Wrong again mefty - some of these improvements cannot be measured at all.
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.
From your BBC link.
so, getting back on topic...
why was Cameron wearing a purple tie?
My daughters reckoned he's had his hair ruffled up since the last debate to try & look a bit more 'street'
Did he mention his unfortunate son again?
Cameron is balding fast - hence the fancy hairdo to disguise the fact he is a slaphead in waiting.
Did he mention his unfortunate son again?
He did indeed, whilst making a point about carers needing help. Pretty sickening really. Like saying, "by the way, you haven't forgotten that I had a severely disabled son who died have you?". Gordon Brown has also had his fair share of family tragedy but I've never heard him mention it once in this campaign.
What can't be measured will cut both ways, but for the major areas of expenditure a measure was included and the trend is clear. If government expenditure automatically led to improving service, why does the present government think there are so many efficiency gains to be found in the public sector?
Being detained without charge - that is something
And of course the Tories wouldnt do that would they. Would they?
Well in 1971 they introduced internment in Ireland which effectively locked up almost 2000 people, all without charge.
Convenient recollection anyone?
The more I read this thread the more I feel Clegg has a point, adversarial, first past the post politics just doesn't work.
We need a hung parlament AFAIC.
If government expenditure automatically led to improving service
Did anyone say that? Don't be silly.
Just because there is waste in public service, doesn't mean that all public expenditure is bad or inefficient.
There's a lot of waste in private companies too, just to let you know.
I think it is a reasonable conclusion from TJ's view that improved service is the corollary for reduced productivity.
Just because there is waste in public service, doesn't mean that all public expenditure is bad or inefficient.
I don't disagree but I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government. No doubt there is waste in the private sector but eventually the inefficient will lose to the more efficient. There is no equivalent balancing mechanism in the public sector, so we have to choose a government who will manage it in the best way. I don't believe the present one will.
I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government
Of course it is in theory, but in practice it's monumentally difficult to do. And I see no indication that the Tories or Lib Dem will be able to do anything better than what Labour could do.
It's virtually impossible, but politicians will try and cut stuff anyway and inevitably cause problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't disagree but I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government. No doubt there is waste in the private sector but eventually the inefficient will lose to the more efficient.
Jesus H Christ! It's all so simple in your world isn't it mefty?
Yes, inefficient companies do eventually lose to the more efficient. Are we counting Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock and RBS? Or just more traditional companies like Rover, Woolworths and Portsmouth Football Club (to name three that spring to mind, although tens of firms go bust each day) - but you talk as if none of this has any effect on the people that work there. That it's all fine and for the greater good because it's in the private sector?
You think that is how vital public services should be run?
