Off Topic Political Debate

Whatever the cost of fighting the miners and red Robbo it was worth it. It transformed Britain from being the sick man of Europe due to strikes to the place to invest in.

 

Sorry, but you are speaking here as if there were such a thing as a purely publically owned state or a state in which all resources are privately owned - there aren't. All states are a 'mix' it's just that the balance has changed since the 80s. Are you saying that the post war boom - based solidly on a consensus of Keynesian economics didn't work ? The levels of public ownership in Europe were much higher in the 50s and 60s than now and the rate of growth was also much higher then.

 

That is why I will support a party of the 'left' as opposed to one of the 'right'.... as I believe in a fairer society where there is more parity.

I am a little disappointed that it is not possible to have a discussion about such values without minimising them .. and using the notion that as some people, generally those who have power and resources don't want such a society, it is not possible.

As I said society is everybody and we need a society that values people as members of an inclusive society.

I think the middle classes are paying the right wing price! A fairer distribution of contributions would benefit the majority.... and as I said I personally don't begrudge paying and extra £50 a month or whatever.

 

I'm sure everybody values carers, nurses teachers etc but not under our capitalist system wealth creators will always have the opportunity to have greater rewards. I would welcome your suggestions on how to practically address the differences without damaging the incentives that drive most people.

 

First step..... under our present creaking political system would be to vote for a party that provides comparable incentives... as opposed to stultifying
performance targets that successive govts have imposed on those professions.

If, as you infer, money is the main incentive, then so be it.

In my view a change of societal values is needed in which success is not rooted in money, fame etc.... all of which set people apart from the majority.. but in public service, excellence, invention, creativity etc...

After all money is a means to an end only...

 

It sounds nice Yorkie, a bit like Cameron's big society, is it likely to happen?

Don't hold your breath.

 

Exactly - which is why you cannot go from here to there - but if you went to a new planet and set up a system from scratch you might want to create a society where the rewards for hard work, risk of property etc were "fair" for all.
I would like to see the people on here who argue against fat cat bankers decry the wages of top footballers,musicians and the like. The little green eyed god.

 

Yes - killing off of the union dominated dictatorship of ordinary working people was worth any price. Even now Unions play with their members lives callously as well as the general public - never the super rich but you and me. I doubt the costs quoted too - funny how we see on here exaggerated millions and billions quoted - never any backup. I suspect whoever invented the £2.3 billion simply took 10,000 policemen etc and mutliplied it by their salary and so on - forgetting that those costs were being incurred anyway and all it was was a diversion from one duty to another.

 

Yorkie, your views that all professions should equally be valued reminded me of years ago when my eldest daughter's private school were, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by her decision to become a nurse. They obviously felt it was not a career choice that would persuade future parents to shell out on school fees.
She graduated, worked in the NHS then came to the conclusion that she could not live reasonably on the salary. She became a rep for a large American NHS supplier then eventually started her own business with my help and financial backing.
After several years of difficult trading, the company became a major supplier to the NHS with my daughter being recognised as 'UK enterprising woman of the year". Due to my daughter's school experience our company very actively supports enterprising youngsters in many ways.

The moral is that nobody should ever be written off.

Consequently she is waiting for an invite from her previous school to speak to the pupils. The school might not like what she has to say!!!

 

Top footballers do get too much money - our own included ! I have to go out to work in a minute and so won't be contributing again until later tonight - amazing how so many people on the right are spending so much time on here on a normal working day - I mean shouldn't they be out creating wealth somewhere.

 

My wife was hoping you could have got me banned last week as she has a long list of jobs lined up!!!

 

I quote your post on here # 23; I can be forgiven for thinking you equate (nearly) all property with theft.

 

Some of us are retired Cologne - we spent our lives apparently amassing wealth that needs to be given to food banks.

 

But that price would be small compared to what labour would need to raise to support it's spending plans, especially if they were propped up by the SNP. Their envy taxes will just not generate the revenue they plan for (just as the bedroom tax legislation has failed) so they will lower their aim.
As you Yorkie, I would not begrudge paying an extra £50 a month to help those in genuine need.

Another topic that I have found fascinating in this election is the subject of the NHS - every party has tried to outdo the others by how much money they will throw at the NHS. But no-one has stopped and questioned if the current model of funding and running the NHS is actually viable? Why do we accept that inflation in the NHS is running at something like 20%, is it because those asking for the extra money are those running the NHS and everyone loves to grow their own empires. If we carry on trying to fund the NHS is the same way as we do now, it will end up taking up most of our GDP in not so many years. Of course, I know the answer as to why no-one questions this - it's because the NHS is a sacred cow and as soon as anyone questions the NHS there is an almighty **** storm. Yet look at the mess the NHS is in N. Ireland and Wales and soon to be Scotland...we cannot go on without some fundamental changes - and NO I DO NOT MEAN PRIVITISATION

 

Why is privatisation within the NHS a dirty word? As OFH has alluded to, the French system, which is the best in the world, consists of state and many private companies intertwined. I'm not aware of any general left wing opposition there.

 

I would not exclude it at all, but as soon as someone suggests that the NHS needs to have fundamental reform in the way it is funded and managed to P word is thrown up and that is far as the debate goes. It's a bit like starting the immigration debate and the R word is raised. I believe that the use of private companies for some goods and services could be more cost effective for the NHS - what I struggle to understand is the level of NHS inflation and why is is seemed acceptable.

 

Ok, so why is it fair that I could work all my life on a good wage (I work in IT), yet never buy a house in the South East of England?

Why is it fair that some CEOs are paid several thousand times more than their employees?

I despise anyone earning more in a day than some people do in a year, no one is that important to society. Something has to give, and it's either sharing things out at the bottom more with ie: more tax credits (which means a bigger state) or just paying people a fair wage for their time in the first place.

It's time to raise minimum wage to at least £10 an hour, which would bring a hell of a lot of people out of poverty, or cap top earners' wages to a certain % of what the lowest paid person gets (just watch the lowest salaries go up instantly).

Salaries have stagnated for years now, cost of living is increasing more and more annually, yet apparently there's 'growth', but for whom? The bank balances and offshore accounts of a select few.

 

In my experience as a supplier to the NHS, one of the biggest problems apart from the cost of Bair's PPI's, is procurement by clinical staff. There does seem on occasions no appreciation of cost. One example is the lack of urgency to standardise the buying of equipment, a fault shared by the UK defence procurement bods. To my knowledge not only individual cash strapped trusts, hospitals and even individual surgeons specifically demand their own choice of components within procedure packs. Just imagine what this does to the cost of manufacture. Manufacturers are required to hold vast amounts of duplicated stock which is expensive and time consuming.

I understand that as trusts replace the many layers of management built up under the Blair /Brown with professional buyers the efficiency may improve.
The basic problem common with some state employees is that they are spending our money so why be careful.

 

Perhaps you should have started your own business.

Salaries have stagnated because of the need to correct the excesses of the last government. Most people with a mortgage have done extremely well in the last few years due to very low interest rates.

Wage control failed last time it was tried, I don't suppose it will be tried again.

 

Our best friends back in the early 70's could not afford a house in Watford. They moved to Birmingham - got on the housing ladder and eventually moved back to Watford. We do not have a "right" to live just anywhere. My daughter has today exchanged on a house within some government deposit support scheme - she and her husband have modest salaries and one child - not easy but possible.
That sort of disparity between CEO's and employees is not "fair"
I despise nobody. Not even people who despise others. The more you tax the high earners though the more theywill successfully demand even higher incomes to offset it.. A vicious circle. Keep top tax rates to reasonable levels and people will be less incentivised to find alternatives. I agree with increasing both the minimum wage and also the tax threshold - but it has to be achieved in stages - this coalition did both. Raising the minimum wage to any level will not affect poverty levels as the definition of poverty is ridiculously set as a % of average earnings. The higher you raise the minimum the more people are defined in poverty. It needs to be an absolute not a relative measure. Wage caps have never worked - not even in our beloved football.
Salaries have stagnated due to economic conditions. Improve the economy and wages rise. Blame Labour's mismanagement of the global crisis not the coalition's rescue plan.