Improving public services, Labour’s best hope? – politicalbetting.com

Second.

I said I was about to be dethreaded. Bloody despots from stolen Derbyshire !

On, however, graph-wankers, I think my recommended two are probably Dave Gorman and Dr Pack, who have the (imo) gift of stopping just before they go too far.

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

That should sort of be true of health in the long run, but not something like prisons.

I think Labour should be able to claim credit for some improvement, but it perhaps will have less efficacy than it did in the 1990s and 2000s on the basis that any improvement is likely to be incremental, and the structural challenges will remain. That doesn't mean that they won't be able to craft a narrative around it, and it could be electorally successful, but they will need to get the messaging right - something that they've struggled with thus far.

In a way that is a remarkable poll result. It may partly be of course because no-one else can do anything about public services at the national level in England, but there are lots of reasons for complaining about public services right now (we are British) and of course it's all Labour's fault. And Labour are not going in for vainglorious promises about more and better free stuff quickly.

Of all the data I can think of, this is the bit which best supports the idea that Labour will probably form (perhaps with help) the next government. The 65-60% who would never vote Reform may well start a bit of coalescing. It has little cheer for the Tories.

stodge said:

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

The number of people who don't rely now or in the future on roads, NHS, pensions, bin emptying etc is quite small.

A graph showing NHS waiting lists presents a powerful message for Labour. Always rising under a Tory government, then falling under a Labour government.

SandyRentool said:

A graph showing NHS waiting lists presents a powerful message for Labour. Always rising under a Tory government, then falling under a Labour government.

I'd draw a comparison, with the "Unemployment ALWAYS goes UP under Labour" line.

I'm hearing increasing numbers of anecdotal accounts about access to Health Services improving, even from PB posters.

I'd say that accounts varying by region are a potential landmine, and access to dental service is important for a feed into public opinion.

And that the invariable "but ASYLUM SEEKERS TAKING MY SERVICES" narrative could be a balancer between impactful and Pop Go the Weasel Words.

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

You've missed one bit, which is the number of people who need that service which keeps going up and up. So service per patient might be down while overall service delivered is up.

That's the danger for Labour - the NHS is like a runaway train and unless you can put the brakes on service demand you're never going to be able to stop it.

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

Not a big lead, but a big indicator. Labour ahead of fantasy Reform, ahead after a terrible start, way ahead of the Tories and others. A sign that Labour v Reform may well be the big contest in 2029. One that Reform, IMO, can't win if only 17% have a magical belief in their unicorns.

algarkirk said:

stodge said:

Morning all

The word “improve” is significant here. Some will view doing less and spending less as an improvement, others will view spending more and doing more as an improvement,

It also depends on which public services you use and the extent of that use, For some, it’s simply repairing potholes and emptying the bins, for others their very lives depend on the regular use of public services via the NHS.

Throw in the perspectives of geography and the experiences of relatives and you get a very mixed picture rendering polls like this useful only inasmuch as they demonstrate one of the current dividing lines in political debate.

The number of people who don't rely now or in the future on roads, NHS, pensions, bin emptying etc is quite small.

Yes but a lot of people don’t think so holistically and see their exposure to “public services” in the here and now and that exposure varies from quite limited as a perspective though probably much more than is believed to considerable.

algarkirk said:

In a way that is a remarkable poll result. It may partly be of course because no-one else can do anything about public services at the national level in England, but there are lots of reasons for complaining about public services right now (we are British) and of course it's all Labour's fault. And Labour are not going in for vainglorious promises about more and better free stuff quickly.

Of all the data I can think of, this is the bit which best supports the idea that Labour will probably form (perhaps with help) the next government. The 65-60% who would never vote Reform may well start a bit of coalescing. It has little cheer for the Tories.

Hmm. What about England vs Scotland vs Wales vs NI, as a contrast / foil to Regions in England?

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:

I don’t see that as a big lead for Labour, on this issue.

The striking thing is Reform in second place. The narrative that public services are so inefficient that meaningfully better services can be sustainably had for meaningfully lower taxes is powerful and attractive...

But it's also nonsense, isn't it?

I assume its a mix between people who choose their own party no matter what, and those who think cutting demand is the way to relieve pressure on public services?

I doubt taxes entered their thinking.

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Not even that... We have a effective hospital service for now.

There's a time and a place for the sort of turnaround management where you cut everything that doesn't contribute to the bottom line today. In business, it's sometimes what you have to do, because otherwise there won't be a business tomorrow.

In government, that calculation works a bit differently. "Trying to salvage a viable business" becomes "Bequeathing an even bigger problem to our children".

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Labour getting back up to 25% based on those who think they would be best to improve public services might get them a hung parliament but would still be well short of a majority

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.

When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.

They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Aha. So this will be a year of "Bart has the Ultimate Answers"

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Don't be harsh on William. If he takes a lie down and some smelling salts he'll recover nicely from his outrage.

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

LostPassword said:

https://kyivindependent.com/israel-asks-us-to-join-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites-officials-told-axios/

"Israeli officials have asked the Trump administration to join military operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program, including a strike on the fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site, Axios reported on June 14, citing two Israeli officials.

The request comes as Israel continues its assault on Iranian targets and warns that it lacks the capability to destroy Fordow alone. The underground facility, located deep within a mountain, is beyond the reach of Israel’s conventional weapons. U.S. forces in the region, however, have the necessary bunker-busting bombs and bomber aircraft to hit the site."

It seems to me to be the height of folly to start something without the ability to end it, and particularly to then rely on Trump's assistance to end it.

This is one of those situations where it's better that we have Trump in charge, and not some generic Republican.

Trump is highly unlikely to join, unless the Iranians do something stupid like attacking a US military base.

Of course, an Israeli false flag operation can't be ruled out.

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

You could make a decent case that there was actually swingback against Labour.

The reason it didn't help the Tories is because it went to Reform and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, not them.

ydoethur said:

wooliedyed said:

Mexicanpete said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

wooliedyed said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

And not one of them is included in this poll ftom Ipsos which makes it a bit iffy given that they vote Tory and Reform to the tune of about 60%
Note to TSE - a more up to date version of this polling is available on Ipsos website - Labour have added 2 points to 'best for public services' since the SR at the expense of the Greens.

Actually more like 75% if you believe Find Out Now’s sub samples. The point is while they may inflate the Conservative and Reform scores, the other group likely to prosper are the Don’t Knows who actually lead the poll.

I’d argue the key point is not whether Labour scores higher than Reform or your blessed Conservatives but how the 28% of DKs will be thinking by the time of the next election. IF Labour can convince a significant proportion of that block of DKs they are better at managing public services than Reform, I suspect Labour will win a second term.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not a Conservative Party member or voter.
Yes, if Labour convince voters to vote for them they will do better. I think we can all agree on that. If they can't, they won't.

I recall that after the Johnson and Truss debacles of 2022 all you Tories had to do was sit back and wait for swingback to run it's course. No effort required.

Anyone who said that will have been quite wrong won't they?

You could make a decent case that there was actually swingback against Labour.

The reason it didn't help the Tories is because it went to Reform and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, not them.

I was referring more to the 'sit back and wait' aspect

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

Late filing is particularly prevalent at the top of the income distribution, where the £100 late fee is not really that costly. We don’t really get that information here until, in I guess, 18 months.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/15/rich-are-fleeing-labours-britain-we-could-all-pay-price/

This always struck me as ridiculous. Costs less than a parking fine for leaving your car illegally parked while you visit Harrods.

DavidL said:

First?

The problem with this theory is that public services require ever more resource to provide ever less of a service.

The other big problem is that a party which depends for most of its funding and support on often lazy, entitled and incompetent public sector workers is particularly badly suited to making them improve the service they provide. As under Blair and Brown, they will devote more resources to the problem and get progressively worse returns as productivity drops off a cliff.

And that's before you get into the damage that their sabotaging of the private sector is doing to the tax base, from which all funding to improve services must ultimately.

No, I think Labour's main hope isn't improving the public services or the private sector, it's that the alternatives self-sabotage. Which, after all, is why they are in power now anyway.

williamglenn said:

MattW said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

That's a really good meme, pointing out that Trump is perceived as steamrollering democracy with his Tanks, and as a man who cannot win by persuasion. My image quote or today:


Trump's Director of Homeland Security, Kirsty Noem, has this week been using a language of a "city of criminals" where Trump & Co are sending in the armed forces to "liberate" it. IMO that is precisely apposite for this meme.

That comparison would make Trump the Deng Xiaoping of America. The man who made China great again.

And who brutally slaughtered the students of Tiananmen?

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Fewer babies born now will mean fewer old people in 70 years' time.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Fewer babies born now will mean fewer old people in 70 years' time.

We might have discovered the youthful vitality pill by then!

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

MattW said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

kjh said:

williamglenn said:

Offensively stupid meme from a US Senator:

https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1933997162683089392

Really? As far as political cartoons go it is rather tame. It is also rather apt.

I'm sure the sensitive souls in MAGA can handle it.

Surely having an actual king should give Trump less power though ?
Or are they coming from the angle that having a king even though it in theory reduces the power of the top elected official in the country can often increase it because essentially the remnants of the presidency and the Speaker of the House position are held by one individual in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps that's the concern.

Trump would be an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch

I think at this time it might benefit the USA to have a real King to control Trump as President trying to overreach his authority.

Italy 1943 or Spain 1979 come to mind.

Of course, a Usonian King may wish to be a Dictator.

Arise King Harry?

😂

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Andy_JS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

In one sense it’s just another fad that works by restricting calorie intake: The high fat intake probably helps with satiation, which is the main problem most dieters face - hunger is difficult to cope with. It’s also an expensive way to get your calories.

On the flip side, if it works for you then it works. Just make sure to supplement your diet with enough veggies to supply the essential bits and pieces you won’t get from meat alone - quite a few of the nuttier end of the US right wing “eating meat makes me more manly” brigade made themselves quite seriously ill due to things like vitamin C deficiency.

Very slightly comforting that the sponsors of Trump's birthday wank, Palantir, were so crap at it.

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1934033174545195350

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

MattW said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

I had my big toenails deliberately removed 10 years ago, as an anti-ingrowing toenail Type I health measure. They used hydrochloric acid to kill the nails iirc. The nurse was overenthusiastic applying the local and the needle initially came out the other side of the toe.

When I was doing my walk at Hardwick Hall yesterday on a 6km circuit - nice because of grass and modest hills, there was a organised run where people get 6 hours to do as much as possible or stop when desired, and most I questioned were either on their 6th or 7th circuit at the ~4-5 hour point.

They were mainly doing marathon practice ("100 Marathons Club" teeshirt), or recovering from health conditions. The people you meet.

Ouch. And I thought the Online Safety Act would protect me from reading such horror stories online…

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Healthcare inflation has run higher than regular inflation for decades. That’s partly because we keep inventing new treatments and, oddly, sick people don’t say, “oh, that’s ok, I won’t have that new treatment in order to keep costs down.”

However, a lot of those new treatments came from the US and now Trump has slashed medical research funding in the US, bang goes a lot of new treatments in the future.

carnforth said:

Cookie said:

Pb brains trust: Anyone have any experience of chiropractors? I've had a bad back for about three weeks now. Friend of a friend has recommended I seek out a McTimoney chiropractor but this could be quackery for all I know.

Cheaper quackery:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Back-Pain-Reissue-Connection/dp/153871261X/

Six months of back pain I had last year cured just by reading this. Or co-incidentally. An not-uncommon experience, the author claims.

Interim measures, some of which gave temporary relief:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/back-pain/art-20546859

I have no doubt that back pain is sort-of-psychological: your body thinks it's about to damage itself, and tenses up. The trick is trying to get it to relax again. I'd wondered whether this might be a chiropractor's approach.
I have, in the past, managed to cure back pain by going on a boat trip to lool at dolphins. It was so amazing that I forgot all about it. But I think it's like trying to shock yourself out of hiccups: it's not really repeatable (nor practical).

Andy_JS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

I know we disagree on this but the vast majority of the growing pressure on the NHS is not age related. It's growing at 3% in real terms per annum - that's simply far too fast to be explained by a bump in the demographic profile.

That's why I have the pessimistic view that a universal healthcare service is doomed to fail unless there is a punchy public health campaign to bring the general standard of health up significantly, or else start to restrict spending on treatments for preventable diseases or for those who are not looking after themselves.

Anyway, I'm off for 25k slow run. I've nearly lost my big toenail so that will probably offset the health gains...

Our age profile is growing too. Demand is overwhelmingly and exponentially set by age.

I'm 42 and I've set myself the goal of looking after myself since I turned 40, I've lost over 60 pounds by switching to my carnivore diet . . . But being in my 40s that has changed my interactions with the NHS from zero to zero.

Does the carnivore diet really work?

For me it has, yes. 2 years this October I've been on the diet and I'm the healthiest I've been since my 20s and feel much better for it.

When I was overweight or obese I was eating when I was hungry, but the problem is I was hungry even though I'd had enough calories. Eat less isn't amazing advice to someone who is eating because they are very hungry.

The diet for me works because it has eliminated my food cravings. Carbs turn to glucose which shoots your blood sugar up but then crashes which makes you hungry again even if you've already had enough calories to eat.

Protein on the other hand doesn't spike like that and the body very slowly turns it into glucose only at the rate your body requires for eg your brain etc, which means you get the necessary glucose without consuming any, but don't get spikes and crashes.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

You're missing a third or.

The NHS successfully turning a fatal condition into a chronic one.

Every time you prevent someone from dying you prevent their chronic conditions from dying with them. Many chronic conditions today were formerly fatal ones.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Labour have always been ahead of the Tories on this one too, but it has never stopped enough people voting Conservative

Not true, when Dave was in charge and in the Corbyn era the Tories regularly led on public services.

Heck at one point even Mrs May led Corbyn on the NHS!!!

In terms of NHS productivity, the Conservatives actually had a brilliant record. They increased it by 15% (1.6% per year) between 2010 and 2019 - that's much faster than what the private sector achieved.

Their failure was to cut prevention, public health and capital investment - so we have a highly effective hospital service only.

Given that prevention means stopping people from getting old, and people get old no matter what, that's a difficult problem to handle.

Demographics are changing either way.

The way to lower demand is to lower life expectancy, but nobody is going to strive to do that.

5 million people over 75 apparently. 1.4 million over 85, the fastest growing segment of the population.

https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/The-State-of-Ageing-2025-interactive-summary.pdf

Probably something we should all read - fascinating statistics on levels of unpaid carers in the 50-64 age group looking after older parents. That has economic and cultural impacts on work and the economy.

The over 65 population has grown by about 32%, 2000-2019.

Meanwhile the health budget has increased by 105%, in real terms. We're in big trouble.

Considering older people are more than 10x more likely to use health services than younger people that budget change is entirely explained by demographics.

Let's say 100% of the health budget goes on over 65-year olds, and that population has increased by 32%.

If it's entirely down to demographics, how much should the budget have increased by?

Its not the case that 100% goes to them so that doesn't work.

Instead the over 65s demand dramatically more than under 65s and that grows exponentially. Over 75s demand dramatically more than 65 year olds, over 85s demand dramatically more than 75 year olds etc

Exponential growth tends to affect the NHS.

The number of people aged over 90 has increased by about 40% over that period - a very significant increase and no doubt a driver of costs.

But it's still nowhere near the 105% growth overall, and over 90s still represent only 1% of the population. The evidence is chronic conditions have increased significantly - we have lots of people spending decades getting care for diseases. We are also better than ever at treating them.

The ugly truth is our level health spending is a political choice, and no government (particularly this Labour government) is going to do anything other than chuck loads of cash at it.

Chronic conditions are tied to age.

Plus the reason why the over x population has increased is because we have become better at turning fatal conditions into chronic ones.

Turning a fatal condition into a chronic condition doesn't cure the condition, it just means that the person doesn't die but lives longer with that and other conditions. That may be a good thing for the individual, but its expensive.

Chronic conditions go away when people die. Prevent death, you have more chronic conditions to treat.

Illustrative example - let's imagine 100% of health spending goes on over 65s, and let's say that 40% of the over 65 population has a chronic condition.

We know that the over 65 population has increased by 32%. So the total number of people living with chronic conditions should have increased by 32% too, and the costs associated with them increased by 32%.

But no. Total health spending has increased by more than 3x that much. It is not entirely explained by an aging population. It's either because the age-specific rate of chronic conditions has increased (i.e. the population has become less healthy), or the cost of treatment has grown.

You're missing a third or.

The NHS successfully turning a fatal condition into a chronic one.

Every time you prevent someone from dying you prevent their chronic conditions from dying with them. Many chronic conditions today were formerly fatal ones.

But that would be counterbalanced by the times when they turn a chronic condition into a fatal one.