Quite. Considering that the NHS is the largest employer in Europe, it is difficult to conceive of anything more expensive.
Quite. Considering that the NHS is the largest employer in Europe, it is difficult to conceive of anything more expensive.
ROTFL....
I'm sure. It's still laughable
Matt, Makitas have been proven to be overpriced and shoddy, right here on this ng. Matt you are fooling no one.
Matt, he is not. He is lacing you.
Second largest in the world, apparently.
I know full well what you are saying. I'm just filling in the blanks that you are deliberately leaving that way - like people who refer to 'the grammar school system' pretending that secondary modern schools didn't exist as a consequence. You're lying like a good PR to sell an idea and I'm pissing you off by reminding everyone of the pitfalls.
[Snip]
Not really. I'm not pissed off in the least. I haven't pretended that secondary modern schools didn't exist - in fact I gave an illustration of people who I know who went to them, were pretty pleased with the outcome and went on to be very successful in their chosen careers.
I certainly didn't say that all schools would be identical and equal under a changed arrangement. In fact they wouldn't be. Having some schools that focus more on academic learning, others on practical skills etc. etc. while continuing to teach core numeracy and literacy skills is eminently sensible. It allows greater concentration of investment in staff and equipment for given subject areas and achievement of excellence in them because the amount of duplication is reduced.
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have large market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying that it is OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.
That I find interesting - can you please site your source? I'd like to read it.
Matt, you are.
3rd. Chinese army and the Indian railways beat it.
When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my comment.
Either way, significantly worse since 1997.
You have much more than that: you can give them or deny them money. That's *real* democracy. Imagine the politicians offering to make their salaries a matter of voluntary public subscription...
I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just don't see how it could work.
If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less than the cost of one place at a state school. Either every parent would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their budgets accordingly.
What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget? Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to survive.
Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously Grant Maintained).
In my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools themselves have more paperwork.
Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers, governors and parents having more say.
Better for some and worse for others.
What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they do now. I don't think that is fair.
All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus on providing a quality service.
I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.
Mark.
I read it somewhere, I forget where, but Google yields this;
And definitely not good company to be in.
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do they have to be provided at the point of a gun?
They don't. You're trolling?
You are at liberty to by shares in order to have an influence on the affairs of said company. They are trading at around 309p today.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.