|
Post by PG on May 15, 2017 12:30:45 GMT
Maybe we coul;d try something new, like let a private company build and run a hospital and receive money based on what they actually do. Like sending patients to a BUPA hospital for care maybe? But then that's total blasphemy.... Nothing is stopping them now - well apart from them never making a profit out of it and thefore it being an unsustainable business model. BUPA / Nuffield seem to scrape by?
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 15, 2017 13:03:51 GMT
BUPA / Nuffield seem to scrape by? You're killing me, if you think 'running an acute hospital' is the same as 'cherry picking lucrative elective activity' then you are more than welcome to come over to our place and I'll show you everything we do. I agree with FB but PG is right that the NHS needs to move to a model that is sustainable which doesn't ask for more money year on year. This will be highly unpalatable to an electorate that thinks everything can be paid for by everyone else but it needs to happen.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 15, 2017 13:29:50 GMT
And unfortunately a substantial percentage of the population has this fond notion that the rich can pay for it all through more tax.
Which is probably because a lot of them pay tax at a blended rate of 20% or less and don't realise that "rich" people (by which Labour appears to mean anyone who conveniently earns more than an MP, rather than referring to the Bransons and footballers of this world) already pay a much higher rate of tax than that. My blended tax rate last year was something like 47% all-in. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this means I am already paying enough and should not be expected to contribute more. I'm not asking to pay less but I object to being asked to pay even more accompanied by an insinuation that I am some sort of evil parasite.
|
|
|
Post by PG on May 15, 2017 19:47:01 GMT
BUPA / Nuffield seem to scrape by? You're killing me, if you think 'running an acute hospital' is the same as 'cherry picking lucrative elective activity' then you are more than welcome to come over to our place and I'll show you everything we do. I think that the friend of ours who had cancer treatment through BUPA would hardy consider it as "cherry picking lucrative elective activity". Life saving more like. But I agree that BUPA don't run A&E and I do understand the point you are making. But, it just seems to me that any suggestion of any other / different approach to healthcare that changes or modifies the NHS is seen as uttering heretical blasphemy. Hence no politician dare go there. The UK is pretty alone in running a massive state run system. After all, no other European healthcare system is in the top 10 employers in the world. The Germans and French seem to manage healthcare without employing north of 1.4 million people directly in one public run organisation. We do need to spend more, but history has shown that just spending more on the NHS does not work. We need to look at things in a new way. For example, if private medical insurance was tax deductible and people were allowed to top up NHS care with private policies (rather than as now having to do one or the other for treatments), perhaps more people would pay more and add more budget to our overall healthcare spend? I know, that's heresy. But people used to get burnt at the stake for saying the earth was round and revolved around the sun.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 15, 2017 20:22:38 GMT
The local hospital is one of the biggest issues. The downgrading of departments is met by outrage wherever it may be. People seem to expect every service on their doorstep, that just doesn't make economic sense in any organisation. We have a local cottage hospital which should have been turned into a housing development years ago but it's a safe Conservative seat and common sense just isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by alf on May 18, 2017 8:50:09 GMT
And unfortunately a substantial percentage of the population has this fond notion that the rich can pay for it all through more tax. Which is probably because a lot of them pay tax at a blended rate of 20% or less and don't realise that "rich" people (by which Labour appears to mean anyone who conveniently earns more than an MP, rather than referring to the Bransons and footballers of this world) already pay a much higher rate of tax than that. My blended tax rate last year was something like 47% all-in. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this means I am already paying enough and should not be expected to contribute more. I'm not asking to pay less but I object to being asked to pay even more accompanied by an insinuation that I am some sort of evil parasite. I found some stats on this: 4 out of 10 UK adults pay no income tax at all, and the top 1% of those that do pay it, contribute 27% of total receipts. A lot of the stuff in the Labour manifesto is entirely laudable, as goals - no one wants long waiting lists in hospitals, or large classrooms, or so on. But the suggestions of how to pay for it simply don't work out, especially as we face Brexit. And the most expensive and legally tricky parts - reversing privatisation of various industries - is uncosted and unexplained. And utterly stupid. However much some may hate the rich, selfish capitalist interest drives employment and drags up average wealth faster than any other system. Even quite small changes in top level income tax, and especially corporation tax and these daft suggested taxes on financial trades will simply drive the rich away, and persuade other people not to start up their own businesses - businesses that will pay huge amounts of tax and employ a lot of people in some cases. That's the bit socialists just don't get - higher taxes reduce tax take. And the bit I resent the most, like Racing, is the suggestion all big companies and rich individuals have somehow trampled on the poor to get to where they are. There may be some valid examples but the overall premise is tosh. I get the feeling when listening to the "Momentum" and Trade Unions crew that they would be happier if the average worker's wage was £15k with their bosses earning £50k, than £20k with their bosses earning £100k. There is a real chip on shoulder attitude in some segments that seems far too focused on what the top few get, when they should look after their members more. I know a lot of people hate the Tories with a vengeance, and think they are out to get people, but in my case I am politically quite liberal, I just think that a lower taxation / lower borrowing state that encourages business is the best way to raise living standards for everyone. And that is something I genuinely care deeply about. I don't want two tier systems or poor people to get their just deserts, my stable upbringing made me successful in many ways and more government money should be spent on those less fortunate. But we ("The West", not just the UK) face some major challenges with many areas such as health and social care spending, with rises in healthcare costs, and an increasingly fat and old population. I personally hope May wins a landslide and makes some really tough calls that will set the country up for the future. I have not got the answers but there are some obvious areas like universal credits and the triple lock pension that are not fair, and I think there do need to be more means-tested charges for healthcare. But everything has to start from the premise of "is it affordable" and "are we spending the money as efficiently as possible" when it comes to services, and in cases like parts of the NHS, MOD and so on there is still a long way to go on the latter. Simply raising taxes and increasing spending to large extents will lead to another crash and the poor will feel that the most. On another matter entirely - how the feck is this (LibDem) policy of having a referendum on the Brexit negotiations going to work? We've triggered the "out" bit, we can't stay "in" until we have a deal the British people have signed off. If we spend 5 years negotiating then the country votes "no", do we then spend 5 more years talking followed by another vote? Potentially being permanently in a state of WTO trade rules and with no concessions on Europeans living here, or UK people living there, while we negotiate? It all sounds more than a tad unlikely to me....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 17:56:19 GMT
I actually was a union rep at one stage but the attitude was too confrontational, granted we NEED some form of worker support and representation it needs to be realistic. Take a look at the TATA steelworks where the workers accepted a change of pension to save jobs. It show a workforce accepting that we all need to compromise. In my admittedly short career as a union rep, there was NO support and I was told that I should invent law and "wing it in any negotiations. I resigned in disgust.
From my experience in the health service, there should be a return to a HEALTH service. There are too many ops done that are not health related, did anyone see the last report on breast implants that failed, and how many were implanted by the health service? Doctors complain that the health service has to train plastic surgeons for the private sector but WHY? It might surprise people how much money is just wasted but the health service needs to seriously take a look at the services offered so we can keep costs under control.
The limp dims, how can they be taken seriously? The laboured partly just continues to stun me with its stupidity, continuing to employ complete idiots like the Abbott. How long before they recover? No idea. I can only think of one party where the message is consistent and that is UKIP.
The Conservatives will still get my vote even if the pain has to be felt, at least they are not talking quite so much tosh as the laboured and limp dim partlies.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 19, 2017 10:06:05 GMT
What was the point of last nights leaders debate? I've watched them in the past two general elections and I see the importance of them. But with both Labour and Conservative representatives being absent it was just an argument amongst the also-rans (or more and argument between UKIP and the SNP!)
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 19, 2017 11:28:32 GMT
I rather agree. Extraordinary decision by Corbyn not to participate if May doesn't. Just gives her a whopping "get of jail free" card.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 19, 2017 11:37:17 GMT
I rather agree. Extraordinary decision by Corbyn not to participate if May doesn't. Just gives her a whopping "get of jail free" card. That was my thinking. He had a open goal there all he had to do was tap it in the back of the net!
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on May 19, 2017 11:57:01 GMT
I understand to be fair to Corbyn. If he was there he would have been the target from all the other parties rather than UKIP and had would have just ended up looking the bad guy.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on May 19, 2017 13:04:20 GMT
Agree entirely, we have to be honest about what people want to pay and what is achievable for that sum of money - the problem is that everyone will have a different view. The issue of the cost of the NHS seems to a thing that not one party is capable of being genuinely brave and/or honest about. Soundbites and manifesto claims that won't become reality are as good as it gets. In the meantime the big black hole gets bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 19, 2017 15:27:02 GMT
On another matter entirely - how the feck is this (LibDem) policy of having a referendum on the Brexit negotiations going to work? We've triggered the "out" bit, we can't stay "in" until we have a deal the British people have signed off. If we spend 5 years negotiating then the country votes "no", do we then spend 5 more years talking followed by another vote? Potentially being permanently in a state of WTO trade rules and with no concessions on Europeans living here, or UK people living there, while we negotiate? It all sounds more than a tad unlikely to me.... It seems simple to me, the UK government negotiates a new deal with the EU and the UK population then has the opportunity to vote on whether to accept this (warts and all) or a hard Brexit where there is no deal with Europe. I'm not sure how you would frame that in a referendum - they're normally very simple; in/out, independence/non independence, leave/remain. Trying to say to the electorate what do you want; a hard Brexit based on WTO rules or possibly better, versus a negotiated deal that will need 6 pages of explanation would probably result in half the ballot papers being spoiled.
|
|
|
Post by PG on May 19, 2017 16:10:18 GMT
On another matter entirely - how the feck is this (LibDem) policy of having a referendum on the Brexit negotiations going to work? We've triggered the "out" bit, we can't stay "in" until we have a deal the British people have signed off. If we spend 5 years negotiating then the country votes "no", do we then spend 5 more years talking followed by another vote? Potentially being permanently in a state of WTO trade rules and with no concessions on Europeans living here, or UK people living there, while we negotiate? It all sounds more than a tad unlikely to me.... It seems simple to me, the UK government negotiates a new deal with the EU and the UK population then has the opportunity to vote on whether to accept this (warts and all) or a hard Brexit where there is no deal with Europe. Actually I think the Limp Dems approach is either accept the deal or we stay in. Thus, from the BBC news website -"The Lib Dems' promise of a vote on the final Brexit deal, the centrepiece of its general election offer, would include an option to remain in the EU."
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on May 19, 2017 17:12:57 GMT
So another referendum, essentially.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 22, 2017 14:43:17 GMT
We seem to have political parties who have somehow been caught on the hop by this election and are struggling to put coherent and costed policies together. The Tories are putting policies out there, testing the electorate, and if the feedback is negative, withdrawing them. Labour has a manifesto that alleges to cost £48 billion but then at the end in small print admit it's all based on guesswork but don't worry as there'll be loads of free stuff so we're all good. Meanwhile the LibDems are proudly claiming to be not Tory and not Labour without actually saying what they are.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 22, 2017 14:51:54 GMT
The cap has been shambolic, and it's taken a bit of the heat off Corbyn's reluctance to condemn the IRA, but it'll blow over and if anything shore up the Conservative vote as it reminds people (including sitting prime ministers) that nothing is a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 22, 2017 15:02:53 GMT
There was a theory (somewhere) that a narrowing of polls between Labour and Conservative was desirable as there was a degree of complacency creeping in among Tory voters and a danger of them not bothering to vote on what they think is a foregone conclusion. However, just when you think Labour could be gaining some momentum Corbyn puts his foot in it by coming across as all shifty, or a member of the shadow cabinet (any member, actually) appears on TV and opens their mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 22, 2017 15:57:15 GMT
The Tories are putting policies out there, testing the electorate, and if the feedback is negative, withdrawing them. To be fair to them they've been doing this for several years now in the budget so its a strong and stable policy.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 22, 2017 16:39:26 GMT
There was a theory (somewhere) that a narrowing of polls between Labour and Conservative was desirable as there was a degree of complacency creeping in among Tory voters and a danger of them not bothering to vote on what they think is a foregone conclusion. However, just when you think Labour could be gaining some momentum Corbyn puts his foot in it by coming across as all shifty, or a member of the shadow cabinet (any member, actually) appears on TV and opens their mouth. Quite possibly. I don't trust Lynton Crosby at all. Ruthless operator and very prepared to play dirty if he thinks it will work and can be got away with.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 23, 2017 7:35:11 GMT
Labour has a manifesto that alleges to cost £48 billion but then at the end in small print admit it's all based on guesswork but don't worry as there'll be loads of free stuff so we're all good. I had to read that a number of times as it wasn't clear if you were referring to the Tory's or Labour; seeing as how the former have missed every single Budget and Comprehensive Spending review target on the deficit (yes, I know it was a coalition for 5 years...) then why, exactly, would their 'fully costed proposals' (which are anything but) be anything other than fantasy island either? It was clear to everyone else - unless you're being deliberately obtuse to make a political point? Sometimes pictures illustrate things better. The Tories have continually missed their deficit elimination targets, here is the trend on deficit reduction: Here is the deficit as a percentage of GDP: photo sharing freeSo we can see the trend despite the fiscal mismanagement of the Tories. My question would be; reading the Labour manifesto do you think this downward trend will a) continue b) level off c) return to an upward trajectory?
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 23, 2017 7:36:57 GMT
My question would be; reading the Labour manifesto do you think this downward trend will a) continue b) level off c) return to an upward trajectory? You'd need a much taller chart.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 23, 2017 8:16:24 GMT
It won't let me quote without adding the table so in answer to your points; 1 - I was not making a 'political point' as I have no preference for either party; I was, however, making a valid point; that you don't like that based on your ideas of what is 'good' and 'bad' politically is not my fault. 2 - Whether the trajectory would increase, decrease or remain the same under Labour I don't really care - they are equally bereft of good ideas and I can honestly say that we will never know whether Austerity (and all it brings) was the right answer for the UK against a plan for growth. What I do believe is that austerity has sown the seed of unrest and dissatisfaction across the spectrum either knowingly or unknowingly. 1. It was a valid point but economics is such an inexact science you can really only deal in trends and history. I've presented the Tory trends and we all know the Labour history. When evaluating manifestos, which are notoriously optimistic fiscally, that's all you can do. And we all have a preference - it's just whether we are prepared to admit it or not. 2. You may not care about the national debt or the deficit and maybe, at my age, I shouldn't either. I care about it because it's our children that will have to pay it off and it will act as a fiscal drag on how the economy performs during their lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by grampa on May 23, 2017 9:51:48 GMT
I'm feeling more lost this time than in any election in my voting lifetime - Lib Dems are flailing around, Conservatives don't care and Labour doesn't care how much it costs.
I'll probably just end up voting for the local candidate who is a about as left as Conservative candidates come (although not altogether happy with some of his voting record), has a good record of helping local people in personal struggles and will at least engage with the electorate - on a fairly heated evening engagement, he finally answered, "this will have to be my last word for this evening as I have to go and walk the dog - and no, that's not a euphemism" - the appreciation of the reputation of some of his colleagues quite refreshing.
Were I a few miles further north, there's no way I would vote the same way - the next door candidate is an odious toad, who thankfully stumbled at the first hurdle on his bid to be leader of the party.
One thing I'm really sad to see though is some parties standing aside to try and oust their Conservative candidate - if you believe in something like for instance the Green Party does, for God's sake stand up for it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on May 23, 2017 10:45:26 GMT
I can't say that I'd ever see the economy of the modern era being in "good hands" under a Labour administration; the most modern Labour government after an election was pretty much a Conservative one (big C note!) under Tony Bliar (sic) and the current leader has policies and ideas that are 2 generations out of date. There is a huge welfare state and worker mobility is in place, to the extent that the modern UK definition of "below the bread line" poverty is a household that earns 60% of the median line of earnings. Given that average earnings are not low this poverty line is not the same as one where children are in hand crafted wooden clogs and men wander the streets rummaging through bins to collect food scraps to feed their families.
That said I am finding it difficult to say who will be a safe pair of hands with the economy as leaving the EU throws open the doors to economic uncertainty no matter who is in charge. To that extent it may be beneficial to have a parliament of economic lunacy as we know what to expect from the off, as opposed to having some form of expectation that falls short. The following two-three parliaments can then rectify this lunacy from a low base position. Currently the economy is not "bad" it's merely suffering from massive uncertainty about what the fuck will happen in the next three years.
As to party politics, the party of choice for me has caused an issue nationally due to internal wrangling which should not have been resolved by the public; the party of the working class seems to think the working class are all liberally minded pacifists whereas the UKIP vote count proved these voters to be somewhat differently minded and the party in the middle is a short child standing between two older siblings trying to catch the ball they have thrown between them for half a century or more.
This election is simply a shite-fest. Screaming Lord Sutch's ghost would be a better candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 23, 2017 12:05:06 GMT
I've presented the Tory trends and we all know the Labour history.........
Yup, it's clear what the (pre-crash) Labour trend was from your graph above
It looks as if everyone is getting to the same viewpoint - they're all unelectable but you feel compelled to put a tick in a box.
I'll be following the same principle as Grampa - vote for the one who's done something worthwhile on a local level.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on May 23, 2017 12:52:44 GMT
I vote for the one who is going to do the least damage.
|
|
|
Post by grampa on May 23, 2017 13:19:52 GMT
I vote for the one who is going to do the least damage. That's really been how I've decided in the past, but this time I'm not sure who that is - like trying to weigh up whether collapsed suspension is worse or better than knackered big end bearings.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 23, 2017 14:24:22 GMT
I vote for the one who is going to do the least damage. That's really been how I've decided in the past, but this time I'm not sure who that is - like trying to weigh up whether collapsed suspension is worse or better than knackered big end bearings. Anything is better than a knackered big end surely?
|
|
|
Post by grampa on May 23, 2017 14:31:55 GMT
Well I guess Im getting to that age now
|
|