FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: "At 1pm Mark Mardell asks whether democracy has had its day".

Yesterday the bbc asked the same of capitalism.

Both systems have proved much better than the alternatives, even if they sometimes generate results that one doesn't like.

Sean_F said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: "At 1pm Mark Mardell asks whether democracy has had its day".

Yesterday the bbc asked the same of capitalism.

Both systems have proved much better than the alternatives, even if they sometimes generate results that one doesn't like.

Absolutely.

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

It's not already in crisis? Makes A Change. Dr foxinsox has said he's not the worst health secretary we've had, so he might handle it ok.

I don't think Hunt particularly bad, but the stretch on resources term prospects of medicine in the UK.

The average GP gets an average £90 000 a year, comfortably in the top 10% of earners and just under 4 times the average UK salary.

There are far more things to be worried about than medics.

Yet, GP's have very poor morale and either quit or go
There is much that could be done to improve morale and often quite cheaply. I am not agitating for a pay rise.

GPs are amongst the top earners in the UK with the most holiday, I have little time for complaints from them.

Having spent a lifetime in and around the NHS and now being a (far too frequent) patient ..... not that bad really....... I agree with Dr Fox. Most ..... pretty well all ..... nce even if the necessity wasn’t!

Well the only way to cut down on demand in the NHS eally looking to that yet

I’ve been waiting for years to see a Chancellor ght.

That takes us towards the disastrous US system, which we truly must do everything to avoid.

If we had the US system all healthcare treatment would require having an insurance policy unless you were elderly in which case you would get Medicare or very poor in which case you might get Medicaid.

You mean the most expensive system in the World?

I was not advocating the US model, more the French or Australian model.

Though the best US healthcare for those who can afford it is much better than that provided in the NHS.

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

In France taking out government provided health insurance is compulsory for employees and the government refunds 70% of the costs of most GP visits and 100% for serious complaints. You can also take out private health insurance on top of that.

We have NICs; they have compulsory insurance. Their way is more expensive.

Yes and NICs were originally supposed to fund healthcare

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

I wonder how much higher the unemployment rate would be, or the rate of underemployment.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

She shouldn't worry about it. If she doesn't retain her seat she could be PM from the Lords.

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

How’s about the wages of county council chief execs, NHS trust directors and university vice-chancellors by comparison?

We should care more about those we pay from public funds, than those who contribute massively to the Exchequer.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

Mrs May stuck to the rules to have an election this year.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

Mrs May stuck to the rules to have an election this year.

She stuck to the rule that let the government change the rules is what she did

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

The GE did not involve bending or changing the rules. I don't know what the Tory rules say and how that would be a barrier to Rudd trying to switch to safer seat in that scenario, but if they don't allow it, that would not be the same as the GE, as the Fixed Terms Act has clear rules on permitting an early election and those were followed.

David_Evershed said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The NHS crisis is not so much financial as demographic. Older people have much greater health needs and Britain continues to get older. NHS services will need to be cut or charges will need to be introduced or other public services will need to be cut or tax will need to go up. Or, more likely, a combination of all of these.

A top surgeon told me that something like 70% of NHS spending is spent on people who are in the last six months of their life. This applies whether people are living until an average age of 70 or an average age of 90.

This means that as the average age of those dying has increased, NHS spending on those dying (the bulk of spending) has been push back in time. Now the average age of dying has stopped increasing this element of spending will stop being deferred.

However, there is a question about whether spending most on those dying would be better spent on preventing illness amongst the younger people who have many years still left to live - assuming you can tell those who are within the last six months of life.

"A top surgeon told me that something like 70% of NHS spending is spent on people who are in the last six months of their life."

I think I'm going to need a source for that, Bob.

10% of the NHS budget is attributable to diabetes, i.e. a chronic condition not (particularly) associated with those close to death.

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Like so many other parts of our creaking country, the NHS suffers because it is impossible to take a long-term view of it. What we need is a consensus around how it should develop and be funded. But we will never get it, because every four or five years we have a FPTP election which is decided in 100 or so constituencies where certain kinds of swing voter hold sway. Politically, there is just no way that the NHS can ever be reformed so that it looks a lot more like the very high-standard health services you see in many parts of mainland Europe.

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: "At 1pm Mark Mardell asks whether democracy has had its day".

Well I didn't vote for that.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Like so many other parts of our creaking country, the NHS suffers because it is impossible to take a long-term view of it. What we need is a consensus around how it should develop and be funded. But we will never get it, because every four or five years we have a FPTP election which is decided in 100 or so constituencies where certain kinds of swing voter hold sway. Politically, there is just no way that the NHS can ever be reformed so that it looks a lot more like the very high-standard health services you see in many parts of mainland Europe.

A depressing thought, but accurate. And every now and then they'll make noises about consensus, but these things take years to sort out anyway, and an election is up, or could be up at any time, and its back to partisan nonsense.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

Well worth it for a much better health system and most people would be fine with it.

Sandpit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Absolutely agree. The US system is as broken as the British system unless you have a “Cadillac” policy, the whole thing is held to ransom by the drug companies and lawyers - the average doctor pays something like $250k a year in professional indemnity insurance premiums.

One political advantage of my idea to increase private insurance among the working, is that is might have some effect on the religious worship of the NHS and open people’s minds to the idea of alternate ways of doing things. Anyone who’s lived abroad will know that the NHS isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

There is a tension in the UK between those who want local general hospitals so patients get treated locally and those who want specialist hospitals to which patients have to travel further. It is claimed the specialist hospitals will provide higher quality care at lower cost.

Local MPS resist closure of the l;ocal general hospital on the assumption that their constituents don't want to travel further away to get better quality treatment. Constituents care less about the cost because they don't face a bill themselves other than through general taxation.

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Like so many other parts of our creaking country, the NHS suffers because it is impossible to take a long-term view of it. What we need is a consensus around how it should develop and be funded. But we will never get it, because every four or five years we have a FPTP election which is decided in 100 or so constituencies where certain kinds of swing voter hold sway. Politically, there is just no way that the NHS can ever be reformed so that it looks a lot more like the very high-standard health services you see in many parts of mainland Europe.

A depressing thought, but accurate. And every now and then they'll make noises about consensus, but these things take years to sort out anyway, and an election is up, or could be up at any time, and its back to partisan nonsense.

We saw it with funding dementia care in both 2010 and in June - Death taxes and Dementia Taxes. Pathetic and hugely damaging. Our political system does not allow for long-termism.

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

kle4 said:

Dadge said:

kle4 said:

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

The GE did not involve bending or changing the rules. I don't know what the Tory rules say and how that would be a barrier to Rudd trying to switch to safer seat in that scenario, but if they don't allow it, that would not be the same as the GE, as the Fixed Terms Act has clear rules on permitting an early election and those were followed.

Yes they were followed, but right up until May made her announcement, most commentators, on here and elsewhere, were sceptical that anyone would abuse the law in that way in order to call an early general election..

I certainly take your point about the Tories probably being able to find a way to change things in their own rules if they wanted, but I still have take issue with your characterisation of the early GE. The law was not abused, it was followed.

This is disingenuous. Go back and read PB and other forums if your memory is weak. The law was not intended to be used in the way that May used it, and most people doubted that she (or anyone else) would try such a manoeuvre.

kle4 said:

It would be bad look for Rudd though to become leader, and then be shown to be so frit in her own seat that she jumped ship.

I think people would understand the situation alright - she can hardly go campaigning around the country if she needs to be campaigning in her constituency.

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: "At 1pm Mark Mardell asks whether democracy has had its day".

Yesterday the bbc asked the same of capitalism.

Has the BBC had its day?

Dadge said:

kle4 said:

Dadge said:

kle4 said:

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dadge said:

I'll scream the next time someone says Rudd's majority is a barrier to her being leader. If she becomes leader, one of her colleagues will step aside and allow her to be selected for a safe seat. Nick Soames maybe.

Tory rules prevent Amber Rudd doing a chicken run like that.

She’d be only allowed to switch seats if her seat is substantially altered by boundary changes.

Rules shmules. We weren't supposed to have a general election this year, but that didn't prove much of a barrier to Mrs May engineering one. The Tories could easily bend or change the rules to make allowance for this special case.

The GE did not involve bending or changing the rules. I don't know what the Tory rules say and how that would be a barrier to Rudd trying to switch to safer seat in that scenario, but if they don't allow it, that would not be the same as the GE, as the Fixed Terms Act has clear rules on permitting an early election and those were followed.

Yes they were followed, but right up until May made her announcement, most commentators, on here and elsewhere, were sceptical that anyone would abuse the law in that way in order to call an early general election..

I certainly take your point about the Tories probably being able to find a way to change things in their own rules if they wanted, but I still have take issue with your characterisation of the early GE. The law was not abused, it was followed.

This is disingenuous. Go back and read PB and other forums if your memory is weak. The law was not intended to be used in the way that May used it, and most people doubted that she (or anyone else) would try such a manoeuvre.

kle4 said:

It would be bad look for Rudd though to become leader, and then be shown to be so frit in her own seat that she jumped ship.

I think people would understand the situation alright - she can hardly go campaigning around the country if she needs to be campaigning in her constituency.

The only reason for the FTPA in the first place, was that Nick Clegg wanted to prevent Cameron from going to the Palace before 2015.

Dadge said:

This is disingenuous. Go back and read PB and other forums if your memory is weak. The law was not intended to be used in the way that May used it, and most people doubted that she (or anyone else) would try such a manoeuvre.

kle4 said:

It would be bad look for Rudd though to become leader, and then be shown to be so frit in her own seat that she jumped ship.

I think people would understand the situation alright - she can hardly go campaigning around the country if she needs to be campaigning in her constituency.

I don't see how it is disingenuous in the slightest and I am insulted at the suggestion. For the record I disagreed with May's decision to call for an early GE. I thought it the wrong time for one, and her reason for changing her mind on calling for an early one was flimsy to say the least, it was for partisan advantage. But it is factually the case the law was not abused, and you are simply incorrect if you say that it was.

Section 2(1) of the Act states 'An early general election is to take place if a) the house of commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection 2, and b) if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number to or greater than two thirds of the Numbers of seats in the house (including vacant seats)'

That's what it says. If the house wants an early GE, it can vote to have it. And you call me disingenuous for accurately pointing out that the Act permits exactly what May did? I recall quite clearly that many many people did not like what was quite blatantly the real reason for the calling of the vote - giant poll leads for the Tories - but the law does not say you cannot use that as a reason to call for one, so 'the law wasn't meant to be used in that way' is just bullshit reasoning. The law doesn't saw they need to provide a reason. They should have had a better one, but when 522 MPs for vs 13 against follow the provisions of the Act to call an early GE, calling the law abused is ridiculous.

If you want to claim the spirit of the law was not followed, that's one thing, but even that is a stretch, since the spirit of the law was that if the commons thinks it is a good idea to have an early GE, it should have the power to call for one. Given parliamentary sovereignty, it is up to them, and they said, 'that's fine, Mrs May'. Including the opposition.

As for Rudd, some people would understand that, but the other reaction could be 'if she is worthy of leading the country, she should be able to win her constituency even if she cannot spend every day there campaigning'. PMs don't have to do all the campaigning themselves either, these things should be more team efforts.

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

It was 67 years ago today when my uncle Frank told me that if I stood on the corner of Spencer Street and Gower Street in Oldham I would see a man go by with as many noses as days left in the year.

I ran outside, very excited, to see this extraordinary man. I saw many men with one nose but after a couple of hours standing in the cold I came back home disappointed to be greeted by laughter by everyone including my parents and grandparents. I've never forgotten it.

Magnificent!

My father once sent out a rather naive young assistant to get a verbal agreement stamp, and he spent three hours looking for one. But I think your Uncle Frank's is better.

Happy New Year.

The military are the experts at the wild goose chase, sending new recruits out for a long weight, three copies of Form ID 10 T, a hundred feet of flight line, a bucket of prop wash and a tin of striped paint, among lots of other things.
https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=98359

Happy New Year to all PBers!

Sandpit said:

.

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Absolutely agree. The

One political advantage of my idea to increase private insurance among the working, is that is might have some effect on the religious worship of the NHS and open people’s minds to the idea of alternate ways of doing things. Anyone who’s lived abroad will know that the NHS isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

One effect is likely to occur is that the working (and Labour inclined) young will have less incentive to suport an NHS that mostly serves Tory voting pensioners. Such is the way the tectonic plates of politics shift when the age divide becomes the faultline rather than social class.

Private medicine in the UK is very restricted in range though. It would be a major shift to have comprehensive private hospitals.

I think it will take an awfully long time before the Labour-supporting young give up on the idea of the NHS!

I’m not too sure there would be the demand for private general hospitals, except in half a dozen larger cities. What’s more likely is more private wards attached to NHS hospitals, with the private companies renting facilities and capital equipment out of hours providing extra income for the NHS, and expansion of small private clinics offering GP and outpatient treatment.

Yes, I agree that the rivate sector would continue and expand as a parasite on the NHS rather than an alternative. A sort of NHS Speedy Boarding plus, where customers revert to State funding when the money runs out.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

One in a million, it is all well fixed with their cronies and majority of shareholder shave no say. You could as easily say policy in Scotland is down to voters when reality is the same , they count for nothing unless they luckily coincide with the 86% other opinion.

If a company is underperforming shareholders will react on executive pay just as if voters are sufficiently disillusioned in Scotland other parties will emerge to replace the current ones

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

malcolmg said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

Well worth it for a much better health system and most people would be fine with it.

There's a positive note to end on - we can hope so.

Good day all.

Rebourne_Fluffy said:

malcolmg said:

Rebourne_Fluffy said:

"Growth in 'Wage-Stagnation'" is an oxymoron. Please learn to speak The Queen's English.

LOL, from Mr Gobbledygook himself , how ironic.

Abstract-thoughts are not "gobbledygook" Unckie-Clown: Please report to OKC for lines (albeit in the vernacular Essex-speak).

You doth protest too much Fluffer, random thoughts perhaps is best you could get, many would just conclude gibberish

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

Laws such as used in Nordic countries whereby they must pay the lowest paid get a minimum % of the CEO renumeration seems to work well. It means much better pay at bottom and lower sensible pay at the top as they cannot indulge in untrammelled greed and take all the money as the Tories do here.

HYUFD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

Because the p in plc stands for private, of course.

They are private companies just publicly listed on the stock exchange or in which the public can buy shares

Legally speaking you are wrong. A private company is a company where shares can only be bought by arrangement with the other shareholders. A public company is a company where anyone can buy shares (as long as they have the money obviously).

I think you may be getting mixed up between the public and private sector, which is a slightly different concept. All public and private companies are in the private sector, but that does not mean they are all private companies.

And yes, other companies do want companies they own to be profitable, but they are also far too prone to assuming that only a handful of people can do the job they hold, which is one cause of wage inflation.

Finally on your other post re the Army, I think the best one was the worker of Kerr Stuart and Company in Stoke in the 1920s who was sent to the machine shop for a long stand.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

Laws such as used in Nordic countries whereby they must pay the lowest paid get a minimum % of the CEO renumeration seems to work well. It means much better pay at bottom and lower sensible pay at the top as they cannot indulge in untrammelled greed and take all the money as the Tories do here.

I agree! Too much money is paid to those at the top who do very little other than agree with the recommendations that those (who are paid much less) have suggested is the way forward. (Here I reflect on my experience working for a FTSE100 company).

Without checking the thread I can't be sure but may I be one of the first to wish all the best for 2018. Here in Melbourne (the bigger one on the other side of the world) we have just celebrated it with a massive fireworks display. I'm sure London will do us proud when I get up for breakfast, unless Brexit has put paid to that of course! (Aaargh, my New Years resolution not to moan about that 'event' didn't last an hour!!)

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

Because the p in plc stands for private, of course.

They are private companies just publicly listed on the stock exchange or in which the public can buy shares

Legally speaking you are wrong. A private company is a company where shares can only be bought by arrangement with the other shareholders. A public company is a company where anyone can buy shares (as long as they have the money obviously).

I think you may be getting mixed up between the public and private sector, which is a slightly different concept. All public and private companies are in the private sector, but that does not mean they are all private companies.

And yes, other companies do want companies they own to be profitable, but they are also far too prone to assuming that only a handful of people can do the job they hold, which is one cause of wage inflation.

Finally on your other post re the Army, I think the best one was the worker of Kerr Stuart and Company in Stoke in the 1920s who was sent to the machine shop for a long stand.

Are plcs nationalised companies? No. They are owned not by the state but by private institutions or individuals.

Yes but that is not the definition of a public company. That is a state company, which is in the public sector.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

One in a million, it is all well fixed with their cronies and majority of shareholder shave no say. You could as easily say policy in Scotland is down to voters when reality is the same , they count for nothing unless they luckily coincide with the 86% other opinion.

If a company is underperforming shareholders will react on executive pay just as if voters are sufficiently disillusioned in Scotland other parties will emerge to replace the current ones

You don't get the point , ie the majority decide, just as the elite have the majority of the votes in shares , in Westminster Scotland has a minority vote and hey presto results are exactly the same, the small guy can never win.

Scotland has its own Parliament which decides most Scottish domestic policy and also about 10% of Westminster MPs too

ydoethur said:

Yes but that is not the definition of a public company. That is a state company, which is in the public sector.

As someone who has spent most of the last 20 years setting up company formations and buyout, you're right, and HYUFD is wrong.

He's getting confused with publicly traded companies and privately traded companies.

Well done Palace ending Man City's wining run

Ally_B said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

Laws such as used in Nordic countries whereby they must pay the lowest paid get a minimum % of the CEO renumeration seems to work well. It means much better pay at bottom and lower sensible pay at the top as they cannot indulge in untrammelled greed and take all the money as the Tories do here.

I agree! Too much money is paid to those at the top who do very little other than agree with the recommendations that those (who are paid much less) have suggested is the way forward. (Here I reflect on my experience working for a FTSE100 company).

Without checking the thread I can't be sure but may I be one of the first to wish all the best for 2018. Here in Melbourne (the bigger one on the other side of the world) we have just celebrated it with a massive fireworks display. I'm sure London will do us proud when I get up for breakfast, unless Brexit has put paid to that of course! (Aaargh, my New Years resolution not to moan about that 'event' didn't last an hour!!)

Happy New Year to you , as ever Edinburgh will be the top event of course.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Yes but that is not the definition of a public company. That is a state company, which is in the public sector.

As someone who has spent most of the last 20 years setting up company formations and buyout, you're right, and HYUFD is wrong.

He's getting confused with publicly traded companies and privately traded companies.

Does the state own plcs in normal circumstances? No. So my original point that it is up to shareholders not the state to set executive pay in them holds absolutely true.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

Laws such as used in Nordic countries whereby they must pay the lowest paid get a minimum % of the CEO renumeration seems to work well. It means much better pay at bottom and lower sensible pay at the top as they cannot indulge in untrammelled greed and take all the money as the Tories do here.

There may be some merit in that but a better system reflects the value added of each worker no matter their position

Do you know a worse system than the rapacious one practiced in UK, Nordic ones may not be perfect but they are miles better than what we have and fairer.

Volvo ceo salary, 12 million

http://swedishmarketeconomy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/martin-lundstedt-take-over-volvo.html?m=1

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Like so many other parts of our creaking country, the NHS suffers because it is impossible to take a long-term view of it. What we need is a consensus around how it should develop and be funded. But we will never get it, because every four or five years we have a FPTP election which is decided in 100 or so constituencies where certain kinds of swing voter hold sway. Politically, there is just no way that the NHS can ever be reformed so that it looks a lot more like the very high-standard health services you see in many parts of mainland Europe.

A depressing thought, but accurate. And every now and then they'll make noises about consensus, but these things take years to sort out anyway, and an election is up, or could be up at any time, and its back to partisan nonsense.

We saw it with funding dementia care in both 2010 and in June - Death taxes and Dementia Taxes. Pathetic and hugely damaging. Our political system does not allow for long-termism.

I think you need to question the voters on this one rather than the system.

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Where will the extra money come from? France spends more on health than we do.

The majority of the difference between the UK and France in terms of paying for health care comes from private health insurance paid by employers and employees. 85% of French citizens have some form of additional private insurance over and above what they pay to the Government. This accounts for about 23% of all health spending.

It's always amazing that the debate on the NHS is always presented as its the NHS as it is now or it's a US style free for all privatised system. Yet no one ever suggests looking at models in much of Europe that seem to work.

The NHS doesn't seem to be sustainable in its current form long term - but no government would have the guts to move towards the sort of socialised insurance models that exist in many other nations and generally work quite well. The NHS isn't free - someone has to pay for it.

Agree entirely. I disagree with those on the right in the UK who try to claim the US system is better. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. But there are many systems in Europe and around the world that are better because they are not tied to one model of both finance and distribution of services. Large parts of the French system are provided by private companies working within strict guidelines on costs and service provision. The system works. It only seems to be in the UK that we are so blinded by the NHS religion that we cannot develop a better system.

Like so many other parts of our creaking country, the NHS suffers because it is impossible to take a long-term view of it. What we need is a consensus around how it should Europe.

A depressing thought, but accurate. And every now and then they'll make noises about consensus, but these things take years to sort out anyway, and an election is up, or could be up at any time, and its back to partisan nonsense.

We saw it with funding dementia care in both 2010 and in June - Death taxes and Dementia Taxes. Pathetic and hugely damaging. Our political system does not allow for long-termism.

I think you need to question the voters on this one rather than the system.

There is a reason most developed countries fund dementia care through social insurance

There was a report last year by the IFS which looked at healthcare spending in various developed countries. This included analysis of end of life costs.

The report is available:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12127/full

It suggests that costs of last year of life medical spend are only 5-10% of the total medical spend.

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

But as Blair and Brown showed, throwing large sums of extra money at an inefficient and failing service does not make it any less inefficient or failing.

I think that's factually incorrect. I'm sure that there was wastage, as in any large increase of funding, and I'd accept that PFI contracts committed too much money to private investors in the headlong rush to get early results. But the impact on waiting times was enormous, and people did notice. When I was first elected, two-year waiting times for non-urgent surgery like hip replacements were common. By 2010, the norm was 18 weeks. People have always usually felt that the service was OK once they got it, but the waiting period was barely tolerable - and is becoming so again.

That doesn't mean the system is perfect, or that another system isn't worth considering. But it overstates the gloom to think that additional finance didn't help.

It completely failed to change the poor medical outcomes statistics.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

The failings of the Liberal Elite policies of both parties over the last 20 years

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades. Minimum Wage would be £26k per annum

FTSE 100 ceos pay is down to shareholders to approve not the government as they are private companies and sometimes they don't approve it as Sir Martin Sorrell discovered

The 'shareholders' being in effect the executives of the big City institutions who control the block votes of shares their institutions hold in the pensions etc of ordinary people.

Said executives having a vested interest in other executives getting continual large pay rises.

Time for such decisions to be voted on by individual shareholders only ?

I would not have a problem with more powers for individual shareholders but a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage as Melenchon advocated in France in May would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and effectively see socialism replace capitalism

Laws such as used in Nordic countries whereby they must pay the lowest paid get a minimum % of the CEO renumeration seems to work well. It means much better pay at bottom and lower sensible pay at the top as they cannot indulge in untrammelled greed and take all the money as the Tories do here.

There may be some merit in that but a better system reflects the value added of each worker no matter their position

Do you know a worse system than the rapacious one practiced in UK, Nordic ones may not be perfect but they are miles better than what we have and fairer.

Volvo ceo salary, 12 million

http://swedishmarketeconomy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/martin-lundstedt-take-over-volvo.html?m=1

So the low paid workers will be on big money as well then. Your point is, it is not the salary that is in question it is whether it is all taken by the greedy Executives at the expense of those that make the company.