Election Shmection
What a disastrous night in politics last night.
Have people forgotten what Labour left us with?
Labour spent money like it was going out of fashion, they spent with little regards to cost, in the vein hope that creating jobs would lead to spending to boost the economy.
The only way we could make money, is to actually make things, but under Labours watch, many of our industries were shut down and went abroad as the steadily increasing costs forced people out.
We spent on PFI initiatives which give shiny new facilities but cost us more in the long run. We spent time making things look nice instead of tackling the issues. The billions spent on ID cards, security, political correctness and the Electronic Staff Record on the NHS defies belief.
Everything was so much more inefficient as we needed to justify the extra levels of staffing with bureaucracy.
If we take heath as an example, there are still no sports physios on the NHS as far as I can see, and they'd much rather direct you to a surgical route instead of trialling a different type of drug which costs a few quid more. I was put on Lansoprazole for Acid Reflux and didn't notice too much difference. Eventually I had a scope under general anaesthetic which would have been a good cost for the NHS. Finally, under my own research, I convinced my doc to switch from Lansoprazole to Esomeprazole, noted an immediate improvement and the doc has to put a note against my account as NHS policy dictates they must save money by prescribing the cheaper Lansoprazole. Doesn't matter that they wasted an operating room.
Anybody can agree we ne
ed efficiency, but efficiency has to mean job losses because you no longer need all those people.
But if the economy can be switched from service based to manufacturing and export then we get jobs reinstated from the private sector as it should be.
Cut the costs, clear the debt, cut the taxes (or invest it elsewhere), we'll become more attractive to employers, jobs are generated.v
There is a transition period, but people don't want this. They want everything to be provided by the government, free this, free that, free the other. YOU pay for this. Or more accurately, every working person pays it.
And what is so objectionnable about high earners paying the same rate of tax as low earners? Maybe those born into money should pay a little extra, but we shouldn't be looking to penalise those who have put in the hard work, time, and effort to achieve what they have achieved, by saying you need to pay more. We should be rewarding hard work and effort. But that's not Labours style is it. Education is still the most important think in my book, getting people to change their mind set that despite low taxes, if they are super high earners, they don't need million pound houses, they don't need to live a flamboyant lifestyle and they could use their surplus for community based initiatives and helping those less fortunate.
But I don't think we should be encouraging that change through taxation. This is the reason why people with money want to take their money elsewhere.
Have people forgotten what Labour left us with?
Labour spent money like it was going out of fashion, they spent with little regards to cost, in the vein hope that creating jobs would lead to spending to boost the economy.
The only way we could make money, is to actually make things, but under Labours watch, many of our industries were shut down and went abroad as the steadily increasing costs forced people out.
We spent on PFI initiatives which give shiny new facilities but cost us more in the long run. We spent time making things look nice instead of tackling the issues. The billions spent on ID cards, security, political correctness and the Electronic Staff Record on the NHS defies belief.
Everything was so much more inefficient as we needed to justify the extra levels of staffing with bureaucracy.
If we take heath as an example, there are still no sports physios on the NHS as far as I can see, and they'd much rather direct you to a surgical route instead of trialling a different type of drug which costs a few quid more. I was put on Lansoprazole for Acid Reflux and didn't notice too much difference. Eventually I had a scope under general anaesthetic which would have been a good cost for the NHS. Finally, under my own research, I convinced my doc to switch from Lansoprazole to Esomeprazole, noted an immediate improvement and the doc has to put a note against my account as NHS policy dictates they must save money by prescribing the cheaper Lansoprazole. Doesn't matter that they wasted an operating room.
Anybody can agree we ne
ed efficiency, but efficiency has to mean job losses because you no longer need all those people.
But if the economy can be switched from service based to manufacturing and export then we get jobs reinstated from the private sector as it should be.
Cut the costs, clear the debt, cut the taxes (or invest it elsewhere), we'll become more attractive to employers, jobs are generated.v
There is a transition period, but people don't want this. They want everything to be provided by the government, free this, free that, free the other. YOU pay for this. Or more accurately, every working person pays it.
And what is so objectionnable about high earners paying the same rate of tax as low earners? Maybe those born into money should pay a little extra, but we shouldn't be looking to penalise those who have put in the hard work, time, and effort to achieve what they have achieved, by saying you need to pay more. We should be rewarding hard work and effort. But that's not Labours style is it. Education is still the most important think in my book, getting people to change their mind set that despite low taxes, if they are super high earners, they don't need million pound houses, they don't need to live a flamboyant lifestyle and they could use their surplus for community based initiatives and helping those less fortunate.
But I don't think we should be encouraging that change through taxation. This is the reason why people with money want to take their money elsewhere.
Comments