"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
Indeed the Remainers in Parliament made a tremendous strategic mistake rejecting May's flaccidly soft Brexit.
As I said at the time I was genuinely surprised that the Conservative Party should have set in motion a path to Irish reunification.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
All you have done is explain the con trick.
Because legally you are right, if we leave the EU in January Brexit is thereby done.
But voters are thinking about when Brexit uncertainty vacates the news, when parliamentary time is able to turn fully to other matters, and when the risk of a crash out no deal exit goes away. And when the armies of civil servants and myriad people in large companies working on Brexit will return to more worthwhile work. None of these will happen in 2020.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
Recessions happen, its a fact of life. The fact that Labour overspent prior to the recession and left us so vulnerable to a recession was caused by Labour - and Brown's hubris in thinking he had "ended boom and bust".
Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.
Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.
We had a recession under the prior Tory government.
The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
Labour did not overspend (unless you mean it in a political sense rather than an economic one) by either historical or international comparisons. Do not be misled by 2010-era Conservative propaganda.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
We’ll be repudiating and/or demanding rewrites if trade treaties every five years? Nothing like a stable business environment to entice medium and long term investment.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, .
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
I think that is a myth:
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
We’ll be repudiating and/or demanding rewrites if trade treaties every five years? Nothing like a stable business environment to entice medium and long term investment.
No. Not what I said. I said if you don't like it you would be able to. If you like the deal we have then we can leave it. Yes that is the sort of stable business environment other normal developed non EU nations have.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
It's not conspicuously intact. The abandonment of most of the time limits has led to waiting times spiralling out of control. No institution just ceases to exist overnight unless explicitly abolished, but neglected enough, it withers away.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Nice use of nominal figures there.
I mean it's still impressive we are spending ten times as much as a nation on the NHS but that 340 figure is pure bollocks.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
A Midlands mining family, please.
And what in your background makes you so unbearably smug?
I come from modest background myself from Wigan. My father was a salesman, my mother a secretary, certainly I have worked hard for my success, but I also benefitted from a good state education, free university, the NHS, and a society that encouraged social mobility. When I see the left behind, my attitude is "there but for the Grace of God go I" plenty of my peers didn't make it out.
Morning fellow PBers and on thread, I watch Michael Bloomberg's business channel every morning since it is better than the guff the BBC and ITV churn out. However the longer this pre-election election campaign runs in the USA, the more I think to myself, why can't a country with 300+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't old age pensioners to run for the role of "Leader of the Free World"! Never before will the choice of VP be more important since the statistical chance of one or other candidate for VP becoming President mid-term can not have been greater.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
Recessions happen, its a fact of life. The fact that Labour overspent prior to the recession and left us so vulnerable to a recession was caused by Labour - and Brown's hubris in thinking he had "ended boom and bust".
Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.
Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.
We had a recession under the prior Tory government.
The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
Labour did not overspend (unless you mean it in a political sense rather than an economic one) by either historical or international comparisons. Do not be misled by 2010-era Conservative propaganda.
Labour overspent when they should have been saving when the economy was doing well. That is why we were so badly affected by the crash and were one of the last countries to come out of the subsequent recession. It is not propaganda it is fact. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Recessions happen, its a fact of life. The fact that Labour overspent prior to the recession and left us so vulnerable to a recession was caused by Labour - and Brown's hubris in thinking he had "ended boom and bust".
FPT We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.
We had a recession under the prior Tory government.
The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
Labour did not overspend (unless you mean it in a political sense rather than an economic one) by either historical or international comparisons. Do not be misled by 2010-era Conservative propaganda.
Yes it did. Debt to GDP has fallen Year on Year almost every year since WWII except for in the aftermath of recessions with only one exception - from 2002 onwards.
Up to 2002 debt to GDP was falling. Consistently from 2002 onwards for the first time in postwar history debt to GDP was rising!
Then when the inevitable recession hit debt exploded. Because rather than following Keynesian economics and bringing debt down during times of growth Brown chose to increase debt during growth ... if you choose to increase debt during growth the result when the recession hits is catastrophic.
Name any other recession in post war British history that was entered after years of increasing rather than reducing debt to GDP.
Morning fellow PBers and on thread, I watch Michael Bloomberg's business channel every morning since it is better than the guff the BBC and ITV churn out. However the longer this pre-election election campaign runs in the USA, the more I think to myself, why can't a country with 300+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't old age pensioners to run for the role of "Leader of the Free World"! Never before will the choice of VP be more important since the statistical chance of one or other candidate for VP becoming President mid-term can not have been greater.
Every day I think to myself why can't a country with 60+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't narcissists or messianic cultists to run for the role of Leader?
Labour overspent when they should have been saving when the economy was doing well. That is why we were so badly affected by the crash and were one of the last countries to come out of the subsequent recession. It is not propaganda it is fact. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Of course! If Labour were not overspending debt to GDP would have been falling. It's a simple number.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, .
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
I think that is a myth:
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
If you are in residential care or a nursing home you already have to sell your home to pay for it, it is at home care that is exempt and the dementia tax wrongly targeted
Morning fellow PBers and on thread, I watch Michael Bloomberg's business channel every morning since it is better than the guff the BBC and ITV churn out. However the longer this pre-election election campaign runs in the USA, the more I think to myself, why can't a country with 300+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't old age pensioners to run for the role of "Leader of the Free World"! Never before will the choice of VP be more important since the statistical chance of one or other candidate for VP becoming President mid-term can not have been greater.
Every day I think to myself why can't a country with 60+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't narcissists or messianic cultists to run for the role of Leader?
No-one vaguely sane would be a politician in a day of 24 hour news and social media where people have both direct access to you and the unfair expectation that you are there all the time to solve their problems for them.
There are far easier ways to make a more than reasonable living.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Morning fellow PBers and on thread, I watch Michael Bloomberg's business channel every morning since it is better than the guff the BBC and ITV churn out. However the longer this pre-election election campaign runs in the USA, the more I think to myself, why can't a country with 300+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't old age pensioners to run for the role of "Leader of the Free World"! Never before will the choice of VP be more important since the statistical chance of one or other candidate for VP becoming President mid-term can not have been greater.
Every day I think to myself why can't a country with 60+ million citizens find a couple of decent candidates who aren't narcissists or messianic cultists to run for the role of Leader?
No-one vaguely sane would be a politician in a day of 24 hour news and social media where people have both direct access to you and the unfair expectation that you are there all the time to solve their problems for them.
There are far easier ways to make a more than reasonable living.
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
"Apply for citizenship"?
I know you're a Tory fluffer but do you knock on doors for them, and if so, have you spoken to EU citizens living in this country? If not, I can shove an already trite answer into the midden of pointless triteness.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
The WASPI women case looks ridiculous. The news of the changes were splashed all over the media for years. My wife and I weren't affected but it was rammed down our throats. Pretending it was 'missed' is ludicrous. As my old granny said … 'there's none so blind as them that won't see."
Are they really claiming … "We are weak and witless women where even spoon-feeding isn't sufficient." They main proponents are well-educated, middle-class women who are taking the piss. or is it … we want equality but not just yet.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
That's a bit unfair. Like most tories he has a longstanding and oft demonstrated concern for the northern working class and jews.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
Ah, that's where I'm going wrong. I shouldn't bother knocking on the doors of anybody with a foreign-sounding name.
I should probably also give a miss to anybody whose name begins Mc. Not going to get any joy there, am I?
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Genuine question: do you think a Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would hurt Trump or the Dems more?
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
Who cares, as long as it is free at the point of use and is either equal, or preferably better than it is today. The NHS provides a service that is often highly inconsistent and far from the best in the world. If more people were more realistic about it instead of treating it as though it were a religion it might improve and become better value for money.
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who choose to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn or McClusky. Two of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Genuine question: do you think a Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would hurt Trump or the Dems more?
The Dems but it would be close, he would appeal to centrist Hillary 2016 voters who can't stand Warren or Sanders and centrist Romney 2012 voters who can't stand Trump and Independents.
He would do well particularly on the coasts and wealthy suburban areas
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's
The Tories were in power for half the seventies.
He means a different seventies. The one in all the papers.
A seventies living out the death rattle of the post war consensus. Incomes and prices policies, rising inflation and unemployment, industrial unrest leading to three day weeks and an oil crisis to top it off.
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Genuine question: do you think a Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would hurt Trump or the Dems more?
The Dems but it would be close, he would appeal to centrist Hillary 2016 voters who can't stand Warren or Sanders and centrist Romney 2012 voters who can't stand Trump and Independents.
He would do well particularly on the coasts and wealthy suburban areas
I guess on the coasts he could do well in terms of votes without impacting the Dems EC position.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
It works well in Australia and many European countries too
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who choose to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn or McClusky. Two of the five people most responsible for this very British calamity
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
It works well in Australia and many European countries too
In countries where health spending is higher than ours?
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
Who cares, as long as it is free at the point of use and is either equal, or preferably better than it is today. The NHS provides a service that is often highly inconsistent and far from the best in the world. If more people were more realistic about it instead of treating it as though it were a religion it might improve and become better value for money.
Agreed, healthcare would still be free at the point of use for middle and low income earners and for the rich in emergencies
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
It works well in Australia and many European countries too
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Genuine question: do you think a Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would hurt Trump or the Dems more?
The Dems, surely? There's a big anti-Trump vote out there that would be split. The pro-Trump vote is visceral and unlikely to be up for any alternative.
Incidentally, I see Sanders has caught up with Biden in the latest poll. But the one before showed him at less than half. The US polling industry desperately needs some minimum standards - they are all over the place to an extent unseen even in the most turbulent times in the UK and other countries.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
Ah, that's where I'm going wrong. I shouldn't bother knocking on the doors of anybody with a foreign-sounding name.
I should probably also give a miss to anybody whose name begins Mc. Not going to get any joy there, am I?
Canvassing with the electoral register in front of you is the normal practice.
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
When Warren or Sanders likely win the Democratic nomination Bloomberg will run as an Independent in the general election, this is a move for a third party bid not a serious run for the Democratic nomination the ex Republican billionaire knows he has zero chance of winning
Genuine question: do you think a Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would hurt Trump or the Dems more?
The Dems but it would be close, he would appeal to centrist Hillary 2016 voters who can't stand Warren or Sanders and centrist Romney 2012 voters who can't stand Trump and Independents.
He would do well particularly on the coasts and wealthy suburban areas
I guess on the coasts he could do well in terms of votes without impacting the Dems EC position.
He might even win counties like Orange County California which are normally Republican but went for Hillary in 2016.
The swing state he would most impact would likely be Florida
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
It works well in Australia and many European countries too
Tories are having a laugh claiming a nurse who is 'persuaded not to leave the NHS' as a "new nurse".
How are they proposing to persuade the nurse? Extra money (which the private sector will match because they have to) or via other methods?
The easiest way would be to ask all the current nurses whether they had ever thought of leaving, count up all those who say 'yes', and then claim them all as new nurses.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
That's a bit unfair. Like most tories he has a longstanding and oft demonstrated concern for the northern working class and jews.
I'm not sure you've ever expressed any concern for anybody. Bar a bit of self-pity at being banned from driving. Oh, and anger at the system for trashing your career - just cuz you stole a tuk-tuk. Oh, the inhumanity.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's
The Tories were in power for half the seventies.
He means a different seventies. The one in all the papers.
A seventies living out the death rattle of the post war consensus. Incomes and prices policies, rising inflation and unemployment, industrial unrest leading to three day weeks and an oil crisis to top it off.
I would have put the oil crisis at the beginning of that description, since it was a major contributor to the problems you list beforehand. Plus of course there were two oil crises in the seventies, the Tories came in after the second crisis. Oil was $3 a barrel at the start of the seventies, essentially unchanged since the 1950s, and $30 a barrel at the end of the decade. And the Tories ran the mother of all unsustainable booms going into the first oil crisis. The story of the seventies is a lot more complicated than the one of Tory mythology.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
A Midlands mining family, please.
And what in your background makes you so unbearably smug?
I come from modest background myself from Wigan. My father was a salesman, my mother a secretary, certainly I have worked hard for my success, but I also benefitted from a good state education, free university, the NHS, and a society that encouraged social mobility. When I see the left behind, my attitude is "there but for the Grace of God go I" plenty of my peers didn't make it out.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, .
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
I think that is a myth:
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.
1984 43.53 1985 43.4 1986
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
Name any other recession in post war British history that was entered after years of increasing rather than reducing debt to GDP.
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
Labour did not overspend (unless you mean it in a political sense rather than an economic one) by either historical or international comparisons. Do not be misled by 2010-era Conservative propaganda.
Yes it did. Debt to GDP has fallen Year on Year almost every year since WWII except for in the aftermath of recessions with only one exception - from 2002 onwards.
Up to 2002 debt to GDP was falling. Consistently from 2002 onwards for the first time in postwar history debt to GDP was rising!
Then when the inevitable recession hit debt exploded. Because rather than following Keynesian economics and bringing debt down during times of growth Brown chose to increase debt during growth ... if you choose to increase debt during growth the result when the recession hits is catastrophic.
Name any other recession in post war British history that was entered after years of increasing rather than reducing debt to GDP.
That is a devestating stat, I had to go and look at the historical chart to convince myself it was true. In terms of debt increases it's like a world war.
But, as a counter point the increased debt shielded the UK population from the impact of the GFC by transferring the cost to future generations. Wise? Maybe in terms of social impact.
What I don't understand is people crying about austerity when it clearly never happened.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
Bit of a waste of resources chapping doors of folk that can't vote. As a matter of interest what to you tell them if they express any dismay at not having a say in the future of the country in which they live?
"Apply for citizenship"?
I know you're a Tory fluffer but do you knock on doors for them, and if so, have you spoken to EU citizens living in this country? If not, I can shove an already trite answer into the midden of pointless triteness.
Your question was already pretty "trite". I'm sorry if my answer offended you so.
You get a vote if you've shown sufficient commitment to the country that we can be reasonably certain you intend to stick around to the end of the parliament. I'm more than happy to defend that position, and I see encouraging take-up of citizenship as a positive regardless of the voting implications.
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who choose to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn or McClusky. Two of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Unless all hospitals are privately run and health care provided mainly by insurance companies for profit with shareholders then the NHS will not be privatised
Fast forward to the 2024 GE and @HYUFD arguing that the Tories' policy of privatisation is the only way to 'save' the NHS.
More choice and the rich required to take out private health insurance as in Australia would certainly help, to be fair to Farage he is proposing the latter, Fox used to propose the former with his 'patients passport'
So, a two-tier health service to go with our two-tier eductation system.
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
It works well in Australia and many European countries too
They spend more money on health than we do.
With private sector money too
No, just with public money. I think only Australia spends less public money (but as you say more money overall once you add private) . But all the European counties you may be thinking of spend more public money AND more private money on health.
That is a devestating stat, I had to go and look at the historical chart to convince myself it was true. In terms of debt increases it's like a world war.
But, as a counter point the increased debt shielded the UK population from the impact of the GFC by transferring the cost to future generations. Wise? Maybe in terms of social impact.
What I don't understand is people crying about austerity when it clearly never happened.
You'd better let some people know.
'Theresa May: People need to know austerity is over'
Tories are having a laugh claiming a nurse who is 'persuaded not to leave the NHS' as a "new nurse".
How are they proposing to persuade the nurse? Extra money (which the private sector will match because they have to) or via other methods?
The easiest way would be to ask all the current nurses whether they had ever thought of leaving, count up all those who say 'yes', and then claim them all as new nurses.
The idea is to increase the total number of nurses. At the moment roughly the same number of nurses leave each year as are recruited. There are two ways to increase the total number: 1 increase the number recruited; 2 decrease the number leaving.
In practice it would probably need a mixture of the two.
Why is trying to reduce the number of nurses leaving the system regarded as a bad thing? It may be an unrealistic goal for some reason, but if that is the case attack it for that reason, not the spurious difference between 50,000 new nurses and 50,000 more nurses. After all, the second is better as those nurses will have, on average, more experience.
As others ha Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, .
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
I think that is a myth:
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
10% is a huge proportion.
Searching around, the average NHS spend on someone in their final year looks to be around £6-£7,000, wth £4,500 per person on average spent in the last 90 days. This includes the costs of those who cost little by dying suddenly, or at home. Grossing this up into a proportion of overall NHS spending is difficult - a Parliamentary report in 2011 put a range of 10-20% of total NHS spend.
From the Guardian (2013):Health spending per person steeply increases after the age of 50, with people aged 85 and over costing the NHS an average of £7,000 a year. Spending on health services across all age groups is £2,069, according to Treasury analysis.
be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, .
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
I think that is a myth:
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
10% is a huge proportion.
Searching around, the average NHS spend on someone in their final year looks to be around £6-£7,000, wth £4,500 per person on average spent in the last 90 days. This includes the costs of those who cost nothing by dying suddenly, or at home. Grossing this up into a proportion of overall NHS spending is difficult - a Parliamentary report in 2011 put a range of 10-20% of total NHS spend.
I read somewhere recently (sorry for the lack of reference, but I can’t be bothered to look it up) that bladder cancer is the most expensive to treat because patients tend to live with it for a long time and have multiple recurrences. Likewise diabetes is hideously expensive for the NHS.
Tories are having a laugh claiming a nurse who is 'persuaded not to leave the NHS' as a "new nurse".
How are they proposing to persuade the nurse? Extra money (which the private sector will match because they have to) or via other methods?
The easiest way would be to ask all the current nurses whether they had ever thought of leaving, count up all those who say 'yes', and then claim them all as new nurses.
The idea is to increase the total number of nurses. At the moment roughly the same number of nurses leave each year as are recruited. There are two ways to increase the total number: 1 increase the number recruited; 2 decrease the number leaving.
In practice it would probably need a mixture of the two.
Why is trying to reduce the number of nurses leaving the system regarded as a bad thing? It may be an unrealistic goal for some reason, but if that is the case attack it for that reason, not the spurious difference between 50,000 new nurses and 50,000 more nurses. After all, the second is better as those nurses will have, on average, more experience.
What tools except increased pay is available to increase nurse retention?
If you are not very careful you will just end up paying everyone more and delaying the inevitable by a one off 6 month period.
Comments
Because legally you are right, if we leave the EU in January Brexit is thereby done.
But voters are thinking about when Brexit uncertainty vacates the news, when parliamentary time is able to turn fully to other matters, and when the risk of a crash out no deal exit goes away. And when the armies of civil servants and myriad people in large companies working on Brexit will return to more worthwhile work. None of these will happen in 2020.
"In England, where information is restricted to hospital care, £1 in every £10 spent on hospital care is spent in the last year of life."
from: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8737
Healthcare spend is disproportionately in hospital, and on the elderly, but the return in terms of health is worthwhile financially as well as socially.
Social Care spend is much more aligned to the last year of life. I think the Median time before death in a nursing home is six months, though obviously the range is vast. I was one of the few supporters of the "Dementia Tax" as a £100 000 cap on costs would have only involve government spending on a minority.
I mean it's still impressive we are spending ten times as much as a nation on the NHS but that 340 figure is pure bollocks.
Up to 2002 debt to GDP was falling. Consistently from 2002 onwards for the first time in postwar history debt to GDP was rising!
Then when the inevitable recession hit debt exploded. Because rather than following Keynesian economics and bringing debt down during times of growth Brown chose to increase debt during growth ... if you choose to increase debt during growth the result when the recession hits is catastrophic.
Name any other recession in post war British history that was entered after years of increasing rather than reducing debt to GDP.
Uk population growth from 2000 -> 2008 = 5%.
So 63.7% growth per capita.
There are far easier ways to make a more than reasonable living.
If fewer leave then we will have more than otherwise - true or false?
Are they really claiming … "We are weak and witless women where even spoon-feeding isn't sufficient." They main proponents are well-educated, middle-class women who are taking the piss. or is it … we want equality but not just yet.
Anyone know if the Conservatives ppledged £350m a week for the NHS in their manifesto?
I should probably also give a miss to anybody whose name begins Mc. Not going to get any joy there, am I?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
(from around 07:10)
Yep, I am sure that's where the Tories would like to go. Presumably it's flagged up in your manifesto for all to see?
For those who choose to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn or McClusky. Two of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
He would do well particularly on the coasts and wealthy suburban areas
Incidentally, I see Sanders has caught up with Biden in the latest poll. But the one before showed him at less than half. The US polling industry desperately needs some minimum standards - they are all over the place to an extent unseen even in the most turbulent times in the UK and other countries.
If there is one thing I dislike in life - it's complexity as it just adds costs.
The swing state he would most impact would likely be Florida
This thread has been prorogued
Yours is such an enlghtened land.
You get a vote if you've shown sufficient commitment to the country that we can be reasonably certain you intend to stick around to the end of the parliament. I'm more than happy to defend that position, and I see encouraging take-up of citizenship as a positive regardless of the voting implications.
'Theresa May: People need to know austerity is over'
https://tinyurl.com/vjtkx2h
'''Austerity is over,' says Philip Hammond as £12 billion windfall sees spending increase'
https://tinyurl.com/yycrv9lg
'Chancellor Sajid Javid declares end of austerity'
https://tinyurl.com/y4c5bfca
1 increase the number recruited;
2 decrease the number leaving.
In practice it would probably need a mixture of the two.
Why is trying to reduce the number of nurses leaving the system regarded as a bad thing? It may be an unrealistic goal for some reason, but if that is the case attack it for that reason, not the spurious difference between 50,000 new nurses and 50,000 more nurses. After all, the second is better as those nurses will have, on average, more experience.
From the Guardian (2013):Health spending per person steeply increases after the age of 50, with people aged 85 and over costing the NHS an average of £7,000 a year. Spending on health services across all age groups is £2,069, according to Treasury analysis.
If you are not very careful you will just end up paying everyone more and delaying the inevitable by a one off 6 month period.