David Cameron loses his marbles

macaque_2

twirlypinky wrote: »

NHS Trusts don't have enough money to run properly and are being squeezed tighter and tigher every year.

Ah there's problem. Too many snouts, not enough trough.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not here to defend New Labour - of course I think the tax burden should fall more proportionately towards the rich.

I agree mate.

PS - Post 27: LOL.:rotfl:

JayScottGreenspan

JasonLVC wrote: »

I'm confused. You made a statement that the Tories previously gave the rich tax cuts.

I asked which tax cuts were you referring to.

You've posted a link to another forum thread from another poster who is giving their own personal opinion on a hypothetical question to which the thread related. I don't know who Sir H is but unless he is Vince Cable in diguise his opinions are just that, his opinions.

So can you answer the original question?. It needs exploring further if we are trying to compare one government to another and this is difficult with generic statements of "Tories favour the rich" as it meas nothing without bakcground context.

I was trying to be sarcastic in post 16 to discredit the suggestion in the other thread that the Tories can just be summed up as giving tax cuts to the rich. Amateur posting, I know, because sarcasm never comes across on a forum.

Basically, I agree with you.

JasonLVC

There's no doubt that Cameron is a blatant opportunist - originally he was going to mirror Labour fiscal policy, then he was going to offer tax cuts and not mirror Labour policy and now he's back with something new.

I realise that politics are fluid and you've got to move with the flow and whether we agree with Cameron's constant switching of views (not disimilar to that of Blair in fairness who was the master of the switcheroo) he is at least acting as an opposition leader should be, keeping the PM on the constant back foot and taking every chance to annoy and ridicule him.

But the scary reality is that the UK owes a lot of money and the taxpayer - be they working class or toff, will be hit with high taxes fo many years to come.

nickmason

twirlypinky wrote: »

This sort of comment really gets my back up. The NHS is already on it's knees, has what happened at Staffodshire not taught you anything? NHS Trusts don't have enough money to run properly and are being squeezed tighter and tigher every year. Getting rid of more staff to save money is not a good idea.

Leaving the NHS alone to get on with making people better would be a far more sensible idea, stop re-forming it, stop creating Stragic this, and Foundation that - they don't improve healthcare, they just cost billions to set up.

I really wish people would think a bit more before they just decide to sack half of public sector workers - it's just not viable.

Absolutely right.

It is true that we are going to have to sack public sector workers - because we don't have the money not to. The extent of that will differ between Amcluesent on one extreme and Sir "lift myself by my bootlances" Humphrey on the other. But I think everyone recognises that it needs to happen.

The bit that is contested is whether they - the public servants - have done any good, or whether they have returned "good value for money". Again, almost everyone agrees that the individual doctors, teachers etc are working hard. The debate is whether they are working effectively.

And the reason they don't get to work effectively? Too many changes of direction, ridiculous governance structures, new initiatives - all because "something must be done". (To be fair, Labour are now giving us value for money because they aren't even trying to implement their much vaunted new initiatives).

The brave political decision would be to say "we will not chase headlines, we will not announce a new this or a new that at every turn. We will let initiatives bed down, we will be clear about what we are actually declaring (again cf the ridiculous confusion about the 45% tax for 2011 or whenever)". The rot is vast; it affects not only the public sector but private sector compliance as well.

The trouble with that decision is it might be more brave than wise. Noble it might be, but it probably doesn't win votes to say we won't do something. You either sacrifice the political space, or end up looking hypocritical.

I don't know the answer. Small government seems a good candidate, though.

nickmason

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I was trying to be sarcastic in post 16 to discredit the suggestion in the other thread that the Tories can just be summed up as giving tax cuts to the rich. Amateur posting, I know, because sarcasm never comes across on a forum.

Basically, I agree with you.

I got the sarcasm