.

[Fergie 307]

Does annoy me to hear that the goverment are advising nurses to think very carefully before considering strike action. Maybe the government should think carefully about paying them properly, then maybe so many wouldnt be leaving. Same goes for social care. If that ends up with us paying more tax to fund it, then fair enough. Reality is that they know they probably wont strike, anymore than the police did a few years ago. A sense of duty will keep them at work until they just cant manage anymore, so they are over a barrel. I always think it is a shameful reflection on our society that we pay people more to make us a coffee than to look after us or our elderly relatives.

 

[Fergie 307]

The story generally told is exactly the opposite; that one reason why the NHS is highly cost effective is precisely because it does (or did) not have excess admin and a surplus of managers. It was regarded as a exemplary that it could function with so much self-management.
This has changed in recent years as the intrusion of privatisation has made it less efficient and more costly.

Interesting how the general drift of threads like this is to find fault and complain. It's part of the process of undermining state-run institutions, as conducted by the right wing media, in pursuit of profit for "investors" i.e. taking these public assets from ourselves and giving ownership to financial gamblers and other sharks, out of our control.

FGS Jacob. I take it the mirror and the Guardian also report ambulances queueing at A&E departments? How do you come to the conclusion that the Mail or the Torygraph are undermining the NHS with such reporting, when your favourites are presumably not? I think you will find that there is a pretty broad consensus that the NHS is underfunded, and social care even more so.

 

[Jacob]

FGS Jacob. I take it the mirror and the Guardian also report ambulances queueing at A&E departments? How do you come to the conclusion that the Mail or the Torygraph are undermining the NHS with such reporting, when your favourites are presumably not? I think you will find that there is a pretty broad consensus that the NHS is underfunded, and social care even more so.

That's what I'm saying, It was not like this in earlier days and it's not bad management now causing the various bottlenecks; it's underfunding. Particularly the social care bottleneck it seems.
Conveniently, the right wing and their media see privatisation as the solution.

 

[Marcusthehat]

I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
So we were never anywhere near big earners.
We are now more than "well off" property wise, and "comfortable" income wise, but I prefer not to go into details.
Sounds like fantasy, no!
simply sensible spending, with No particular hardship ensuing.
I remain amazed at how much money is spent in/on pubs, bookies, hairdressers, ciggies/vaping, chip shops, disposable clothing and flash cars, latte coffees, short breaks, etc etc.
Simply staggering unaccountable sums, mostly "frittered" away.
But everyone bleats about "poverty".
Marcus

 

[NickDReed]

Does annoy me to hear that the goverment are advising nurses to think very carefully before considering strike action. Maybe the government should think carefully about paying them properly, then maybe so many wouldnt be leaving. Same goes for social care. If that ends up with us paying more tax to fund it, then fair enough. Reality is that they know they probably wont strike, anymore than the police did a few years ago. A sense of duty will keep them at work until they just cant manage anymore, so they are over a barrel. I always think it is a shameful reflection on our society that we pay people more to make us a coffee than to look after us or our elderly relatives.

Genuine question, how much do you consider per annum is the proper pay for a nurse?

 

[John Brown]

I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
So we were never anywhere near big earners.
We are now more than "well off" property wise, and "comfortable" income wise, but I prefer not to go into details.
Sounds like fantasy, no simply sensible spending, with no particular hardship ensuing.
I remain amazed at how much money is spent in/on pubs, bookies, hairdressers, ciggies/vaping, chip shops, disposable clothing and flash cars, latte coffees, short breaks, etc etc.
Simply staggering unaccountable sums, mostly "frittered" away.
But everyone bleats about "poverty".
Marcus

I completely agree. Similar experience, except for the flour bags. It does flabbergast me the amount spent at Starbucks or on "brunch" out etc. And I'm pretty far to the left.

It is still a fact, though, that inequality is increasing, and I also agree with Jacob in that trickle-down is a myth.

 

[PhilipL]

Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.

Private (subsidised) education.

 

[Marcusthehat]

Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.
And no system is better "subsidised" than the abysmal state sector, who urinate money away constantly building new schools to replace 20-30 year old "failed" schools.

 

[Jacob]

I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
So we were never anywhere near big earners.
We are now more than "well off" property wise, and "comfortable" income wise, but I prefer not to go into details.
Sounds like fantasy, no simply sensible spending, with no particular hardship ensuing.

Well done!

I remain amazed at how much money is spent in/on pubs, bookies, hairdressers, ciggies/vaping, chip shops, disposable clothing and flash cars, latte coffees, short breaks, etc etc.
Simply staggering unaccountable sums, mostly "frittered" away.
But everyone bleats about "poverty".
Marcus

I don't see the connection. Are you saying that only poor people buy these things?
Come to think, I'm not paricularly "well off" and looking at that list I personally haven't spent any money on any of those things this year except perhaps one or two visits to a chippy, a cafe, and a short break camping in Wales.
Is that OK?
PS and been in a pub twice.
PPS Anyway the poor are entitled to try to enjoy life and not expected to go around in sack cloth and ashes in penance. Good luck to them!

 

[Jacob]

Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.

In the hopes of gaining an unfair advantage over those who can't afford it. If they can afford private education and health care then obviously they could afford higher taxes and to rejoin the human race

 

[Marcusthehat]

Jacob,
You continue to pedal the politics of envy and hatred of the better off.
Re education in particular.
Regardless, my pertinent observations started at University, where I watched with bemusement as some spent their terms grant money in a couple of weeks and then went begging, most giving zero consideration to the idea they were responsible for their own misfortune.
I simply expect people to be able to do simple sums and live within their means, or educate themselves or get a better paying job. Not bang out multiple brats to big up their benefits.
Trickle down cannot work, since those on benefits mostly will not work.
And I am aware some proportion of benefits claimants are genuine, but living here in NI the levels of fraud are truely staggering.
Aspiration and education are the only answers, with some deferred gratification certainly helping.
Blaming "themmuns" for ones own failings is not an answer.
And I do not begrudge anyone "a beer" but lifetime observations allow me to reasonably ascertain how much is spent on booze, ciggies and gambling, by those who generally can least afford it. These habits are an insatiable maw that is beyond any economic system to provide for.
Marcus

 

[planesleuth]

Bring back the ship money tax Charlie..then we have a good reason to take the old boys club out again. Raise the Republican Armies!

 

[NickDReed]

In the hopes of gaining an unfair advantage over those who can't afford it. If they can afford private education and health care then obviously they could afford higher taxes and to rejoin the human race

Is the issue with those you consider to be wealthy not paying what you consider to be sufficient taxes? Or is the issue that they can afford to access alternative means, facilities and material possessions?

Or is it both?

 

[johna.clements]

Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.
And no system is better "subsidised" than the abysmal state sector, who urinate money away constantly building new schools to replace 20-30 year old "failed" schools.

Private schools get a £2.5 billion tax break a year.

 

[Marcusthehat]

But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?
I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.
The simple answer is mismanagement by the unsackable govt employed staff.
I worked for a LA and the wife taught, we both saw it from the inside. Yes there were decent hardworking staff, generally outnumbered by the lazy and dissaffected.

 

[Jacob]

But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?

Not really. The majority are second rate and many pupils have to go into state schools for some subjects. Yes the better public schools should be emulated in terms of investment, which can be absolutely massive.

I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.

Underfunding the state. Overfunding the private. Not difficult to understand!

 

[johna.clements]

But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?
I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.
The simple answer is mismanagement by the unsackable govt employed staff.
I worked for a LA and the wife taught, we both saw it from the inside. Yes there were decent hardworking staff, generally outnumbered by the lazy and dissaffected.

Thanks for agreeing that they do not pay twice.

You may think it is a good idea to keep "temporary" buildings that cost a fortune to maintain and heat, most people do not.

 

[Marcusthehat]

But they do pay twice, first through their taxes for to educate their children, which they do not uptake of, then they pay privately to educate their children, I am not up to speed with the details of the supposed "tax breaks" the private sector schools recieve, but, with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.
How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.

 

[Jacob]

But they do pay twice,

Their choice. Be better if they were taxed more instead and sent their kids to better invested state schools

...with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.

You could check them yourself!

How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.

I agree. They should spend as much on state schools as is spent on the private sector.
I don't think there is appalling wastage or low standards in the state sector at all, though they could do with more money of course.
My kids all went comprehensive; 1 BA, 2 MAs, 1 PhD and university lecturer.

 

[johna.clements]

But they do pay twice, first through their taxes for to educate their children, which they do not uptake of, then they pay privately to educate their children, I am not up to speed with the details of the supposed "tax breaks" the private sector schools recieve, but, with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.
How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.

They do not pay twice.
If the tax breaks, which refund most of the cost of a state school place, where not real why are the private schools so concerned about there possible removal.