politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories need to move the agenda off the NHS if they’re to h

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Yes, because everyone which votes Tory always uses Private Health Care and not the NHS at all....

really? Do you actually beleive that?

TOPPING said:

I see that the Presidents' Club has been wound up so that's the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them.

If the attendees care about the charities, perhaps they might consider donating without expecting to be given licence to put their hand up a young woman's skirt in return?

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

About half of it, according to the analysis in the article, perhaps £10 billion annually.

Does the internal market really save enough to cover that and more? I doubt it.

An example: my department provides a specialist service hosted in larger GP practices, so as to provide specialist services closer to home. This is done at a much lower tariff than hospital outpatients, so a win all round. Then the CCG outsourced their properties to a property management company. This company then decided that we must pay room rent. We have no budget for this, and this arm of our service breaks even, with no surplus. Until the new financial year we will lose money on the service, though would make a good surplus if we sent the patients to our overloaded acute Trust outpatients. As such we have submitted for a substantial tariff uplift for next finyear.

The end of this is that we bill the CCG more, so we can pay rent to them. This all creates work for penpushers and bean counters, and adds to churn without benefiting anyone, as we will wind up doing the same things to the same patients in the same places. That is what the internal market does, in a practical example.

But it provides a mechanism to determine whether the space is being utilised most efficiently.

Say someone wanted to come and rent that room for a sufficient price that you would be able to fund the work in the acute Trust outpatients plus the CCG would generate a surplus then that might be the most rational thing to do. But unless you had a price then you wouldn't necessarily know that

(edit: and the article estimated the costs ranging between £4.5bn, £10bn and £20bn). So the saving could be a lot less than you are positing)

Our utilisation of these rooms has always been 100%, but if thems the rules, that is what we will do. We will add a percentage to cover our increased admin costs, as will the CCG.

This is just a racket, as GPs are combined into megapractices, increasingly commercially oriented. The projection is that the UK's roughly 20 000 GP practices will be just 5 000 in another dacade, with the senior partners paid very well for managing multi-million pound businesses.

It's not about utilisation rates, though, it's about using the space in the best possible way.

It may be that co-location is the right answer; but if someone is prepared to pay sufficiently more then that needs to be considered. Price is just a mechanism for people to think about value.

Economics is the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
The "price" in a free market, is a piece of information that helps with that allocation process.

My "price" is always modest and reasonable...

Jeremy Corbyn asking Theresa May about our underfunded NHS and the tragic human consequences of that. Conservative Chancellor Phillip Hammond sat next to her shouting out "Money won't help!". What out of touch nonsense. #spreadsshitphil

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

I see that the Presidents' Club has been wound up so that's the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them.

If the attendees care about the charities, perhaps they might consider donating without expecting to be given licence to put their hand up a young woman's skirt in return?

The world of charity dinners is a strange one, usually comprising of people coming together at a function, often with some kind of talent - be it Rory Bremner or Priti Patel Edit: or Emma Thompson - and forking out cash while there, either via an auction or pledge card.

95% of the attendees would rather pay good money not to have to go, but the convention remains for them to be held. They engender a sense of mutual intent, of strength of purpose, of peer group pressure. For those with auctions, as we have seen in this case, the presence of young nubile women and plenty of booze can ensure bids which would not be placed in the cold light of day.

There was no excuse for the egregious reported abuses at TPC, but otherwise, the genre of such dinners is well established.

bigjohnowls said:

Jeremy Corbyn asking Theresa May about our underfunded NHS and the tragic human consequences of that. Conservative Chancellor Phillip Hammond sat next to her shouting out "Money won't help!". What out of touch nonsense. #spreadsshitphil

Hm, evidence suggest he is right... continuing to throw money at the problem has rarely led to anything other than more calls for money.

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

The whole reason we’re discussing this is that the current system isn’t delivering.

Thousands of operations are being cancelled because the hospitals are all full. Nowhere else in the western world are people expected to wait months on end, often sick from work, for minor operations.

.

IanB2 said:

Charles said:

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

It is things like capacity utilisation.

Alliance Medical, for instance, was much more efficient at using its MRI machines and PET scanners than the NHS hospitals that kept them in house.

The fixed overheads are the same, but if you can spread them over more patients, then the average cost is lower

That's a bit of an old chestnut. The NHS has got a lot better about using assets like MRI than it did a decade or two back.

Yes, exactly the way competition is meant to work. Where one organisation leads others follow and the overall cost reduces.

IanB2 said:

Charles said:

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

It is things like capacity utilisation.

Alliance Medical, for instance, was much more efficient at using its MRI machines and PET scanners than the NHS hospitals that kept them in house.

The fixed overheads are the same, but if you can spread them over more patients, then the average cost is lower

That's a bit of an old chestnut. The NHS has got a lot better about using assets like MRI than it did a decade or two back.

I'm about 2 years out of date on MRI specifically (although a lot of the incremental gain was through outsourcing much of the MRI to the Christie/AM partnership).

And then you see the kicking and screaming about introducing a 7 day NHS and you begin to wonder...

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Where do low income people get the money from to pay for their health care if the NHS ceases to provide care? I cannot see how profit making companies can offer health care cheaper than the NHS. Therefore a decline in public health will occur. No money = No health care.

In Switzerland those on low and no incomes get state subsidised insurance which is very cheap and has fully comprehensive cover.

SandyRentool said:

Slackbladder said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

I see that the Presidents' Club has been wound up so that's the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them.

If the attendees care about the charities, perhaps they might consider donating without expecting to be given licence to put their hand up a young woman's skirt in return?

Are the rich going to give more or less to charity, or be attending even similar events which are run perfectly well if they know people out there will be looking for similar stories?

What level of sexual exploitation is considered to be 'run perfectly well'?

Can't they just have dinner, music and a charity auction without the perving?

Well I've just been invited to one (on behalf of cancer research) so I shall let you know!

(I am expecting it to be suitably strait-laced)

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

Slackbladder said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

I see that the Presidents' Club has been wound up so that's the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them.

If the attendees care about the charities, perhaps they might consider donating without expecting to be given licence to put their hand up a young woman's skirt in return?

Are the rich going to give more or less to charity, or be attending even similar events which are run perfectly well if they know people out there will be looking for similar stories?

What level of sexual exploitation is considered to be 'run perfectly well'?

Can't they just have dinner, music and a charity auction without the perving?

Nothing wrong with having pretty half-dressed women around to fire up the testosterone as long as it is strictly (and I don't mean a warning on p.5) prohibited and the culture is one of no transgressions or abuse.

Fancy casinos have plenty of such women wandering around.

It was patently obviously not the case for TPC. A shame for the charity recipients but not a shame that such tolerance of such behaviour has come to an end, spectacularly so.

Indeed. More than anything it reminds us that, when I and I suspect many of us here were young, back in the era of Benny Hill and the rest, the whole country was like this.

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

The NHS ranks 10th out of 11 in terms of delivery of clinical outcomes (keeping people alive and making them better) amongst 1st world countries. The current system does not deliver good health care and needs root and branch reform.

I have to say I've been impressed by the US delegation's forthrightness on nations pretending to stand for free trade. I looked on with much incredulity last year when the Chinese Premier made a speech on free trade, the same sense when Modi tried to do the same. Good on the Americans for calling it what it is and rearming themselves in the trade war being waged by Eastern nations on the West (or by Germany on the rest of Europe, tbh).

It was weird to see Merkel stand along side Xi last year and now have the EU and US try and block China getting market status. The West should begin to freeze them out (higher prices be damned) until they open up their markets for investment and ownership by foreign entities and drop the ridiculous requirement of IP transfers and Chinese majority ownership for local partnerships.

Trump is right, for the last decade we lived up to our side of the bargain by letting Chinese companies and the Chinese state enter the global markets, but they have not lived up to their end, not one bit.

TOPPING said:

I see that the Presidents' Club has been wound up so that's the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them.

Good that the club that at best turned a blind eye to sexual abuse is wound up. At least in that respect the Presidents' Club has acted with more dignity than eg the Catholic Church.

Though it won't be the last time 50-odd charities get to share £1.5m between them. There will be future charity junkets that raise just as much if not more. Hopefully without the creepy sexual abuse of vulnerable young women at work.

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

"The worst PM since Lord North" Paxman

JonathanD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

A disaster for you though, David.....

Yes and it's turning out really well for the Tory party isn't it?

I would rather he had played things differently. I would rather he were still PM, implementing the vision he set out to the 2015 Conference. But that is what happens when you flunk Renegotiating 1.01.....

Jonathan said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

"The worst PM since Lord North" Paxman

That only proves Paxman knows nothing about history. Even if you take the bleakest possible interpretation Cameron was better than Goderich, Rosebery, Aberdeen, Melbourne, Rockingham, Eden, Home, Heath and his immediate predecessor Brown.

Indeed you could make strong cases for adding Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Chamberlain, Portland, Wellington, Wilson, Bonar Law and Macdonald to that list (and probably May as well).

Meanwhile, in the improbable event Corbyn ever gets in, the only spot he will be challenging for is that of the abject Goderich, the only Prime Minister never to meet Parliament who was sacked after the King reduced him to tears.

He was not a great Prime Minister, but nor was he a bad one. He was somewhere in the middle.

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

The silence of the usual suspects on this is deafening.

No doubt they'll be along in a minute to tell us this is because we haven't left yet, or are pursuing a pointless BINO.

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Doesn't fit the narrative.

The Economist is currently outraged that the real economy disagrees with their forecasts.

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Presumably because it's a bit more complicated than that and as more of our trade is with the euro, that is the important currency.

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/955850231207333888

Casino_Royale said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

The silence of the usual suspects on this is deafening.

No doubt they'll be along in a minute to tell us this is because we haven't left yet, or are pursuing a pointless BINO.

It’s just dollar weakness isn’t it. European holidays haven’t got any cheaper. Does demonstrate the pointless of using currency values as a key performance indicator though.

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

The silence of the usual suspects on this is deafening.

No doubt they'll be along in a minute to tell us this is because we haven't left yet, or are pursuing a pointless BINO.

It’s just dollar weakness isn’t it. European holidays haven’t got any cheaper. Does demonstrate the pointless of using currency values as a key performance indicator though.

The pound has hit a 6-month high against the euro as well.

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Doesn't fit the narrative.

The Economist is currently outraged that the real economy disagrees with their forecasts.

I expect the OBR to take a similar tone for the spring statement when it is clear that they seriously underestimated government revenues.

No-one knows shit.

It's just some can give a more sophisticated explanation of the reasoning (assumptions and guesses) behind their "forecasts".

Richard_Tyndall said:

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

The NHS ranks 10th out of 11 in terms of delivery of clinical outcomes (keeping people alive and making them better) amongst 1st world countries. The current system does not deliver good health care and needs root and branch reform.

Source?

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

The silence of the usual suspects on this is deafening.

No doubt they'll be along in a minute to tell us this is because we haven't left yet, or are pursuing a pointless BINO.

It’s just dollar weakness isn’t it. European holidays haven’t got any cheaper. Does demonstrate the pointless of using currency values as a key performance indicator though.

The pound has hit a 6-month high against the euro as well.

The markets have realised it's not going to be possible for us to leave the customs union, and from that Brexit will either be meaningless or collapse.

Keep dreaming William.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, ah, I know of ISAs, of course but not the lifetime version.

I think you have to be under forty years of age to qualify for a lifetime ISA.

Just saying.

I don't get it. When the pound fell Brexit supporters told us it was good news, that we were more competitive. Now it rises and they claim it's good news again.

JonathanD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Presumably because it's a bit more complicated than that and as more of our trade is with the euro, that is the important currency.

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/955850231207333888

Sterling is up from a low of 74 to 80 on that index vs a pre-referendum average of 86.

Much of that is because of the EUR as you rightly point out, but out of the EU our trade weighting will change and we will buy more in currencies which are more favourable. With a good free trade deal we should also continue to sell to EU markets where our products will be price competitive.

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

"The worst PM since Lord North" Paxman

That only proves Paxman knows nothing about history. Even if you take the bleakest possible interpretation Cameron was better than Goderich, Rosebery, Aberdeen, Melbourne, Rockingham, Eden, Home, Heath and his immediate predecessor Brown.

Indeed you could make strong cases for adding Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Chamberlain, Portland, Wellington, Wilson, Bonar Law and Macdonald to that list (and probably May as well).

Meanwhile, in the improbable event Corbyn ever gets in, the only spot he will be challenging for is that of the abject Goderich, the only Prime Minister never to meet Parliament who was sacked after the King reduced him to tears.

He was not a great Prime Minister, but nor was he a bad one. He was somewhere in the middle.

In your opinion .

If you are seriously suggesting he made a worse mess of his office than those I have highlighted, then you need to go and research them. Saying he did better than (to pluck the two worst out) Goderich or Melbourne is a simple fact.

Of the 50-odd individuals who have been PM, I wouldn't put him in the top 20. But nor would I put him in the bottom 20.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I could do with a spot of Project Fear for a few weeks please, I've got several large US $ customer invoices outstanding.

Lol, I've just been chatting to a crypto investment group I'm in based in the UK, they are all spitting mad about sterling rebounding.

Jonathan said:

I don't get it. When the pound fell Brexit supporters told us it was good news, that we were more competitive. Now it rises and they claim it's good news again.

Nah. I am still on the 'low pound good' team. The last few months have shown what a big advantage we have from having sterling at a lower value. I will be sorry to see it rise to its pre-referendum levels against any of our major export markets.

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Presumably because it's a bit more complicated than that and as more of our trade is with the euro, that is the important currency.

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/955850231207333888

Sterling is up from a low of 74 to 80 on that index vs a pre-referendum average of 86.

Much of that is because of the EUR as you rightly point out, but out of the EU our trade weighting will change and we will buy more in currencies which are more favourable. With a good free trade deal we should also continue to sell to EU markets where our products will be price competitive.

UK imports are largely billed in US dollars so the strength of the pound versus the dollar will lower inflation.

Exports to EU countries will be largely billed in euro, so euro strenth good for UK exporters.

It's all good.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I could do with a spot of Project Fear for a few weeks please, I've got several large US $ customer invoices outstanding.

Lol, I've just been chatting to a crypto investment group I'm in based in the UK, they are all spitting mad about sterling rebounding.

Yes, for those of us who earn USD and have mortgages in Sterling it’s not such good news.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

"The worst PM since Lord North" Paxman

That only proves Paxman knows nothing about history. Even if you take the bleakest possible interpretation Cameron was better than Goderich, Rosebery, Aberdeen, Melbourne, Rockingham, Eden, Home, Heath and his immediate predecessor Brown.

Indeed you could make strong cases for adding Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Chamberlain, Portland, Wellington, Wilson, Bonar Law and Macdonald to that list (and probably May as well).

Meanwhile, in the improbable event Corbyn ever gets in, the only spot he will be challenging for is that of the abject Goderich, the only Prime Minister never to meet Parliament who was sacked after the King reduced him to tears.

He was not a great Prime Minister, but nor was he a bad one. He was somewhere in the middle.

Agreed. Middling seems the best description. I suppose the his biggest crime was lost opportunities. He had solid ideas (which he carried through) on social reform and the need to improve the public finances but his blind spot on the EU meant his period in office was bound to end in abject failure. If he had embraced leaving the EU and gone out of his way to make it work then he would have been regarded as one of the truly great PMs. History will remember him for his failures not his successes.

His salvation was the NOM of 2010 - he was the right PM for the coalition but fell apart once he had a majority.

brendan16 said:

Jonathan said:

I don't get it. When the pound fell Brexit supporters told us it was good news, that we were more competitive. Now it rises and they claim it's good news again.

When it fell it was everything to do with the U.K. - now it's risen it's apparently the fault of the US?

Yes, both true. The £ fell, then the $ fell.

Richard_Tyndall said:

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

The NHS ranks 10th out of 11 in terms of delivery of clinical outcomes (keeping people alive and making them better) amongst 1st world countries. The current system does not deliver good health care and needs root and branch reform.

Doesn't seem to agree with this
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror
Also isn't it one of the cheapest?

Barnesian said:

Interesting piece from Ashcroft today.

"Suspend your disbelief if necessary but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the outcome of the Brexit talks is universally regarded as a triumph: that in an extraordinary feat of diplomacy Theresa May secures an agreement that simultaneously delights leavers and draws a sigh of grateful relief from worried remainers. To appreciate the kind of thanks she and her party could subsequently expect at the ballot box we should all go and see The Darkest Hour and then study the results of the 1945 election."

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/conservatives-cant-rely-brexit-win-next-election/

Yep. The politics of Brexit argue for more support for the so-called JAMs, a regional/indiustrial policy oriented towards the north and the marginalised regions of England, and a foreign/defence policy that recognises our reduced role on the world stage. May realises much of this but is too impotent and unimaginative to get her party to deliver anything meaningful. To historians it may well appear inevitable that left-wing Labour was best positioned to rise to the challenges that post-Brexit Britain is likely to face.

brendan16 said:

Jonathan said:

I don't get it. When the pound fell Brexit supporters told us it was good news, that we were more competitive. Now it rises and they claim it's good news again.

When it fell it was everything to do with the U.K. - now it's risen it's apparently the fault of the US?

Yes. The dollar is weakening. However, as we've been hearing over the last few days, the markets have finally internalised that the sky isn't, in fact, falling and that Brexit might not be as big a disaster as painted by Messrs Cameron and Osbourne.

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I could do with a spot of Project Fear for a few weeks please, I've got several large US $ customer invoices outstanding.

Lol, I've just been chatting to a crypto investment group I'm in based in the UK, they are all spitting mad about sterling rebounding.

Yes, for those of us who earn USD and have mortgages in Sterling it’s not such good news.

You've had a good 18 months though....

MikeL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

"The worst PM since Lord North" Paxman

That only proves Paxman knows nothing about history. Even if you take the bleakest possible interpretation Cameron was better than Goderich, Rosebery, Aberdeen, Melbourne, Rockingham, Eden, Home, Heath and his immediate predecessor Brown.

Indeed you could make strong cases for adding Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Chamberlain, Portland, Wellington, Wilson, Bonar Law and Macdonald to that list (and probably May as well).

Meanwhile, in the improbable event Corbyn ever gets in, the only spot he will be challenging for is that of the abject Goderich, the only Prime Minister never to meet Parliament who was sacked after the King reduced him to tears.

He was not a great Prime Minister, but nor was he a bad one. He was somewhere in the middle.

Agreed. Middling seems the best description. I suppose the his biggest crime was lost opportunities. He had solid ideas (which he carried through) on social reform and the need to improve the public finances but his blind spot on the EU meant his period in office was bound to end in abject failure. If he had embraced leaving the EU and gone out of his way to make it work then he would have been regarded as one of the truly great PMs. History will remember him for his failures not his successes.

He is way, way superior to anyone else on offer right now.

Get him back - he would be the Conservative's best chance of winning the next GE by miles.

As noted already, the next GE won't be decided by Brexit - it'll be decided on the "general feel" of the leaders and parties - and general feel is where Cameron scores very highly.

I would not for a moment deny he is better than May but then I have a personal dislike of her going back many, many years.

But I think he burnt his bridges with too many in his party and the country in general.

The other question is why the hell he would want to come back? He often gave the impression of not wanting the job in the first place and having got out why would he volunteer to return?

Richard_Tyndall said:

David_Evershed said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

The_Taxman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The_Taxman said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Taxman said:

I will not vote Tory again if they are going to dismantle the NHS, too many people would be adversely affected and public health would seriously deteriorate as would life expectancy...

France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal all have life expectancies as good as or better than ours, yet have largely or partly privatised healthcare provision, so I'd be interested to see your justification for that bald statement.

Unfortunately Taxman seems to he one if those for whom the NHS is a religion whose tenets must never be challenged irrespective of the facts.

No, unlike Tories like you I do use the health service and am aware that some people do not have the resources to buy their own health care. I cannot see how profit making companies can provide health care cheaper.

Competition in services makes things cheaper and provides innovation.

Public bodies require Companies to be successful to generate employment and profits with which the public sector derives it's income. Demonising the private sector will only result in a diminished public sector

I understand all the talk about private companies. However, the NHS has massive economies of scale in procurement. I am not against private companies being involved in health care but I cannot see how an NHS consultant will work privately for instance for less money. I think this is ideologically driven and cannot support it. The people who are promoting this are miles away from reality - the average voter wants good health care, the current system with teething problems delivers that I cannot see privatisation changing this.

The NHS ranks 10th out of 11 in terms of delivery of clinical outcomes (keeping people alive and making them better) amongst 1st world countries. The current system does not deliver good health care and needs root and branch reform.

Source?

The Commonwealth Fund rankings that defenders of the NHS love to use to try and show how good it is. What they ignore is that whilst we rank highly in things like drug management and paperwork we rank 10th out of the 11 countries studied in terms of clinical outcomes.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

Only the US ranks worse.

Yes, yes the patient died but the paperwork was impeccable. And dying just created more. Some people are so inconsiderate.

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I could do with a spot of Project Fear for a few weeks please, I've got several large US $ customer invoices outstanding.

Lol, I've just been chatting to a crypto investment group I'm in based in the UK, they are all spitting mad about sterling rebounding.

Yes, for those of us who earn USD and have mortgages in Sterling it’s not such good news.

You've had a good 18 months though....

Possibly

IanB2 said:

Barnesian said:

Interesting piece from Ashcroft today.

"Suspend your disbelief if necessary but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the outcome of the Brexit talks is universally regarded as a triumph: that in an extraordinary feat of diplomacy Theresa May secures an agreement that simultaneously delights leavers and draws a sigh of grateful relief from worried remainers. To appreciate the kind of thanks she and her party could subsequently expect at the ballot box we should all go and see The Darkest Hour and then study the results of the 1945 election."

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/conservatives-cant-rely-brexit-win-next-election/

Yep. The politics of Brexit argue for more support for the so-called JAMs, a regional/indiustrial policy oriented towards the north and the marginalised regions of England, and a foreign/defence policy that recognises our reduced role on the world stage. May realises much of this but is too impotent and unimaginative to get her party to deliver anything meaningful. To historians it may well appear inevitable that left-wing Labour was best positioned to rise to the challenges that post-Brexit Britain is likely to face.

Yes - Corbyn is today's Attlee. Perhaps out of the ashes of Brexit a transformed fairer happier Britain will emerge.

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

brendan16 said:

Jonathan said:

I don't get it. When the pound fell Brexit supporters told us it was good news, that we were more competitive. Now it rises and they claim it's good news again.

When it fell it was everything to do with the U.K. - now it's risen it's apparently the fault of the US?

Yes, both true. The £ fell, then the $ fell.

That's not entirely accurate, it's fair to say the dollar has gone down, but in that light so has everything else. Sterling has recovered hugely against USD, JPY, CAD, AUD and (unfortunately) CHF. It's EUR that has got stronger vs the market, mainly because the EU economy is looking up and the ECB has dialled back it's QE programme.

It takes two currencies to forex tango.

Yes, the dollar might be weaker than expected, but Sterling is also stronger than expected.

You can very rarely claim it's solely one or the other.

Don't forget: all the mood music for the UK in 2018 was supposed to be about an almost total drying up of investment, recession, unemployment and something approaching dollar parity.

Those forecasters now look very silly.

David_Evershed said:

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

David_Evershed said:

Elliot said:

Turns out David Cameron has realised Project Fear was well overblown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

First Jim O'Neill, now David Cameron. It's feeling a lot like the response to the ERM exit.

The pound now 1.42 to the dollar and above its lows in early 2016 before the Brexit vote.

It's remarkable that the pound/dollar rallying to above the levels it was prior to the Brexit vote has had so little publicity in the media.

Presumably because it's a bit more complicated than that and as more of our trade is with the euro, that is the important currency.

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/955850231207333888

Sterling is up from a low of 74 to 80 on that index vs a pre-referendum average of 86.

Much of that is because of the EUR as you rightly point out, but out of the EU our trade weighting will change and we will buy more in currencies which are more favourable. With a good free trade deal we should also continue to sell to EU markets where our products will be price competitive.

UK imports are largely billed in US dollars so the strength of the pound versus the dollar will lower inflation.

Exports to EU countries will be largely billed in euro, so euro strenth good for UK exporters.

It's all good.

It certainly helps the MoD and the defence budget.

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Barnesian said:

Interesting piece from Ashcroft today.

"Suspend your disbelief if necessary but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the outcome of the Brexit talks is universally regarded as a triumph: that in an extraordinary feat of diplomacy Theresa May secures an agreement that simultaneously delights leavers and draws a sigh of grateful relief from worried remainers. To appreciate the kind of thanks she and her party could subsequently expect at the ballot box we should all go and see The Darkest Hour and then study the results of the 1945 election."

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/conservatives-cant-rely-brexit-win-next-election/

Yep. The politics of Brexit argue for more support for the so-called JAMs, a regional/indiustrial policy oriented towards the north and the marginalised regions of England, and a foreign/defence policy that recognises our reduced role on the world stage. May realises much of this but is too impotent and unimaginative to get her party to deliver anything meaningful. To historians it may well appear inevitable that left-wing Labour was best positioned to rise to the challenges that post-Brexit Britain is likely to face.

Yes - Corbyn is today's Attlee. Perhaps out of the ashes of Brexit a transformed fairer happier Britain will emerge.

Attlee was an extremely intelligent, very experienced and nationally respected figure by 1945. While he was not a forceful leader, he had proven his ability to work in government and his genuine commitment to Britain, its people and its institutions. He was also on some key issues - Defence springs to mind - pretty hawkish. Nor was he quite so wedded to nationalisation as some believe. Finally, he had the very significant advantage of being able to pay for his very expensive programme by using the small matter of $2.7 billion in Marshall Aid intended for economic reconstruction to fund current account spending.

Corbyn is possessed of absolutely none of those things.

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Barnesian said:

Interesting piece from Ashcroft today.

"Suspend your disbelief if necessary but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the outcome of the Brexit talks is universally regarded as a triumph: that in an extraordinary feat of diplomacy Theresa May secures an agreement that simultaneously delights leavers and draws a sigh of grateful relief from worried remainers. To appreciate the kind of thanks she and her party could subsequently expect at the ballot box we should all go and see The Darkest Hour and then study the results of the 1945 election."

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/conservatives-cant-rely-brexit-win-next-election/

Yep. The politics of Brexit argue for more support for the so-called JAMs, a regional/indiustrial policy oriented towards the north and the marginalised regions of England, and a foreign/defence policy that recognises our reduced role on the world stage. May realises much of this but is too impotent and unimaginative to get her party to deliver anything meaningful. To historians it may well appear inevitable that left-wing Labour was best positioned to rise to the challenges that post-Brexit Britain is likely to face.

Yes - Corbyn is today's Attlee. Perhaps out of the ashes of Brexit a transformed fairer happier Britain will emerge.

Attlee was an extremely intelligent, very experienced and nationally respected figure by 1945. While he was not a forceful leader, he had proven his ability to work in government and his genuine commitment to Britain, its people and its institutions. He was also on some key issues - Defence springs to mind - pretty hawkish. Nor was he quite so wedded to nationalisation as some believe. Finally, he had the very significant advantage of being able to pay for his very expensive programme by using the small matter of $2.7 billion in Marshall Aid intended for economic reconstruction to fund current account spending.

Corbyn is possessed of absolutely none of those things.

True but I wouldn’t rule out possession completely.