France (NHI scheme) spends only a fraction more of its GDP on healthcare than the UK does, yet has nearly double the number of practicing physicians and hospital beds, and was identified as the best healthcare provision in the world by the WHO (I think we barely scraped the top 20?). Difference between the two? Both are mostly state funded, but France has private provision while the UK is still stuck in the 1970s with a state run bureaucratic mess. I think the results speak for themselves. And it is results which matter when it comes to healthcare..

Hello there, just changed into alert to your blog via Google,
and located that it’s really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate if you continue this in
future. Numerous people will probably be benefited out of
your writing. Cheers!

One only needs to observe the antics that go on in Selly Oak and Fab ‘n’ Fresh (apologies to fans if I haven’t spelled that correctly) to know that this isn’t a demographic which should be responsible for running a multi-million pound organisation. What’s more, the only people who show any interest in the Guild are the ones who I disagree with – lefty types with an interest in ‘equality’ and ‘welfare’ and all that mumbo jumbo.

The proponents of this ‘student democracy’ point out that every other student union in the Russell Group (yep we are still in it) apart from ours is ultimately controlled by its students (i.e. majority student trustee board/general meetings galore), however one only needs to look at the crumbling edifices of these student unions to bury that socialist dream (ignore the several winning loads of civic awards, having a positive impact on peoples lives, and/or raking in millions of pounds in revenues, they dont count).

Also, students are clearly too lazy/stupid to ever actually turn up to & understand one of these ‘general meeting’ things and/or be able to vote for the student trustees, even if we do stick them on the same ballot paper as the one they all vote on at the moment. They have had huge problems at other student unions with all sorts getting elected onto the trustee board (election turnout notwithstanding).

My proposal is simple – as loads of people who are (over-)interested in the Guild are involved in the Guild and loads of people who are are (under-)interested in participating are not then the only logical thing we can do is hand over all control of it to the University. No more elections or nonsense like that. It can be the ‘student experience’ department. They will probably do a great job for all we know! Even better we could establish a tendering process where external companies compete to offer ‘students union services’! If the lefties want ‘representation’ and ‘welfare’ they can form a society or something, but definitely don’t spend any money on that kind of thing.

By the same logic that the gun grabbers use, we should have been prohibited from operating our own motor vehicles a long time ago, given the number of crashes, vehicular manslaughters, and drunk driving incidents. Why isn’t there a push for more traffic legislation? Why haven’t we banned cars!? After all, we’re “protecting the children”. If banning cars saves even one life, it’s worth it, right? What rational person could be against saving the lives of our children by banning cars? Perhaps those black SUV’s that “assault” the sensibilities of Prius drivers should be the first to go. They’re “the most dangerous” of the vehicles out there. Who needs a 3 ton car to get to work every day? Who needs a V-8 engine? That’s too much power for an ordinary civilian to have. They have high capacity gas tanks that need to be banned, too. No car should have more than 10 gallons in the tank. Nobody needs that much gas to get to work every day. More people are killed by cars than by guns, so I think we need to ban cars while we’re at it. We need to do it “for the children”.

Any of that sound stupid to you? Well, it does to me, and that’s how I feel about banning a firearm based on what color it is, how many bullets the magazine holds, or whether or not someone might drive one off a bridge someday and kill fifty people in oncoming traffic on the road below the bridge.

I liken the “gun free zones” around schools, churches, and government buildings as professional courtesy to fellow murders and thieves. The liberals who pushed for such asinine laws are, in my opinion, culpable in the crimes perpetrated by the murderers and thieves. Any law that assists in criminal behavior is a law that is unconstitutional and morally wrong. Our politicians don’t have a problem with passing morally indefensible laws because they are immoral themselves. What murderer or thief would willingly grant his or her victims access to any implement which would assist the victim in defense against murder or theft?

Apparently there are people who think you can put some ink on paper and prevent criminal or predatory behavior. It’s worked really well so far. I’m sure some more inked paper can’t help but further the cause, right? If putting ink to paper created safety, then by that logic the US of A should be the safest place in the world. Apparently someone forgot to tell the criminals that their criminal behavior is not permitted because the inked paper says so.

If it is not yet abundantly clear, I am for the liberty of the individual and against the liberty of the criminals.

A lack of guns in American society will not stop murder. Obviously there would be fewer firearms murders and deaths, but killing is a part of animal behavior and we are all animals. If you want to stop that, I think you have your work cut out for you. The weapons covered by the new ban legislation account for a small fraction of the number of murders committed in the US with firearms every year.

The media likes to make mass shootings more spectacular than they really are. The fact that there is rarely anyone there to stop the killing with a gun of their own is a testament to the law-abiding nature of the overwhelming majority of gun owners. All of the shooting sprees have happened in places where lawful gun owner were not legally permitted to take their firearms. That simple fact seems to be lost on the liberal news media.

I am not going to give up my guns because a wanna-be communist dictator (Obama) and a gaggle of sock puppet “journalists” (like Piers Morgan), think I should not be allowed to have one because someone who lives in an entirely different state than me murdered a handful of people with guns he stole. If the media gave a flying rusty fuck about the “safety” of “the children”, then they’d be lining up at the gates of the elementary schools with Colt .45′s strapped to their hips (real communists like Dianne Feinstein have guns of their own while decrying the right of her constituents to have the same privilege she does).

It’s hilarious to me that all of the proposals for “safeguarding” (mythical concept) our children involve the government stealing the property of private citizens because they’re not “responsible” enough. Our government sells guns to our mortal enemies, drug dealers, and uses the military to murder unarmed, non-combatant men, women, and children around the world by the tens of thousands and then has the brass to suggest that I can’t be trusted with my firearms.

Our government has not, does not now, and never will give a rat’s ass about anyone’s children. Our government does care about “controlling” (another mythical concept) people. There’s probably some reason why our government reads everyone’s E-Mail (yours, mine, people from east outer Mongolia, freakin everyone) and uses its military at the drop of a hat. That reason doesn’t have much to do with the mythical concept of “safety”, but it has everything to do with the mythical concept of “control”. There are megalomaniacs like George Bush and Barack Obama who really do believe they can “control” people. I want to ensure that we continue to have the means to demand a healthy respect from our wanna-be dictators. Dictators really seem to hate that.

Exams may not be the best method of assessment of performance but it is a better method than teacher assessment when a teacher is never going to give out a result that would to intent condemn the work the have done with children/ learners. Exams for any shortcomings the do have are at least independent.

Exams may need to be carefully positioned in the curriculm and over examination may not be a good idea and exams mixed with assessment can be effective but teacher assessment alone is rendering a poor product and will continue to do so.

It is clear why professionals, teachers and heads speak in favour of the method of teacher assessment is that they lack independant opinion or judgement all evaluation is entirely in-house.

” “France needs more fiscal austerity right now like a hole in the head,” said sovereign debt strategist Nicholas Spiro.”

It seems that many of those criticising Hollande are unlikely to be on the same page as most Tories in Britain.

Great blog from my friends at BUCF – thanks Charlie!

“Fritz the diamond jubilee was why we didnt have growth in the previous quater,” – For a lack of a better word, that’s complete bull. One day off is not enough to send an economy back into recession, especially one day where in the days before that saw increased sales in preparation for the celebrations.

“In regards to Hollande, his approval ratings have nose dived. He is now the most unpopular French president EVER at the 100 day mark.” – I’m not entirely sure how that’s in any way relevant to whether he’s doing a successful job or not. I’ve been through this with you before, popular support has absolutely no bearing on whether something is right or wrong, etc.

In regards to the article you provided, the title is entirely anecdotal. A lot of the problems it mentions (rising unemployment, sluggish growth, etc) are long-medium term problems, it’s only been what, 4 months (once again I forget exact length time) and even less for when Hollande introduced his first measures as President. He’s not had time to have an effect on the French economy either way.

“As for your final analogy I have a few problems.” – Well, it’s not an analogy, but moving on.

In regards to your response to my “analogy” I think you got the wrong end of the stick and I didn’t explain this properly. Right now I’m completely leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the 50p tax rate and the rights and wrongs of a hypothetical general strike (etc etc). What I’m trying to say is that if a general strike was called or if we look back upon the ‘the winter of discontent’ malarkey many on the right would regard this as (and maybe yourself, I don’t know, but I’m not going to put words in your mouth) ‘holding country to ransom’ simply because a section of society threatens a particularly damaging action unless they get their way. But when a group of wealthy individuals and companies threaten to leave the UK if taxes are raised and they don’t get their way (and you can’t deny they do), this is regarded by many on the right (and maybe yourself, but don’t think I’m putting words in your mouth) as not ‘holding the country to ransom’. And not only that, but something we consider when shaping policy. Now I’m not saying either action is right or wrong (right now at least). And I’m not saying right now that if either one is wrong that we should take some sort of action (right now at least). But if someone is comfortable criticising one section of society of threatening the country with a particularly damaging action to the wider economy if they don’t get their way. YET, regard a different section of society who also occasionally threaten the economy with a similarly damaging act if they don’t get their way as something we should take into account and shape policy around. That’s called being inconsistent.

Hope that clarifies things (and makes some sort of grammatical sense).

Secondly, in regards to inflation I suggest you update your figures a bit Max…..CPI is currently 2.2% and RPI 2.6%, the lowest since Nov 2009.

In regards to Hollande, his approval ratings have nose dived. He is now the most unpopular French president EVER at the 100 day mark. As for the panic in business he is causing – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9610717/French-business-erupts-in-fury-against-disastrous-Francois-Hollande.html

As for your final analogy I have a few problems. Firstly I feel the case for action for what is taken away from you is far higher than what is given to you. As a libertarian I’m personally not a massive fan of tight boarders, and feel that individuals should be able to move freely. There should effectively be competition between states – if Britain is not the most attractive to an individual they have the right to leave and take their tax money with them. Holding a country to ransom in a similar manner because what is being GIVEN TO YOU is being reduced doesn’t hold it with me. Tax maximization is actually simple math – a smaller percentage of something is a hell of a lot bigger than a big percentage of nothing. Tax policy should focus on maximizing revenue NOT on punishing success and wealth. Statistical evidence suggests a 50p tax rate would actually LOOSE money in the medium to long run. There is no case for it other than egotistical arrogance and class “revenge”.

“In fact employment is now at an all time HIGH.” – Well yeah, part time work and people defining themselves as ‘self employed’ (where work is very intermittent) is what’s caused this rise in employment. Tis because most workers can’t find full time work that they’ve resorted to such measures. I would happily provide a link to support this but BUCF has a very long standing tradition of not approving comments on posts that contain links that are different to the author’s argument…so to speak (hell I’m still waiting on approval for a comment I made in ‘Turning the Tide, Part 1′).

“Inflation is down dramatically since the coalition came into government.” – Nearly. Inflation rose for most of 2011 to over 5%, it’s only in the last 9 months (ish) that’s it come back down to roughly 3-3.5% (I forget exact figure).

“Borrowing figures are falling.” – Not entirely true. Borrowing was up by £600m in late August. This of course is missing the fact that Osborne will now miss his elimination of the deficit by 2015 by roughly 2 years, despite this being the be all and end all of the Coalition (awkward).

“how is austerity not working?” – The above aforementioned missing the deficit target in 2015 and the deepest double dip recession in a good long while (again, I forget the exact year).

Jack’s already dealt with your Hollande assertion, so I wont go into that.

While the horrendous analogy has been mostly dealt with, I’d like to chip in my own part. Even if the analogy was partially accurate or good, it misses one misses one inconsistency you may or may not have. Now I don’t like to make generalisations, but I think we can agree in the event of a general strike (or hell even ‘the winter of discontent’) many Tory voters/members would regard this as ‘holding the country to ransom’ (again, not trying to over generalise here and I’ve no idea if you yourself would agree with that sentiment). Now leaving the rights and wrongs aside of any such strike, many would consider this as again, ‘holding the country to ransom’, etc, etc. Yet when it comes to the rich threatening to leave the country if taxes are raised too much, that’s apparently fine and dandy and we should then not threaten these ‘wealth creators’. What we have here is a case of special pleading. If someone finds a general strike (or what ever) to be fundamentally wrong, but fails to recognise rich folks threatening to leave country if taxes are raised too high as ‘holding the country to ransom’. That person would be a first class hypocrite. Like I said this may well be an over generalisation, but it’s still a legit point.

When he was elected, the French ten year government bond yield was at roughly 2.8%. It’s now 2.2%. This is not an endorsement of all his policies but lets be realistic about panic shall we?

The bar room analogy has to be the crassest demonstration of economic illiteracy, we’ve seen for quite some time.

“Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”

Yes I remember, the likes of Jim Davidson and Paul Daniels saying that if Labour won in 1997, they’d leave the country. Tragically, they’re still here.

Also, the bar room analogy is almost too self evidently terrible to warrant a dissection. I’ll invite you firstly to read it back through again and see if you can spot just how stupid it is. If you fail to realise this then I’ll happily provide you with a dissection as to how this is so.

“Ed’s victory came as the result of considerable support from the trade union movement, they cinched it for him. By pandering to the unions, he was able to achieve their support,” – I’m sorry but this represents the very worse of intellectual dishonesty. I’ve not only addressed the first part of your statement but the second is not even true. Firstly, if you’d actually read what I wrote earlier, the third voting block in the Labour leadership elections was not ‘Trade Unions’ it was ‘Affiliate Associations’. Yes, this included trade unions, but more often than not it included countless organisations such as Labour Students, Socialist Solicitors (yes, there is such a group), etc. Second, as someone who actively took an interest in the Labour Leadership elections and even voted I can tell you that Ed in no shape or form pandered “to the unions,”.

“General Secretary of Unite (Labour’s biggest donor, by the way)” – I’m pretty sure the donations aren’t paid by the General Secretary themself, they’re paid by 3 million (I forget the exact figure) ordinary workers who pay a meager amount each month.

“all I will say is that we have a deficit which needs cutting. I’m paying for it, with an £18,000 in tuition fees.” – While I don’t know what year you are, I’ll assume you’re a first year as there’s no reason you’d raise this unless it was for the recent tuition fees raise. But um, with regards to that, you’re really not paying for it. While I know the Coalition’s ultimate goal of eliminating the deficit by 2015 will not be met, let’s for a moment pretent it still will be. You do realise that given the £9k fees were only introduced this year, no one will begin paying them off till 2015…after when the deficit is supposed to be eliminated.

“and blame the person who put me in the is position originally.” so you’ll finally getting around to blaming the banks and the last recession that was caused in Wall St. USA? After all, recessions are probably the biggest contributor to deficits.

“But I don’t complain, or go to marches or to rallies, because I appreciate that it’s in the national interest for us to tackle this problem.” ah, nice subtle ad hominen attack there. Well I’m sorry, just because someone “complains” doesn’t mean we go on marches, rallies or don’t care for the greater problems facing society. I’m not even going to go there.

A hardline view will certainly win more votes than it looses.

(even this year old example http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal proves EU-bashing is popular. And opinions have only intensified.)

Ed’s victory came as the result of considerable support from the trade union movement, they cinched it for him. By pandering to the unions, he was able to achieve their support, and yet two years later, they’re so pleased with his leadership that the General Secretary of Unite (Labour’s biggest donor, by the way) is openly attacking him in a national newspaper on the eve of the party’s conference. It appears that he’s manipulated the unions to his own ends, but is now willing to turn his back on them.

I’m not going to leap head first into a debate on the public sector; all I will say is that we have a deficit which needs cutting. I’m paying for it, with an £18,000 in tuition fees. But I don’t complain, or go to marches or to rallies, because I appreciate that it’s in the national interest for us to tackle this problem. Yes, I’d really rather not pay anything at all, but for my country, I’ll grit my teeth ,get on with it, and blame the person who put me in the is position originally.

Another debate I don’t want to get into is whether we simply should have left the banks to fail, like other regular businesses, and thus attacked the culture of moral hazard in banking.

And Europe, I’ll discuss that in my next post.

For the record, I didn’t quite expect to walk into this proverbial defecation storm, so please give me time a little time to bed in before skinning me alive…

“manipulated the union vote,” well that’s just blatant intellectual dishonesty. The third voting block in the leadership election was affiliated organisations, which yes included unions, but also groups like Labour Students, and many others. Also, the union turnout for the leadership election was abysmal, you could hardly call it “the union vote,”.

“the TUC constantly banging the public sector drum,” – well with this government, someone’s got to? And why not in general, what’s so inherently wrong with the public sector, it’s only ever given us the NHS and a far more efficient method to tackling societal problems than any previous charity or private company ever could. It is why we don’t have health care, pensions, welfare no long coming from the latter two.

“when we’re tackling the mountain of debt left to us by Gordon Brown” – so you would’ve liked the banks to go bust then? Or was this support like Cameron’s, for a mere 10 days?

“a hard line towards Europe may be the key to winning back voters,” if you had a brief look at the fortunes of the Conservative Party back from the mid-1990s to the mid 2000s you’d realise that’d be an incredibly damaging position for the party to take.

When did this happen? I seriously don’t get it.