Any PBers have a view on this vote in the House today about decriminalising BBC Licence Fee non-payments? I assume it will pass.
I also assume that this will bring huge pressure on the BBC to reform - cost effectiveness, political bias, the nature of its programming (as millions decide they aren't interested), etc.
It is a positive development. I don't think anybody apart from the senior Beeboids likes the Licence Fee.
BBC supporters are bleating on about using encryption using smartcards / a.n.other system. Which means that everyone will have to get new set top boxes, only a couple of years after we all had to get new boxes for the digital switchover. It'll also effect the whole of the Freeview system.
That'll go down like a lead balloon, and won't even fix the main problem.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
I think - imagine the horror - there are areas of public spending where the state should exit. I'd include education in this. 100% vouchers and 100% of schools free/independent. I'd also - double horror - suggest the NHS be made more like the French or German systems with the state paying but significant levels of private delivery. We haven't even started on the quangocracy. Or endless non-jobs.
We CAN save alot of money if we are minded to.
Patrick, I don't see how that saves any money.
100% vouchers for education would cost more money than at present, because the state would be helping to pay for the education of the wealthy at Eton et al, when at present the state makes a rather smaller contribution by waiving taxes on these educational charities.
Similarly, I believe that the French and German governments spend more money on their health systems then we do on the NHS, as a percentage share of GDP. I have heard many fine arguments on the merits of those systems in delivering better healthcare, but as a money saving measure it seems rather lacking.
If you look at economic trends the next big thing could well be economic globalisation that destroys the income of the present middle classes. People like dentists, lawyers, accountants, etc, seeing the same competition for jobs that has held down wages in manufacturing.
This will increase income inequality and further erode the tax base of developed countries like the UK.
You can't solve a problem like this by cutting spending, unless you decide to abandon those at the bottom of the income distribution to a life without healthcare, education and decent housing.
These changes can only be solved by economic reform that reduces inequality in the income distribution, and that makes it harder for the very wealthy to avoid taxation. Of course, there will always be a debate about the level and nature of state spending, but the economic changes that are presently underway will make such a debate moot if they are not addressed.
Off Topic. rcs1000 "It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad."
As a family history anorak, I have to say that the idea that pre-marital sex was not a common occurrence even if it was more frowned upon before the sixties is a complete myth. It might have seen far more couples eventually getting wed at some point after the event, but it was far from uncommon over the last couple of hundred years even if in the bad old days you would be named and shamed on Sunday in the local Kirk up here in the Highlands.
Always amused me that despite Scotland's Presbyterian reputation we Scots long had purely secular marriage by custom and repute - basically just shacking up together - with or without public declaration, and nary a sniff in the Kirk unless wanted. No wonder the meenister mannies liked to call them 'irregular marriages'!
If we were, for example, averaging the last 8 polls, leads of 8 and 4 have been replaced by 5 and 2. Average Tory lead over last 8 polls is now 3%, not so long ago it was over 6%.
If we were, for example, averaging the last 8 polls, leads of 8 and 4 have been replaced by 5 and 2. Average Tory lead over last 8 polls is now 3%, not so long ago it was over 6%.
If we were, for example, averaging the last 8 polls, leads of 8 and 4 have been replaced by 5 and 2. Average Tory lead over last 8 polls is now 3%, not so long ago it was over 6%.
Comments
@Patrick - Broadly the seats totals reflect :
Con 36% .. Lab 31.5% .. LibDem16%
Without including a range of factors that slightly depress Labour seats and slightly increase Conservative seats.
That'll go down like a lead balloon, and won't even fix the main problem.
It'll do me no end of good, though. ;-)
100% vouchers for education would cost more money than at present, because the state would be helping to pay for the education of the wealthy at Eton et al, when at present the state makes a rather smaller contribution by waiving taxes on these educational charities.
Similarly, I believe that the French and German governments spend more money on their health systems then we do on the NHS, as a percentage share of GDP. I have heard many fine arguments on the merits of those systems in delivering better healthcare, but as a money saving measure it seems rather lacking.
If you look at economic trends the next big thing could well be economic globalisation that destroys the income of the present middle classes. People like dentists, lawyers, accountants, etc, seeing the same competition for jobs that has held down wages in manufacturing.
This will increase income inequality and further erode the tax base of developed countries like the UK.
You can't solve a problem like this by cutting spending, unless you decide to abandon those at the bottom of the income distribution to a life without healthcare, education and decent housing.
These changes can only be solved by economic reform that reduces inequality in the income distribution, and that makes it harder for the very wealthy to avoid taxation. Of course, there will always be a debate about the level and nature of state spending, but the economic changes that are presently underway will make such a debate moot if they are not addressed.
Basil filling.
Basil filling.
Basil filling.