Why not just legislate that everyone will make a profit of 5% - no more, no less - on everything and have done with it? Though that might make Bargain Hunt a bit boring.
It is such a bad idea. Ed is once again focusing on the wrong things.
Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer. If a company can do a batter job, for less, and make a healthy profit on top we ought to celebrate that. What we will end up with is companies doing a lousy job but making a "fair" profit, as the smarter companies look elsewhere to make a return on their investment.
It will also drive perverse behaviour. One way to make less profit is to increase your payroll - so fat bonuses for the managers.
Why not just legislate that everyone will make a profit of 5% - no more, no less - on everything and have done with it? Though that might make Bargain Hunt a bit boring.
It is such a bad idea. Ed is once again focusing on the wrong things.
Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer. If a company can do a batter job, for less, and make a healthy profit on top we ought to celebrate that. What we will end up with is companies doing a lousy job but making a "fair" profit, as the smarter companies look elsewhere to make a return on their investment.
It will also drive perverse behaviour. One way to make less profit is to increase your payroll - so fat bonuses for the managers.
Private sector % rage > profits cap > profits freeze > bonus cap> bonus levy > salary levy > new wage regulator > closed hospital > closed regulator > tax rises > new hospital > new hospital czar > repeat until country bust...
Cant see what the benefit fuss is all about. Known they will cut £12bn not unusual to ask civil servants for advice on best way.
All jt really shows is that it will have to be exfended to pensioner benefits to make the numbers up. Extending the spare room subsidy rules to over 65s would be a good start and I don't think has been ruled out.
Re expenses. Anyone got a list of the 46.Any of them in seats where UKIP have a shout?
Charging rental/hotel expenses when u own a place and rent it out is taking the p in my book
Why? yes, if the house was done up on expenses, otherwise, no ones business.
If they have received government payments towards that property currently or in the past then it is taking the p as far as I am concerned.
No different in my book to someone renting out their house then claiming housing benefit on the replacement property they rented.
A friend tells me that the actor playing Mycroft in the current modern-day Sherlock said it's also based on Mandelson. A role model for our times, evidently. :-)
I haven't watched Sherlock (should I?) but I am a big fan of Elementary. And I really can't see Mycroft/Mandelson in that one.
"Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer."
More a matter of principle. If for example a charity said they were going to restrict their overheads to 5% I don't think anyone would object. Most people see the NHS in this light so I doubt many would see much wrong with Ed's principled idea however tricky to police.
"Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer."
More a matter of principle. If for example a charity said they were going to restrict their overheads to 5% I don't think anyone would object. Most people see the NHS in this light so I doubt many would see much wrong with Ed's principled idea however tricky to police.
That's kind of the problem: it's a superficially popular policy which will hurt the quality of service and the care people receive in the long run. It's quintessential Miliband.
"Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer."
More a matter of principle. If for example a charity said they were going to restrict their overheads to 5% I don't think anyone would object. Most people see the NHS in this light so I doubt many would see much wrong with Ed's principled idea however tricky to police.
Popularity doesn't mean it is right, or practical, or will have a good effect.
What Labour are proposing is just as stupid a policy as an arbitrary benefits cap, which is the sort of nonsense Tories like. Plucking some percentage or total out of thin air and calling it a fair limit is nonsensical. Measuring the cost and ignoring the value is no way to balance the books. We don't want to drive good companies out of providing service because they can do better elsewhere, any more than we should seek to penalise people who plainly do deserve more help.
This general election is once again going to come down to choosing the least incompetent out of a very dismal choice of parties.
It could have the effect of creating a fall in supply alongside a drop in access to better quality (especially new) treatments on the NHS, whilst pushing those who can pay for better treatment to effectively opt out of the NHS to buy it at the price Ed refuses to meet.
A friend tells me that the actor playing Mycroft in the current modern-day Sherlock said it's also based on Mandelson. A role model for our times, evidently. :-)
I haven't watched Sherlock (should I?) but I am a big fan of Elementary. And I really can't see Mycroft/Mandelson in that one.
Not really. Oh OK you should as a part of shared culture. The conceit of the programme is brilliant and the early stories are clever - the Moriarty introduction for me is the start of a decline. If I were to miss an episode I would not be too bothered though. Cumberbatch is a classic Holmes though and Martin Freeman an equal as Watson if you overlook his typical acting method. A modern drama has to be 'dark'.
Is he going to refuse to purchase equipment, medicines and treatments for patients if businesses refuse to supply at his price?
Do you think that this policy and its implications have really been thought through?
Everything in the NHS comes from the private sector. The state does not make bedpans. The state does no build hospitals. The whole point of the current efficiency drives (aimed as Labour said in their manifesto to save £20 billion) is to use purchasing power to cut costs for contracts to the private sector - but that is economies of scale allied with open competition.
Miliband wants to pay lip service to contracting out medical services to the private sector but in effect make it unprofitable. Under Miliband we will see the increasing 'socialistisation' of the NHS and indeed the entire country. There can be little doubt about that. The SNP will support him all the way.
A friend tells me that the actor playing Mycroft in the current modern-day Sherlock said it's also based on Mandelson. A role model for our times, evidently. :-)
I haven't watched Sherlock (should I?) but I am a big fan of Elementary. And I really can't see Mycroft/Mandelson in that one.
Not really. Oh OK you should as a part of shared culture. The conceit of the programme is brilliant and the early stories are clever - the Moriarty introduction for me is the start of a decline. If I were to miss an episode I would not be too bothered though. Cumberbatch is a classic Holmes though and Martin Freeman an equal as Watson if you overlook his typical acting method. A modern drama has to be 'dark'.
On the whole, Sherlock has been brilliant. Cumberbatch is a great modern Holmes. Some of the plots have been a little weak, but mostly forgivable. Updating the stories to the 21st century has mostly been a success.
It could have the effect of creating a fall in supply alongside a drop in access to better quality (especially new) treatments on the NHS, whilst pushing those who can pay for better treatment to effectively opt out of the NHS to buy it at the price Ed refuses to meet.
Unlikely. This is (aiui) aimed at the contracts for routine treatments and diagnostic procedures where the NHS was left with the more complex treatments anyway.
It's always far harder taking money away from some people than not giving other people extra money.
Look at the fuss re the "bedroom tax" - yet this year many benefits are increasing in nominal terms.
Rather than, eg, taking money off carers it would be far more palatable to just freeze all benefits for say five years. Cameron has talked about freezing some, but certainly not all, benefits for two years. I would freeze the lot for five years.
If he has to go for some specifics, have another go at cutting tax credits. We are still paying tax credits (on top of child benefit) to people with gross incomes a bit over £25k. Phase tax credits out at a somewhat lower level.
At least 15% of the NHS budget goes on drugs provided by the private sector. Why is it acceptable to buy in life-saving medicines but not services like blood tests? It does not make sense, unless the motive is to preserve NHS jobs not improve services.
A friend tells me that the actor playing Mycroft in the current modern-day Sherlock said it's also based on Mandelson. A role model for our times, evidently. :-)
I haven't watched Sherlock (should I?) but I am a big fan of Elementary. And I really can't see Mycroft/Mandelson in that one.
Not really. Oh OK you should as a part of shared culture. The conceit of the programme is brilliant and the early stories are clever - the Moriarty introduction for me is the start of a decline. If I were to miss an episode I would not be too bothered though. Cumberbatch is a classic Holmes though and Martin Freeman an equal as Watson if you overlook his typical acting method. A modern drama has to be 'dark'.
On the whole, Sherlock has been brilliant. Cumberbatch is a great modern Holmes. Some of the plots have been a little weak, but mostly forgivable. Updating the stories to the 21st century has mostly been a success.
I would mostly agree with that, plus Cumberbatch's mum is Wanda Ventham!! However I feel that the mood of the stories spoils the excellent and clever updating. Some plots possibly suffer for attempting (worthily, humorously) to mimic or base themselves on the originals.
A friend tells me that the actor playing Mycroft in the current modern-day Sherlock said it's also based on Mandelson. A role model for our times, evidently. :-)
I haven't watched Sherlock (should I?) but I am a big fan of Elementary. And I really can't see Mycroft/Mandelson in that one.
Not really. Oh OK you should as a part of shared culture. The conceit of the programme is brilliant and the early stories are clever - the Moriarty introduction for me is the start of a decline. If I were to miss an episode I would not be too bothered though. Cumberbatch is a classic Holmes though and Martin Freeman an equal as Watson if you overlook his typical acting method. A modern drama has to be 'dark'.
On the whole, Sherlock has been brilliant. Cumberbatch is a great modern Holmes. Some of the plots have been a little weak, but mostly forgivable. Updating the stories to the 21st century has mostly been a success.
I would mostly agree with that, plus Cumberbatch's mum is Wanda Ventham!! However I feel that the mood of the stories spoils the excellent and clever updating. Some plots possibly suffer for attempting (worthily, humorously) to mimic or base themselves on the originals.
Quite, but it was always going to be this way though. If they had strayed too far from the source there would have been as many complaints.
Personally, the best modern Holmes is Robert Downey Jr. ;-)
At least 15% of the NHS budget goes on drugs provided by the private sector. Why is it acceptable to buy in life-saving medicines but not services like blood tests? It does not make sense, unless the motive is to preserve NHS jobs not improve services.
And if you limit the return that pioneering drug companies can make then there is no incentive for them to do the research and the endless billions of that cost will fall on the nation. After a period then as far as I know most drugs are produced under or open competitive rules and become cheaper. France as an example is forcing its NHS to use more generic and cheaper drugs.
The floor for services like blood tests is the coast for the NHS to do it itself. It makes sense to cope with fluctuations in demand by contracting that demand out.
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.
No, that's not a factor that plays a part in his model - and wouldn't do for a statistician like Fisher, since the sample is so small (2!).
A sample of two seems excessive to me. After all there is only one ARSE.
ELBOW denier!
Certainly not.
More power to your ELBOW.
I have the greatest admiration for your pretty graphs that in their full and colourful grandeur brings much relief to PB lefties who are in much need of solace as Miliband's day of doom looms.
I take that back, Jack!! More power to your ARSE!
Next ELBOW due on Sunday! So far this week Lab and Con lead each other by... 0.0%!!!
At least 15% of the NHS budget goes on drugs provided by the private sector. Why is it acceptable to buy in life-saving medicines but not services like blood tests? It does not make sense, unless the motive is to preserve NHS jobs not improve services.
Of course that applies to essentially everything the NHS does. There are going to be all sorts of counter examples where companies supplying the NHS make a lot more than 5% profit but won't be penalised.
Re the CH4 story, it is well known this is going on. Surprised it as few as 46 to be honest.
Next for a good inspection is the money merry go around of constituency offices...
Jim Murphy and SLAB generally might be in trouble provided there are no SNP names on the list.
Angus Macneil is on the list but his is a ludicrous case where he could no longer claim £250 a month mortgage payments but instead £1000+ pounds a month hotel bills.
There was a bunch of news stories about him when the expense system was changed as he was preciously one of the lowest claiments under the old system.
Cue pictures of Cameron as AAAAAAAAAAAAAArkwright....
Cue pictures of Miliband as a fah...fafafaahfah...failure.
But - most importantly - who will play the part of the voluptuous Nurse Gladys Emmanuel? Can't see Hattie or Yvette in the role (aaaaaaarg, my mind is buuuuuurning)
Cue pictures of Cameron as AAAAAAAAAAAAAArkwright....
Cue pictures of Miliband as a fah...fafafaahfah...failure.
But - most importantly - who will play the part of the voluptuous Nurse Gladys Emmanuel? Can't see Hattie or Yvette in the role (aaaaaaarg, my mind is buuuuuurning)
Try getting a sick kid to a GP at the weekend. And don't suggest A&E, a grim place full of shrieking, bleeding, drunk people with 3 hour waits is not where I want to be with a 5-year-old child with suspected flu.
My GP is only available when I am at work. It would be better if it closed one or two days in the week and opened at the weekend. When I lived in London 20 years ago my GP had a 7.30 "commuters' surgery" twice a week and you could certainly get appointments up to 6pm , sometimes later. Surely any customerfacing organisation should seek to do the same.
Re the CH4 story, it is well known this is going on. Surprised it as few as 46 to be honest.
Next for a good inspection is the money merry go around of constituency offices...
Jim Murphy and SLAB generally might be in trouble provided there are no SNP names on the list.
Angus Macneil is on the list but his is a ludicrous case where he could no longer claim £250 a month mortgage payments but instead £1000+ pounds a month hotel bills.
There was a bunch of news stories about him when the expense system was changed as he was preciously one of the lowest claiments under the old system.
Did he get free tartan trews like the great leader ?
It's always far harder taking money away from some people than not giving other people extra money.
Look at the fuss re the "bedroom tax" - yet this year many benefits are increasing in nominal terms.
Rather than, eg, taking money off carers it would be far more palatable to just freeze all benefits for say five years. Cameron has talked about freezing some, but certainly not all, benefits for two years. I would freeze the lot for five years.
If he has to go for some specifics, have another go at cutting tax credits. We are still paying tax credits (on top of child benefit) to people with gross incomes a bit over £25k. Phase tax credits out at a somewhat lower level.
We can all chip in to make suggestions... but these leaked suggestions were not commissioned by politicians and not seen by Cameron or Osborne. When it comes to making cuts the civil service always produce the most unpalatable of lists and then of course if possible leak them. They are the last ones who want to see cuts. Lets not forget that between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms. Its the biggest increase in peacetime spending ever. There was no way that was affordable. Brown ran the economy like a runaway train and in the end it hit the buffers.
My GP is only available when I am at work. It would be better if it closed one or two days in the week and opened at the weekend. When I lived in London 20 years ago my GP had a 7.30 "commuters' surgery" twice a week and you could certainly get appointments up to 6pm , sometimes later. Surely any customerfacing organisation should seek to do the same.
Said it before, GP all should have online booking as well. Failure by this government to really push GP's to have this. Even my local council owned gym has it FFS.
Cue pictures of Cameron as AAAAAAAAAAAAAArkwright....
Cue pictures of Miliband as a fah...fafafaahfah...failure.
But - most importantly - who will play the part of the voluptuous Nurse Gladys Emmanuel? Can't see Hattie or Yvette in the role (aaaaaaarg, my mind is buuuuuurning)
My GP is only available when I am at work. It would be better if it closed one or two days in the week and opened at the weekend. When I lived in London 20 years ago my GP had a 7.30 "commuters' surgery" twice a week and you could certainly get appointments up to 6pm , sometimes later. Surely any customerfacing organisation should seek to do the same.
Said it before, GP all should have online booking as well. Failure by this government to really push GP's to have this. Even my local council owned gym has it FFS.
I think they should have to compete with each other, the crap ones would go bust.
But online booking would be great, you could select a time that suited you and would be able to play off convenience and choosing which doctor to see against urgency.
My GP is only available when I am at work. It would be better if it closed one or two days in the week and opened at the weekend. When I lived in London 20 years ago my GP had a 7.30 "commuters' surgery" twice a week and you could certainly get appointments up to 6pm , sometimes later. Surely any customerfacing organisation should seek to do the same.
Said it before, GP all should have online booking as well. Failure by this government to really push GP's to have this. Even my local council owned gym has it FFS.
I think they should have to compete with each other, the crap ones would go bust.
But online booking would be great, you could select a time that suited you and would be able to play off convenience and choosing which doctor to see against urgency.
GPs do compete with each other, except perhaps in the smallest hamlets. GPs are the bit of the NHS which is most in the private sector already. It turns out "the market" is not some sort of magic talisman that makes everything better.
Looking at the three victories in the local by-election - each of them offers tremendous encouragement for the SNP. Genrothes and Armadale are in seats which they would hope to take on a good day and on this evidence are heading to do just that and to do it comprehensively.
Buckie is in an NO voting area but of traditional SNP strength. This result demonstrates that the SNP are dusting down the opposition in the North East of Scotland.
These results are real votes in real ballot boxes. They count in my book for a great deal and confirm the ample evidence from elsewhere that the big shift is on in Scotland.
Try getting a sick kid to a GP at the weekend. And don't suggest A&E, a grim place full of shrieking, bleeding, drunk people with 3 hour waits is not where I want to be with a 5-year-old child with suspected flu.
Here in edinburgh, when our daughter had a terrifyingly high fever at 3 am, we went directly to the sick kids hospital and were triaged and seen too in quick time. When I was a student I passed out due to excess alcohol at 3am and was taken to A&E. I was seen eventually. In both cases, th nhs was open. It is a 24x7 operation
It's always far harder taking money away from some people than not giving other people extra money.
Look at the fuss re the "bedroom tax" - yet this year many benefits are increasing in nominal terms.
Rather than, eg, taking money off carers it would be far more palatable to just freeze all benefits for say five years. Cameron has talked about freezing some, but certainly not all, benefits for two years. I would freeze the lot for five years.
If he has to go for some specifics, have another go at cutting tax credits. We are still paying tax credits (on top of child benefit) to people with gross incomes a bit over £25k. Phase tax credits out at a somewhat lower level.
We can all chip in to make suggestions... but these leaked suggestions were not commissioned by politicians and not seen by Cameron or Osborne. When it comes to making cuts the civil service always produce the most unpalatable of lists and then of course if possible leak them. They are the last ones who want to see cuts. Lets not forget that between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms. Its the biggest increase in peacetime spending ever. There was no way that was affordable. Brown ran the economy like a runaway train and in the end it hit the buffers.
According to the BBC, the proposals were "commissioned by Conservative Party officials" which might mean SpAds.
Much of the increase 2008 to 2010 was to counter the effects of the global financial crisis. Osborne is spending more.
This 5% profit thing is the daftest policy ed has come up with. It plainly shows that he has no understanding of how businesses work. We are an electrical contractor. If On all our projects we had only allowed a 5% profit we would go out of business pretty quickly, pure and simple. In order to cover stuff like bad debts, slow payers, training, plant, transport, health and safety and general investment in the company we have to work on a minimum of 12.5%. We would turn down work if the profit was only 5%. With the investment required in health providers I am sure such companies will work on a figure of around 20%.
Try getting a sick kid to a GP at the weekend. And don't suggest A&E, a grim place full of shrieking, bleeding, drunk people with 3 hour waits is not where I want to be with a 5-year-old child with suspected flu.
GP weekend and home visits are areas where our service has certainly declined over the last generation and compares poorly with some other countries. In fact, when I lived in Switzerland, we had two home visits from a vet to treat a sick cat - one of them on Christmas Eve. We thought that was pretty awesome.
Comments
#COYS
No different in my book to someone renting out their house then claiming housing benefit on the replacement property they rented.
Ledge - end.
"Who cares how much profit a company makes? It is the cost and quality of the service that matters to us as the customer."
More a matter of principle. If for example a charity said they were going to restrict their overheads to 5% I don't think anyone would object. Most people see the NHS in this light so I doubt many would see much wrong with Ed's principled idea however tricky to police.
What Labour are proposing is just as stupid a policy as an arbitrary benefits cap, which is the sort of nonsense Tories like. Plucking some percentage or total out of thin air and calling it a fair limit is nonsensical. Measuring the cost and ignoring the value is no way to balance the books. We don't want to drive good companies out of providing service because they can do better elsewhere, any more than we should seek to penalise people who plainly do deserve more help.
This general election is once again going to come down to choosing the least incompetent out of a very dismal choice of parties.
The whole point of the current efficiency drives (aimed as Labour said in their manifesto to save £20 billion) is to use purchasing power to cut costs for contracts to the private sector - but that is economies of scale allied with open competition.
Miliband wants to pay lip service to contracting out medical services to the private sector but in effect make it unprofitable. Under Miliband we will see the increasing 'socialistisation' of the NHS and indeed the entire country. There can be little doubt about that. The SNP will support him all the way.
Some of the plots have been a little weak, but mostly forgivable. Updating the stories to the 21st century has mostly been a success.
Look at the fuss re the "bedroom tax" - yet this year many benefits are increasing in nominal terms.
Rather than, eg, taking money off carers it would be far more palatable to just freeze all benefits for say five years. Cameron has talked about freezing some, but certainly not all, benefits for two years. I would freeze the lot for five years.
If he has to go for some specifics, have another go at cutting tax credits. We are still paying tax credits (on top of child benefit) to people with gross incomes a bit over £25k. Phase tax credits out at a somewhat lower level.
@Telegraph: Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: "Cameron: I'll make NHS open all hours" http://t.co/MxBVxZ6FOw
However I feel that the mood of the stories spoils the excellent and clever updating. Some plots possibly suffer for attempting (worthily, humorously) to mimic or base themselves on the originals.
Personally, the best modern Holmes is Robert Downey Jr. ;-)
After a period then as far as I know most drugs are produced under or open competitive rules and become cheaper. France as an example is forcing its NHS to use more generic and cheaper drugs.
The floor for services like blood tests is the coast for the NHS to do it itself. It makes sense to cope with fluctuations in demand by contracting that demand out.
Next ELBOW due on Sunday! So far this week Lab and Con lead each other by... 0.0%!!!
Plugs
What size? Bathroom? Kitchen? 2"?
...
13amp
Feckin genius
There was a bunch of news stories about him when the expense system was changed as he was preciously one of the lowest claiments under the old system.
Much better using the resources we have to safeguard care and increase prevention
When it comes to making cuts the civil service always produce the most unpalatable of lists and then of course if possible leak them. They are the last ones who want to see cuts.
Lets not forget that between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms. Its the biggest increase in peacetime spending ever. There was no way that was affordable. Brown ran the economy like a runaway train and in the end it hit the buffers.
But online booking would be great, you could select a time that suited you and would be able to play off convenience and choosing which doctor to see against urgency.
Buckie is in an NO voting area but of traditional SNP strength. This result demonstrates that the SNP are dusting down the opposition in the North East of Scotland.
These results are real votes in real ballot boxes. They count in my book for a great deal and confirm the ample evidence from elsewhere that the big shift is on in Scotland.
When I was a student I passed out due to excess alcohol at 3am and was taken to A&E. I was seen eventually.
In both cases, th nhs was open.
It is a 24x7 operation
Much of the increase 2008 to 2010 was to counter the effects of the global financial crisis. Osborne is spending more.
The Tories are furious that the corporation failed to report in clear terms that David Cameron had beaten Ed Miliband in the first debate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11500709/BBC-under-fire-for-failing-to-declare-David-Cameron-as-winner-of-Battle-for-Number-10.html
Not as bad when they said Boris only just won, when his victory was the same size as Obama's, which they described as obviously as wiping the floor.