Budget 2015

savings_my_hobby

colsten wrote: »

You do realise that there is a difference between apprencticeships, training on the job, and university diplomas? Actually, you probably don't, as you wouldn't have suggested they were effectively interchangeable.

Because the British Empire was built upon university diplomas wasn't it?

If you want the right skills, train people in them, instead of relying on the state to do it for you.

The best education is in work education anyway, it comes to something in this country where you have to get into debt before someone looks at you. As I said before you have received training at some point lets not deny someone else a chance.

colsten

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

Because the British Empire was built upon university diplomas wasn't it?

If you want the right skills, train people in them, instead of relying on the state to do it for you.

The best education is in work education anyway, it comes to something in this country where you have to get into debt before someone looks at you. As I said before you have received training at some point lets not deny someone else a chance.

Not sure how the now long defunct British Empire comes into this, but leaving that aside: saying "the best education is in work education anyway" shows an enormous amount of ignorance. As does saying "you have to get into debt [in this country] before someone looks at you" (whatever that may mean to start with).

kidmugsy

Rollinghome wrote: »

According to an OECD report Britain spent 6.8 per cent of its GDP on health (in total including that spent in the private sector) compared to the European average of 7.9 per cent. At the time of the figures, the Germans spent £2,361 per head annually, France £2,034, and Britain just £1,510.

It's certainly arguably that better management might help but it's primarily a problem of the widespread 'wanting something for nothing' culture. If we want something better, such as a better national health service, then we'll usually need to pay more for it. That seems to be a difficult concept for some.

One of the problems is the chumpishness of comparing inputs and not comparing outputs. I think it was the Guardian that covered an international report comparing health services, and said that the NHS did rather well on many measures except on saving
lives.

Of course, the "'wanting something for nothing' culture" is encouraged by the dim design of the NHS.

kidmugsy

philwakely wrote: »

I now live on a reasonable company pension and my redundancy money. The redundancy money was invested in several savings accounts with various providers. The total of my company pension and interest on the savings leaves me well inside the basic rate income tax band, so I have not had a need to complete a tax return as all tax is taken at source. I guess this now means that I (and many others) will now need to complete a tax return just to get an (up to) £200 tax rebate [or will all interest now be paid gross of tax and it will be up to me to pay any tax due through the tax return?]

Significantly more paperwork [or online data entry] and almost certainly more work required by HMRC in checking these additional tax returns.

Wonderful: grouchy chap complains that removing tax will lead to more paperwork, based entirely on speculation, and on his not understanding what is proposed, even though the information is plastered everywhere.

Rollinghome

kidmugsy wrote: »

One of the problems is the chumpishness of comparing inputs and not comparing outputs. I think it was the Guardian that covered an international report comparing health services, and said that the NHS did rather well on many measures except on saving
lives.

Of course, the "'wanting something for nothing' culture" is encouraged by the dim design of the NHS.

Ok, so you've had a Labour government elected to run the NHS for 13 years, a Tory administration for 17 years before that, and another Tory administration in office for the last 5 years who had Andrew Lansley introduce a bunch of reforms but no more money.

The problems are as bad as they've ever been, particularly in the areas of GPs and A&E, with some horrendous problems in other hospital departments.

So if you object to better funding for the service what exactly is it you're suggesting, apart possibly an end of democratically elected governments: you reckon just more managers to compare outputs should do it?

I think a very different approach could/should be considered but I am in no doubt that would need a substantial increase in funding, ideally similar to that of France and Germany, to meet expectations and before I would want to be fully dependent on it. I'm fortunate in being able to opt out, many can't.

kidmugsy

Rollinghome wrote: »

who had Andrew Lansley introduce a bunch of reforms but no more money

It's my understanding that expenditure on the NHS has increased in every year since it was founded, even after allowing for inflation, except under the Labour government of the late seventies.

TheTracker

kidmugsy wrote: »

It's my understanding that expenditure on the NHS has increased in every year since it was founded, even after allowing for inflation, except under the Labour government of the late seventies.

As it has in most developed economies.

savings_my_hobby

colsten wrote: »

Not sure how the now long defunct British Empire comes into this, but leaving that aside: saying "the best education is in work education anyway" shows an enormous amount of ignorance. As does saying "you have to get into debt [in this country] before someone looks at you" (whatever that may mean to start with).

I mentioned the empire because that was this nations most successful period, No university diplomas needed.

Of course the best education is in the work place, all education leads to it. post grads to not invent things within 10 minutes of entering the work place, they hone their skills in the work place.

You get into debt getting university education (unless "daddy" supports you through it) judging by the way you could not get that hint your "daddy" probably did support you through it, I obviously was eluding to the fact that you don't need an "ology" to make a positive contribution to the work place, though people like yourself seems to think you need a university education (complete with debt). Get an A-level student with a keen interest in science or engineering and train them yourself, hardly revolutionary is it? and much better for the nation than employing overseas workers too.

colsten

Jee. I don't know how I never saw that unis are totally superfluous. Should we shut them all down immediately? We could also sell the idea to other countries, and help them close down their unis, too - a new service we can export.

savings_my_hobby

don't confuse me with George Galloway.