Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:44 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The NHS needs to be more efficiently run, just pumping money in as Labour did just increased the waste that already existed. Not enough clinic staff too many managers. Whoever takes on the NHS will have some difficult choices, I can't see how this can be funded and developed without a serious overhaul of how it is run and massive cash injections especially in preventative education.

I'd say exactly the opposite. It needs more managers and admin staff. Spending on management consultants has doubled. When I worked for the NHS management and admin was done on the cheap and ended up causing more problems and so cost. To the point where nursing and clinical staff were having to do admin work. And that's when Labour were putting money into the NHS.

I'm sure there are efficiencies that can be made, reducing the amount of expensive management consultants, agency admin staff and agency clinical staff would be a start. But that requires an increase in planned expenditure.

During the years 1998-2008 NHS spending increased roughly 6% per year. The Kings Fund estimate the NHS needs an increase of £8bn per year just to stand still, that's roughly 7%. Not to mention that in a few years time there will be 20% additional over-65's to treat and care for.

The NHS needs more money. The ageing population, increasing drug and medication costs and population growth etc mean whilst efficiency should be promoted and prioritised (and I agree we need some change in how we make NHS Chiefs and hospital bosses accountable) but it also needs regular increases in spending to keep pace.

And the money Labour put in wasn't excessive, it's what was needed.

Sal Paradise wrote:

On education you have to question what we are getting for our money - it needs investment but it needs an overhaul. When you have the likes of Ian Murch calling for a strike on a whim that there might be job losses you have to question if some of the power in the teaching unions are in the correct vocation.

Definitely agree Education needs an overhaul. It's a mess and needs a total re-direction away from passing exams. I sort of view education as a bit like amateur RL. It's obsessed with passing exams/winning games rather than developing children/developing skills.
However it also needs more money. Class sizes are too high. There are still classes of 30+ which is just impossible to adequately teach.
That alongside desperately needed reforms such as reducing and re-prioritising a ridiculously out of date curriculum and things like longer lessons in the same subject rather than a child having to do 6 or 7 wildly different subjects in 1 day.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:55 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: Whilst I take your point about renting, ownership should be seen as aspirational and not elitist as you seem to view it. Renting is barmy in my view - you are just paying out ever increasing amounts to a landlord who will be paying out ever decreasing amounts as the property ages. If there was a massive housing shortage you would not be able to find anywhere to rent - that is simply not the case. There maybe issues in certain areas where renting is expensive but there is accommodation to be had. I have never viewed home ownership as elitist. I view it as an option but certainly not aspirational. To view it as aspirational is to condemn those renting (by choice or necessity), as inferior to home owners. Renting is not stigmatised in any European country in the way it is here and increasingly more people are preferring renting - Generation Rent Report You may also want to listen to today's Radio 4 You and Yours programme on iPlayer. Very enlightening from a range of buyers and renters You may well view renting as "barmy" but how do you suggest someone on a zero-hours contract gets the money for a deposit and then finds a bank willing to offer a mortgage? Houses are now viewed as an investment to be borrowed against, as opposed to somewhere to live. That is wrong! The house-price boom started with 'Right to Buy' and the liberalisation of banks and building societies. Mortgages became easier to get and with ever lower deposits. All predicated on house prices rising at a greater rate than inflation. This led to the ridiculous situation where Northen Rock were offering 110% mortgages - "here have a house and go on holiday with the rest of it, you'll only be paying for the holiday for the next 25 years". House (or more accurately, LAND) prices continued to rise simply because we weren't building enough - the housing shortage that you don't believe in. The only way to return to some semblance or normality is to embark on another housebuilding spree as we did post-WW2. This will of course have the effect of reducing property prices nationwide, possibly even plunging some into negative equity. But hey, why should that bother anyone? In reality they'll still be paying the same monthly amount for the same house, the bank will still be getting their money. So what's the problem?

Sal Paradise wrote: Whilst I take your point about renting, ownership should be seen as aspirational and not elitist as you seem to view it. Renting is barmy in my view - you are just paying out ever increasing amounts to a landlord who will be paying out ever decreasing amounts as the property ages. If there was a massive housing shortage you would not be able to find anywhere to rent - that is simply not the case. There maybe issues in certain areas where renting is expensive but there is accommodation to be had. I have never viewed home ownership as elitist. I view it as an option but certainly not aspirational. To view it as aspirational is to condemn those renting (by choice or necessity), as inferior to home owners. Renting is not stigmatised in any European country in the way it is here and increasingly more people are preferring renting - Generation Rent Report You may also want to listen to today's Radio 4 You and Yours programme on iPlayer. Very enlightening from a range of buyers and renters You may well view renting as "barmy" but how do you suggest someone on a zero-hours contract gets the money for a deposit and then finds a bank willing to offer a mortgage? Houses are now viewed as an investment to be borrowed against, as opposed to somewhere to live. That is wrong! The house-price boom started with 'Right to Buy' and the liberalisation of banks and building societies. Mortgages became easier to get and with ever lower deposits. All predicated on house prices rising at a greater rate than inflation. This led to the ridiculous situation where Northen Rock were offering 110% mortgages - "here have a house and go on holiday with the rest of it, you'll only be paying for the holiday for the next 25 years". House (or more accurately, LAND) prices continued to rise simply because we weren't building enough - the housing shortage that you don't believe in. The only way to return to some semblance or normality is to embark on another housebuilding spree as we did post-WW2. This will of course have the effect of reducing property prices nationwide, possibly even plunging some into negative equity. But hey, why should that bother anyone? In reality they'll still be paying the same monthly amount for the same house, the bank will still be getting their money. So what's the problem?

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:50 pm  

What this country needs is some radical thinking. We could solve our problems very quickly if we did. 4 ideas that nobody would have the guts to introduce:

1. Ban non-EU citizens owning property here. Would free up many thousands of flats overnight.
2. Ban baby boomers from passing on wealth. A medium term 100% inheritance tax charge allied to short-lived high tax rates (income, corporation tax and VAT) with a view to clearing the deficit and building up a sovereign wealth fund to fund future public expenditure. Get rid of business rates.
3. Ban private education for a generation.
4. Legislate to ban retail outlets from having more than 30- or 40 outlets nationally. That would help create more diversity in our shopping areas, better customer service, more jobs and a meritocratic, entrepreneurial explosion when allied to the above points.

[DaveO]

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:41 pm  

Dally wrote:

What this country needs is some radical thinking. We could solve our problems very quickly if we did. 4 ideas that nobody would have the guts to introduce:

1. Ban non-EU citizens owning property here. Would free up many thousands of flats overnight.

It would certainly affect property prices in London. It's been government policy for decades to encourage investment in London property from overseas so I can't see this happening.

2. Ban baby boomers from passing on wealth. A medium term 100% inheritance tax charge allied to short-lived high tax rates (income, corporation tax and VAT) with a view to clearing the deficit and building up a sovereign wealth fund to fund future public expenditure.

I am not sure why you'd single them out. Not all baby boomers are rich. Why not just treat inheritance as income with no large tax free allowance?

Even then I am not sure what the effect of that would be regarding property. It could make someone homeless at the expense of having to see property to pay a tax bill.

I have always thought of inheritance as income for those on the receiving end.

Get rid of business rates.

I don't see why. Businesses have to contribute for refuse collection and so on given they avail themselves of local services.

3. Ban private education for a generation.

Just ban it fill stop.

4. Legislate to ban retail outlets from having more than 30- or 40 outlets nationally. That would help create more diversity in our shopping areas, better customer service, more jobs and a meritocratic, entrepreneurial explosion when allied to the above points.

I am not sure it would have the effect you think. Unless you ban superstores it could lead to there being just one large such store in an different areas. The big players would carve the country up between them and operate a local monopoly setting prices as they saw fit. What you say might result in an unintentional cartel.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:30 pm  

Business rates are crazy and distortive. Retailers are at a huge disadvantage compared with online traders. Small businesses are taxed too highly through them and they represent a big cost especially for start-ups. Much better to increase taxes on profits to cover the lost revenue to the public sector. For example, as a micro-business we pay several thousand pounds per annum effectively for access to the police and the fire-brigade in the event of need. We pay privately for a security guard and privately for refuse collection. We don't live in the area nor do we especially earn revenue from the residents of the area. We and others like us are effectively a cash cow for the local authority. Much better to reduce / scrap rates and encourage would-be employers?

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:44 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I don't see why. Businesses have to contribute for refuse collection and so on given they avail themselves of local services.

As Dally mentions above, refuse collection from business premises was removed from the responsibility of the local councils at least fifteen years ago, instead you now get fleeced by the likes of Biffa who assume that all businesses need skip-sized wheelie bins to remove a couple of waste paper baskets of general office rubbish every week.

And you still have to pay the same business rates, it really is an inadequate and inequitable system of simply removing profit from a business and one of the main reasons why so many independents fail on the High Street.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:05 pm  

They should give everyone a lifetime's allowance for how much they can receive untaxed from inheritances. Tax the recipient rather than the estate.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:06 pm  

Dally wrote:

3. Ban private education for a generation.

And replace it with what? Totalitarian state control? How are you going to get all teachers of the same standard to make sure everyone get's the same level of education? How are you going to ensure all class sizes are the same? What about kids with special needs, or are you just lumping them in with everyone else? Or are you going to conveniently just turn a blind eye to the startling impracticalities of it all, because, y'know, private = rich = bad and therefore we have to drag everyone down to that level, then the likes of DaveO and cod'ead will be happy.

Then what if a parent wants young Timmy to do a bit of extra reading? Will that be banned? And when you've churned out this generation of robots, what jobs are they going to do?

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:36 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

And replace it with what? Totalitarian state control? How are you going to get all teachers of the same standard to make sure everyone get's the same level of education? How are you going to ensure all class sizes are the same? What about kids with special needs, or are you just lumping them in with everyone else? Or are you going to conveniently just turn a blind eye to the startling impracticalities of it all, because, y'know, private = rich = bad and therefore we have to drag everyone down to that level, then the likes of DaveO and cod'ead will be happy.

Then what if a parent wants young Timmy to do a bit of extra reading? Will that be banned? And when you've churned out this generation of robots, what jobs are they going to do?

We have a non-totalitarian state education system now which most use.

I think we should try to recreate meritocratic, entrepreneurial society that allows the best people to succeed and not those who inherit wealth or have a privileged education. The current system holds back the dynamism of the British people.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:53 pm  

Dally wrote:

I think we should try to recreate meritocratic, entrepreneurial society that allows the best people to succeed and not those who inherit wealth or have a privileged education. The current system holds back the dynamism of the British people.

Utter, utter, tripe. The same old tired excuses, it's always someone elses fault. So, you're answer to create these entrepreneurial free thinkers is to have everyone educated in exactly the same way? FFS