(Deputy Prime Minister) Nick Clegg: UK a 'more liberal nation' by 2015

[Scruff7]

Kasz216 said:

NoddyHolder said:

Kasz216 said:

NoddyHolder said:

SamuelRSmith said:

Because there are no private sector alternatives to David Cameron's job. The wage for a public sector worker working for, say the Treasury, is high because they need to compete with the wages offered by the financial institutions. Those jobs require a similar skill set and education, so the Treasury needs to make it worthwhile for the people to choose working for them over working for, say, Goldman Sachs, or Barclays Investment.

The same goes for high level public sector workers across the board. The NHS is competing with Bupa for health care specialists, but also just for managerial jobs in general with the private sector.

simple solution, ban private healthcare. (education too)

So everyone is instead stuck with the standard shitty options... rigggggght.

Oh, and also... government now has no incentive to improve those shitty options since they now have no competition.

Brilliant idea.

they will improve them because people will want better education, and in a decent democracy, the government will listen and invest and impove both healthcare and education.

if you are saying that the USA/UK are not decent democracies, then I agree.

No... most people won't want a better education.  At least not if it's going to cost them money.  Have you never lived in a community that had to pass a school levy before?

The people who want better education tend to stop at people with kids when it comes to the votes.  Even then plenty of said group doesn't want to vote for it because of the horrible way most schools spend school levies.

With no Private schools there will be no frame of refrence for "better"... people will think it's fine.

Private institutions show the ineefficencies and flaws of public ones.

Afterall if private companies do a better job cheaper AND make a profit you know something is wrong with the public versions.

I believe your assumption that people won't want better education is possibly true, but the reasoning demonstrates what is wrong with those opinions.

The benefits of a bette educations system is not isolated to those who receive the education, the whole of society benefits. If a country has a better educated workforce, it's more likely to attract more business, international investment and increasing levels of employment.

This brings in more capital, the country gets richer, people have more money because they are employed in a strong economy and there are increased tax returns which allow for better public services.

Higher education also has knock on affects, including improved health, better social environment and reduced crime.

And even if there weren't private schools, you can still compare education to other countries, to other state schools and overall edcuation levels.

You can then see why having a really good quality, state education system benefits the whole of society. Cutting back on education will only cause long term problems, increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less investment and a weaker national economy. I don't think any of us want that.

Except maybe those who can afford to send their children to private schools, get their children into the top universities and can ensure their children a good job through nepotism. They are the ones who can afford private healthcare, tax haven status, and extra security to keep the 'local ruffians' out.