It would be a lot better if hospital managers were required to spend a year on the wards before taking up their posts. If they really understood the difficulties faced by front line staff they might adopt a more patient-orientated approach whereas, at present, their main concern seems to be budget constraint.
Oh I didn't see that..... this is terrible.... the left have gone so far left they have come round to the far right
Perhaps if Thatcher had spent the income from flogging off Council houses on building new ones rather than squandering it on bombs and buying votes form the people whose lives she hadn't actually ruined for good we wouldn't be in this mess now. She wasn't the only one to neglect that of course but she was the one who sold them in the first place
Unfortunately she didn't believe in "state" assets... so of course the profit all went into the private sector.... and we know what that means...
Actually the councils owned the housing and so the public sector got the money from those sales - but they were not allowed to re-invest it in housing. What they did other than that was up to them so let's guess - oh yes they squandered it as they always do with the public's money. Did not see them reducing rates bills and so giving money back to those who had paid it to them in the first place.
I guess I was being a bit simplistic here...... but ideologically the Tories are opposed to public ownership.... and thus will not reinvest in housing etc. I am not sure councils would consider their spending as squander though.. although we all remember the great socialist experiments in the GLC and Liverpool. Over and above that debate, the ongoing need of politicians top meddle with Education and Health is so crass. Perhaps they should taking completely out of the control of dirks like Gove and Hunt... ... and politicians in general...
A lot of people - not just Tories are ideologically opposed to public ownership - or more accurately logically opposed to public ownership. Only die hard socialists can still believe that a bunch of politicians and their lackeys could run anything efficiently. Government was never about running industry or anything else until the socialists thought it would be a good way to grab wealth. Government should be about governing - getting those with the correct skills to do what they can do best - instead governments everywhere interfere and meddle in things they are not competent in - be it schools, hospitals etc. Thatcher was right to encourage people to buy their own houses but totally wrong not to encourage house builders to build more new ones. That is the problem - there are not enough houses - not who owns them. The houses sold off under Thatcher did not cease to exist. However a growing population and a richer one that has more families living independently as well as more single occupancy needed to have new homes built. You can blame it all on Thatcher - lots of people do as it is the easy thing to do - but go and look at the statistics and you will find that very few governments have successfully dealt with housing issues.
In relation to this thread which started about education.. I concur that schools, hospitals.... and a range of public services .... should be outside of political ideological control.... In relation to housing.... the Tories are doing some pretty terrible things around benefits etc... which will empty parts of London of poor people... happening now.... Some people will always need state housing.... but I concur that cheap housing needs to be available for all....
The Tory philosophy is actually correct. It makes no sense for the state to give more benefits to people than they need. It is immoral to tax one person to give another a house bigger than they need. However, as is often the case with poorly thought out proposals (which this government seems to specialise in) I am not sure it achieves what they want. It ends up as no more than reduction in benefits - it does nothing to actually move people into smaller accommodation as that accommodation does not exist in sufficient quantities. The amount of money saved is likely to be paltry too. As for "emptying parts of London of poor people" - that sounds like looney labout rhetoric. It is a sad fact about the lack of housing generally and the price of housing too. Not just in London but all over the country young people cannot afford to live where their parents did/do. A policy to subsidise people into social housing with a programme of building much more of that would be much more useful - so long as the subisidies are not "for life" but to assist people to make the start needed.
An interesting comparison can be made with here. The young actually didn't want to live in the country, much preferring the towns where there is more life. The result was that a lot of rural housing was left empty, the prices dropped, then the Brits moved over seeing a bargain and a better way of life. A few villages actually have more incomers than natives, but most locals are happy to see the buildings being done up and put back into use. Some have been improved and extended and now some of the younger people want to move back, but the prices have increased and they find it difficult to afford them. The private sector homes for rent is much larger here than in the UK , although country homes are more difficult to find if you don't wish to buy. It is also controlled far more strictly. If you are a landlord you cannot throw someone out during the winter for example even if they fall behind with their payments to you. Social housing exists in the towns and every commune is obliged to have at least one property available. Ours has just spent a load of money doing up the flat above the town hall, that is unoccupied. The social housing in town is basic and not intended for long term stays although if you look at the large cities huge estates have been built to house mainly the immigrant population and as soon as you are housed there you suffer from your postcode when it comes to finding work. Without work of course you cannot move out, so people do get stuck in this inferior accommodation and then the trouble starts in hot summers. When I was living in the UK our council was asked to carry out a survey of young people in the village and find out if they wanted to stay in the village when they left home. We were quite surprised to find that only 10% wanted to. We were also asked to find out if they would be looking to buy or rent a property when the time came. Everyone said that they would buy and quite a few had already been putting a small amount away towards a deposit. The other thing that happened in conjunction with the survey was the sell off of council houses. Approximately 75% in our village were sold and the improvement was immediate. The district council had been putting off repairs for years and stopped their tenants from doing anything. Once they changed hands work was done and the whole area improved. As for the 10% who didn't wish to leave, some changed their minds and housing was found for them in ours or neighbouring villages.
I cant remember the details Lenny... but there are London boroughs that are being forced to ship poor people to other parts of the country as they cant subsidise any longer the high rentals ... due to reduction on benefits....
It is bad for those caught up in the middle of the changes, but it cannot be right to be paying out £3,000 a month when the people who are paying taxes do not even earn that much.
Agreed 100% .....and that is the problem with so called "market forces"...... any way... bedtime for me
And now the loony right - in particular one Michael Gove - are salivating over the plan to move secondary school kids out of London and into state run boarding schools in picturesque parts of Sussex. Bus them there on Monday & bus them back on Friday. Strangely enough, they claim the unit of £1100 will be sufficient - yet they are still prepared to 'fund' schools such as Eton to a far higher level. I really don't know why the villagers where the pilot school is starting are up in arms either......
Blimey BB - you really are a died in the wool socialist aren't you - if we ever meet up we will have good debate Surprised that as a teacher you did not move from looney as a description as it is so associated with the left and has alliterative powers - surely "ridiculous right" would be better? Totally agree that it is a shame that others feel they need to follow the socialist policy of using other people's money to fund their schemes. However I did note that the "state" part of the plan was to fund places for children in care and underprivilieged kids - which I thought might gain your approval - but I guess once anyone talks about giving someone "privliege" it gets the left's hackles up. For the record I think it is a ridiculous right scheme Another example of why politicians should do as little as possible.
I couldn't tell you how the States decide on policies as there's no party line as there aren't any parties and when I first moved over here, States members still had "normal" jobs - an example being my sons singing teacher was a Deputy in the States.
Personally I think that is the best way to be - but probably does not work except on a small scale. If politicians are not Politicians but actually "real" people they are more likely to be in touch with the community they serve and reflective of the needs wnats and desires of those people - whereas we suffer the major parties with their trumped up ideologies that suit themselves and their aspirations and not necessarily what is wanted by the "man in the street" ( I would have said the man on the Clapham omnibus but decided there are not enough people of an age to understand that one )
