BTL'ers are not evil are they??

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

Of course most people will do what's best for themselves. That's why the government's job is to attempt to arrange the incentives so that when people choose what's best for themselves, they end up choosing what's best for the nation as a whole.

so do you really believe that the numerous education secretaries we have had, have all know better than you what is best for your children?

etc

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

so do you really believe that the numerous education secretaries we have had, have all know better than you what is best for your children?

etc

No, of course not. What's that got to say to the point of my post? Just because I say arranging incentives is the government's job doesn't mean to say that the government will always do it well.

Governments set up structures and systems. So, if we're discussing education, the government gets to decide that the school leaving age shouldn't still be 15, as it was a few decades ago. 16-year-olds therefore find that their options are "stay in education or face the consequences of truanting" and therefore most of them decide to stay in education until the school leaving age. The country is better educated as a result. This is an example of the government doing its job well.

Also on the subject of education, the government has decided to bring in a new national curriculum, starting with English and Maths for kids to be examined on for GCSE from the summer of 2017 onwards, despite not having got the syllabuses ready to tell teachers what's in them yet, or for quite some time to come. Core subjects are usually treated as a whole five year progression to GCSE, not the mere 2 year courses that optional subjects are. Therefore the timescale presents teachers with the necessity of teaching the syllabus in a hurry, and provides a huge incentive to spend those last two years teaching just to the test rather than for a deep, broad and rounded appreciation of the subject. This is an example of the government doing its job badly.

My post was in reply wymondham's post saying that individuals choose what's best for themselves, and governments are supposed to sort out what's best for the nation. I still assert that one of the main ways that governments do that is by arranging incentives so that as people do what's best for themselves, they end up doing what's good for the nation too.

Old_Git

my tenants first request was the electrician for the light bulb .She seemed surprised I suggested changing the bulb as she didnt think it would work .

Second request was to change a fuse ,but she refused to let me do it as the childrens christmas presents where in the cupboard ..That cost me £20 .

Third request was a new front door as her hall was cold .
I told her partner he could buy her thermal knickers for xmas but no chance off a new door .The door is not the problem there is a flat roof over the front hall .

fourth request to clear a blocked drain ,She said she had tried to clear it .
I put my hand down the drain and pulled out two leaves .

fifth request wanted a pump for the back boiler replaced .There never was a pump but she wouldnt believe it until I got the floor lifted .

sixth request broken toilet but refused to the the plumber in as she wasnt putting herself out for anyone. Finally let plumber in on christmas eve .

seventh request blew another fuse ,this time I replaced it .

Eighth request wanted a hedge removed and replaced with a fence ,to removed the hedge alone would cost £300 .Thats not happening

All this since August

Graham_Devon

Why are fuses blowing so much?

All seem reasonable requests if I'm honest. Front door may be a bit much, unless theres something wrong with it.

As for fixing the toilet, the tenant has done nothing wrong. If she's not there to let them in, shes not there.

Again, I say this with respect, but these are the issues you should kind of expect if you are going to be a hands on landlord, which is sounds as if you are, rather than paying someone to deal with these issues for you.

Have to say....with fuses blowing and lights flickering, I'd be asking for an electrician to have a look at it too. I'm paying for a service afterall....and theres certainly no way I'm going to tinker and get the blame later on down the line for something else that's gone wrong.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

No, of course not. What's that got to say to the point of my post? Just because I say arranging incentives is the government's job doesn't mean to say that the government will always do it well.

Governments set up structures and systems. So, if we're discussing education, the government gets to decide that the school leaving age shouldn't still be 15, as it was a few decades ago. 16-year-olds therefore find that their options are "stay in education or face the consequences of truanting" and therefore most of them decide to stay in education until the school leaving age. The country is better educated as a result. This is an example of the government doing its job well.

Also on the subject of education, the government has decided to bring in a new national curriculum, starting with English and Maths for kids to be examined on for GCSE from the summer of 2017 onwards, despite not having got the syllabuses ready to tell teachers what's in them yet, or for quite some time to come. Core subjects are usually treated as a whole five year progression to GCSE, not the mere 2 year courses that optional subjects are. Therefore the timescale presents teachers with the necessity of teaching the syllabus in a hurry, and provides a huge incentive to spend those last two years teaching just to the test rather than for a deep, broad and rounded appreciation of the subject. This is an example of the government doing its job badly.

My post was in reply wymondham's post saying that individuals choose what's best for themselves, and governments are supposed to sort out what's best for the nation. I still assert that one of the main ways that governments do that is by arranging incentives so that as people do what's best for themselves, they end up doing what's good for the nation too.

what it has to do with anything, is that, probably individual people acting in their own interest will produce better results than government planning within a broad frame work of law. (do no harm to your neighbour).

almost certainly the overall educational levels would be better if parents chose the education for their children

Old_Git

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why are fuses blowing so much?

All seem reasonable requests if I'm honest. Front door may be a bit much, unless theres something wrong with it.

As for fixing the toilet, the tenant has done nothing wrong. If she's not there to let them in, shes not there.

Again, I say this with respect, but these are the issues you should kind of expect if you are going to be a hands on landlord, which is sounds as if you are, rather than paying someone to deal with these issues for you.

Have to say....with fuses blowing and lights flickering, I'd be asking for an electrician to have a look at it too. I'm paying for a service afterall.

first fuse was sockets they let water over the side off the bath ,second fuse was the lights . Neither issue was related to flickering lights which just needed a new bulb.She dosent work her partner works so no reason for not letting people into the house .
If she rented from the council you can be sure they wouldnt change a bulb or fix a fuse .As for the toilet issue(only toilet in house) she was at home ,just wouldnt put herself out for anyone .She told me that .

Graham_Devon

Old_Git wrote: »

first fuse was sockets they let water over the side off the bath ,second fuse was the lights . Neither issue was related to flickering lights .She dosent work her partner works so no reason for not letting people into the house .
If she rented from the council you can be sure they wouldnt change a bulb or fix a fuse .

Theres sockets near the bath? That will get wet if water goes over the side of the bath?

Old_Git

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres sockets near the bath? That will get wet if water goes over the side of the bath?

no the water went under the floor when the 13 year old overflowed the bath

Graham_Devon

Old_Git wrote: »

no the water went under the floor when the 13 year old overflowed the bath

Does the overflow not work then?

The story has come on somewhat dramtically since you first stated a "fuse was blown".

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

what it has to do with anything, is that, probably individual people acting in their own interest will produce better results than government planning within a broad frame work of law. (do no harm to your neighbour).

almost certainly the overall educational levels would be better if parents chose the education for their children

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree that there are many areas in which we could do with less government tinkering. Especially in education, where the political compulsion to meddle with things every few years is definitely detrimental - and I say that as a teacher as well as a parent. It's bad enough where I teach, in an independent school, and much worse, of course, in state schools.

However, governments have to make decisions about some things - how much tax to levy on this, and how much on that, how much regulation to impose and so on. (Just this morning I was talking to somebody who's been living in Kenya for the last year, who says she'll never again complain about having to get her car MOT done, now that she's experienced driving in a country where many of the vehicles on the roads are really not roadworthy). The decisions that governments make about these things should be made in the light of the kind of incentives they are providing for citizens to do particular things, and not to do other things.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by parents choosing education. Unless you educate your children at home, you can't really choose education - you can only choose a school, and then fit in with how the school chooses to organise itself. For example, given a free choice, I'd want my son to do triple science for GCSE (and so would he). However, his (state) school doesn't offer it, so he can't, unless I move him to a different school. But his school is better than the local competition in various other respects, so on balance I think he's better off where he is. Less government interference in education wouldn't give me any help with that kind of problem. My friend has the exact same issue with triple science not being available at her daughter's independent school.

ETA As a teacher, I don't believe that it's true that if state schools were given the freedom that independent schools have, then they'd start producing the same results. For one thing, independent schools get a lot more money per student, resulting in much greater resources and much higher staff/student ratios. Furthermore, they can pick their students. If somebody's causing trouble, you can ask them to leave. If they've caused trouble somewhere else, you can refuse to take them. The state school system has a responsibility to educate everybody, and that's a totally different proposition.