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 o****ry 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.
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.The use of email etc can massively increase the efficiency of communication
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.
>What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that, because labour were in power when it rained, that labour made it rain.
It happened on Gordon's "watch" (to quote Mr Blair), he can't just wash his hands of the event. He has now admitted his mistakes ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8618974.stm )
>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?
Who knows ? That's now history. Perhaps it still would have happened under the tories, perhaps it would have been worse, perhaps not. We'll never know.
The way I see it is this:
Good things whilst Labour have been in govt (and this is by no means an exhaustive list):
- 100s of new/rebuilt schools. Just drive around anywhere and you'll see them.
- Hospitals, ditto above.
- Minimum Wage, no more people being exploited on slave-like wages of £2/hour
- Child tax credits - No more single mothers trying to bring up a family on £50/week dole money like in the 80s.
Bad things whilst they've been in power (again, not exhaustive):
- Iraq
- Property Boom
- Banking crisis and resultant recession
- Erosion of civil liberties
- MPs Expenses scandal
- Failure to reform the electoral system
If you look at these lists you can say with some confidence that all bad things would have have happened just the same under a tory govt or perhaps would have been worse, and all the good things would never have happened as the tories opposed them at every point.
I have put forward my case in what I believe is a reasoned manner [b]using independent statistics. [/b]
I don't know how they do this and I don't have the time to find out.
ha ha ha
TJ - [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8091458.stm ]here [/url]is the BBC report on the Official Statistics you can find these on the ONS website but this is a good summary. [url= http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/user-guidance/productivity-handbook/psp/index.html ]Here[/url] is the ONS handbook on how they measure productivity etc. Perhaps you better get in touch with them and explain the flaws in their methodology.
dazh - iraq, erosion of civil liberties
Same under a tory gov ?
You sure about that ? Tories want to scrap ID cards.
Blair peddled the 45 minute lie to the house of commons and the tories supported him. Without that dossier would the same thing have happened ?
The Office of National Statistics is supposed to be independent, you can hardly say it is Tory influenced when they have been out of power for 13 years.
Yes, I am happy to recognise some people might be better than me at certain things
The point is that you have put an interpretation on some statistics that you are happy to admit you don't understand ?!
Statistics don't usually prove anything - they are generally open to interpretation.
I was trying to point out that your interpretation of the statistics was poor because you are not comparing like with like.
To make an analogy, you could look at the top speed of a Ferrari and the top speed of a Smart Car and come to the conclusion that the Ferrari is the "better" car. Or you could look at the mpg and conclude that the Smart Car is the "better" car. Or you could consider both things together in light of your driving habits and budget and then come to a conclusion.
You have used one small point of measurement to come to a general conclusion about the NHS.
ID cards is not the same thing as erosion of civil liberties AT ALL.
ID cards do nothing. Being detained without charge - that is something. The two are unrelated. Would the tories have done the 28 day thing given that that's what police etc were insisting upon? Probably. Did they oppose it in the commons? Maybe they did, but really they say anything they like to score points, so it's a bit empty really.
Mefty - I don't doubt productivity is down - and I have given you two reasons why improving the health care reduces productivity. Alluded to on the BBC link.
"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
>ID cards is not the same thing as erosion of civil liberties AT ALL.
Really ? Can I have some of what you're smoking. 😆
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/31-id-cards/index.shtml
What I meant was that ID cards are fairly benign, and detaining without charge is pretty serious - and the two are not linked.
Oh and that link is well dodgy. Let me just laugh at this being someone working on software to do with this stuff:
Plans are still in place for anyone renewing or getting a passport (and possibly driving licence or other documents including Criminal Record Bureau check). This is envisaged starting in 2009-10 but this may well change.
Hahaha!
Very biased website that.
And it all seems based on the blanket assumption that having the government know who you are is some terrible dark thing. I just don't get it.
I never drew any conclusions about the NHS as I didn't look for the figures, I drew a conclusion about the public sector in general as that is what the figures measure. Technological advances should lead to productivity gains yet the UK public sector has not achieved any productivity gains in the last decade, that leads me to believe that money has been wasted. The productivity gains in the private sector are indicative of what could have been achieved. That is comparing like with like.
iraq, erosion of civil libertiesSame under a tory gov ?
Absolutely. At no point in the run-up to Iraq did the tories voice any opposition to it. They were fully behind it, and any claims that they would've opposed it if they'd known all the facts - which they almost certainly did anyway - are simply political opportunism of the worst kind.
On civil liberties, until Cameron popped up, the tories were fully behind all the draconian measure proposed by Blair and didn't voice any opposition to it. Again, their apparent recent conversion to libertarianism is just political opportunism.
It amazes me what short memories people have.
Its not comparing like with like in any way at all! Did you read the BBC link you provided?
The ONS admits that is a very complex task. Senior statistician Aileen Simpkins describes the figures as "experimental".In the private sector, most outputs are measurable in money terms, but in the public sector most outputs are difficult to capture in that way.
Even so, these figures cannot measure everything.For example, an anti-bullying initiative might be a key factor in determining what children and parents think about a school, but unless it is actually producing better exam results, the school's output is not increased as far as the statisticians are concerned.
So it can look as if an organisation has become less efficient if it is devoting resources to things that are not being measured.
Another problem with the figures is that only health and education outputs are adjusted for quality.
How do you count the reduction in children being killed? The reduction in waiting lists? The increased number of frail elderly being cared for at home ( very expensive this)
until Cameron popped up, the tories were fully behind all the draconian measure proposed by Blair and didn't voice any opposition to it.
That's because Dave just automatically slags off anything the Govt says, to try and score points. Which is pathetic and extremely counter productive no matter which side you are on.
I did admit that the comparison was not perfect. However, these statistics are the best indicator that we have got and the trend is clear. They are more reliable than anecdotal evidence from either side
They were fully behind it, and any claims that they would've opposed it if they'd known all the facts - which they almost certainly did anyway - are simply political opportunism of the worst kind.
Plus one for that comment, because.
a) If they didn't know the facts, they have then supported going to war without knowing the facts, which is automatically wrong.
b) If they did know the facts they are automatically lying.
Either way round arse is exposed. There is no other viable position on this.
Mefty - you still don't get it - no one is disputing that productivity is down - however its a corollary of improving services.
so, getting back on topic...
why was Cameron wearing a purple tie?
TJ - not if you measure the quality of the service in your productivity measure it isn't, which the figures do for the nhs and education.
