Should fiscal policy be independent of who is in office?

[Phil Pascoe]

The NHS is totally unsustainable in its present form - as such, it's not a political debate whether it changes. It must.

Robin - the management bit always amuses me. Authorities are happy to pay 100, 150, 200 thousand quid pa - because they have to have the right man for the job - then the first thing he does is get consultants in. Why not just hire the consultants and cut out the middle man?

Also, many of these consultants haven't long taken huge redundancy payments - from the very authorities they are now advising.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

what you have to remember is the broadcasters are in the entertainment business and dry discussion about the definitions of how nations measure their revenue and outgoings is about as boring as it gets to the vast majority of non accountants. It's ratings which drive their agenda and GDP discussion, although interesting to ABC1 adults does not generally hit the spot with your average Sun reader....and there's a ruddy lot of 'em!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

+1. What you hear, read or watch is very much dictated by the (perceived) desires of the great unwashed - which is why we are more likely to get news of a third division footballer's underwear than we are an in depth report on our economy.

 

[Jacob]

...
I'll leave this up for just as long as people can behave but the moment some . decides to "educate" us all with his diseased imagination on how he would do it better then its gone.

You mean you will leave it as long as nobody says anything you don't agree with!
I think it's pathetic that grown ups are banned from talking about politics.
Long live the ". who decides to "educate" us all with his diseased imagination"! The more the merrier. We need to hear from him and kick his ideas about.
As it is the media has successfully shut everybody up - the slightest vaguely radical idea is immediately suppressed or derided.
Just listening to Radio 4 going on about van delivery drivers: minimum wages, bogus self employment, zero hour contracts etc. A lot of workers being ripped off. The politics has been drained out of these discussions - no one bothered to talk to a trade unionist or about government responsibility for terms of employment. If the van drivers got a bit organised there'd be shock and horror!
We are well past 1984 and Orwell might be amazed at how accurate (but different in detail) his predictions were.

PS to answer the question - Should fiscal policy be independent of who is in office? Of course not. Impossible anyway - it'd have to be a political decision in the first place.

 

[bugbear]

I think it's pathetic that grown ups are banned from talking about politics.

There are lots of forums for political debate where you can enjoy a "robust exchange of views".

It's just that this isn't one of them.

If you want a political argument, I suggest you find a forum that allows such things, announce its name here, and wait there for whoever wants to discuss politics with you to come along.

Don't hold your breath. :lol:

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

There you go - it makes people very uneasy - like being under threat of having tranquilliser prescription cancelled.

 

[Jacob]

The NHS is totally unsustainable in its present form - as such, it's not a political debate whether it changes. It must.....

It's been underfunded and under attack since 1979. It is still the most cost efficient health service in the world according to many surveys and in spite of the negative propaganda nobody has a better idea about maintaining the health of the nation.

 

[finneyb]

It is still the most cost efficient health service in the world according to many surveys and in spite of the negative propaganda nobody has a better idea about maintaining the health of the nation.

The key here is to define the term NHS. To me it's the compulsory insurance premium that we all pay approx. £2,000 pa per person, every year. Obama is attempting to go to this model.

The NHS is not the BMA's or the euphemistically named Royal College of Nursing unionised members or the buildings with the blue and white NHS logo. The private sector can provide all these services cost effectively provided we maintain the compulsory insurance policy and manage the private sector delivering the service.

It is the compulsory insurance premium that ensures the cost effectiveness not the highest paid doctors in Europe.

Brian

 

[Cheshirechappie]

what you have to remember is the broadcasters are in the entertainment business and dry discussion about the definitions of how nations measure their revenue and outgoings is about as boring as it gets to the vast majority of non accountants. It's ratings which drive their agenda and GDP discussion, although interesting to ABC1 adults does not generally hit the spot with your average Sun reader....and there's a ruddy lot of 'em!

Well - the Charter remit of our 'public service' broadcaster is to 'inform, educate and entertain'. I'd agree that the average Sun reader is more interested in what Wayne Rooney has for breakfast or what part of her anatomy Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) has adorned with a tattoo this time, but even Sun readers can understand simple pie charts. Well, most of them, anyway. There's rather less excuse for the public service broadcaster not informing and educating on matters of rather more direct importance to our wallets and ways of life.

 

[Jacob]

And the ". decides to "educate" us all with his diseased imagination" is precisely what a good number of our worst politicians think of most of the electorate. I'm sure they would be pleased to know you are on their side Bob!

 

[Jacob]

It is still the most cost efficient health service in the world according to many surveys and in spite of the negative propaganda nobody has a better idea about maintaining the health of the nation.

The key here is to define the term NHS. To me it's the compulsory insurance premium that we all pay approx. £2,000 pa per person, every year. Obama is attempting to go to this model.

The NHS is not the BMA's or the euphemistically named Royal College of Nursing unionised members or the buildings with the blue and white NHS logo. The private sector can provide all these services cost effectively provided we maintain the compulsory insurance policy and manage the private sector delivering the service.

It is the compulsory insurance premium that ensures the cost effectiveness not the highest paid doctors in Europe.

Brian

[/quote]
If you are not sure about the details it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_H ... England%29
If the private sector could do it better I'd be all for it, but it's totally improbable. It doesn't do as good a job anywhere else in the world so how could it here?

 

[finneyb]

Well - the Charter remit of our 'public service' broadcaster is to 'inform, educate and entertain'. I'd agree that the average Sun reader is more interested in what Wayne Rooney has for breakfast or what part of her anatomy Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) has adorned with a tattoo this time, but even Sun readers can understand simple pie charts. Well, most of them, anyway. There's rather less excuse for the public service broadcaster not informing and educating on matters of rather more direct importance to our wallets and ways of life.

I feel that the BBC does a reasonable job on the inform and educate front . Particularly if you take in the output from Radio 4 eg More or less, File on 4, Inside Health, Money Box, Thinking Allowed, I draw the line at the Moral Maze which just serves to irritate.

But of course you need to switch off the TV and listen to the Radio and that maybe the problem.

Brian

 

[finneyb]

If you are not sure about the details it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_H ... England%29

Perfectly sure of the details thank you.

If the private sector could do it better I'd be all for it, but it's totally improbable. It doesn't do as good a job anywhere else in the world so how could it here?

Most GPs are contractors rather than NHS employees so are private sector, as are Pharmacist, Optomerists etc and they all seem to work well enough. Pharmco is private sector as are most other support services, which all seem to work well. The difference is the compulsory insurance premium of £2,000 pa per person every year that is paid whether you use the service or not, but it provides continuity of funding and thereby provides a cost effective service.

Brian

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Well - the Charter remit of our 'public service' broadcaster is to 'inform, educate and entertain'. I'd agree that the average Sun reader is more interested in what Wayne Rooney has for breakfast or what part of her anatomy Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) has adorned with a tattoo this time, but even Sun readers can understand simple pie charts. Well, most of them, anyway. There's rather less excuse for the public service broadcaster not informing and educating on matters of rather more direct importance to our wallets and ways of life.

I feel that the BBC does a reasonable job on the inform and educate front . Particularly if you take in the output from Radio 4 eg More or less, File on 4, Inside Health, Money Box, Thinking Allowed, I draw the line at the Moral Maze which just serves to irritate.

But of course you need to switch off the TV and listen to the Radio and that maybe the problem.

Brian

I don't own a television. I do listen to Radio 4, and I stand by my criticisms of it. Too many soundbites, too many interviews in which the interviewer is more interested in interrupting than listening, too much emphasis on trivia and not enough dissemination of facts. Can you give answers to the basic fiscal questions I posed in an earlier post? It's not that I'm having a go at you, it's because I think that's the sort of stuff most people should be aware of when political debates about public spending, taxation etc are reported, otherwise the arguments advanced cannot be weighed objectively.

The end result is that it's quite hard to judge exactly what politicians are doing, or intend to do, and why. They are not given a chance to develop complex arguments because the broadcasters only want a soundbite. Thus, we find it harder to weigh the arguments of the different political factions. The problem too often is the messenger, not the people with the message.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The NHS is totally unsustainable in its present form - as such, it's not a political debate whether it changes. It must.....

It's been underfunded and under attack since 1979. It is still the most cost efficient health service in the world according to many surveys and in spite of the negative propaganda nobody has a better idea about maintaining the health of the nation.

That's presumably why not one single country in the world has tried to copy it? Just wonderin'.

 

[Mike.S]

I've been slowly coming to the view that the broadcasters have way too much influence over the political process.

+1

Broadcasters have an opportunity to influence the public - by reporting or omitting facts and opinions, without always differentiating between the two. In short, it's the ability to widely disseminate propaganda.. Those interested might want to read up on its origins e.g. Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew) or the BBC documentaries by Adam Curtis.

A recent example of this is the media's 'reporting' of Ron Paul's USA Presidential bid. See here.

 

[Jacob]

The NHS is totally unsustainable in its present form - as such, it's not a political debate whether it changes. It must.....

It's been underfunded and under attack since 1979. It is still the most cost efficient health service in the world according to many surveys and in spite of the negative propaganda nobody has a better idea about maintaining the health of the nation.

That's presumably why not one single country in the world has tried to copy it? Just wonderin'.

Well they have , to a lesser or greater extent, in many places. It's not exactly a radical idea (unless you are american and see it as a communist plot!)

 

[finneyb]

Well - the Charter remit of our 'public service' broadcaster is to 'inform, educate and entertain'. I'd agree that the average Sun reader is more interested in what Wayne Rooney has for breakfast or what part of her anatomy Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) has adorned with a tattoo this time, but even Sun readers can understand simple pie charts. Well, most of them, anyway. There's rather less excuse for the public service broadcaster not informing and educating on matters of rather more direct importance to our wallets and ways of life.

I feel that the BBC does a reasonable job on the inform and educate front . Particularly if you take in the output from Radio 4 eg More or less, File on 4, Inside Health, Money Box, Thinking Allowed, I draw the line at the Moral Maze which just serves to irritate.

But of course you need to switch off the TV and listen to the Radio and that maybe the problem.

Brian

I don't own a television. .....Can you give answers to the basic fiscal questions I posed in an earlier post? It's not that I'm having a go at you, it's because I think that's the sort of stuff most people should be aware of when political debates about public spending, taxation etc are reported, otherwise the arguments advanced cannot be weighed objectively.

Like you no TV. I can make a reasonable stab at your basic fiscal questions.
I accept that most would not know the answers but is that the BBC fault? Or is life just so comfortable that people don't have to be bothered.

If you go to US and listen to Fox News you see a comparison to the BBC. You would have to be brain dead to accept what Fox News says as correct - blatantly biased towards the Republicans to the exclusion of fact or truth at times.

Brian

 

[Baldhead]

... Oh hang on, yes this is definitely politics!

But its not party political dogma promulgated by those without the ability to think for themselves - it is intelligent debate and discussion. So perhaps the rules should differentiate between politics and party political ie politics OK ; party political NOT OK.

Brian

The point is well made and if people were able to behave like gentlemen and honour that then life would be good. Regrettably, experience suggests otherwise and that it only takes any opportunity to open political discussion for someone to snipe about left or right and boom off we go into a childish merry-go-round. I notice a few posts back someone has already commented on how wealth is concentrated in too few hands! Do you see what I mean

I'll leave this up for just as long as people can behave but the moment some . decides to "educate" us all with his diseased imagination on how he would do it better then its gone.

I agree, Brian's thinking is correct, politics OK, party political NOT OK, so on that thought, why I wonder was my post deleted? It made no mention of any political party. Strange.

Stew

 

[Harry 48]

Fiscal Policy rob peter to pay paul which ever party is in power that's the way it's been with politicians cake tomorrow . I'll leave it up to you who peter is. Independent fiscal office is just more pigs in the trough :twisted: