"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:48:19 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:36:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.

Here's an example, hot off the press. Today we have had Oliver Letwin
explaining some of the Tories' proposals for spending should they be
elected. It looks like the public services are going to be pared back
somewhat.

Administration in the public services as opposed to the "sharp end"
should be pared back. Severely. I would do so much more agressively
than Letwin is suggesting,.


However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

Investment should be related to the service being delivered, (as it
were) not the administration of it.


So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

It should be shut down and replaced with a system appropriate for the
21st century, not one suited to the idealism of the mid 20th.

And replaced with what? Loons like this always criticise yet never come up
with a real solution. They see life from a narrow middle classy
perspective.

Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?
And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

In effect the taxpayer is the customer of all of this. The question
becomes one of do we want to spend more money protecting jobs which
can be automated or outsourced to other countries more cheaply or do
we want to pay more in tax towards propping up or even increasing the
public share of GDP to fund what is ultimately untenable?

To me the answer to that is abundantly clear.

We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even more
to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever
looks at the big picture.

I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!

The NHS isn't vital at all.

snip drivel