Stolengood
Banned
I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?
There was actually quite a bit of public support at the time for the idea of having some system for financing local goverment that was fairer than the rates, and the Community Charge in itself wasn't that bad an idea: Admittedly there were some problems with the precise set of rules adopted, particularly with respect to single-income/multi-adult households, but I think that those could have been sorted-out if the government had been allowed the time in which to make suitable corrections.My views would be the same. As for her skills, I would agree with you least ways in her first years however towards the end she was not as smart as she was in the first years. With Poll Tax I think that some how she had the notion that if something was the law then enough people would follow it to male it work. How wrong could you be?
If memory serves didn't the Scottish councils ask for it to be introduced up there as they thought it would be fairer than the then tax system? Or am I misremembering.There was actually quite a bit of public support at the time for the idea of having some system for financing local goverment that was fairer than the rates, and the Community Charge in itself wasn't that bad an idea: Admittedly there were some problems with the precise set of rules adopted, particularly with respect to single-income/multi-adult households, but I think that those could have been sorted-out if the government had been allowed the time in which to make suitable corrections.
No, you're quite right, at least some of the Scottish councils did make that request. Maybe Maggie should have given the change a slightly longer test-run north of the border to see what problems it had, instead of introducing it in England & Wales as well only a year (IIRC) later, but I think that there would have been political problems inherent in that approach too.If memory serves didn't the Scottish councils ask for it to be introduced up there as they thought it would be fairer than the then tax system? Or am I misremembering.
As I recall from the time there was talk from the Tories about actually doing it and there has been similar talk more recentltly from the Cameron Government, They would be have to be suicidal to try it (and I meaan that in every possible way) The only way to do it woukld be by staelth over a period of time. As with the Post Office run the service down making it so bad that most people welcome privatisation as the only viable option. Which of course seems to be the usual Tory modus operandi. Trouble is more of us are onto them but, in the 1980s Thatcher might have been able to do it that way.
How much talk has there been from members of David Cameron's Government of actual privatisation of the NHS? Ever?
1. The same reason social security and medicare were an anathema in the U.S. until they had them and now they are untouchable.I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?
I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?
The part that makes this ATl electoral suicide as others have quite aptly called it, is the bit about 'American-style' system.
How about instead a move towards a system similar to what we have here in Australia, where there is mostly universal coverage and public funding, but most of it (except for actual public hospitals themselves) are privately owned (ie our Medicare system doesn't have publicly owned GP clinics and so forth like I understand the NHS does)?
Basically, what is in the jargon of many economic reformists a 'purchaser-provider split' ie the government pays for the service, but private providers actually provide it?
I think this is similar to the system many continental European nations have (France, I think?).