Improving public services, Labour’s best hope? – politicalbetting.com

System

Improving public services, Labour’s best hope? – politicalbetting.com

One area I think Reform are vulnerable are on their DOGE mania which is backed up by the polls so I am not surprised by this poll. If Labour can maintain this sort of lead by election day then I think they will have a better result than the polls currently imply. The voters are rather passionate about the national religion that is the NHS.

Read the full story here

DavidL

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

MattW

Second.

I said I was about to be dethreaded. Bloody despots from stolen Derbyshire !

On, however, graph-wankers, I think my recommended two are probably Dave Gorman and Dr Pack, who have the (imo) gift of stopping just before they go too far.

JohnLilburne

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

That should sort of be true of health in the long run, but not something like prisons.

TheScreamingEagles

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

numbertwelve

I think Labour should be able to claim credit for some improvement, but it perhaps will have less efficacy than it did in the 1990s and 2000s on the basis that any improvement is likely to be incremental, and the structural challenges will remain. That doesn't mean that they won't be able to craft a narrative around it, and it could be electorally successful, but they will need to get the messaging right - something that they've struggled with thus far.

MattW

On topic, I think that improving public services are:

1 - Labour's greatest opportunity for delivering improvement, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver,

2 - Reform's greatest opportunity for delivering failure, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver, and

3 - The Tory's greatest opportunity for turning rhetoric into a millstone around their own neck if they do overdo it.

All three need to get their comms right to stop a symbol turning into a millstone.

(The symbol that seems most interesting to me this morning the Trump Orange-Baby Balloon. Not a bad impact for a £16k crowd funder that started on the British Left in 2018 - though without digging I'm guessing that "Orange Baby" was a pre-existing meme.)

algarkirk

In a way that is a remarkable poll result. It may partly be of course because no-one else can do anything about public services at the national level in England, but there are lots of reasons for complaining about public services right now (we are British) and of course it's all Labour's fault. And Labour are not going in for vainglorious promises about more and better free stuff quickly.

Of all the data I can think of, this is the bit which best supports the idea that Labour will probably form (perhaps with help) the next government. The 65-60% who would never vote Reform may well start a bit of coalescing. It has little cheer for the Tories.

stodge

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

algarkirk

stodge said:

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

The number of people who don't rely now or in the future on roads, NHS, pensions, bin emptying etc is quite small.

Stuartinromford

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

Though part of the question is how much of that is down to the "public" bit and how much to the "services" bit.

The sensation of paying more for something increasingly shlonky isn't unique to the public sector.

SandyRentool

A graph showing NHS waiting lists presents a powerful message for Labour. Always rising under a Tory government, then falling under a Labour government.

Sean_F

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

MattW

SandyRentool said:

A graph showing NHS waiting lists presents a powerful message for Labour. Always rising under a Tory government, then falling under a Labour government.

I'd draw a comparison, with the "Unemployment ALWAYS goes UP under Labour" line.

I'm hearing increasing numbers of anecdotal accounts about access to Health Services improving, even from PB posters.

I'd say that accounts varying by region are a potential landmine, and access to dental service is important for a feed into public opinion.

And that the invariable "but ASYLUM SEEKERS TAKING MY SERVICES" narrative could be a balancer between impactful and Pop Go the Weasel Words.

Malmesbury

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

That should sort of be true of health in the long run, but not something like prisons.

It shouldn’t be true of health.

The sane thinking is productivity growth.

Historically, productivity growth came from better processes, often enabled by technology. The point is that the technology shouldn’t run the people - it’s about making the job more ergonomic.

The politicians yapping about “John Lewis Service” or “AI” are worrying enough. The DOGE thing is utter bollocks.

Eabhal

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

You've missed one bit, which is the number of people who need that service which keeps going up and up. So service per patient might be down while overall service delivered is up.

That's the danger for Labour - the NHS is like a runaway train and unless you can put the brakes on service demand you're never going to be able to stop it.

BartholomewRoberts

algarkirk said:

stodge said:

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

The number of people who don't rely now or in the future on roads, NHS, pensions, bin emptying etc is quite small.

The number of people who go to work who don't do so because they need the money they're going to earn is quite small.

algarkirk

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

Not a big lead, but a big indicator. Labour ahead of fantasy Reform, ahead after a terrible start, way ahead of the Tories and others. A sign that Labour v Reform may well be the big contest in 2029. One that Reform, IMO, can't win if only 17% have a magical belief in their unicorns.

wooliedyed

Polled 23 to 26 May amongst adults aged 18 to 75. Thus ignores a key Reform cohort and the biggest Tory cohort and smallest Labour one (who definitely turn out in force) and it produces a tepid lead

stodge

algarkirk said:

stodge said:

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

The number of people who don't rely now or in the future on roads, NHS, pensions, bin emptying etc is quite small.

Yes but a lot of people don’t think so holistically and see their exposure to “public services” in the here and now and that exposure varies from quite limited as a perspective though probably much more than is believed to considerable.

Stuartinromford

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

The striking thing is Reform in second place. The narrative that public services are so inefficient that meaningfully better services can be sustainably had for meaningfully lower taxes is powerful and attractive...

But it's also nonsense, isn't it?

MattW

algarkirk said:

In a way that is a remarkable poll result. It may partly be of course because no-one else can do anything about public services at the national level in England, but there are lots of reasons for complaining about public services right now (we are British) and of course it's all Labour's fault. And Labour are not going in for vainglorious promises about more and better free stuff quickly.

Of all the data I can think of, this is the bit which best supports the idea that Labour will probably form (perhaps with help) the next government. The 65-60% who would never vote Reform may well start a bit of coalescing. It has little cheer for the Tories.

Hmm. What about England vs Scotland vs Wales vs NI, as a contrast / foil to Regions in England?

Eabhal

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

BartholomewRoberts

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

The striking thing is Reform in second place. The narrative that public services are so inefficient that meaningfully better services can be sustainably had for meaningfully lower taxes is powerful and attractive...

But it's also nonsense, isn't it?

I assume its a mix between people who choose their own party no matter what, and those who think cutting demand is the way to relieve pressure on public services?

I doubt taxes entered their thinking.

Theuniondivvie

MattW said:

On topic, I think that improving public services are:

1 - Labour's greatest opportunity for delivering improvement, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver,

2 - Reform's greatest opportunity for delivering failure, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver, and

3 - The Tory's greatest opportunity for turning rhetoric into a millstone around their own neck if they do overdo it.

All three need to get their comms right to stop a symbol turning into a millstone.

(The symbol that seems most interesting to me this morning the Trump Orange-Baby Balloon. Not a bad impact for a £16k crowd funder that started on the British Left in 2018 - though without digging I'm guessing that "Orange Baby" was a pre-existing meme.)

Speaking of millstones round necks, is there a date for Trump’s unprecedented big beautiful second state visit? Getting more than a whiff of kicking into the long grass from it.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

wooliedyed

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

Especially as it doesnt include anyone over the age of 75. Labours lead will be even less amongst all voters

Stuartinromford

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Not even that... We have a effective hospital service for now.

There's a time and a place for the sort of turnaround management where you cut everything that doesn't contribute to the bottom line today. In business, it's sometimes what you have to do, because otherwise there won't be a business tomorrow.

In government, that calculation works a bit differently. "Trying to salvage a viable business" becomes "Bequeathing an even bigger problem to our children".

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

The striking thing is Reform in second place. The narrative that public services are so inefficient that meaningfully better services can be sustainably had for meaningfully lower taxes is powerful and attractive...

But it's also nonsense, isn't it?

I assume its a mix between people who choose their own party no matter what, and those who think cutting demand is the way to relieve pressure on public services?

I doubt taxes entered their thinking.

I think the data shows that Reform voters are amongst the heaviest users of public services - particularly if you use social housing as a proxy.

What I suspect is the usual dissonance where they think that everyone else in the waiting room is a chancer, and it's only them who actually need the help. My partner comes across this all the time - people with minor ailments complaning about the wait, even while the kid with the broken leg is getting packaged up ready for an operation.

It's an uncomfortable fact that those in the deepest deprivation can have some of the most absurd or bigoted views about why the country isn't working for them. I don't blame them too much - I would probably develop such views myself, given time - but you have to be aware of it.

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

williamglenn

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1934154599197200802

Thick black smoke can be seen rising from the site of an Israeli airstrike earlier within the city of Shiraz in Southern Iran, with reports suggesting that Shiraz Electronics Industries was targeted, a company sanctioned by the United States which produces radars and electronic equipment for the Iranian Armed Forces.

stodge

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

MattW

Theuniondivvie said:

MattW said:

On topic, I think that improving public services are:

1 - Labour's greatest opportunity for delivering improvement, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver,

2 - Reform's greatest opportunity for delivering failure, which will be a millstone around the neck if they do not deliver, and

3 - The Tory's greatest opportunity for turning rhetoric into a millstone around their own neck if they do overdo it.

All three need to get their comms right to stop a symbol turning into a millstone.

(The symbol that seems most interesting to me this morning the Trump Orange-Baby Balloon. Not a bad impact for a £16k crowd funder that started on the British Left in 2018 - though without digging I'm guessing that "Orange Baby" was a pre-existing meme.)

Speaking of millstones round necks, is there a date for Trump’s unprecedented big beautiful second state visit? Getting more than a whiff of kicking into the long grass from it.

Not yet. I heard some quite interesting commentary around that on (of all places) the Times "The Royals with Roya and Kate" podcast - not my usual listening. Amongst the Royal Family fluffiness it also covered:

- Prince William being deliberately positioned as an "international statesman" (UK soft power, future role).
- Subjects where King Charles can be a genuine authority (nature, environment - triangulate Trump opposition to Greenery via nature / sustainaibility / communities). Charles has been doing nature stuff since the 1970s - cf Prince Philip involvement in WWFN from 1961).

(And we will not see the King on a Horse at Trooping the Colour again, post cancer surgery.)

Very interesting. Youtube threw it at me.

"Trump's state visit leaves King Charles with the diplomatic challenge of a lifetime | The Royals"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh8TzcG0N4Q

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Eabhal

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

williamglenn

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

wooliedyed

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

DecrepiterJohnL

Levelling up is the key, even if that name is a bit too #ClassicDom. Reform's DOGE obsession might lead to unwise cuts in the councils it controls which will make people's lives worse, although early reports suggest not only could Reform not run a whelk stall, their councillors are even too disorganised to run a whelk stall into the ground.

There are signs from the SDR that the government has cottoned onto this, with increased investment in transport links up north somewhere at the expense of London. Whether screwing London is a good idea is about to be tested.

HYUFD

Labour getting back up to 25% based on those who think they would be best to improve public services might get them a hung parliament but would still be well short of a majority

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

MattW

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.

When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.

They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.

StillWaters

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Who is it offensive too? Why is it stupid?

MattW

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Aha. So this will be a year of "Bart has the Ultimate Answers"

Mexicanpete

This metric matters not a jot.

I don't believe this helps Labour as it stands. Labour's most pressing failure is that they have lost control of the small boats. Reform are winning the next election on this metric alone. A similar theme won last year's contest for Trump.

The Conservatives do have hope of toppling Reform if they elect Jenrick as Prime Minister in waiting. Jenrick has deftly removed his fingerprints from any small boats hiccups that went before. I also believe he would not shy away from strafing the boats rhetoric, which all those animated by the subject would be happy to buy into.

Starmer could sort out the economy, NHS, Social Care and personally depose Putin, however he lost control of the boats, and that's all that matters.

kjh

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

And not one, but all of those age profiles have grown significantly.

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

stodge

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Snowflakes in June?

Pulpstar

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

LostPassword

https://kyivindependent.com/israel-asks-us-to-join-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites-officials-told-axios/

"Israeli officials have asked the Trump administration to join military operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program, including a strike on the fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site, Axios reported on June 14, citing two Israeli officials.

The request comes as Israel continues its assault on Iranian targets and warns that it lacks the capability to destroy Fordow alone. The underground facility, located deep within a mountain, is beyond the reach of Israel’s conventional weapons. U.S. forces in the region, however, have the necessary bunker-busting bombs and bomber aircraft to hit the site."

It seems to me to be the height of folly to start something without the ability to end it, and particularly to then rely on Trump's assistance to end it.

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Theuniondivvie

Grumpy Trumpy.
You can tell things aren’t going well when Don doesn’t show off his expensive dental implants.

Mexicanpete

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Don't be harsh on William. If he takes a lie down and some smelling salts he'll recover nicely from his outrage.

wooliedyed

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

Mexicanpete

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

vik

LostPassword said:

https://kyivindependent.com/israel-asks-us-to-join-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites-officials-told-axios/

"Israeli officials have asked the Trump administration to join military operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program, including a strike on the fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site, Axios reported on June 14, citing two Israeli officials.

The request comes as Israel continues its assault on Iranian targets and warns that it lacks the capability to destroy Fordow alone. The underground facility, located deep within a mountain, is beyond the reach of Israel’s conventional weapons. U.S. forces in the region, however, have the necessary bunker-busting bombs and bomber aircraft to hit the site."

It seems to me to be the height of folly to start something without the ability to end it, and particularly to then rely on Trump's assistance to end it.

This is one of those situations where it's better that we have Trump in charge, and not some generic Republican.

Trump is highly unlikely to join, unless the Iranians do something stupid like attacking a US military base.

Of course, an Israeli false flag operation can't be ruled out.

boulay

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

He’s certainly an absolute something.

wooliedyed

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

ydoethur

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

He’s certainly an absolute something.

Donald Trump Jr by contrast is just a relative.

ydoethur

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

You could make a decent case that there was actually swingback against Labour.

The reason it didn't help the Tories is because it went to Reform and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, not them.

Mexicanpete

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

I don't believe we should call our PB Tory faithful friends (some but not the majority had seen the writing on the wall) as "quite wrong". I prefer "overly optimistic".

wooliedyed

ydoethur said:

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

You could make a decent case that there was actually swingback against Labour.

The reason it didn't help the Tories is because it went to Reform and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, not them.

I was referring more to the 'sit back and wait' aspect

LostPassword

vik said:

LostPassword said:

https://kyivindependent.com/israel-asks-us-to-join-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites-officials-told-axios/

"Israeli officials have asked the Trump administration to join military operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program, including a strike on the fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site, Axios reported on June 14, citing two Israeli officials.

The request comes as Israel continues its assault on Iranian targets and warns that it lacks the capability to destroy Fordow alone. The underground facility, located deep within a mountain, is beyond the reach of Israel’s conventional weapons. U.S. forces in the region, however, have the necessary bunker-busting bombs and bomber aircraft to hit the site."

It seems to me to be the height of folly to start something without the ability to end it, and particularly to then rely on Trump's assistance to end it.

This is one of those situations where it's better that we have Trump in charge, and not some generic Republican.

Trump is highly unlikely to join, unless the Iranians do something stupid like attacking a US military base.

Of course, an Israeli false flag operation can't be ruled out.

I'm more concerned with Israel's decision-making in this case, rather than having this become part of the endless war on whether electing Trump was the stupidest thing in history, and/or manages to have one or two redeeming features.

MattW

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

wooliedyed

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

I don't believe we should call our PB Tory faithful friends (some but not the majority had seen the writing on the wall) as "quite wrong". I prefer "overly optimistic".

No, i think anyone who believed they could sit back and wait could be fairly described as quite wrong or indeed hopelessly deluded. There's a difference between that of course and remaining 'faithful' which is just what some people wanna do in terms of their vote

FrancisUrquhart

Late filing is particularly prevalent at the top of the income distribution, where the £100 late fee is not really that costly. We don’t really get that information here until, in I guess, 18 months.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/15/rich-are-fleeing-labours-britain-we-could-all-pay-price/

This always struck me as ridiculous. Costs less than a parking fine for leaving your car illegally parked while you visit Harrods.

williamglenn

MattW said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

That comparison would make Trump the Deng Xiaoping of America. The man who made China great again.

Fishing

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

The other big problem is that a party which depends for most of its funding and support on often lazy, entitled and incompetent public sector workers is particularly badly suited to making them improve the service they provide. As under Blair and Brown, they will devote more resources to the problem and get progressively worse returns as productivity drops off a cliff.

And that's before you get into the damage that their sabotaging of the private sector is doing to the tax base, from which all funding to improve services must ultimately.

No, I think Labour's main hope isn't improving the public services or the private sector, it's that the alternatives self-sabotage. Which, after all, is why they are in power now anyway.

MattW

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

I think at this time it might benefit the USA to have a real King to control Trump as President trying to overreach his authority.

Italy 1943 or Spain 1979 come to mind.

Of course, a Usonian King may wish to be a Dictator.

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

MattW said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

That comparison would make Trump the Deng Xiaoping of America. The man who made China great again.

And who brutally slaughtered the students of Tiananmen?

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

You could make a decent case that there was actually swingback against Labour.

The reason it didn't help the Tories is because it went to Reform and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, not them.

That is a very pertinent point. Swingback against the challenger is real, but it doesn't necessarily benefit the incumbent.

Perhaps Jenrick should be checking out the Osborne and Little paint and fabric charts after all.

Sunil_Prasannan

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Fewer babies born now will mean fewer old people in 70 years' time.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

MattW said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

That comparison would make Trump the Deng Xiaoping of America. The man who made China great again.

I said a while ago that you seem to view the World through a kaleidoscope rather than a clear lens. Your interpretation of this cartoon would seem to confirm my theory.

wooliedyed

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Fewer babies born now will mean fewer old people in 70 years' time.

We might have discovered the youthful vitality pill by then!

Andy_JS

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Pulpstar

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Fewer babies born now will mean fewer old people in 70 years' time.

One of humanitys long term unsolved problems is how to get the aggregate birth rate back above replacement when people hit a certain standard of living.
It's not an issue for us (globally) at the moment but is for past about 2100, and in the shorter term for low immigration, low birth rate places such as Japan

StillWaters

MattW said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

I think at this time it might benefit the USA to have a real King to control Trump as President trying to overreach his authority.

Italy 1943 or Spain 1979 come to mind.

Of course, a Usonian King may wish to be a Dictator.

Arise King Harry?

😂

Sunil_Prasannan

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

I think at this time it might benefit the USA to have a real King to control Trump as President trying to overreach his authority.

Italy 1943 or Spain 1979 come to mind.

Of course, a Usonian King may wish to be a Dictator.

Arise King Harry?

😂

The thought is driving me "Spare"!

Cookie

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

bondegezou

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

Not true. What they require is a sensible approach, as opposed to endless penny-pinching and trying to operate everything at 100%, wasteful “marketisation”, and inefficient contacting out.

Phil

Andy_JS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.

On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.

Luckyguy1983

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

No experience I'm afraid. I think they are good but once you go you'll always go.

Theuniondivvie

Very slightly comforting that the sponsors of Trump's birthday wank, Palantir, were so crap at it.

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1934033174545195350

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

carnforth

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

Phil

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Quackery, mostly.

Consider how many people have had their necks broken by officially licensed chiropractors & then run as far away from them as possible.

“Good chiropractors” are the ones that use it as a marketing tool & just do the same things a good physio will do. “Bad chiropractors” believe their own hype & damage people.

Find yourself a good physio would be my advice. And start doing dead hangs

bondegezou

MattW said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.

When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.

They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.

Ouch. And I thought the Online Safety Act would protect me from reading such horror stories online…

Theuniondivvie

This guy looks totes woke.

https://x.com/YourAnonCentral/status/1934159918606729646

bondegezou

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Healthcare inflation has run higher than regular inflation for decades. That’s partly because we keep inventing new treatments and, oddly, sick people don’t say, “oh, that’s ok, I won’t have that new treatment in order to keep costs down.”

However, a lot of those new treatments came from the US and now Trump has slashed medical research funding in the US, bang goes a lot of new treatments in the future.

JosiasJessop

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

Might it also be the number of different treatments available, as well as the demand for treatments and the cost of those treatments? If you get a new way to treat a certain condition, and it gets passed by NICE, then there's a pretty immediate cost increase.

Cookie

carnforth said:

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

I have no doubt that back pain is sort-of-psychological: your body thinks it's about to damage itself, and tenses up. The trick is trying to get it to relax again. I'd wondered whether this might be a chiropractor's approach.
I have, in the past, managed to cure back pain by going on a boat trip to lool at dolphins. It was so amazing that I forgot all about it. But I think it's like trying to shock yourself out of hiccups: it's not really repeatable (nor practical).

OldKingCole

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

Morning all.

Sorry I missed the 'party' yesterday; out at a family occasion, of which more anon, perhaps.

"Cost' of health is increasing partly because of an ageing population, partly because we're getting better at treating all sorts of conditions and partly because, since the elderly population is increasing the amount of chronic treatable condition has increased. For example, I would think that, because of my general condition, if I'd been me 50 years ago, I'd have been dead by now!
Does that make sense.

BartholomewRoberts

Andy_JS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

For me it has, yes. 2 years this October I've been on the diet and I'm the healthiest I've been since my 20s and feel much better for it.

When I was overweight or obese I was eating when I was hungry, but the problem is I was hungry even though I'd had enough calories. Eat less isn't amazing advice to someone who is eating because they are very hungry.

The diet for me works because it has eliminated my food cravings. Carbs turn to glucose which shoots your blood sugar up but then crashes which makes you hungry again even if you've already had enough calories to eat.

Protein on the other hand doesn't spike like that and the body very slowly turns it into glucose only at the rate your body requires for eg your brain etc, which means you get the necessary glucose without consuming any, but don't get spikes and crashes.

bondegezou

Cookie said:

carnforth said:

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

I have no doubt that back pain is sort-of-psychological: your body thinks it's about to damage itself, and tenses up. The trick is trying to get it to relax again. I'd wondered whether this might be a chiropractor's approach.
I have, in the past, managed to cure back pain by going on a boat trip to lool at dolphins. It was so amazing that I forgot all about it. But I think it's like trying to shock yourself out of hiccups: it's not really repeatable (nor practical).

We would need a randomised controlled trial, with a control condition where you go on a boat trip to look at something less exciting. Maybe ducks.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

You're missing a third or.

The NHS successfully turning a fatal condition into a chronic one.

Every time you prevent someone from dying you prevent their chronic conditions from dying with them. Many chronic conditions today were formerly fatal ones.

MattW

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

I'm afraid I can't be clear - I have heard of both good and bad experiences, and results. Damage can be done.

I think it will depend on the particular condition, and maybe on the particular practitioner.

My only strong recommendation would be to discuss with a GP or perhaps a Physio first with respect to the particular condition, and take their advice very seriously. Many people have access to a GP by Phone service, which may be one place to look for advice.

I would weigh "friend of a friend" advice very lightly.

Luckyguy1983

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

You're missing a third or.

The NHS successfully turning a fatal condition into a chronic one.

Every time you prevent someone from dying you prevent their chronic conditions from dying with them. Many chronic conditions today were formerly fatal ones.

But that would be counterbalanced by the times when they turn a chronic condition into a fatal one.