Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why?
That argument could be used against the Bank of England having control
over monetary policy but devolving that power from government was
one of the best things Gordon Brown did.
Well, there's a finite amount of resources.
Say you've got 10 to spend.
If you decide to put 8 on healthcare, you only have 2 left to share out.
Hence an elected body has to be holistic in its approach. Otherwise they could give 10 to health, 10 to warfare, etc.
Now, you can wish to increase the amount to spend, but that means raising taxes.
Nobody wants higher taxes, yet nobody wants a leaky infra-structure.
Hence the holistic approach.
The problem however are the lies and hypocrisy.
Things like immigration (non issue... There's always been immigration and there has never been a singular set culture), privitisation or austerity to save money (privitisation is about making a handful of people rich), parental choice of schools is good for children (actually avoids the real issue and helps a small proportion of schools do well for the better off) and the health service must be protected (all 3 major UK parties have been slicing away at the concept since the 70's).
The fact of the matter is that if you want good quality roads and sewers, you're gonna have to pay for them.
If you want to feel safe you have to remove the need for people to steal.
If you want all children well educated, you have to increase all standards, not choice.
If you don't want people immigrating here, you have to make sure people's kids are just as safe and happy somewhere else.
None of the parties addresses these issues. Instead they force-feed you fear, lies and non-solutions.
The mere fact that the English have re-voted the tories by punishing the lib-dems (when the majority of false promises and bogus policies came from the tories themselves) is proof that the system works.
Why change a winning number?