peterms

Laugh, or cry? Undecided, here.

Do you not think that the tory strategy, such as it is, is to put forward a totally mad position while proclaiming it in "the national interest" (ie suits the short-term interests of SamCam's current dinner guests), which will force the Libs either to come quietly (so they are shackled for the next 5 years), or else rebel (so Cameron goes for an election of the basis of having been sold out, hoping for a clear majority?

Yes, obviously. Of course some degree of global warming could happen for any number of non-man-made reasons, but the question seems to be asking whether we have made it worse. Only an imbecile would dissent.

The bigger thing to take issue with in what you wrote is the idea that there is an economically productive sector (private) and a non-productive one (public). There are lots of activities in the private sector which are non-productive, or essentially parasitic. There are plenty others which produce things, but not things that we need. In the public sector, there are a large number of activities which create the conditions without which the private sector would struggle to exist. You worked in one such role yourself, surely Jon? The view that the private sector is the engine of civilisation while the public sector is a leech feeding off it is, shall we say, simplistic at best. The attitude of entitlement exists, no doubt. One example I could give is the attitude of self-styled "wealth creators", who resent their income being taxed at the rate it is (or at all), as though they have single-handedly created something without all the massive social infrastructure which not only they but all their staff, suppliers and customers depend on, and without which their efforts at "wealth creation" wouldn't exist at all.

Seemingly Polly doesn't understand that it is not "free" at all, only free to the recipient and paid for by those working in the private sector. That is what I mean by government doing things it's not there to do. Of course those in the public sector pay taxes too but the wages that tax is deducted from inevitably comes from the economically productive part of the economy. Oh come on. Free in this context means and has always meant free at the point of delivery, like free health care - no-one thinks health care actually has no cost, do they? People don't really need to say "free to the recipient at the point of delivery" every time, do they?

There are several reasons why targets might be thought unsuitable. One is that they can tend to worsen performance, not improve it. This can happen when the behaviour of those charged with meeting the targets alter their behaviour so that the target is met, rather than that performance is maximised. In the hospital context, that could be seeing everyone on day 89 of a target 90 day waiting time limit, rather than seeing 90% of people in two weeks, 8% in 90 days, and 2% in 100 days. The former meets the target, the latter doesn't, but this inverts what most would see as better performance. In this example, performance sinks to the level of compliance with targets, rather than the best that can be achieved. Another is that excessive resources can be diverted into measuring and monitoring performance, rather than improving it. Like the above example, it's not a necessary outcome, more a constant danger. Another is the cultural changes which might happen over time, if the ethos does become about compliance and doing just enough to avoid criticism, rather than trying to excel. Targets are good in their place. It would be a pretty meaningless football league without targets, for example. But in some contexts, they aren't all they are cracked up to be. All of which is not to say anything about the possible motives of the tories for abolishing targets, if they do. Of course the target they are working to is the percentage growth year on year of private medical care at the expense of public...

You didn't. Did you think I suggested you did?

Dramatically lower wages (along with substantial reductions in welfare payments, because I suspect that the wages would have to be lower than what one could get in benefits)? There're very good reasons that production of those sorts of goods left for China and there's no way to bring them back without reducing the standard of living in the UK (either you increase the prices for those goods to the point that it makes sense to produce them domestically or you decrease wages to the point that it makes sense to produce them domestically or some combination thereof... any one of those results in a net decline in real incomes, especially at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale). It is indeed important for the Tory project to reduce wages and benefits (though probably not in order to challenge China in the production of cheap consumer goods). A recent letter to the Guardian quoted Alan Budd, an economist prominent in the Thatcher experiment:

That doesn't sound like the best morning after discovering a new strong drink. Hope the monsters didn't shriek too loudly.

Aspalls is cider, and Aspinalls is a casino set up by a mad tory who helped Lord Lucan escape and built zoos where more than one keeper was mauled to death. Now responsible, via his charitable trust, for many of the chuggers who stop you in the street and ask you to sign up to some implausible promise of ending animal cruelty by helping them reach their target, failing which they will be summarily dismissed. Of the two, I think Aspalls is the wiser choice.

this could work because it would mean universitites would scale back degrees where students don't go into a job directly. take media degrees. Heavily over subscribed, a lot of people who get that degree end up not in the media in any format but doing years of work in admin centers and other fairly average paid jobs that they would have got if they didn't go to Uni. I think their proposal would reduce this, and also reduce the number of people going to university, which is a good thing. We seem a bit confused about this. Going to uni is seen as a good thing, which is why Thatch doubled the number of university students by decreeing that henceforth, East Cheltenham College of Macrame would be known as Whizzo University of the Arts. And so on, across the entire UK. It's also seen as an engine of economic development, which is why rapidly developing third world countries place such a premium on university education. But degrees in themselves don't create economic growth, or necessarily confer advantage. So if we're going to look for a system which recognises where people's life histories, of whatever sort, have placed them in a position to gain economic advantage, let's tax them accordingly, so they can put back something relative to what they take out. If they get educated for a few years and miss out on income and the spending that goes with that, their choice. But let's not mess about with proxies for assessing economic advantage, like taxing education. Let's make it a lot simpler, by just taxing what people manage to earn. It could be a sort of tax on income. I know! Let's call it "income tax"!

Well, as someone who has no relatives involved in this, or anywhere near, can I say I don't find the "jokes" amusing. The rush to publish seems to have overwhelmed the wit factor, so that something rushed on to on the net tonight is valued over something which shows a trace of humour. And I speak as someone who has no problem at all with tasteless jokes. If they are funny, fine. If they are tedious but posted early, well thanks, but really, why bother? It's like being asked to value an early edition of the Sun on the basis that it's the 2 o'clock edition, not the one the hits the streets, when actually both are total arsewipe.

Blair set the moral tone for the last government. I appreciate that you're not a Labour Party member, but I can assure you that some who were, were taking their MPs to task very early on in the 97 administration for the Ecclestone saga, and the messages it conveyed about what the government stood for. Sadly, it proved a very good indicator of what would be happening, and things like the recurrent Mandelson scandals hardly rebuilt moral leadership. Labour abandoned a lot of territory in those years, largely due to Blair, his pathetic hero worship of rich people and "celebrities", and the craven obedience of his careerist acolytes. It will take a generation to undo the damage, if indeed it can be done. This is ridiculous - Just because the Labour party at the time had a view then does not make it right - just because Labour started a scheme and now it's potentially exploited massively by the Tory party in order that profits can be made at the expense of what? the Tory party said they were no longer the party of the Thatcher years - a simple lie on their part If you are happy about profits being made in this way - and no not you Peter - then it says a lot about you the person. Well, I'm not sure if you meant to quote my post and address it, or quote another, because you seem to do neither.

Blair set the moral tone for the last government. I appreciate that you're not a Labour Party member, but I can assure you that some who were, were taking their MPs to task very early on in the 97 administration for the Ecclestone saga, and the messages it conveyed about what the government stood for. Sadly, it proved a very good indicator of what would be happening, and things like the recurrent Mandelson scandals hardly rebuilt moral leadership. Labour abandoned a lot of territory in those years, largely due to Blair, his pathetic hero worship of rich people and "celebrities", and the craven obedience of his careerist acolytes. It will take a generation to undo the damage, if indeed it can be done.

Ulster was founded on murder, disappropriation and theft. It's not a new thing.

Yes, if you want to avoid going on a dedicated photography site.

Simple way to do that is shadow the Guardian Camera Club. It means there's always a short video tips guide linked to the monthly theme, there's no messing about with those difficult decisions about what the theme should be, there's the possibility of inspiration (plagiarism?) from shots posted on that site, and any shots which are especially good could be uploaded there.

He's been scanning the forum in the last couple of days. Let's hope that when he does post, his comments won't attract quite so much snide comment as I recall this time last year. I found his comments informative and interesting, most seemed to think so as well, but a small number of people treated him like he'd set himself up as some kind of infallible seer, which was just not the case.

The whole thread so far bears out this assessment. It's like a distillation of all that's barking about some contributions to the site. Comedy gold.

Not very long, in my view. There is a strong current of thought that they are trying to exert undue influence (a bit odd, given the vote) which coupled with deference towards the ruling parties will squeeze them. They are also inexperienced. Will they sink back into the safety of oppositional politics, or will they step up to be shot at? Who knows. If they refuse to step up, having a chance to do so, that could act against them. Not much sleep in Lib HQ tonight.

Yes indeed, very funny. What a complete arse Boulton makes of himself. Armwaving, spluttering, apoplectic, incoherent shite. I don't like Campbell, but I thought he played Boulton like an angler reeling in a prime fat fish. No contest.

This phrase was popular in the 1970s, among people who mostly couldn't hold more that two thoughts in their head at any one time, at least one of those being "sit on chair", or "don't fall down". It seems to be coming back into fashion. It can only be a bad sign.

I quite liked that one. Don’t worry Snowy, its happened to us all at some point. you speak for yourself .. I'm still waiting to even get that close to a woman See, by saying "woman" you've halved your possibilities at a stroke, so to speak.

I quite liked that one.

Full article Well, it's a pretty poor piece. No, not because it doesn't come from Spartacist Weekly, but because the tiresome author doesn't seem to think that doing what in my day was known as "British Constitution A-Level" should be a precondition for writing supposedly informed articles about the British Constitution, such as it is. Full of self-serving opinion, short on precedent and history. In my day, that was a sacking offence on the Torygraph.