Brexit may or may not end up increasing the wealth-creation capacity of the UK, but if it does it will not be for a fair amount of time. How do we pay for stuff while we wait?
It won't in the short and medium term and there is no reason to believe it will in the long term either, when as someone famous said, we'll be dead. Nevertheless, the Brexit ship has sailed and we need to find different and less satisfactory ways of working with the EU. There's a big debate to be had about new forms of integration, but we're not having it right now.
A lot of pensioners spend their winters in Spain and the summers in the UK. Saves the NHS a shedload.
We are going to need more nursing staff to look after those that are no longer able to go abroad. And, of course, we are going to be paying much higher wages.
I was under the impression that the NHS got charged for that sort of expense - its an issue where the details are oddly vague.
Higher wages are good BTW.
The issue the UK has is creating enough wealth to pay for all the things we would like.
The direct care gets compensated, not the indirect costs. But, more to the point, pensioners are less likely to fall ill in the first place if they spend their winters in a warm climate.
As for wages, carers don't create wealth. They look after people. They either have to be paid for by the money generated by private companies or by taxes.
Brexit may or may not end up increasing the wealth-creation capacity of the UK, but if it does it will not be for a fair amount of time. How do we pay for stuff while we wait?
"Carers don't create wealth"
Then who does? Hairdressers? Writers? Teachers? Bankers? Do you have to make something you can drop on your foot for it to count as making wealth?
No, for the purposes of government income, you have to pay more in tax than you consume. So most bankers and other top rate tax payers probably do create wealth; though I would argue they could create more - ie, they (we) should pay more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
This is why the NHS should be run from the centre and many things mandated. The present federal structure, with every Trust doing its own thing, means this sort of thing can happen far more easily. Cyber security always get cut first.
Re wealth creation: how many of us on this blog actually make things, grow things or dig them up? I certainly don't, and I get paid entirely by the state for my efforts, but I would be upset if you said that what I did does not "create wealth". If nothing else I keep thirty-odd 13 year olds occupied while their parents go off to work...
On a related note, with all the discussions about increasing pollution and traffic congestion in London isn't that inevitable when London's population has increased by two million during the last twenty years:
I think you have identified some more problems that foxinsoxuk can confidently ascribe to Brexit.
Overcrowding in the SE may well be helped by Brexit, but there will be new challenges, not least concerning altered demographics. Argue that these are a good thing, or a bad thing, by all means, but they are on the cards. Brexit makes it more nessecary than ever to address Britains structural issues.
In practice though I expect SE England to remain over populated, not least because of inward migration from other parts of Britain, including Wales. It is pretty certain to still be the economic powerhouse of the nation as we continue de-industrialisation.
"Post Brexit more Britons will retire to Wales and the South Coast. "
Why should Brexit make the South Coast a more attractive place to retire to?
Granted we are about ten miles away from the actual seaside but we are actually thinking about moving North, probably Northumberland, because the booming population and lack of infrastructure investment is rapidly eroding the quality of life we used to enjoy. Nothing to do with Brexit.
Where in Northumberland are you thinking?
We quite like Hexham, Mr. Gallowgate. Its a nice place as far as we can make out, big enough to support all those things people richer in years need but without being too big and with good enough public transport connections.
No, for the purposes of government income, you have to pay more in tax than you consume. So most bankers and other top rate tax payers probably do create wealth; though I would argue they could create more - ie, they (we) should pay more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
Can you not see why the last paragraph reads oddly?
We have been in the EU for decades, and nothing has been done to improve the wages of carers. In fact, freedom of movement has actively depressed their wages.
Why -- with the magnificent bounty that you imply has come from membership of the EU -- has nothing been done about it? There’s been plenty of time.
Now, you tell us that we won’t be able to pay higher wages if we leave the EU.
But, if so, if the EU was so crucial to paying higher wages for carers, why was that not done in all the years since 1973?
In fact, very few cared about the increasing wealth differences in the country while we were members of the EU.
Now we are leaving, suddenly there are people worried that we won’t be able to pay the “higher wages” for carers that they think are warranted.
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought.
UKIP score way too high though.
EdM was getting higher than 32% during the 2015 GE campaign.
A thought: will the number of eligible voters for each constituency be published before the election? If so, it should be possible to adjust poll figures for seats where UKIP/Green aren't standing.
Corbyn aint going nowhere. Not on those figuers, he will stay until the McDonnell amendment passes, the MP's will nominate atleast one lefty to rally around then the membership (convinced the policies were right the leader wasn't) wiith help of most of the unions will elect the lefty as leader and then...........they will lose in a landslide again. Which they will blame on the right wing press.
I was under the impression that the NHS got charged for that sort of expense - its an issue things we would like.
The direct care gets compensated, not the indirect costs. But, more to the point, pensioners are less likely to fall ill in the first place if they spend their winters in a warm climate.
As for wages, carers don't create wealth. They look after people. They either have to be paid for by the money generated by private companies or by taxes.
Brexit may or may not end up increasing the wealth-creation capacity of the UK, but if it does it will not be for a fair amount of time. How do we pay for stuff while we wait?
"Carers don't create wealth"
Then who does? Hairdressers? Writers? Teachers? Bankers? Do you have to make something you can drop on your foot for it to count as making wealth?
No, for the purposes of government income, you have to pay more in tax than you consume. So most bankers and other top rate tax payers probably do create wealth; though I would argue they could create more - ie, they (we) should pay more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
I understand what you are saying now. But this is to regard people's worth on in terms of how much tax they can pay; indeed you seem to be defining 'wealth' as synonymous with 'government tax and spending'.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
'Can you not see why the last paragraph reads oddly?
We have been in the EU for decades, and nothing has been done to improve the wages of carers. In fact, freedom of movement has actively depressed their wages.
Why -- with the magnificent bounty that you imply has come from membership of the EU -- has nothing been done about it? There’s been plenty of time.
Now, you tell us that we won’t be able to pay higher wages if we leave the EU.
But, if so, if the EU was so crucial to paying higher wages for carers, why was that not done in all the years since 1973?
In fact, very few cared about the increasing wealth differences in the country while we were members of the EU.
Now we are leaving, suddenly there are people worried that we won’t be able to pay the “higher wages” for carers that they think are warranted.'
Corbyn aint going nowhere. Not on those figuers, he will stay until the McDonnell amendment passes, the MP's will nominate atleast one lefty to rally around then the membership (convinced the policies were right the leader wasn't) wiith help of most of the unions will elect the lefty as leader and then...........they will lose in a landslide again. Which they will blame on the right wing press.
Labour never learn.
They do learn, they learned in 1994, its just that they forget easily
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
UKIP score way too high though.
I think, with a big Con win seemingly likely, softer Lib Dems are voting for the 'not the face' option.
No, for the purposes of government income, you have to pay more in tax than you consume. So most bankers and other top rate tax payers probably do create wealth; though I would argue they could create more - ie, they (we) should pay more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
Can you not see why the last paragraph reads oddly?
We have been in the EU for decades, and nothing has been done to improve the wages of carers. In fact, freedom of movement has actively depressed their wages.
Why -- with the magnificent bounty that you imply has come from membership of the EU -- has nothing been done about it? There’s been plenty of time.
Now, you tell us that we won’t be able to pay higher wages if we leave the EU.
But, if so, if the EU was so crucial to paying higher wages for carers, why was that not done in all the years since 1973?
In fact, very few cared about the increasing wealth differences in the country while we were members of the EU.
Now we are leaving, suddenly there are people worried that we won’t be able to pay the “higher wages” for carers that they think are warranted.
I am not saying that we will not be able to pay higher wages. I am saying that there will be a cost to doing so. I am not worried about it. I think it should happen. But I am not sure it is the EU that has prevented it. I think it is more the case that as a country we have not wanted to pay the taxes necessary.
Labour at 32% doesn't seem credible to me. Since those first massive Tory leads, they've apparently put on 7 percentage points. They're being over estimated again.
By the way - I assume people would agree that NHS fat cats who chose to spend zero on cyber protection notwithstanding past attacks and several warnings should be sacked.
’… those critically ill diverted to unaffected hospitals as computer systems failed in A&E units and doctors were locked out of test results, X-rays and patient records. Appointments and operations were cancelled after the “highly co-ordinated and aggressive” attack and many hospitals were pleading with patients to stay away yesterday.’
Never mind, eh?
‘Ms Rudd said there were lessons to be learnt from the attack, which disrupted IT systems across the NHS, bringing widespread disruption to scheduled procedures and some emergency services. Before a government Cobra meeting this afternoon, she said: “So far, all we have seen is patients inconvenienced, some hospitals, some doctors making changes to their daily life.’
’… those critically ill diverted to unaffected hospitals as computer systems failed in A&E units and doctors were locked out of test results, X-rays and patient records. Appointments and operations were cancelled after the “highly co-ordinated and aggressive” attack and many hospitals were pleading with patients to stay away yesterday.’
Never mind, eh?
‘Ms Rudd said there were lessons to be learnt from the attack, which disrupted IT systems across the NHS, bringing widespread disruption to scheduled procedures and some emergency services. Before a government Cobra meeting this afternoon, she said: “So far, all we have seen is patients inconvenienced, some hospitals, some doctors making changes to their daily life.’
Well, that's all right then.
Gimme strength.
Yeah, putting her in as CoE would be a big mistake.
Only MOE stuff, but Farron needs to pull his socks up.
What could he do? They have attacked both Tories and Labour to show the LDs as a distinct option, but people are returning to Lab and not leaving the Tories, should the polls be even close to correct. Corbyn cannot perform any gaffe that would change things, that's already priced in, so best case scenario for the LDs is ramped up Tory attacks on the man clue in people who were not aware, and then those people go LD.
Following their failure to make expected gains in the locals, I no longer see much hope for the LDs in the short term - they might still pick up a few gains in concentrated areas, and hopefully defend the ones they currently hold although doing so with all of them will be a challenge, but in terms of widespread improvement in vote share and improved position if not seat gain nationwide, there's little to back that up. As per my favourite word, moribund.
’… those critically ill diverted to unaffected hospitals as computer systems failed in A&E units and doctors were locked out of test results, X-rays and patient records. Appointments and operations were cancelled after the “highly co-ordinated and aggressive” attack and many hospitals were pleading with patients to stay away yesterday.’
Never mind, eh?
‘Ms Rudd said there were lessons to be learnt from the attack, which disrupted IT systems across the NHS, bringing widespread disruption to scheduled procedures and some emergency services. Before a government Cobra meeting this afternoon, she said: “So far, all we have seen is patients inconvenienced, some hospitals, some doctors making changes to their daily life.’
I was under the impression that the NHS got charged for that sort of expense - its an issue things we would like.
The warm climate.
As taxes.
Brexit wait?
"Carers don't create wealth"
Then who does? Hairdressers? Writers? Teachers? Bankers? Do you have to make something you can drop on your foot for it to count as making wealth?
No, more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
Ifwages.
I understand what you are saying now. But this is to regard people's worth on in terms of how much tax they can pay; indeed you seem to be defining 'wealth' as synonymous with 'government tax and spending'.
Yep - in the sense I was using it for this specific debate, that is what I do mean. However, I think that wealth creation is only one part of the much wider concept of value creation. You can create value and deliver extraordinary benefits to wider society without directly creating wealth. Teachers do that, as do many other public and private sector workers. That's why I believe in a strong, redistributive state. Value creators need to be incentivised and looked after, just as much as wealth creators.
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
UKIP score way too high though.
Kipper score should be roughly just over half of the VI score shouldn't it? Prob standing in places they are likely to do ok
By the way - I assume people would agree that NHS fat cats who chose to spend zero on cyber protection notwithstanding past attacks and several warnings should be sacked.
Yes for gross incompetence and irresponsibility ..... and therefore without any compensation.
Labour at 32% doesn't seem credible to me. Since those first massive Tory leads, they've apparently put on 7 percentage points. They're being over estimated again.
Maybe. But people can act oddly and a lot of people really do not want a massive Tory majority. Perhaps they will reconsider in the privacy of the voting booth, it's possible every company is wrong in showing a rise in Lab support, and the Tories are still way in front, but barring the most inefficient vote in history, if they do get into the 30s they should be in place easier to recover from at least. And Corbyn can argue a lot more credibly that he does not put off voters, and he has been undermined by lack of support. The moderates will, at least, need to put up or shut up (in fairness they have mostly been quiet for months, they just whinge off the record).
This is why the NHS should be run from the centre and many things mandated. The present federal structure, with every Trust doing its own thing, means this sort of thing can happen far more easily. Cyber security always get cut first.
Not sure it's federal in England, it seems more like a botched attempt at a market, with hospitals and GPs competing against each other and not sharing budgets in the best interests of all patients.
For unknown reasons, NHS Wales is unaffected. But if it turns out to be related to better management, maybe Labour should take a bit of credit
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
UKIP score way too high though.
Kipper score should be roughly just over half of the VI score shouldn't it? Prob standing in places they are likely to do ok
Some places perhaps. I'd be interested in an analysis, as they are standing down in some places they did very well, explicitly to help the local Brexity candidate in some cases. They got 18% in my area last time and aren't standing this time.
OT Blimey, just seem just how many seats the LDs held in the SW in 2010, and how unlikely they are to make inroads this time. Rough times.
I was under the impression that the NHS got charged for that sort of expense - its an issue things we would like.
The warm climate.
As taxes.
Brexit wait?
"Carers don't create wealth"
Then who does? Hairdressers? Writers? Teachers? Bankers? Do you have to make something you can drop on your foot for it to count as making wealth?
No, more tax.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
Ifwages.
I understand what you are saying now. But this is to regard people's worth on in terms of how much tax they can pay; indeed you seem to be defining 'wealth' as synonymous with 'government tax and spending'.
Yep - in the sense I was using it for this specific debate, that is what I do mean. However, I think that wealth creation is only one part of the much wider concept of value creation. You can create value and deliver extraordinary benefits to wider society without directly creating wealth. Teachers do that, as do many other public and private sector workers. That's why I believe in a strong, redistributive state. Value creators need to be incentivised and looked after, just as much as wealth creators.
How do you feel about companies? Google, for instance, is notorious for not paying a huge amount in tax, and so by your definition not a wealth creator, but it has utterly transformed the average persons access to information. I often tell classes that the iPad they have on their desk gives them access in a much easier way to more information than I had available to me when I was at university with a copyright library across the road. Similarly Apple with iTunes U. Surely that is adding a huge amount of value?
Labour at 32% doesn't seem credible to me. Since those first massive Tory leads, they've apparently put on 7 percentage points. They're being over estimated again.
Couldn't we also be seeing something along the lines of Con - 2%, Lab +2%, compared with some other recent polls? Baxterising these numbers produces: Con 374, Lab 194, LibDem 5, UKIP 0 ... Con Maj of 98.
Value creators need to be incentivised and looked after, just as much as wealth creators.
You're drawing a distinction where there isn't one. "Wealth" is not different from "Value". "Adding value" is synonymous with "creating wealth". They aren't in any way different. They are the same thing.
Things are only "wealth" if people want them. If people don't want them any more, they stop being "wealth"
We invented "money" so we could measure value. We invented "capitalism" so we could prioritise our actions and select the higher-value options over the lower-value ones. The "free market" enables us to make this selection efficiently. But none of it works if you make an artificial distinction between "wealth" and "value".
I've had an email from Malwarebytes to say I'm covered for this infection with their Premium version (if your running the Malwarebytes free edition you aren't covered)
That sounds shitty but isn't. The free version is a malware removal tool, whereas the Premium version is also an antivirus suite that scans files as you use them.
Windows Defender will detect it, if that is running, on W8 and W10. For older versions such as W7, download Microsoft Security Essentials software
I have Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender for Windows 10 so I think I'm going to be OK.
Would it be worth getting a third anti-virus software at some point (thinking maybe Norton?) or should MB an WD be enough?
GIN, just back up your data and scrub the whole thing if any scrote hacks you , much cheaper.
Labour at 32% doesn't seem credible to me. Since those first massive Tory leads, they've apparently put on 7 percentage points. They're being over estimated again.
Value creators need to be incentivised and looked after, just as much as wealth creators.
You're drawing a distinction where there isn't one. "Wealth" is not different from "Value". "Adding value" is synonymous with "creating wealth". They aren't in any way different. They are the same thing.
Things are only "wealth" if people want them. If people don't want them any more, they stop being "wealth"
We invented "money" so we could measure value. We invented "capitalism" so we could prioritise our actions and select the higher-value options over the lower-value ones. The "free market" enables us to make this selection efficiently. But none of it works if you make an artificial distinction between "wealth" and "value".
Comments
We just have to content ourselves with Neil Mostyn Hamilton in Wales.
In terms of the private sector, wealth creators are the people who run businesses.
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
In practice though I expect SE England to remain over populated, not least because of inward migration from other parts of Britain, including Wales. It is pretty certain to still be the economic powerhouse of the nation as we continue de-industrialisation.
We have been in the EU for decades, and nothing has been done to improve the wages of carers. In fact, freedom of movement has actively depressed their wages.
Why -- with the magnificent bounty that you imply has come from membership of the EU -- has nothing been done about it? There’s been plenty of time.
Now, you tell us that we won’t be able to pay higher wages if we leave the EU.
But, if so, if the EU was so crucial to paying higher wages for carers, why was that not done in all the years since 1973?
In fact, very few cared about the increasing wealth differences in the country while we were members of the EU.
Now we are leaving, suddenly there are people worried that we won’t be able to pay the “higher wages” for carers that they think are warranted.
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/exclusive-telegraph-orb-poll-conservatives-lead-across-social/
UKIP score way too high though.
Labour never learn.
SouthamObserver
If wealth creators in the private sector cannot pay the higher wages for carers that have been promised by the Brexiteers, the choice will be to downgrade the care we give to the elderly or for the state to take on more of the cost of care. Or not to pay the higher wages.
'Can you not see why the last paragraph reads oddly?
We have been in the EU for decades, and nothing has been done to improve the wages of carers. In fact, freedom of movement has actively depressed their wages.
Why -- with the magnificent bounty that you imply has come from membership of the EU -- has nothing been done about it? There’s been plenty of time.
Now, you tell us that we won’t be able to pay higher wages if we leave the EU.
But, if so, if the EU was so crucial to paying higher wages for carers, why was that not done in all the years since 1973?
In fact, very few cared about the increasing wealth differences in the country while we were members of the EU.
Now we are leaving, suddenly there are people worried that we won’t be able to pay the “higher wages” for carers that they think are warranted.'
Game,set & match.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39906584
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/exclusive-telegraph-orb-poll-conservatives-lead-across-social/
Working class favour tories and Labour / Tories neck and neck with public sector workers.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/huge-hack-attack-hits-hospitals-g52s0czj9
’… those critically ill diverted to unaffected hospitals as computer systems failed in A&E units and doctors were locked out of test results, X-rays and patient records. Appointments and operations were cancelled after the “highly co-ordinated and aggressive” attack and many hospitals were pleading with patients to stay away yesterday.’
Never mind, eh?
‘Ms Rudd said there were lessons to be learnt from the attack, which disrupted IT systems across the NHS, bringing widespread disruption to scheduled procedures and some emergency services. Before a government Cobra meeting this afternoon, she said: “So far, all we have seen is patients inconvenienced, some hospitals, some doctors making changes to their daily life.’
Well, that's all right then.
Gimme strength.
@e_casalicchio: Ex-DPM John Prescott speaks now. Says it's "a pity" Labour cannot present its message as Gordon Brown just did. #GE2017
@PolhomeEditor: His son was Jeremy Corbyn's speech writer! twitter.com/e_casalicchio/…
Following their failure to make expected gains in the locals, I no longer see much hope for the LDs in the short term - they might still pick up a few gains in concentrated areas, and hopefully defend the ones they currently hold although doing so with all of them will be a challenge, but in terms of widespread improvement in vote share and improved position if not seat gain nationwide, there's little to back that up. As per my favourite word, moribund.
See the links I posted last night. This was a known problem, the trusts had been warned more than once and some had even suffered past attacks.
Yet, some trusts spend ZERO yes ZERO on cyber defences.
Ask yourself why some trusts unaffected? blind chance or some actually took steps to defend themselves as much as they could?
Anyway, they all have contingency and back up plans right?
http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2017/05/wannacry.html
Note that it starts the spread to other systems before it encrypts the host.
NEW THREAD
For unknown reasons, NHS Wales is unaffected. But if it turns out to be related to better management, maybe Labour should take a bit of credit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39907239
OT Blimey, just seem just how many seats the LDs held in the SW in 2010, and how unlikely they are to make inroads this time. Rough times.
Baxterising these numbers produces: Con 374, Lab 194, LibDem 5, UKIP 0 ... Con Maj of 98.
Things are only "wealth" if people want them. If people don't want them any more, they stop being "wealth"
We invented "money" so we could measure value. We invented "capitalism" so we could prioritise our actions and select the higher-value options over the lower-value ones. The "free market" enables us to make this selection efficiently. But none of it works if you make an artificial distinction between "wealth" and "value".
"Wealth" and "value" are the same thing.