----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
> Robert Shiels:
> > Over the next 4 years, Labour
> > will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the
> > country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will
> > be re-elected in 2006.
>
> Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think
are
> important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
> with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the
> public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on
a
> starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make
sure
> that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.
<snip many words>
> I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend
> is a *good idea*.
Quite, It does irritate me when you do the calculations and it turns out
people are objecting to an extra �100 tax a year which could go towards
things like recruiting more nurses, teachers and more resources for the
public sector including areas like public transport. For a start, if you
have more teachers and resources for schools then you have a better educated
workforce which means more industrys wanting to use your contry and
therefore less unemployment. This means less burden on the government in
terms of welfare and more people to spread the tax over so you don't *need*
higher tax.
How do you suggest we train our workforce when schools (which are funded by
tax) can't afford more than a couple of rooms full of archimedes?
