, maybe 'abolition' implied the overnight destruction of the private school industry. Tempting as it would be it's not what I would want. Some sort of phasing out approach would be the best one. You could start with nationalisation, then over time remove fees in exchange for govt funding. If we're saying important national infrastructure should be under state ownership such as energy, public transport, health, then it follows that education should be too.
Quite like molgrips original answer, not far off my thinking.
In addition, I'd like to add "children" to his list of people to protect under molgrips first principle.
molgrips - Member
The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. [b][u]Children,[/u][/b] Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.
Sad that some of the other comments from others demonstrate Nasty Politics isn't just restricted to the right.
Abolition of private schools is just jealousy and ideology ahead of pragmatism and what's best for the children involved.
I'm all in favour of improving state education, but at the moment it's not perfect for everyone, so I'm also all in favour of having other options available. They're there because people need them.
Even within state education, there's massive variability in educational standards, quality, and results.
It's this inequality that needs action from the state: not the private schools. And that means making the poorer performing schools better, not dragging the better schools down to "a level playing field".
For me, a left, or socialist, party needs to focus on what's best for the people of the country, not what fits with the ideology of a few middle aged sixth formers.
I do prefer the political compass idea, with a authoritarian/libertarian scale added, to the traditional straight left-right political line.
IMO, a left sided party should be able to function without rising up the autoritarian scale towards totalitarianism.
Once you start adding policies of abolition and compulsion, particularly on the vulnerable like children, then that's where I worry it's going.
Incidentally - why aren't we being asked what we'd like, by the current or previous governments?
Because you didn't vote Tory, Tory voters have all got a survey and wishlist, I am getting breakfast in bed tomorrow,
I'm all in favour of improving state education, but at the moment it's not perfect for everyone, so I'm also all in favour of having other options available. They're there because people need them.
Even within state education, there's massive variability in educational standards, quality, and results.
So rich kids need private schools? Is that really what you're saying? This is exactly what I'm talking about. As long as some people can buy an unfair advantage, the people at the bottom have less chance of achieving their ambitions and improving their life situation. I really don't see what's so radical or extreme about that.
Of course government interferes more than ever before, think cigarettes sold in covered counters, minimum pricing of alcohol, 'green' taxes on petrol and energy bills, congestion charging, etc. Then there are over 800 quangos and check out the following list of Regulatory bodies in the UK
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regulators_in_the_United_Kingdom ]Regulators[/url]
It is all layers and layers of regulation and tax all intended to drive behavior in certain ways. Some of it has worked well, some of it has had unintended consequences, but all of it is the state interfering in markets and hence, peoples lives.
Molgrips - the reason citizens are not asked what they want is because we are not a homogenous group. Look at the journey this thread has gone on and the difference of opinion...I'm not saying it's right - I think that's just one answer to your question
I would say that regulators largely give the illusion of oversight while actually being industry lapdogs. I would like to see regulators with real powers actively defending people from, and punishing the abuses of the sectors they oversee.
The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.
Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.
Then I would also like to see certain key industries nationalised. Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested. Of course, national industries were badly run in the past but privatisation is not the answer. At least, for essential utilities. I perhaps think things like nationalised car manufacturers is taking things a bit far.
+ another
Actually, that sounds like Sweden.
but all of it is the state interfering in markets and hence, peoples lives.
Sums up the tory view
Markets [ money] first and people second
Markets and people go hand in hand, you can't separate one from the other. We all interact with them all the time whether it be looking for a new phone contract or trying to move job. A failure to understand them is the Lefts biggest problem. (To be fair it's not like the right always get it correct either).
Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested.
Shame on those profit making companies who despite being greedy money obsessed corrupt organisations have still managed to:
[url= http://www.cbronline.com/news/telecoms/carrier/uk-mobile-prices-among-cheapest-in-western-europe-4567095 ]Give us the cheapest mobile costs in Europe[/url]
[url= http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/european-broadband-scorecard/ ]Give the widest access to superfast broadband in Europe[/url]
[url= http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/ ]Give us broadband speeds faster than the EU average[/url]
[url= http://telecoms.com/397952/ee-announces-three-year-1-5-billion-network-investment-plan/ ]Re-invest billions into network modernisation - fancy that![/url]
By contrast, many of these conditions are not present where deregulation has been limited by government inertia. So we can have the above, or choose to have more expensive and worse services where profit gets reinvested.
You put markets before people , i never said we dont interact with markets*, and you did not discuss that point whilst "defeating" something i never said.
* as daft as claiming the markets dont interact with the public sector in a mixed economy]
A failure to understand them is the Lefts biggest problem.
The left understands markets perfectly. They just don't agree that they have the power to solve all the world's problems if left unregulated. Centuries of evidence would seem to support this.
[img] 
[/img]
Markets and people go hand in hand, you can't separate one from the other. We all interact with them all the time whether it be looking for a new phone contract or trying to move job.
Hmm. Yes and no.
They allow us to have a big TV and whatever, but they can also have negative consequences. For example you could lose your nice local job to an outsourcing company, and then you are obliged to travel 90 mins each way to another job, so you've got bugger all time to spend at home. Huge detrimental impact on life.
But this mythical free market for jobs doesn't apply everywhere. For example, you might be tied to a particular place for other reasons (parents, kids, ex, inability to drive etc), or you might be a public sector worker. Not much market forces acting on you there apart from your consumer decisions.
The market is NOT everything, despite what Tories would have you believe. And it's definitely not always good. In fact, where human resources are concerned, it can be quite negative.
Re-invest billions into network modernisation - fancy that!
For a minute I thought you meant the rail network.
😆
or you might be a public sector worker.
I always love this mindset that if a public sector worker lost their job they'd never get another, the underlying message is a they are utter useless (and makes you wonder why the tax payer is employing them!). Clearly this tripe, if you are good then you won't have much problem getting a job in the private sector.
Markets aren't inherently bad or good but they are important and most on the Left don't understand them hence their failure to deliver improvements.
A better plan would be to make state education so good that no-one WANTS private education. Carrots, not sticks.
State education already outperforms the private sector, if you adjust of other factors such as home finances, parental education, etc. The advantage of private schooling is in who you meet while you're there, rather than what you learn. But that's probably a discussion for a more specific thread.
Private schools embed, reinforce and amplify the divisions/advantages that are already in place.
I always love this mindset that if a public sector worker lost their job they'd never get another, the underlying message is a they are utter useless (and makes you wonder why the tax payer is employing them!)
Are you having some sort of bet to get the most straw man attacks in on one page or on the same thread?
He never said that did he 🙄
State education already outperforms the private sector, if you adjust of other factors such as home finances, parental education, etc. The advantage of private schooling is in who you meet while you're there, rather than what you learn.
I disagree to a degree (no pun intended). I went to a good comp, an ex-girlfriend went to a top performing grammar (Girls High in Colchester - usually top 10 in the country) and my Dad taught at a private international English curriculum school in Bahrain (teaching relatives of the crown prince and that sort of thing).
Whereas in my comp they were essentially trying to educate all and sundry to a good level, in both the grammar and the private school there was a lot more pressure to do well, and a lot more grooming for university (very much Oxbridge/Ivy League). There is obviously an entry requirement for the grammar and I believe there is one at a lot of private schools - I'm not sure whether St. Christopher's in Bahrain had one. The private school also benefited massively from greater resources and smaller class sizes, as may be the case with the grammar - I can't say for sure.
Are private schools better? Unfortunately probably yes, but that's why they're private. Is the [i]teaching[/i] better? That's far more contentious. As it happens my German teacher went on to teach at Girls High, and she was genuinely very good.
But anyway, as you say:
...that's probably a discussion for a more specific thread.
I always love this mindset that if a public sector worker lost their job they'd never get another, the underlying message is a they are utter useless
Not at all. I know quite a few public sector workers, I'm thinking of a couple in particular. They are very worried indeed about their jobs. In fairness to them they (the people I know) do fairly low skilled jobs, and this is their worry. At the moment they live close to their office, they get flexible work to allow for childcare and life is good. If they lost their jobs they'd probably have to do a lot more travelling, at high cost, and they'd be less likely to get the flexibility they've based their life around. It would be very traumatic and result in two far less happy people.
This is what the markets do to people, I'm afraid. If we're treated as simple economic resources subject to market constraints then we'll be paid the minimum and stretched to the maximum that we can endure. This doesn't make for a happy life.
Markets aren't inherently bad or good but they are important and most on the Left don't understand them hence their failure to deliver improvements
You really think every Labour, Green, Plaid and SNP politician is this stupid? More stupid than you?
How about this for an alternative interpretation - they DO understand them - just differently to you. Maybe they have different values and wish to constrain the markets in a way that improves quality of life, not just GDP?
I went to a good comp
And they didn't teach you the difference between anecdote and data? Even the shit comp that I went to did that.
Can't resist posting this....more lefty musings 😉
"More than almost any [other] developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress. In England, more than in any comparable country, those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege. For those of us who believe in social justice this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.”
Very naughty nick1962
more lefty musings
Well, he does have a history of taking strike action. If only he'd been in a position to do something about education.
Interesting, given the comments above about lefties being authoritarian: "[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-too-tolerant-and-should-interfere-more-in-peoples-lives-says-david-cameron-10246517.html ]For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'[/url]".
Money is a man made concept get your head arround that google it, then you will realise the only thing in the way of a better world are the people that currently have most of the money and would no longer be special priveiged people if we changed the system they are the enemy.
Sounds like a great idea to abolish things we are world class in!!
Sounds like a great idea to abolish things we are world class in!!
We are world class at entrenching privilege, you're right. I'm not sure that's something to be proud of or to keep?
😉
Quite right, quite right.