Is it the fault of NuLabour or socialism?

[sasguru]

... except Spasguru

Spasguru? Did you come up with that all by yourself? Bless ...

[Mich the Tester]

What incentive is going to be present for people to work up the career ladder or start businesses if the resulting rewards don't provide a better quality of life?

Where would all the tax revenue to fund the public sector come from?

And who would live in all the tulip areas of town?

If taxes are kept to responsible levels (even Keynes argued that taxes shouldn't exceed 25% of GDP), then there'll be plenty of incentive for businesses and career people.

The tax revenue would improve because businesses and consumers are doing well.

Given a general improvement in wealth and home ownership, there will be less and less tulipty areas in which to live.

That's the theory at least. I'm not saying it always works.

[Old Greg]

I have longed to hear a debate about using vouchers to buy education and health. We can shop around for food and clothes in a way that ensures that the production and deliver of these commodities is of the highest order, why cant we do the same with health and education?

Here is the problem that I have with vouchers (and it's not particularly an ideological one, but a pragmatic one).

There are 3 ways of doing it that I can see (I'll use Education as an example as health is very complex).

1. Take your vouchers and use them anywhere (and top up as you choose) and the provider redeems it with the state.

2. Take your vouchers and use them anywhere (and no top up allowed) and the provider redeems it with the state.

3. Take your vouchers and use them with a state provider (and no top up allowed) and the provider redeems it with the state.

1 is the purest free market form. The problem is that it creates educational ghettos for those who cannot top up. Let's say there's a 5k voucher per child. A group of private schools set up at 6k p.a. Parents who can afford to start sending their kids their. Parents who can't don't. People who make decisions (MPs, Councillors, civil servants, council officials) have no incentive to bother with the 5k (presumably state or privatised ex-state) schools because their kids don't go there. The only thing that could make them care is the votes of those whose kids send their kids there, and if you think that's the answer (which I don't expect you do), you're a) naive, and b) relying on democracy and government rather than the market.

2 and 3 don't solve the current problems because there will presumably be excessive demand on the better services with no market mechanism to solve this... except for organisations to expand (or take over 'capacity' in less popular schools). Expansion is very difficult because of the long-term requirements to invest in infrastructure to respond to demand. If demand doubles for school entry, it's not easy to respond - they can't just open a few more checkouts and have them idle the rest of the time. And if a mechanism could be found to respond to allow every child into the school of 1st choice, then exactly the same mechanism could be used within the current voucherless system. An example would be letting popular schools to invest 'at risk' in additional capacity because 'if you build it they will come', but for this to truly work, they would need to absorb all the additional demand.

So in summary, it will either build a ghetto or just continue to highlight what we know already - some schools are more popular then others.

[Old Greg]

I suspect that your (rather niaive if I may say so) definition of equality is not what socialist equality aspires to anyway. If it was, presumably we could do away with the race relations act, equal pay act etc, as everyone's gonig to be nice to each to each other anyway?

Not at all. I didn't say we are all going to be nice to each other, I am saying that we are equal. If we are equal and are not treated equally, then that represents an injustice, hence the need for legislation. It is not naive to believe that we are of the same value - it is a judgement made on what gives value to a person.

When you say 'what socialism aspires to', then you mean not equality, but what follows on from the acceptance of equality - a socialist analysis of equitability. I think you probably mean common ownership of the means of production and equitable distribution of the fruits of production, to use some old-school language. Different socialists (and others on the left) would define these differently, but like many I don't seek to prescribe a definition up front. Once those in power are removed (if they ever can be), there will be time to evolve a model that works.

[minestrone]

I believe if you wish to take you children out of state education then the state should refund the money to you for a child's education as long as that money can be proven to be spent responsibly.

[Old Greg]

I believe if you wish to take you children out of state education then the state should refund the money to you for a child's education as long as that money can be proven to be spent responsibly.

How much extra will that cost in taxes?

[minestrone]

How much extra will that cost in taxes?

How much is it costing us churning out spud after spud from state schools?

[Old Greg]

How much is it costing us churning out spud after spud from state schools?

It's your proposal - let's see the costed comparisons? OK, not really, but there woud be a substantial increase in taxes just to cover those whose kids are already outside the state system. The obvious solution is to tax them, or more pragmatically people in that kind of income bracket.

[Gordon Brown]

How about you guys stick to what you know best, i.e. pressing buttons on a machine and leave the important and hard stuff like running the world economy, fighting terrorism, etc to people like me?

[minestrone]

It's your proposal - let's see the costed comparisons? OK, not really, but there woud be a substantial increase in taxes just to cover those whose kids are already outside the state system. The obvious solution is to tax them, or more pragmatically people in that kind of income bracket.

First off the bat your post is a mess of contradictions, anyway why should I be forced to push my children into the million monkey system they have adopted now?