So you can add SNP and Lab seats together, effectively, in terms of who forms the government
Not quite. The SNP have not committed to vote on every English-only matter. So that bloc may have a majority for UK matters but not for English-only matters. That would suit the SNP very nicely indeed, but not so much Labour.
Hmmmph... I backed LAB-SNP & LAB-LD-SNP... Looks like they are well underwater now on a technicality (I was warned)
On Lab minority too so prepare for 5 more years of DC!
If your book is anything like I think it is then back the Tories in some Lab-Con marginals I reckon.
Pretty much. The width of the epiphyseal plates indicate a child. The fracture at the lower end of the leg is older than the central one. For a child to have two breaks a few weeks apart (the first would have been very painful for weightbearing) in the same limb would be very suspicious of "non-accidental injury".
It is a stock photo, but like the Tory "road to recovery" the add agencies do not always think things through, and get the imaged sourced properly.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Correct, except that you can't just ignore the starting position, nor the position in the economic cycle. There seems to be a creeping amnesia about the gobsmacking deficit the coalition inherited. I suppose in a way that is a testament to Osborne's success.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Have you ever done a nurses` job?I wouldn`t do it for all the money in the world.
There are many jobs I'd prefer not to do. It doesn't follow that they're poorly paid.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
They are 15% poorer paid than in 2010 in real terms and pension contribution can be as much as 14.9% compared to 7.5% as well.
Of course if they work for an agency they are very well paid indeed hence the NHS financial problems
So you can add SNP and Lab seats together, effectively, in terms of who forms the government
Not quite. The SNP have not committed to vote on every English-only matter. So that bloc may have a majority for UK matters but not for English-only matters. That would suit the SNP very nicely indeed, but not so much Labour.
Hmmmph... I backed LAB-SNP & LAB-LD-SNP... Looks like they are well underwater now on a technicality (I was warned)
On Lab minority too so prepare for 5 more years of DC!
If your book is anything like I think it is then back the Tories in some Lab-Con marginals I reckon.
Cheers
Haven't gone too mad anyway
If Ukip break 10% and bt lib dems I prob break even
If they get 3-4 seat prob win a grand or so
If one if the seats is Thurrock then its a decent little earner
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Have you ever done a nurses` job?I wouldn`t do it for all the money in the world.
There are many jobs I'd prefer not to do. It doesn't follow that they're poorly paid.
Except it is exactly the same as what Nicola has been saying ?
Anyway I think it backs up a point I made - Labour is more likely to put the Conservatives in power than the SNP, PC and Greens are. Specifically some of their backbenchers abstaining on a Tory Queen's speech...
It would seem that Labour have to offer the SNP precisely nothing, to form a government.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
I agree it means lower interest payments but at the cost of lower growth (assuming the borrowing is invested wisely). Paying down debt means you end up with a smaller cake albeit with a smaller slice taken out of it by the interest payments.
One's intuition on debt and deficit can be misleading. You need to do a simple financial model (eg in Excel) to see the effect of different assumptions.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Many nurses and theatre staff prefer to work agency. It is not just about pay, it is so they can work around other commitments such as childcare. Zero hour contracts if you please.
It suits some Trusts as it works to cover gaps. The extra pay is offset by flexibility and lower overheads. Agency staff do not get holiday, sickness or pension. Think of it as market forces.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Have you ever done a nurses` job?I wouldn`t do it for all the money in the world.
There are many jobs I'd prefer not to do. It doesn't follow that they're poorly paid.
A nurse starts at around 24 K per year.
That doesn't sound too bad. That's about the median wage.
"A conspiracy theorist might wonder whether the Tories have decided just to cut their loses, and give up on the Union... They certainly seem intent on alienating the Scottish vote."
I think people don't realise just how hardcore the remaining Scots Tory vote is.
Honestly, what will it take for EdM to become favourite to be next PM? It's looking pretty tight for most seats, but the Tories have to win that battle by some margin to make it impossible to govern without them. And unless they do it looks increasingly likely there will be some kind of left-wing deal.
So you can add SNP and Lab seats together, effectively, in terms of who forms the government
Not quite. The SNP have not committed to vote on every English-only matter. So that bloc may have a majority for UK matters but not for English-only matters. That would suit the SNP very nicely indeed, but not so much Labour.
Hmmmph... I backed LAB-SNP & LAB-LD-SNP... Looks like they are well underwater now on a technicality (I was warned)
On Lab minority too so prepare for 5 more years of DC!
If your book is anything like I think it is then back the Tories in some Lab-Con marginals I reckon.
TSE gave me the same advice and now my gains/losses are likely to be a bit less unless something very strange happens.
Except it is exactly the same as what Nicola has been saying ?
Anyway I think it backs up a point I made - Labour is more likely to put the Conservatives in power than the SNP, PC and Greens are. Specifically some of their backbenchers abstaining on a Tory Queen's speech...
It would seem that Labour have to offer the SNP precisely nothing, to form a government.
That may well be the case - but they'll need to offer milk and honey to get anything through parliament other than the budget.
How many votes does Ed want to make confidence ones, is he feeling lucky ?
That doesn't sound too bad. That's about the median wage.
And of course they get a pension scheme which, whilst not as massively generous as it used to be, is still very much more generous than anything they'd be likely to get in the private sector.
Honestly, what will it take for EdM to become favourite to be next PM? It's looking pretty tight for most seats, but the Tories have to win that battle by some margin to make it impossible to govern without them. And unless they do it looks increasingly likely there will be some kind of left-wing deal.
It won't, whilst Warwick and Leamington is longer than Tory most seats. The overall market is 50 shades of wrong.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
The maths are slightly more complicated than that :-)
If your debt-to=GDP is 50%, and you run a 3% deficit, and growth is 3% and inflation 1%, then your nominal GDP increases 4% and therefore reduces your debt-to-GDP to 48%. If you then add on the 3% deficit, you get to 51% of GDP.
You need to consider both the starting debt level and the underlying level of inflation.
I agree. You need to model it. I was keeping it simple. But the point (if not the exact numbers) is the same. It makes sense to continue to borrow if you invest it wisely in the future and maintain it at a sustainable level (which depends on growth, inflation, starting debt, impact of borrowing on future growth).
I feel the usual debate on the debt and deficit, led by Osborne, is quite naive economically, though probably not politically as it fools many people.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Many nurses and theatre staff prefer to work agency. It is not just about pay, it is so they can work around other commitments such as childcare. Zero hour contracts if you please.
It suits some Trusts as it works to cover gaps. The extra pay is offset by flexibility and lower overheads. Agency staff do not get holiday, sickness or pension. Think of it as market forces.
From that comment it appears you are not well informed how much extra agency rates are compared to NHS Gross Cost. Unless Leicester has cracked the problem
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
And where are the interest payments going? A lot of it to pension funds and other UK financial institutions and some of it back to the BoE (100% owned by HMG).
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
They are 15% poorer paid than in 2010 in real terms and pension contribution can be as much as 14.9% compared to 7.5% as well.
Of course if they work for an agency they are very well paid indeed hence the NHS financial problems
A friend of mine is a mortgage broker, he was asked to do a mortgage for a couple that both worked for the NHS, one a nurse and the other a physio. Their joint earnings are just below £75,000, not exactly breadline is it?
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
And where are the interest payments going? A lot of it to pension funds and other UK financial institutions and some of it back to the BoE (100% owned by HMG).
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Many nurses and theatre staff prefer to work agency. It is not just about pay, it is so they can work around other commitments such as childcare. Zero hour contracts if you please.
It suits some Trusts as it works to cover gaps. The extra pay is offset by flexibility and lower overheads. Agency staff do not get holiday, sickness or pension. Think of it as market forces.
From that comment it appears you are not well informed how much extra agency rates are compared to NHS Gross Cost. Unless Leicester has cracked the problem
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
We have a very serious problem with the deficit. Public sector workers have far higher job security than the private sector and better pensions (and higher average pay, I think). We need to find more, not fewer, areas to save money.
"BES data, adds Professor Green, shows most voters think cuts in public spending have gone too far. And only 25% consider it ‘absolutely necessary’ to cut the deficit."
It's a good job Labour haven't decided to swallow the whole Tory narrative on the deficit/cuts that only 25% of the public agree with, then. (/sarcasm)
Just because some voters are living in cloud-cuckoo land, that doesn't necessarily mean that a political party claiming it is fit to be in power in six weeks' time would be well-advised to agree with them. Quite apart from anything else, politics doesn't end on May 8th 2015. There's a risk, after all, that Labour might actually win the election - and then what would they do?
"Some voters" meaning three-quarters of the public?
What Labour could do if they win the election is to do what governments have done for something like 100 of the last 150 years (including most of Thatcher's years in office, and indeed the past 5 years): not worry about running a relatively modest deficit, watch the sky NOT fall in despite some initial hysterical scaremongering, and instead focus on looking after the British people and the public services they depend on.
Thick, thick, thick - we have zero inflation and are subject to EU rules on deficits not to mention the IMF etc, - there is no way we can borrow yet more to fund social services for the idle and feckless. You really need to grow up, or better still, move to Greece and try some real austerity.
The two largest areas of Government Spending (by some significant distance) are the NHS and State Pensions. Both are Universal Benefits which disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
.
From that comment it appears you are not well informed how much extra agency rates are compared to NHS Gross Cost. Unless Leicester has cracked the problem
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
Why do you think NHS agency costs have quintupled since 2010?
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
We have a very serious problem with the deficit. Public sector workers have far higher job security than the private sector and better pensions (and higher average pay, I think). We need to find more, not fewer, areas to save money.
Far higher job security in the public sector? A tacit admission the zillions of McJobs created by Osborne are massively insecure?
Mark Duggan was probably throwing a handgun away when he was shot by officers, the police watchdog has said. Its three-and-a-half-year investigation cleared the Metropolitan Police of any wrongdoing.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
.
From that comment it appears you are not well informed how much extra agency rates are compared to NHS Gross Cost. Unless Leicester has cracked the problem
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
Why do you think NHS agency costs have quintupled since 2010?
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
At least they won't be able to retire in their early fifties and cost the country a fortune for the next 30 odd years.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Your overdraft can only be repaid with your income (which for most individuals is generally fixed). Government Debt can be repaid from growing it's income, deflating the debt or by paying of chunks of cash.
Fiscally there is no imperative for debt reduction at this time. And given that the max sustainable Debt to GDP ratio for the United Kingdom should be far more like Japan than Greece (which it is already higher than), even external shocks would give the UK plenty of leeway.
Put it this way. The UK government could survive TWO 2008 Recessions and still be able to fund higher fiscal spending than current levels.
Mr. M, I don't think it's a revelation that the odds on a teacher having a job [provided they don't act in some horrendous way] from one year to the next is better than a chap working in a shop.
"BES data, adds Professor Green, shows most voters think cuts in public spending have gone too far. And only 25% consider it ‘absolutely necessary’ to cut the deficit."
It's a good job Labour haven't decided to swallow the whole Tory narrative on the deficit/cuts that only 25% of the public agree with, then. (/sarcasm)
Just because some voters are living in cloud-cuckoo land, that doesn't necessarily mean that a political party claiming it is fit to be in power in six weeks' time would be well-advised to agree with them. Quite apart from anything else, politics doesn't end on May 8th 2015. There's a risk, after all, that Labour might actually win the election - and then what would they do?
"Some voters" meaning three-quarters of the public?
What Labour could do if they win the election is to do what governments have done for something like 100 of the last 150 years (including most of Thatcher's years in office, and indeed the past 5 years): not worry about running a relatively modest deficit, watch the sky NOT fall in despite some initial hysterical scaremongering, and instead focus on looking after the British people and the public services they depend on.
Thick, thick, thick - we have zero inflation and are subject to EU rules on deficits not to mention the IMF etc, - there is no way we can borrow yet more to fund social services for the idle and feckless. You really need to grow up, or better still, move to Greece and try some real austerity.
Then how come we're able to borrow RIGHT NOW? Why are MORE cuts necessary when there are no problems securing borrowing for the level of current spending? And I'm afraid I'm not going to buy that the markets have some supreme faith in the mythical powers of George Osborne which means they can swallow fiscal policies that they wouldn't swallow from other governments pursuing the same ones.
You cannot live on borrowing without impoverishing the future. I'm not going to bother arguing further with you as it is clearly pointless. You'll never get it.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
This has been explained to you many, many times on this site. I refuse to believe you are completely incapable of understanding the simple explanations repeatedly given to you using very small words.
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
Normally Mr Cameron does Q&A sessions in offices and factories, where audiences are on their best behaviour because their bosses are present. Unfortunately for him, retirees don’t have bosses.'
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
They are 15% poorer paid than in 2010 in real terms and pension contribution can be as much as 14.9% compared to 7.5% as well.
Of course if they work for an agency they are very well paid indeed hence the NHS financial problems
A friend of mine is a mortgage broker, he was asked to do a mortgage for a couple that both worked for the NHS, one a nurse and the other a physio. Their joint earnings are just below £75,000, not exactly breadline is it?
A qualified Physio and a qualified nurse would both typically be band 5.
Unless they work unsocial hours their salary each would range from £21,478 to£27,901, the latter after 7 years qualifed. Still some way short of what your friend says unless they are boosting pay with agency shifts
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
”
“We are!” shouted a man in the audience. The hubbub intensified.
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
Have you ever done a nurses` job?I wouldn`t do it for all the money in the world.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
med now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
And where are the interest payments going? A lot of it to pension funds and other UK financial institutions and some of it back to the BoE (100% owned by HMG).
Interest payments are not lost money.
Is the dim left getting dimmer? I cannot imagine what it must be like to have the mindset of someone who thinks that either of those points, is actually a point.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Your overdraft can only be repaid with your income (which for most individuals is generally fixed). Government Debt can be repaid from growing it's income, deflating the debt or by paying of chunks of cash.
Fiscally there is no imperative for debt reduction at this time. And given that the max sustainable Debt to GDP ratio for the United Kingdom should be far more like Japan than Greece (which it is already higher than), even external shocks would give the UK plenty of leeway.
Put it this way. The UK government could survive TWO 2008 Recessions and still be able to fund higher fiscal spending than current levels.
"Fiscally there is no imperative for debt reduction at this time."
What? Weren't you saying a few weeks ago that the UK is bankrupt?
I am not saying pay is not part of the explanation, but there are other reasons.
I mentioned the desire to work zero hours and flexibly. In addition there are skill shortages in particular areas, particularly less glamorous areas.
It is now very difficult for non -EU staff to get visas, and even EU staff find it difficult to navigate the bureaucracy so prefer to work via an agency that handles all that hassle.
Good staff are in demand, and even indifferent staff are needed to keep the wheels turning in Grimetown casualty on Saturday night.
Better pay is only part of the story. There are a number of other ways to recruit and retain staff, including being flexible and respectful of their desires. The same is true of all employers.
"A conspiracy theorist might wonder whether the Tories have decided just to cut their loses, and give up on the Union... They certainly seem intent on alienating the Scottish vote."
I think people don't realise just how hardcore the remaining Scots Tory vote is.
I think the problem with the Scottish Tory vote is not how solid it is. It's the size. In Politics, much as the rest of life, size matters.
On topic. That final statistic is shocking. Further convinces me that a majority of the public don't have a decent understanding of economics/politics/public policy.
No wonder the magic-money tree party gets in every now and again....
So you can add SNP and Lab seats together, effectively, in terms of who forms the government
Not quite. The SNP have not committed to vote on every English-only matter. So that bloc may have a majority for UK matters but not for English-only matters. That would suit the SNP very nicely indeed, but not so much Labour.
Indeed. One of the more intelligent remarks I have seen on this especially when compared with some of the tripe being spouted by the Tories. There are some interesting subtleties which emerge from that start, for instance the increased pressure to define what is an English-only matter and what isn't, and how the solution might (or might not) differ for Labour and the Tories if they become English'n'Welsh parties as far as Westminster is concerned. But we have to be in that position first before we need worry about it.
Has he blown up the Flying Scotsman yet? If he does he'd better hope for someone like Margaret Thatcher who persuaded the African Government not to dispose of him.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
No, they won't, cause Salmond won't get off the telly!
"A conspiracy theorist might wonder whether the Tories have decided just to cut their loses, and give up on the Union... They certainly seem intent on alienating the Scottish vote."
I think people don't realise just how hardcore the remaining Scots Tory vote is.
I think the problem with the Scottish Tory vote is not how solid it is. It's the size. In Politics, much as the rest of life, size matters.
Big enough to deny Labour heading into the 30s if the SNP are over 42 or so ;p
Well done the French - they've got the black box of the A320...
It will take some time to analyse. What would be worse for Lufthansa - explosive decompression to to weakness caused by age of aircraft (24 years old) or a terrorist attack?
Cameron avoided the debates to do Q&A's didn't he?
Hasn't done all that well today...
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
.
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
Why do you think NHS agency costs have quintupled since 2010?
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
At least they won't be able to retire in their early fifties and cost the country a fortune for the next 30 odd years.
Politics of Envy? Perhaps you should be putting more into your pension pot.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
We have a very serious problem with the deficit. Public sector workers have far higher job security than the private sector and better pensions (and higher average pay, I think). We need to find more, not fewer, areas to save money.
Far higher job security in the public sector? A tacit admission the zillions of McJobs created by Osborne are massively insecure?
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
Put it this way. The UK government could survive TWO 2008 Recessions and still be able to fund higher fiscal spending than current levels.
And this from the poster who believes that the UK is bankrupt in the long-run because it cant afford its pension obligations. The mind boggles.
It is bankrupt in the long run. We aren't in the long run, we are in the short run and talking about the ability of the UK to borrow money.
The unfunded pension obligations however will bankrupt the UK whether national debt is 80% of GDP or 220% like Japan or 0%. Because they are currently 450%.
< 'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
.
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
Why do you think NHS agency costs have quintupled since 2010?
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
At least they won't be able to retire in their early fifties and cost the country a fortune for the next 30 odd years.
Politics of Envy? Perhaps you should be putting more into your pension pot.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
Why are there so many agency workers then? Something doesn't add up.
Mark Duggan was probably throwing a handgun away when he was shot by officers, the police watchdog has said. Its three-and-a-half-year investigation cleared the Metropolitan Police of any wrongdoing.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
I agree it means lower interest payments but at the cost of lower growth (assuming the borrowing is invested wisely). Paying down debt means you end up with a smaller cake albeit with a smaller slice taken out of it by the interest payments.
One's intuition on debt and deficit can be misleading. You need to do a simple financial model (eg in Excel) to see the effect of different assumptions.
On what would you say a Government should 'invest' the higher borrowing?
Interesting article on Labour's woes in Scotland. Written with an SNP slant, but it does contain this gem
Labour is trying to play two games at once, and losing. Jim Murphy’s leadership has failed to budge the polls, while Ed Miliband – lacking in integrity and full of air – continues to project as much clout as a BHS bag flapping on a branch.
Put it this way. The UK government could survive TWO 2008 Recessions and still be able to fund higher fiscal spending than current levels.
And this from the poster who believes that the UK is bankrupt in the long-run because it cant afford its pension obligations. The mind boggles.
It is bankrupt in the long run. We aren't in the long run, we are in the short run and talking about the ability of the UK to borrow money.
The unfunded pension obligations however will bankrupt the UK whether national debt is 80% of GDP or 220% like Japan or 0%. Because they are currently 450%.
Well done the French - they've got the black box of the A320...
It will take some time to analyse. What would be worse for Lufthansa - explosive decompression to weakness caused by age of aircraft (24 years old) or a terrorist attack?
Pilot/Computer error (again) would surely be the kiss of death for these birds...
Mark Duggan was probably throwing a handgun away when he was shot by officers, the police watchdog has said. Its three-and-a-half-year investigation cleared the Metropolitan Police of any wrongdoing.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
I have to say that's the first time the Tories (by which I think bigjohn means the coalition) has been accused of making the NHS scheme more generous. The unions seem to have been most ungrateful for this largesse.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
Why?
What are you talking about?
Because it would be nice if the finance guy understood numbers?
Charming. So Tories are 'democratic' when they have power with fewer seats than other parties?
Unbelievable, isn't it? The democratic will of the British people is apparently to have a Tory government even if they do not vote for one. What extraordinary arrogance.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
I have to say that's the first time the Tories (by which I think bigjohn means the coalition) has been accused of making the NHS scheme more generous. The unions seem to have been most ungrateful for this largesse.
Have I ever said that the pension changes were anything other than generous? The unions managed to negotiate a great deal
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
Why?
What are you talking about?
Because it would be nice if the finance guy understood numbers?
I notice Salmond is doing a lot of media. Spare a thought for poor Angus Robertson who is supposed to be the SNP leader at Westminster. Clearly not for much longer if Salmond gets his way...
I heard yesterday that since this government came to power £88 billion of jobs have transferred from the public to the private sector.
It struck me as a non economist that the only reason for this must be to save money which presumably means the people doing those jobs getting less pay.
Isn't that just a con? And if it is as it sounds wouldn't that explain why this government is shedding votes like a molting Fox when on the surface they seem to be doing well?
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
I have to say that's the first time the Tories (by which I think bigjohn means the coalition) has been accused of making the NHS scheme more generous. The unions seem to have been most ungrateful for this largesse.
Have I ever said that the pension changes were anything other than generous? The unions managed to negotiate a great deal
The accrual tate is better, but the postponement of retirement age, use of career average earnings instead of final salary and reductions in lump sum make the overall scheme less generous than the earlier schemes. Still pretty good, but the 14.7% employee contributions are a lot steeper too.
In terms of the whole independence argument, it seems very hypocritical to want to leave a country and also attempt to govern it at the same time. The decent thing to do seems to be the line Sinn Fein take: stand for election in order to prove their support, but refuse to take their seats.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
Why?
What are you talking about?
Because it would be nice if the finance guy understood numbers?
I do thanks
The evidence isnt supporting you in this case I'm afraid.
So Tories are 'democratic' when they have power with fewer seats than other parties?
Like the SNP in Holyrood. Or were they not 'democratic'?
I take it you mean 2007-2011 as 2011 gave the SNP an absolute majority of seats with a share of the vote higher than any UK Government since the 1960s.
The SNP minority administration had 47 seats. Labour had 46, Tories 17, Liberals 16, Greens 2 and Margo MacDonald.
With a C&S agreement with the Greens and VbV support from MacDonald, they had 50 seats in a parliament of 125. They delivered their policies with the support of parties which could have voted them out at any time. They only lost one major fight when the Tories, Labour and Liberals grouped together to continue funding Edinburgh Trams.
The rest of the time they had to work very hard to build consensus for their budgets and policies and succeeded in doing so for the entire 4 years of the parliament. It also meant that every single vote that passed not only had a majority of MPs it had 50% of voters represented by the parties which then voted for the motions. That was an incredible display of democracy in action and consensus building, it was a near miracle.
That alone should have sent a clear message to the Westminster Bubble, their failure to see what was happening makes it no surprise Westminster Parties are were they are today.
Comments
More Austerity is not a winner IMO
Edit:- Just quick google searched...and one of the top images...
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/gty_broken_femur_bone_xray_thg_120510_wmain.jpg
So the answer probably is, yes the person who put together the poster just grabbed it off google.
It is a stock photo, but like the Tory "road to recovery" the add agencies do not always think things through, and get the imaged sourced properly.
Of course if they work for an agency they are very well paid indeed hence the NHS financial problems
Haven't gone too mad anyway
If Ukip break 10% and bt lib dems I prob break even
If they get 3-4 seat prob win a grand or so
If one if the seats is Thurrock then its a decent little earner
One's intuition on debt and deficit can be misleading. You need to do a simple financial model (eg in Excel) to see the effect of different assumptions.
It suits some Trusts as it works to cover gaps. The extra pay is offset by flexibility and lower overheads. Agency staff do not get holiday, sickness or pension. Think of it as market forces.
"A conspiracy theorist might wonder whether the Tories have decided just to cut their loses, and give up on the Union... They certainly seem intent on alienating the Scottish vote."
I think people don't realise just how hardcore the remaining Scots Tory vote is.
He said they would vote against the Tories on principle, but they could vote against Labour if they didn't get the sweeties.
No Government. Election.
How many votes does Ed want to make confidence ones, is he feeling lucky ?
I feel the usual debate on the debt and deficit, led by Osborne, is quite naive economically, though probably not politically as it fools many people.
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
Interest payments are not lost money.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
We have a very serious problem with the deficit. Public sector workers have far higher job security than the private sector and better pensions (and higher average pay, I think). We need to find more, not fewer, areas to save money.
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119
Thug life....
Fiscally there is no imperative for debt reduction at this time. And given that the max sustainable Debt to GDP ratio for the United Kingdom should be far more like Japan than Greece (which it is already higher than), even external shocks would give the UK plenty of leeway.
Put it this way. The UK government could survive TWO 2008 Recessions and still be able to fund higher fiscal spending than current levels.
Wee Mili Winkie.
Best ever.
Shy, retiring, out of the limelight...
@SamCoatesTimes: A Labour source said they are "deciding how to staff" the Crosby event
Unless they work unsocial hours their salary each would range from £21,478 to£27,901, the latter after 7 years qualifed. Still some way short of what your friend says unless they are boosting pay with agency shifts
What? Weren't you saying a few weeks ago that the UK is bankrupt?
I am not saying pay is not part of the explanation, but there are other reasons.
I mentioned the desire to work zero hours and flexibly. In addition there are skill shortages in particular areas, particularly less glamorous areas.
It is now very difficult for non -EU staff to get visas, and even EU staff find it difficult to navigate the bureaucracy so prefer to work via an agency that handles all that hassle.
Good staff are in demand, and even indifferent staff are needed to keep the wheels turning in Grimetown casualty on Saturday night.
Better pay is only part of the story. There are a number of other ways to recruit and retain staff, including being flexible and respectful of their desires. The same is true of all employers.
No wonder the magic-money tree party gets in every now and again....
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
The unfunded pension obligations however will bankrupt the UK whether national debt is 80% of GDP or 220% like Japan or 0%. Because they are currently 450%.
'The speech passed without incident. His problems began during the subsequent Q&A, just as he was breezing his way through an answer about NHS agency staff.
“Excuse me!” cut in the man who’d asked him about it. “You haven’t answered my question!”
Mildly startled – as if a sleepy old tabby he was stroking had hissed at him – Mr Cameron tried not answering the question in a different way. But the heckle seemed to have awoken something in the audience. There was now a growing hubbub of unrest.
“Rubbish!” shouted a voice. “Answer the question!” harrumphed another. “I am, sir!” blurted the Prime Minister. The audience didn’t seem convinced. A man with white hair sat irately shaking his stick.
“Look, I’ll be frank,” said Mr Cameron, switching tone from “harassed customer services” to “paternal authority”. “If you’re not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after by this Government, don’t blame other ministers – blame me.”
“We are!” shouted a man in '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11492472/Sketch-You-havent-answered-my-question-David-Cameron-gets-mugged-by-pensioners.html
I see the bloke who asked the original question raised the exact point that I have been banging on about for months. Drs and nurses leaving the NHS in massive numbers and only working via agencies at highly inflated rates.
5 years of pay freezes means people aren't prepared to work for NHS rates when can earn double prostituting their labour via agencies.
Tory solution 5 more years of pay freezes. They still don't get it.
Doctors and nurses aren't poorly paid.
.
I suggest you go visit your DOF and ask him how much a Thornbridge shift costs.
It is certainly expensive to fill some gaps (market forces...) and my Trust prefers to use zero hours bank staff where possible.
The reasons people work for agencies are not purely monetary though.
Why do you think NHS agency costs have quintupled since 2010?
You do not think better pay rates and NHS rates declining so much in real terms is the most important reason?
At least they won't be able to retire in their early fifties and cost the country a fortune for the next 30 odd years.
Politics of Envy? Perhaps you should be putting more into your pension pot.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
Why are there so many agency workers then? Something doesn't add up.
I am sure I read that somewhere...
Thanks - had missed that. To be precise, it's not a SNP slant, more a Radical Independence one (i.e. from the other side from Labour and the LDs).
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/accident/crash-dans-les-alpes/video-francetv-crash-dans-les-alpes-les-premieres-images-des-debris_857811.html
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/14/us-intel-stands-pat-on-mh-17-shoot-down/
(Who is Mr Hundai anyway?)
What are you talking about?
The Tory message is that the Tories have the right to rule never mind if they are voted out by superior numbers. Think about it.
Classic Crosby.
It struck me as a non economist that the only reason for this must be to save money which presumably means the people doing those jobs getting less pay.
Isn't that just a con? And if it is as it sounds wouldn't that explain why this government is shedding votes like a molting Fox when on the surface they seem to be doing well?
The SNP minority administration had 47 seats. Labour had 46, Tories 17, Liberals 16, Greens 2 and Margo MacDonald.
With a C&S agreement with the Greens and VbV support from MacDonald, they had 50 seats in a parliament of 125. They delivered their policies with the support of parties which could have voted them out at any time. They only lost one major fight when the Tories, Labour and Liberals grouped together to continue funding Edinburgh Trams.
The rest of the time they had to work very hard to build consensus for their budgets and policies and succeeded in doing so for the entire 4 years of the parliament. It also meant that every single vote that passed not only had a majority of MPs it had 50% of voters represented by the parties which then voted for the motions. That was an incredible display of democracy in action and consensus building, it was a near miracle.
That alone should have sent a clear message to the Westminster Bubble, their failure to see what was happening makes it no surprise Westminster Parties are were they are today.