On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:32:47 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
snip

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright, sod
you' types,

You didn't read what I said - that is far from being the case.. I
carefully made the point that there should be directed financial
provision where needed.

the only people who would benefit form your approach are those
running the (presumably) private service companies

The customer benefits from competition between service companies
simply because poor service results in customers going elsewhere.
This concentrates the mind.

- I'll grant that most of
the non front line structure of these HMG / LG run services need drastic
pruning but I don't see any need for HMG or LG to stop supplying the
service.

I do. There is little or no competitive element, little
accountability, little freedom of choice and huge amounts of
bureaucracy. The British NHS is the largest employer in western
Europe - a complete nonsense. It's impossible to run an effective
organisation or set of organisations on that basis, and no reason why
governments, be they national or local need to be in the service
business.



BTW, you mention education, but the biggest f*ck up has been in the last 20
years (with the national curriculum etc [1]), not that of the comprehensive
'experiment' as you call it, although I will admit that it had very many
faults (many brought about Grammar Schools and staff being forced to change.

[1] replacing out many practical subjects with ones that only produce a
frameble bit of paper but little real life skills.


Both comprehensive education and national curriculum are failed
educational experiments that should have been stopped. It is all
part of the same mentality that everybody has to be forced to have the
same thing. Of course it's marketed as equal opportunity, but the
reality is that people are different in terms of aptitude for
different things.

Academic education in academically focussed schools should be provided
for those who will benefit from it, practical education in schools
with facilities for them for people who will benefit from that.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl