Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 11:43:08 GMT 1
[ Bloody hell Pab. Not dumb enough to vote for the Tories or Lib Dems? Maybe not but stupid enough to vote for an administration which took us to an illegal war in Iraq which has cost the nation hundreds of innocent lives. Much as i enjoy your rare ventures into the world of B&A politics Ant, im struggling to see a connection between the discussion about economics and the war in iraq?If you're going to suggest everyone who voted for the Tories or the Lib Dems is an idiot then be prepared to be linked to the massive errors the last Labour administration made, hence this point is very applicable to this debate. In the instance I point to above this is particularly true, given it was a policy which cost hundreds of lives of the service personnel of this country, let alone the innocent thousands of Iraqis killed too. I agree with your sentiment that Labour would do a marginally better job than the Tories on the economy, but in the grand scheme of things their approach would not differ materially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 12:03:06 GMT 1
If you're going to suggest everyone who voted for the Tories or the Lib Dems is an idiot then be prepared to be linked to the massive errors the last Labour administration made, hence this point is very applicable to this debate. In the instance I point to above this is particularly true, given it was a policy which cost hundreds of lives of the service personnel of this country, let alone the innocent thousands of Iraqis killed too. ahh i see. thanks for clearing that up. worth noting though, that before the election, there was a lot of grandstanding about how there being a meeting of the "war cabinet" within 30 days of the tories coming to power. they had a meeting of the war cabinet as promised, but what has been the outcome? what is the new policy, what is the new strategy. have they changed anything or are they continuing with the previous governments plans? thought not. so if the previous governments plan was flawed, so is this ones?I agree with your sentiment that Labour would do a marginally better job than the Tories on the economy, but in the grand scheme of things their approach would not differ materially. Thanks. and just getting away from the obvious political differences here, could i suggest that maybe if you where one of the million people about to be made jobless you may think differently?
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Jul 10, 2010 12:19:17 GMT 1
A few thoughts/facts for your enjoyment and consideration - these come from one of the few truly independent UK publications, rather than the vast majority of media views referred to at present which the majority of the time have some form of agenda behind them, be it from the journalists themselves or their owners - non-existent prize for anyone guessing the source - BSF school programme - complicated and costly PFI initiative, since 2005 has accounted for 1/3 of education capital spending on a disproportionately meagre number of schools, incomprehensible joint venture agreements between local authorities, private firms and the BSF LLP; annual renewal costs will be at least £700m per year for decades under these agreements
- NHS changes - full system roll out of GP commissioning proposed, Labour tried to launch this on a voluntary basis in 2005 with only sporadic interest not helped by no can do stance of NHS Chief Exec David Nicholson; will require 500+ consortia to be held accountable for £60bn of spending, supervised by an independent NHS board, focus needs to be on right mix in these consortia between GP's and NHS managers; the multitide of inquiries done/ongoing show that change of culture is needed in the NHS away from the defensive power-obsessed present management culture
- National Rail - their government backed debt of £23bn was long ago placed off the government books as with so much off-balance sheet initiatives such as PFI under Gordon Brown's prudent stewardship as Chancellor/PM - now to move back into Treasury calculations
- OBR - independence has to be questioned when headed up by former head of a financial betting firm handpicked by George Osborne and who has advised 2 previous Conservative administrations
- example of NHS over-staffing/waste in non-frontline posts - recent reconfiguration of NHS in Wales from 22 local health boards into 7 new trusts, ideal opportunity one would think for streamlining and economies of scale to reduce the 22 chief execs, 22 FD's, 22 Directors of Nursing etc and pump the savings into frontline services - sadly not as Labour Health Minister in Welsh Assembly confirmed that no jobs would be lost so 6 months on from the shake up dozens of senior managers have no meaningful jobs to do. In 1 of the trusts alone, there are 36 senior managers earning more than £50k per annum in this position.
- How the LibDems have changed part 106 - in opposition they promised a public enquiry into the Deepcut shootings, now it is clear that extensive investigations have already taken place so there is no public interest in progressing a further enquiry
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 12:36:50 GMT 1
Ant, about when did you change your mind about the Iraq War?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 12:39:07 GMT 1
Mark, in fairness you cant leave it like that. need some kind of reference / details to allow us to judge the validity of it.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 12:40:33 GMT 1
Keegan has been excellent for 20 years or more.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 12:42:22 GMT 1
Mark, in fairness you cant leave it like that. need some kind of reference / details to allow us to judge the validity of it. But even accepting the validity of it let's not pretend it comes to 25% expenditure cuts. Is the reference to the OBR supposedly a description of Alan Budd?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 12:43:45 GMT 1
Without doubt Sean you have a better understanding of financial affairs than most on here. However I have as much right as you to post and put a point across however weak in your esteemed eyes. May I suggest you take your head out of your fat hairy arse understand that and stop being a show off - know it all belittler. Then again you dont work in the city do you. I'm going to log off now as I am upset and worried by you, it has nothing to do with the fact I am in London at 0900hrs tomorrow. Voices in your head Windsor.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 10, 2010 12:58:27 GMT 1
[/img][/quote] who else can you blame (yes, the labour party, if you are still clinging to team politics ). those who controlled the money ballsed it up for everybody else, they are also very wealthy. nobody is saying that every rich person is to blame though.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 10, 2010 12:59:04 GMT 1
Ever get the feeling you've been had? nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence. None taken and, just to be clear, I've never voted Tory in my life and can't imagine any circumstances in which I would. The question was rhetorical - some of my vintage may recognise it from the Sex Pistols.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 10, 2010 13:03:17 GMT 1
nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence. None taken and, just to be clear, I've never voted Tory in my life and can't imagine any circumstances in which I would. The question was rhetorical - some of my vintage may recognise it from the Sex Pistols. swindled
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 10, 2010 13:06:00 GMT 1
None taken and, just to be clear, I've never voted Tory in my life and can't imagine any circumstances in which I would. The question was rhetorical - some of my vintage may recognise it from the Sex Pistols. swindled Precisely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 13:53:49 GMT 1
I'd argue the war in Iraq has everything to do with economics, think of the billions and billions that have been sent on sending to troops to Iraq and reconstructing what remanents of society we tore down. Now remember we were also in Afghanistan and suddenly the Iraqi folly looks even more stupid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 13:57:39 GMT 1
Enjoy reading Mr Keegigan in the observer.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Jul 10, 2010 14:47:22 GMT 1
Mark, in fairness you cant leave it like that. need some kind of reference / details to allow us to judge the validity of it. All are snippets from the latest edition (no 1266) of Private Eye, as I said a truly independent organ, one of the very few. Hope that helps if you want to now comment on some of these points, particularly the NHS ones given your insight in this field Sean, yes Mr Budd was who they were referring to
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 14:49:47 GMT 1
A few thoughts/facts for your enjoyment and consideration - these come from one of the few truly independent UK publications, rather than the vast majority of media views referred to at present which the majority of the time have some form of agenda behind them, be it from the journalists themselves or their owners - non-existent prize for anyone guessing the source - BSF school programme - complicated and costly PFI initiative, since 2005 has accounted for 1/3 of education capital spending on a disproportionately meagre number of schools, incomprehensible joint venture agreements between local authorities, private firms and the BSF LLP; annual renewal costs will be at least £700m per year for decades under these agreements
- NHS changes - full system roll out of GP commissioning proposed, Labour tried to launch this on a voluntary basis in 2005 with only sporadic interest not helped by no can do stance of NHS Chief Exec David Nicholson; will require 500+ consortia to be held accountable for £60bn of spending, supervised by an independent NHS board, focus needs to be on right mix in these consortia between GP's and NHS managers; the multitide of inquiries done/ongoing show that change of culture is needed in the NHS away from the defensive power-obsessed present management culture
- National Rail - their government backed debt of £23bn was long ago placed off the government books as with so much off-balance sheet initiatives such as PFI under Gordon Brown's prudent stewardship as Chancellor/PM - now to move back into Treasury calculations
- OBR - independence has to be questioned when headed up by former head of a financial betting firm handpicked by George Osborne and who has advised 2 previous Conservative administrations
- example of NHS over-staffing/waste in non-frontline posts - recent reconfiguration of NHS in Wales from 22 local health boards into 7 new trusts, ideal opportunity one would think for streamlining and economies of scale to reduce the 22 chief execs, 22 FD's, 22 Directors of Nursing etc and pump the savings into frontline services - sadly not as Labour Health Minister in Welsh Assembly confirmed that no jobs would be lost so 6 months on from the shake up dozens of senior managers have no meaningful jobs to do. In 1 of the trusts alone, there are 36 senior managers earning more than £50k per annum in this position.
- How the LibDems have changed part 106 - in opposition they promised a public enquiry into the Deepcut shootings, now it is clear that extensive investigations have already taken place so there is no public interest in progressing a further enquiry
Private Eye. I claim the prize. Totally agree about it's independence but it hardly ever uses constructive criticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 15:04:33 GMT 1
Mark, in fairness you cant leave it like that. need some kind of reference / details to allow us to judge the validity of it. All are snippets from the latest edition (no 1266) of Private Eye, as I said a truly independent organ, one of the very few. Hope that helps if you want to now comment on some of these points, particularly the NHS ones given your insight in this field Sean, yes Mr Budd was who they were referring to Last comment posted the same time as yours. They have been banging on about many of these for years, including that it would make more economic sense to bring back the railways into public ownership instead of ploughing Richard Branson etc with billions. The rail companies plead poverty and either are given more public cash or default on the loss making services. Considering how expensive our rail services are compared with other European countries, it is amazing how subsidised they are, all to the benefit of shareholders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 15:08:18 GMT 1
[ All are snippets from the latest edition (no 1266) of Private Eye, as I said a truly independent organ, one of the very few. sorry i thought this was a serious discussionHope that helps if you want to now comment on some of these points, particularly the NHS ones given your insight in this field how can i possibly comment on something apparently alledged in private eye magazine. do you expect me to take this seriously when this is the calibre of their collective minds?seriously Mark, i have shared my insight into the nhs on numerous occassions on here and will be happy to again if someone wants to give me something serious to work with. i have no idea what goes on in individual trusts around the country, just like everyone else on here i guess.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Jul 10, 2010 15:24:15 GMT 1
Matron, whilst there is plenty of spoof and satire in Private Eye, and quite rightly so , if you got rid of what I have to say comes across as a sanctimonious attitude and take the opportunity to read a copy you will I'm sure find plenty of thought provoking insight into the economy, government, media and local politics with far more detail and information than most of what is continually peddled on the web or via the printed media of whatever political hue the journalist or owner happens to be. I would pay more attention to what they write rather than the ramblings of some hack in the Mail, Guardian, Telegraph or wherever, where the reader is only provided with the slant that the journalist wants to put on the story/facts and/or what their editor/owner wants to put across. Private Eye has always had the knack of finding out the stuff that the establishment doesn't want to be in the public domain, champions civil liberties, supports campaigns for justice, supports ground breaking investigative journalism via its Paul Foot award each year and is usually the first to highlight ineptitude, collusion or dodgy dealings in national/local government, industry and the media. The cartoons are great as well For an annual sub of £28 for 26 issues a bargain www.private-eye.co.uk/
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Jul 10, 2010 16:22:57 GMT 1
on the other hand opinion polls show that we want less administrators in the NHS, and this is certainly one way to achieve this and the move to generic drugs prescribing was a key part of the Laboiur governments health policy too (less money for drug companies which cant be bad It will lead to MORE administrators. In the 1990s each fund holding doctor had to employ A practice Manager, Deputy Practice Manager and even Assistant Practice managers, as well as an additional accountant and secretary - most of whom were very naieve in negotiating Healthcare Commissioning. Expect cosy lunches between drug company sales reps and doctors to re-emerge as a feature again too Interesting points but it certainly wont lead to more administrators (why would the government want to do that?) PCT's employ large numbers of people who have to have their own offices and other buildings I am not sure doctors have much time for cosy lunches In any case I think they are now banned but generic drugs are by and large agood idea
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 10, 2010 19:16:38 GMT 1
[ All are snippets from the latest edition (no 1266) of Private Eye, as I said a truly independent organ, one of the very few. sorry i thought this was a serious discussionHope that helps if you want to now comment on some of these points, particularly the NHS ones given your insight in this field how can i possibly comment on something apparently alledged in private eye magazine. do you expect me to take this seriously when this is the calibre of their collective minds?seriously Mark, i have shared my insight into the nhs on numerous occassions on here and will be happy to again if someone wants to give me something serious to work with. i have no idea what goes on in individual trusts around the country, just like everyone else on here i guess.Private Eye combines serious investigative journalism (first to campaign on the Bristol heart scandal for example) with humour. It is careful to seperate the 2 for the benefit of the hard of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 10, 2010 21:04:35 GMT 1
Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers... If you don't like the Tories Marcus blame Labour for screwing up. I am not and don't pretend to be wise or clever enough to dig us out of this mess. What I do know is this, in battle you see the real strengths and weaknesses of people. Those that can sustain will win through. The weaker will panic and scream then fall by the wayside by supporting the same old same old...time for change.. Only just seen this. I know we have a post of the month but is there a category for most naive and mis informed post ? Please tell me Stu how the Labour government were responsible for a worldwide financial meltdown ? In fact you could make a very reasonable case for saying they managed our economy quite well in comparison to others. The whole mess was created by greed, incompetence and poor regulation in the banking system and yet we have to pay for it. Not over a reasonable amount of time but immediately, meanwhile the very same banks that we bailed out to the tune of billions and billions are starting to make profits and should be taxed to the hilt to pay us back.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jul 10, 2010 21:54:39 GMT 1
Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers... If you don't like the Tories Marcus blame Labour for screwing up. I am not and don't pretend to be wise or clever enough to dig us out of this mess. What I do know is this, in battle you see the real strengths and weaknesses of people. Those that can sustain will win through. The weaker will panic and scream then fall by the wayside by supporting the same old same old...time for change.. Only just seen this. I know we have a post of the month but is there a category for most naive and mis informed post ? Please tell me Stu how the Labour government were responsible for a worldwide financial meltdown ? In fact you could make a very reasonable case for saying they managed our economy quite well in comparison to others. The whole mess was created by greed, incompetence and poor regulation in the banking system and yet we have to pay for it. Not over a reasonable amount of time but immediately, meanwhile the very same banks that we bailed out to the tune of billions and billions are starting to make profits and should be taxed to the hilt to pay us back. AND IT FECKIN IRRITATES ME TO AGRE WITH YOU TOO However the last 9 incoming governments have inherited worse financial positions than their previsessors did, but this is the only one to squeal like a pig, another War will sort it, Maggie picked the Falklands, where has Squeaky got in mind, Angelsey
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 10, 2010 22:51:57 GMT 1
Notwithstanding the current economic crisis, what is wrong with desiring a smaller State sector?
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jul 10, 2010 23:11:18 GMT 1
Notwithstanding the current economic crisis, what is wrong with desiring a smaller State sector? Your not a rail traveller then And with a 0.5% Bank of England interest rate in place for the last 12 months a nationalised bank offering 0.5% mortgage rates rather than the 3.5% Lloyds/RBS etc are currently offering would be nice
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 23:54:16 GMT 1
Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers... If you don't like the Tories Marcus blame Labour for screwing up. I am not and don't pretend to be wise or clever enough to dig us out of this mess. What I do know is this, in battle you see the real strengths and weaknesses of people. Those that can sustain will win through. The weaker will panic and scream then fall by the wayside by supporting the same old same old...time for change.. Only just seen this. I know we have a post of the month but is there a category for most naive and mis informed post ? Please tell me Stu how the Labour government were responsible for a worldwide financial meltdown ? In fact you could make a very reasonable case for saying they managed our economy quite well in comparison to others. The whole mess was created by greed, incompetence and poor regulation in the banking system and yet we have to pay for it. Not over a reasonable amount of time but immediately, meanwhile the very same banks that we bailed out to the tune of billions and billions are starting to make profits and should be taxed to the hilt to pay us back. Windsor's post shows that drivel and dogma doesn't have an expiry date.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 11, 2010 0:28:11 GMT 1
Notwithstanding the current economic crisis, what is wrong with desiring a smaller State sector? Allow me to show off again... There's two different things which get entangled. 1) Waste in the public sector 2) Cutting public sector expenditure. They're getting overly confused. Wasted expenditure in, say, the NHS, doesn't mean that expenditure in the NHS has to be cut, just that the NHS needs to use the money better than it currently does. That public borrowing today is unsustainably high is not borne out by the current yields on government bonds. Whether the underlying trajectory of public debt is unsustainable - ignoring the situation that has arisen with the "rescue" of the financial sector in 2008 (which is difficult) - is a moot point. In a sense it comes back to the private sector: 1) What growth can it generate 2) Who in the private sector holds government debt (is it in foreign hands or in UK hands) 3) How strong is the trend to monopolisation. I've talked previously about Government debt being the easy problem compared to private debt. Bigger than either of those problems is growth. What is a sustainable rate of growth? What we know now is that year after year of stable growth isn't sustainable and builds up problems. A simple compounding exercise based on a small annual percentage shows that stable growth is, in fact, exponential. With all the implications that has for the demand for resources (and the prices of those resources). A problem with all debt - public and private - is that the assumption of growth may not be fulfilled, or that a hiatus in the long term trend may be sufficient to cause serious problems. If we hold our own public debt then there is less of a problem. I don't watch much TV or read many newspapers, but if I was the government I would be tub-thumping National Savings and Investments right now. There's a less of a problem in this situation but there may still be a problem when an economy is operating at full capacity at private and public demand for debt is competing. That isn't a problem currently. Finally monopolisation. Big government and big business go hand in hand and feed off each other, reinforcing the trend to monopolisation that distorts the operation of the market. Government programmes and interventions also seek to ameliorate the effects of globalisation. If this isn't done then society's faith in market solutions could quickly dissipate (imagine!). If you reduce the size of government then you're still left with big business. And today that measn internationally mobile big business with only transient national loyalties.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 11, 2010 0:32:04 GMT 1
Mark, in fairness you cant leave it like that. need some kind of reference / details to allow us to judge the validity of it. All are snippets from the latest edition (no 1266) of Private Eye, as I said a truly independent organ, one of the very few. Hope that helps if you want to now comment on some of these points, particularly the NHS ones given your insight in this field Sean, yes Mr Budd was who they were referring to Well that is grossly unfair on Alan Budd. He has a directorship with a spread betting firm to which he was appinted at the age of 67 but he has held economic roles in the public and private sector for 40 years as well as academic positions.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 11, 2010 13:47:00 GMT 1
I would pay more attention to what they write rather than the ramblings of some hack in the Mail, Guardian, Telegraph or wherever, where the reader is only provided with the slant that the journalist wants to put on the story/facts and/or what their editor/owner wants to put across. Private Eye has always had the knack of finding out the stuff that the establishment doesn't want to be in the public domain, champions civil liberties, supports campaigns for justice, supports ground breaking investigative journalism via its Paul Foot award each year and is usually the first to highlight ineptitude, collusion or dodgy dealings in national/local government, industry and the media. The cartoons are great as well
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 11, 2010 13:52:35 GMT 1
A problem with all debt - public and private - is that the assumption of growth may not be fulfilled, or that a hiatus in the long term trend may be sufficient to cause serious problems. And therein lies the crux. Britain and the rest of the West is ex-growth. Our recent illusions of "growth" have merely been debt fuelled inflation.
|
|