Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #6 - Leaders Debate 3

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Chinese will be more useful!

[tonyh29]

Chinese will be more useful!

pedant time but there isn't such a language is there ?

Mandarin, Cantonese, Xiang, Min, Hakka are what they speak , hence the reason they often converse in English with each other

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Mandarin is the big one me thinks, hence the parties want to introduce it wholescale.

[TheWalletInspector]

I don't see why they won't tell us they will raise VAT, it's the easiest option and will save tax raises in the long term. Don't think too many people will be pissed off about it.

It's an indirect tax. That was my understanding of why they won't announce it anyway.

So govts don't announce indirect taxes, they just secretly tell the shops to charge more VAT?

Not before an election they don't.

[snowychap]

And also Cameron has this ridiculous scheme to allow people to build schools. DIY Britain, great....

Better DIY than PFI, though in the end I think you'll find it's exactly the same thing.

Indeed and we'll all be told it's our bloody fault if/when it costs so much and/or goes bloody wrong.

And then, whom would the Tories be able to blame for the 'failure of the Big Society'? People, that's who.

So, Mervyn's suggestion that whoever wins would be out of power for a generation might be shown to be untrue.

Rather, it will be shown that whomever can be blamed for the failure and failings of whoever wins will be seen as responsible for the problems of the country for a generation.

[leviramsey]

Surely that'd just bring xfactor politics into it so much more.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[snowychap]

Surely that'd just bring xfactor politics into it so much more.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why is it not?

[leviramsey]

I don't see why they won't tell us they will raise VAT, it's the easiest option and will save tax raises in the long term. Don't think too many people will be pissed off about it.

It's an indirect tax. That was my understanding of why they won't announce it anyway.

And therein lies the reason that it's never been cut.

[leviramsey]

And also Cameron has this ridiculous scheme to allow people to build schools. DIY Britain, great....

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to do it? What makes the state always best?

It's just shirking responsibility in my mind. Why not invest into the Education System?

Because there is no one-size-fits-all in education (nor in anything else really) and state education is one-size-fits-all (or more properly very-few-sizes-fit-all, which may as well be one-size-fits-all in relation to the amount of variation in sizes required).

[snowychap]

and state education is one-size-fits-all

and the Tory proposal might very well be some-sizes-fit-no-one.

[snowychap]

From The Times (proprietor: one of the Murdochs - I think it's still Rupes):

General hospital under threat as NHS faces post-poll closures

The NHS is facing significant cuts in services across England and Wales despite election pledges from the main parties to protect health spending.

Analysis by The Times has revealed that the number of health bodies preparing the ground for possible closures has increased. Those seeking advice on big changes to NHS services, including shutting down hospital units, has doubled over the past year.

A total of 26 organisations across England approached the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP), the group of experts consulted on service changes, over the past financial year about restructuring care in their area — up from 13 in 2008-09. Requests for informal advice, which normally involve NHS reconfigurations that may attract controversy, cover reforms to maternity, paediatric, cancer and emergency care services.

The approaches illustrate a dramatic shift in attitude to the great NHS taboo of reducing the number of hospitals and beds.

In recent weeks doctors, managers, patient groups and health service researchers have all advocated the strategy as a means of maintaining and enhancing healthcare in the current economic climate. It comes after warnings that the NHS needs to find £20 billion of savings in coming years.

A senior government health adviser told The Times that the NHS was “still in the foothills” of service reconfiguration, with a “maximum amount of change” to be expected over the next two to three years. He added that the message needed to be put out that the Department of Health “would back changes where there is a strong evidence base”. Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, has also spoken of tough decisions in the near future.

The programme is seen as a flashpoint in the next Parliament and a challenging, but essential, agenda for the incoming government.

Experts suggest that the NHS will be structured around fewer, larger hubs of specialist services, many more “outreach” units in local communities and less hospital-based care. The future of many medium-sized facilities, such as the traditional district general hospital, remains uncertain.

A review of child heart surgery in England, disclosed last week in The Times, is seen by some as a model for safer and more cost-effective specialist services. The report sets out plans to have fewer centres, with more staff and facilities, by merging and relocating smaller units.

Patients such as heart attack victims or pregnant women with labour complications could benefit from treatment at specialist regional centres rather than their local hospital, experts suggest.

Last month Reform, a free-market think-tank, called for some regions to cut more than a quarter of their hospital beds.

It argued that the reduction in beds in English hospitals over the past 20 years, from 270,000 to 160,000, must continue and a further 30,000 beds should go.

A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health from McKinsey, the management consultancy, concluded that up to £700 million is spent annually on hospital procedures with limited clinical benefit, and about 40 per cent of patients in hospital at any one time do not need to be there.

Recent attempts to cut or relocate services have been opposed vociferously by patients’ groups and local MPs. Currently, patients are opposing the merging of paediatric units in the West Midlands and the consolidation of maternity units in Manchester and emergency services in London.

Last week Mr Burnham pledged not to close the emergency department at the Whittington Hospital, in North London, after months of public protest. He said, however, that this did not rule out future reconfiguration.

Doctors and medical royal colleges have argued that many hospital services are located too close together or do not see enough patients. Writing in a letter to The Times last month, a coalition of more than 40 national healthcare charities said that cuts to some services could free money to help to care for the long-term sick at home

[snowychap]

It argued that the reduction in beds in English hospitals over the past 20 years, from 270,000 to 160,000

:shock:

[leviramsey]

and state education is one-size-fits-all

and the Tory proposal might very well be some-sizes-fit-no-one.

In which case those sizes would generally cease to exist.

In general, those closest to a problem have the best understanding of the solution.

Bottom-up organization beats top-down organization, except in war... do you want a society that is militarized to the extent that, say, WWII Britain was?

[TheDon]

I enjoyed Latin - but it has not proven to be that useful I am yet to visit anywhere where it has proven a useful aid to get a beer or a taxi

OT but the other month a leader teacher was saying Latin should be reintroduced as it's actually the only language that is recognizable throughout the world ...you could make yourself understood in Africa , Midle East , Europe etc etc with it

isn't sign language universal to everyone who uses it?

Nope. Sign language has many different variants, and it's more complex situation than spoken language. Whereas we can go to any English speaking country and communicate fluently sign language varies regardless of the spoken language, American Sign Language is vastly different to British Sign Language for instance, and neither would understand the other.

[leviramsey]

Nope. Sign language has many different variants, and it's more complex situation than spoken language. Whereas we can go to any English speaking country and communicate fluently sign language varies regardless of the spoken language, American Sign Language is vastly different to British Sign Language for instance, and neither would understand the other.

But Americans and Britons can't understand each other anyway, so it's no loss.

EDIT: or is that Britonianers?

[snowychap]

and state education is one-size-fits-all

and the Tory proposal might very well be some-sizes-fit-no-one.

In which case those sizes would generally cease to exist.

And that's a good thing for public education? :?

In general, those closest to a problem have the best understanding of the solution.

Bottom-up organization beats top-down organization, except in war... do you want a society that is militarized to the extent that, say, WWII Britain was?

Thoroughly agree about bottom-up organization. If you would care to point me towards any party in our electoral melée that believes in that, let alone wishes to give it a shot (this free schools policy doesn't satisfy the requirement in any way) then please do.

p.s. Isn't bottom up organization essentially Marxist?

[leviramsey]

p.s. Isn't bottom up organization essentially Marxist?

Bottom-up organization is also a hallmark of a free market.

[snowychap]

p.s. Isn't bottom up organization essentially Marxist?

Bottom-up organization is also a hallmark of a free market.

Only adventitious bottom-up organization. :winkold:

Anyway, I agree with you (unsurprisingly) about the benefit of worker input and decision making.

Where we may (or may not) differ is whether that is ever likely or, even, worth discussing in our economic/political situation.

Corporatism is never going to allow bottom up, mate.

Workers are only good for putting in to practise corporate decisions.

It is why I wonder how people can fall for all this nonsense about 'efficiency' and 'waste'.

[Chindie]

Mark Williams MP really is desperate for the student vote. He's now sent a (once) handwritten letter (the copied and printed) with hand addressed envelopes. Lots of rhetoric and I'm fantastic, anyone would think this is a close seat.

[leviramsey]

p.s. Isn't bottom up organization essentially Marxist?

Bottom-up organization is also a hallmark of a free market.

Only adventitious bottom-up organization. :winkold:

Anyway, I agree with you (unsurprisingly) about the benefit of worker input and decision making.

Where we may (or may not) differ is whether that is ever likely or, even, worth discussing in our economic/political situation.

Corporatism is never going to allow bottom up, mate.

Workers are only good for putting in to practise corporate decisions.

It is why I wonder how people can fall for all this nonsense about 'efficiency' and 'waste'.

I've long maintained that the likes of Hayek and Friedman would agree with Marx on far more than most people think... the perfectly efficient market is (virtually by definition) a market where there is no profit (thus no surplus value), after all.

The statist objections to liberal "systems" (to the extent that liberalism can create systems) generally boil down to "people/groups of people might make the wrong decision (which is to say, a decision I don't like)" and furthermore that such decisions are bad for society thus should not be allowed.

I'm more optimistic than many about how bottom-up organization can vanquish corporatist (which is to say socialist) organization. Android will render the iPhone a footnote in history, for example:

Tim B. Lee"]

The fundamental problem here is that “objectionable” apps, like bad food, is in the eye of the beholder. In a centrally-planned ecosystem, the proprietor gets blamed for every aspect of the customer experience. And so reviewers are going to reject offerings that will offend any portion of its customer base—even if those same products would have been extremely popular with other customers. So you only get bland food and inoffensive apps.

And the problem tends to get worse over time. Last year, Apple got blamed for approving a tasteless but basically harmless “baby shaker” app. Incidents like this push bureaucracies to be increasingly timid and conservative. If an Apple app reviewer approves an app that proves controversial, he might get in trouble with his boss. In contrast, if he rejects an app that some users would have liked, the users will in most cases never find out what they’re missing. At least until the app author wins a Pulitzer prize and makes the whole approval bureaucracy look ridiculous.

Incidentally, the perverse incentives here apply with equal force to government bureaucracies like the FDA and TSA.

Android is a much better society than iPhone, precisely because it tolerates (and even encourages) failure, because it is in failure that true learning, diversity, and improvement comes.