But people who are that thick should be denied access anyhow.

But if you start to go down the road of pick 'n mix taxation then its not thick people who will deny the I/Rev of revenue, its anyone who's beliefs contradict the general consensus, as pointed out when I introduced the concept last week, a pacifist would opt out of paying for the armed forces, an 18 year old would certainly not contribute to pensions given that they already know they won't be getting one, for every tax contributor there will be an item that they don't feel like contributing to, and thats not how taxation and democracy works.

Where does the democracy of which you speak exist? Not in this country:

1. We have a coalition government.
2. The coalition government is propped up by the party that came 3rd, not second.
3. So the government does not have a democratic mandate in your terms.
4. The government is pursuing a policy that, it seems, is against the vast majority of the electorate's wishes.
5. When the government has a discussion on the issue it debars opponents and only invites yes people.
6. The government has partly implemented large parts of the policy before, and irrespective of whether, Parliament ratifies proposed legislation.

If that is what you call demorcracy then you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine!

So you "think" and it's "likely". Again, no evidence.

Yawn. So, any planning in any facet of life is clearly a waste of time in your opinion?

Yawn back

Not at all, but planning based on proper evidence not on what people "think" may happen is probably a more sensible way to proceed. I think I might win the lottery tonight but going out and buying a Ferrari now wouldn't be right.

From your previous post - you think we have "a well established history of relative decline since...the start of the 20th century" - let's have a look at your evidence before we all start panicking.

Its the version of democracy that we've had for xxx hundred years.

HTH

So the future is known!

Whatever. You know what was meant

Quote ="Dally"In Croatia someone has published a website, that has become quite popular, that equates the national economy to a household position (ie numbers and concepts people can understand readily). So, in its simplest it might say the natiional position is equivalent to, say: Household annual income £13,500 Household expenditure £15,000 Shortfall added to credit card £1,500 Credit card total debt £18,000 The figures correspond to national revenues, expenditure, deficit and debt and relate directly and are updated. Apparently, the public can play about with policy assumptions / tough choices and learn how hard it is to get the deficit and debt figures down. Most people after having a go become fiscal conservatives. We need an academic to do this in this country so the public can make informed choices about the NHS and other government expenditure and the tax, etc ramifications of those choices. For those who understand Balkan languages: proracunskikalkulator.com'" I assume this system doesn't take into account such things as interest rates, currency devaluation, inflation and economic growth? Without those factors an assessment of debt and deficit is almost useless. Which begs the question as to why the Chancellor is always so keen to make a similar comparison of government debt/deficit to a household budget. Surely he should know better.

Quote ="Dally"In Croatia someone has published a website, that has become quite popular, that equates the national economy to a household position (ie numbers and concepts people can understand readily). So, in its simplest it might say the natiional position is equivalent to, say: Household annual income £13,500 Household expenditure £15,000 Shortfall added to credit card £1,500 Credit card total debt £18,000 The figures correspond to national revenues, expenditure, deficit and debt and relate directly and are updated. Apparently, the public can play about with policy assumptions / tough choices and learn how hard it is to get the deficit and debt figures down. Most people after having a go become fiscal conservatives. We need an academic to do this in this country so the public can make informed choices about the NHS and other government expenditure and the tax, etc ramifications of those choices. For those who understand Balkan languages: proracunskikalkulator.com'" I assume this system doesn't take into account such things as interest rates, currency devaluation, inflation and economic growth? Without those factors an assessment of debt and deficit is almost useless. Which begs the question as to why the Chancellor is always so keen to make a similar comparison of government debt/deficit to a household budget. Surely he should know better.

Gideon is fluent in Croatian, that may explain something about him and his policies

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-may-need-emergency-cash-bailout-7320518.htmlMore propaganda from the government.[/url

"The NHS is fooked, and only our reforms can save it."

Course, the best way to get the investment the NHS needs for its modernisation is to sell "shares" in it to well meaning private companies and investment businesses.

Nobody wants shares in an entity with shedloads of debt and no cash reserves, so pumping a few billion into the NHS should increase the value of these "shares" when they eventually go on sale.

Sound familiar to those who were around that the time the utilities were de-nationalised?

pity then that the previous government wasted a mere[size=150 £12.7 BILLION[/size through the scrapping of a computerised record system for the NHS then isn't it ?


Ye Gods !!!

True but is that a reason destroy the NHS now?

Of course he knows better but he knows Joe public will accept this simplistic and more importantly incorrect view. This cynical and deliberately misleading way of presenting the issue is part of the Tories strategy. If you look at the changes to child benefit which will see families with two earners on £25K each keep it where a family with one earner on £44K (soon to be £42K) will lose it you will see this is justified by going after higher rate tax payers and Joe public swallows that as well. Likewise the raising of tuition fees to £9K was justified by saying things like why should a Postman subsidise a student getting a degree with his taxes when in fact the proportion of the tax paid by [ianyone [/i that went towards the old tuition grant was tiny and more to the point the Postman's tax has not gone down despite the fees going up!

They latch onto very simple analogies that are designed to divide and rule that are in fact deliberately misleading and in some cases as you point out just plain wrong.

certainly not - but it doesn't exactly help,does it ?

I mean,which incompetant tool managed to dream up that mess ?

it just annoys and saddens me that (whichever government is responsable) that such a vast sum has been completely wated without anything at all coming out as an end product !

i'm sure the present bunch will manage to destroy the NHS by wasting as much money their own way, just give them time......

Then there's been the episodes of the likes of KPMG being called in by assorted hospital trusts (at a cost of millions) to work out how to save money, cut jobs, offshore jobs etc etc ...

In one case, in north London, the plan was to offshore the medical secretaries' jobs to the Indian sub-continent.

Now this sort of thing has been done before – in the US. And it was a disaster there. Audio files were sent around the world to be transcribed. Now, with the best will in the world and far, far better language skills than I could probably ever dream of having, mistakes were inevitable in the transcription process – unclear recordings, accents and dialects etc.

What happened were cases of notes coming back with the wrong medication listed – not by much in terms of letters, but by a lot in terms of the drugs in question.

Result – real problems in terms of patient care. And writs. Etc.

And there were also security issues that came as the transcribing businesses refused to send back notes etc – unless they were paid more.

Yet this was still, up to a couple of years ago at least, being seriously mooted in the UK. As if all that were not bad enough, if anything had gone wrong, even if it had been no fault of anyone in the NHS, the taxpayer would still have footed the bill. Which, of course, you potentially see now with the PIPs case.

My analysis?

We've had 30 years where the only thing that is regarded by government as important is, ultimately, big business and the orthodoxy of neo-liberalism.

That's brought us to a point where there are companies behind these NHS moves, waiting to pounce like vultures (which is perhaps a bit unfair to magnificent birds).

Just as you have companies making money out of unemployment – and then telling the government what to do about the schemes so that the public sill stop complaining but they can continue to benefit.

Just as you have bankers and financiers awarding themselves massive bonuses – even as the companies they head up are recording massive losses or failures. If you raise the question, they squeal that they'll leave the country.

Just as big business is allowed to decide that it won't pay its full tax bill – and so government departments do deal (presumably with the knowledge of government) to let them off.

Just as big business is able to run roughshod over local concerns on such matters as planning permission, because it has enough money simply to keep coming until it gets what it wants.

Three decades ago, Pandora's Box was opened. Trans and multi-national capital is now so large that, in many ways, it hardly has to worry about what you and I think. And governments – not just in the UK but elsewhere – behave as though they were elected not to serve us, but simply to service big business and finance.

Not least because vultures don't pounce. They swoop.

Crushed again!
















Big, big brownie points to anyone who recognises that quote.

Was it on the side of those Kia-Ora cartons in cinemas?

Nope.

Far, far more cultuwal like than that.

sounds like something that came from 1984 or similar maybe ?

it rings a bell from my Eng Lit classes forty odd years ago !

Before distracting this thread completely, I better say then: it's a line uttered by Lady Jane in [iPatience[/i by Gilbert & Sullivan.