50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’

[DodgyAgent]

That really is the sum total of your ability to reason about things isn't it. Doodab disagrees with me therefore doodab must be a "leftie" therefore doodab must be wrong. The simple logic of a simple mind.

Seriously, where will these vouchers be spent? How will they lead to an improvement in standards? Do you really think the magic of the market is going to build hundreds of top quality well equipped schools and recruit and train thousands of excellent teachers and achieve the standards of the "best of the private sector" for 25% of the per pupil cost?

I could be Leon ******* Trotsky, it doesn't change the fact that you are delusional.

OK My point is that public services are generally awful and need improving because they are letting down in particular the the worse off in society. That a debate should take place whereby they should be reformed and I said that employment laws should be repealed and unions curtailed as a start to making workers more accountable. I also argue that where possible to look at ways in which we can empower the consumers of public services.
At which point you decide to turn it into an argument about public services being run by the private sector supported by tenuous anecdotes of where the public sector has achieved success and the private sector failure.
You have also argued that health care is better run publicly than privately even though I agree that private monopolies are not necessarily a good thing.
The fact that there are some state schools performing well should mean that there is no reason why they cannot all be made to perform well. Furthermore assuming your figures are correct the reason why so little is spent on educating a child is because the education authorities are more interested in themselves and because so much tax is paid in patching up the failures of education.

Your whole argument if one call it that is a series of hysterical cliches are exactly how the left defends any change within the public sector- A call to the ramparts to throw whatever emotive cliche or anecdote at its attackers. The fact is that even labour governments have privatised so many public services such as care for the elderly because the public sector cannot be trusted.

I base my arguments on how human beings behave in general. Contractors dont get paid if they take time off work which is why their absenteeism rates are far lower than permies. Restaurants who produce awful food and bad services die. Public sector services may be monopolies and it may be inappropriate to privatise them but they should be subject to rigorous levels of accountability and performance. Because they are monopolies they should have even higher levels of accountability than private companies.

I am sure public sector teachers appreciate your patronising words, but whether your figures are correct or not the results of private sector schools in terms of every subject from sport to academics eclipse those of the public sector. And why not make every school private and hand out education vouchers? It may cost more in the short term but nothing like as much as it currently costs when you aggregate todays costs of welfare, education and police. I am sure you will fall back on the arguments that some kids do not have the parents support to make such decisions - again condemning all kids down to lowest common denominator services.

If you really want to make a point then argue how the supply of food, energy, finance or anything really is better run by the public sector. The answer is that wherever you go in the world public services are entrenched inefficient monopolies. It is time this changed.

[doodab]

If you really want to make a point then argue how the supply of food, energy, finance or anything really is better run by the public sector. The answer is that wherever you go in the world public services are entrenched inefficient monopolies. It is time this changed.

Because, my privately educated halfwit friend, that is not the point I am making nor the point that you are continuously (and I hope wilfully, because the alternative is that you really can't help it) missing.

OK My point is that public services are generally awful and need improving because they are letting down in particular the the worse off in society. That a debate should take place whereby they should be reformed and I said that employment laws should be repealed and unions curtailed as a start to making workers more accountable. I also argue that where possible to look at ways in which we can empower the consumers of public services.

At which point you decide to turn it into an argument about public services being run by the private sector supported by tenuous anecdotes of where the public sector has achieved success and the private sector failure.
You have also argued that health care is better run publicly than privately even though I agree that private monopolies are not necessarily a good thing.

You stated, without evidence or facts to back your viewpoint up, that public services "fail miserably". I'm simply pointing out that relative to the alternatives (i.e. private sector) and the funding they have, they are actually not as dismal as you would like to make out. That they are is a "hysterical cliche"

The fact that there are some state schools performing well should mean that there is no reason why they cannot all be made to perform well. Furthermore assuming your figures are correct the reason why so little is spent on educating a child is because the education authorities are more interested in themselves and because so much tax is paid in patching up the failures of education. Your whole argument if one call it that is a series of hysterical cliches are exactly how the left defends any change within the public sector- A call to the ramparts to throw whatever emotive cliche or anecdote at its attackers. The fact is that even labour governments have privatised so many public services such as care for the elderly because the public sector cannot be trusted.

That is simply horsetulip. The budget for secondary education, including funding the oh so efficient LEA, is £4k per child. The numbers are in the posted links and they are correct. Even if you factor in the budget for policing and the courts and diverted that to secondary education the budget per pupil wouldn't cover a year at most fee paying schools. Yet still you insist that it should be possible to acheive the standards of the best of the private sector on a fraction of the budget.

I'm not attempting to "defend against any change", simply to point out the flaws in your wild accusations of abject failure. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

I base my arguments on how human beings behave in general. Contractors dont get paid if they take time off work which is why their absenteeism rates are far lower than permies. Restaurants who produce awful food and bad services die. Public sector services may be monopolies and it may be inappropriate to privatise them but they should be subject to rigorous levels of accountability and performance. Because they are monopolies they should have even higher levels of accountability than private companies.

They do. Generally this is seen as red tape which prevents them doing their job and diverts limited funding away from front line services. Perhaps we should start by stripping some of it away?

I am sure public sector teachers appreciate your patronising words, but whether your figures are correct or not the results of private sector schools in terms of every subject from sport to academics eclipse those of the public sector. And why not make every school private and hand out education vouchers? It may cost more in the short term but nothing like as much as it currently costs when you aggregate todays costs of welfare, education and police. I am sure you will fall back on the arguments that some kids do not have the parents support to make such decisions - again condemning all kids down to lowest common denominator services.

How am I patronising exactly?

The figures are correct. Here is a simple sum for you

Secondary Education 12.8 billion
Unemployment Benefit 5.8 billion
Housing Benefit 1.5 billion
Social exclusion 29.3 billion
Police 2.1 billion
Law Courts 5.6 billion
Prisions 4.4 billion

Total: 61.5 billion

Per pupil, based on 3.2 million pupils: £19,200 per pupil

Current cost of a year at Eton £30,981

Even if we divert the entire cost of welfare and policing into the secondary education budget you would expect the state sector to perform as well on 2/3rds the budget without being allowed to select pupils. Surely if this were remotely possible competition in the fee paying sector would be driving prices down, would it not?

I'm not saying the education system couldn't be better, there is always room for improvement, but there simply isn't room, or budget, for the sort of improvements you seem to think we should be demanding. The fact is most state schools already rely heavily on additional fund raising, in some cases it makes up more than half the annual budget, and those in deprived areas find it harder to raise additional funds, although as a proportion of disposable income I suspect the donations are quite considerable. If we could double the budget and halve class sizes we would see instant improvements in both discipline and attainment. If they could afford to fire the low achieving teachers and hire good ones, we would see instant improvements in discipline and attainment. The fact is they cannot even retain the good ones they already have, because the money simply isn't there. Hence the fee paying school sector can afford to recruit roughly 1,000 of the better teachers from the state system per year in order to maintain their 60% better teacher/pupil ratio and the better results that invariably brings.

[d000hg]

That really is the sum total of your ability to reason about things isn't it. Doodab disagrees with me therefore doodab must be a "leftie" therefore doodab must be wrong. The simple logic of a simple mind.

DA uses 'leftie' the way school kids use 'gay'.

[doodab]

DA uses 'leftie' the way school kids use 'gay'.

You mean he doesn't know what it means but he thinks he might be?

[DodgyAgent]

Because, my privately educated halfwit friend, that is not the point I am making nor the point that you are continuously (and I hope wilfully, because the alternative is that you really can't help it) missing.



You stated, without evidence or facts to back your viewpoint up, that public services "fail miserably". I'm simply pointing out that relative to the alternatives (i.e. private sector) and the funding they have, they are actually not as dismal as you would like to make out. That they are is a "hysterical cliche"



That is simply horsetulip. The budget for secondary education, including funding the oh so efficient LEA, is £4k per child. The numbers are in the posted links and they are correct. Even if you factor in the budget for policing and the courts and diverted that to secondary education the budget per pupil wouldn't cover a year at most fee paying schools. Yet still you insist that it should be possible to acheive the standards of the best of the private sector on a fraction of the budget.

I'm not attempting to "defend against any change", simply to point out the flaws in your wild accusations of abject failure. You simply do not know what you are talking about.



They do. Generally this is seen as red tape which prevents them doing their job and diverts limited funding away from front line services. Perhaps we should start by stripping some of it away?



How am I patronising exactly?

The figures are correct. Here is a simple sum for you

Secondary Education 12.8 billion
Unemployment Benefit 5.8 billion
Housing Benefit 1.5 billion
Social exclusion 29.3 billion
Police 2.1 billion
Law Courts 5.6 billion
Prisions 4.4 billion

Total: 61.5 billion

Per pupil, based on 3.2 million pupils: £19,200 per pupil

Current cost of a year at Eton £30,981

Even if we divert the entire cost of welfare and policing into the secondary education budget you would expect the state sector to perform as well on 2/3rds the budget without being allowed to select pupils. Surely if this were remotely possible competition in the fee paying sector would be driving prices down, would it not?

I'm not saying the education system couldn't be better, there is always room for improvement, but there simply isn't room, or budget, for the sort of improvements you seem to think we should be demanding. The fact is most state schools already rely heavily on additional fund raising, in some cases it makes up more than half the annual budget, and those in deprived areas find it harder to raise additional funds, although as a proportion of disposable income I suspect the donations are quite considerable. If we could double the budget and halve class sizes we would see instant improvements in both discipline and attainment. If they could afford to fire the low achieving teachers and hire good ones, we would see instant improvements in discipline and attainment. The fact is they cannot even retain the good ones they already have, because the money simply isn't there. Hence the fee paying school sector can afford to recruit roughly 1,000 of the better teachers from the state system per year in order to maintain their 60% better teacher/pupil ratio and the better results that invariably brings.

We have both explained our positions I am happy to leave it there.

[Doggy Styles]

doodab, you seem to be disagreeing with something dodgy is not saying.

As far as I can see he is not advocating privatisation of all public services, he has said that without the impetus provided by competition, they are of lower standard than they could be.

For example, it is all very well a hospital being given targets, but if the patient has to go there anyway and the hospital is gaming the targets, the patient experience is no better.

Dodgy is just putting the case for the concept of competition, where patients go to wherever their experience is better, and places with poor service have to adapt or die.

Both parties have dipped their toes in the water with this, but it is like treading on eggshells with people for whom any change must be bad change.

[doodab]

doodab, you seem to be disagreeing with something dodgy is not saying.

As far as I can see he is not advocating privatisation of all public services, he has said that without the impetus provided by competition, they are of lower standard than they could be.

For example, it is all very well a hospital being given targets, but if the patient has to go there anyway and the hospital is gaming the targets, the patient experience is no better.

Dodgy is just putting the case for the concept of competition, where patients go to wherever their experience is better, and places with poor service have to adapt or die.

Both parties have dipped their toes in the water with this, but it is like treading on eggshells with people for whom any change must be bad change.

Dodgy is repeatedly asserting that public services are dismal failures. That is the point i'm arguing, because it simply isn't true. He seems not to grasp that in a world where most people pay less in tax than it costs to send a single child to a fee paying school demanding the same standards and crying foul when they are not acheived helps nobody.

At the moment schools are a sellers market due to heavy constraints in the supply of places in many areas. In that sort of enviroment the shoddy can survive and thrive, there simply aren't good schools for the pupils to migrate to and the only way to increase competition is to create more good schools i.e. major investment that might be better spent improving what we have. To make that happen we'll need to make all higher rate taxpayers pay 50% or otherwise radically overhaul the tax system to pay for it.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy is repeatedly asserting that public services are dismal failures. That is the point i'm arguing, because it simply isn't true. He seems not to grasp that in a world where most people pay less in tax than it costs to send a single child to a fee paying school demanding the same standards and crying foul when they are not acheived helps nobody.

At the moment schools are a sellers market due to heavy constraints in the supply of places in many areas. In that sort of enviroment the shoddy can survive and thrive, there simply aren't good schools for the pupils to migrate to and the only way to increase competition is to create more good schools i.e. major investment that might be better spent improving what we have. To make that happen we'll need to make all higher rate taxpayers pay 50% or otherwise radically overhaul the tax system to pay for it.

If that were the case then why are there some good schools in the state sector?

[sasguru]

Dodgy, shut it. You're making an arse of yourself.
Why don't you go down the pub with your fellow agents and knock your tiny brain cells together putting the world to rights.
When you attempt to argue with people who are more intelligent than you you just show yourself up.

HTH

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, shut it. You're making an arse of yourself.
Why don't you go down the pub with your fellow agents and knock your tiny brain cells together putting the world to rights.
When you attempt to argue with people who are more intelligent than you you just show yourself up.

HTH

I may be stupid but I am right in saying that the incentives and focus of the private sector are geared to the customer - except where a monopoly exists. The incentives and focus of the public sector are focussed to the providers of the service. It does'nt take Einstein to work that one out. Even a complete cretin like you should be suspicious of anyone who claims that the world goes round because most people put others before themselves and their own families.