the snap general election thread

Cakeguts

Chrysalis wrote: »

Both policies had similar costs, labours was costed the tories wasnt.

Tax cuts still costs money.

In fact cutting taxes is a very dangerous game, and can have severe long term repercussions.

Once you take away taxes, its very hard to get people to accept them again, e.g. corby's proposals wasnt even to put it back to what it was in 2009 and look at the road block he hit. So what was considered fine in 2009 suddenly isnt now.

Labour's initial proposals might have been costed but as time went on and Corbyn realised that he had a problem he started to add extra bribes to the middle classes and these were not costed in the original proposals. What Corbyn finished up with would have cost a lot more than most people thought because they didn't realise about the add ons.

BobQ

Cakeguts wrote: »

Labour's initial proposals might have been costed but as time went on and Corbyn realised that he had a problem he started to add extra bribes to the middle classes and these were not costed in the original proposals. What Corbyn finished up with would have cost a lot more than most people thought because they didn't realise about the add ons.

Academic now is it not. We have the uncosted Tory proposals. Ah I forgot we have some of uncosted Tory proposals and whatever the DUP want to spend.

BobQ

Cakeguts wrote: »

I just want to add to the bit about homeless people. What a lot of people don't realise is that the NHS is not very good at mental illness so treatment is patchy.

The NHS is not an independent fiefdom. The DoH still sets the priorities. Its not that the NHS is not good at mental illness, its that it is underfunded AND mental illness is not hiven a high enough priority.

Cakeguts

BobQ wrote: »

The NHS is not an independent fiefdom. The DoH still sets the priorities. Its not that the NHS is not good at mental illness, its that it is underfunded AND mental illness is not hiven a high enough priority.

There was a recent report of a hospital where a pregnant woman was restrained on her stomach in a mental health ward. That is caused by underfunding? If so I would be interested to hear of pregnant women in other wards being restrained on their stomachs.

It is not just that the NHS is not good at mental health or the priority it is given or funding it is also the way that people with mental illness are treated within the NHS and that is nothing to do with funding and all to do with bad management.

Cakeguts

padington wrote: »

Is this thread a joke ? Theresa May doesn't give a flying eff bomb about the poorer Uk subjects, if she did, she wouldn't be the cheerleader for a party which has surpressed wages heavily for the last 40 years whilst GDP and profits of billionaires gallop ahead.

Corbyn on the other hand obviously does give a Damn about the poor, he is just quite misguided about how heavily global capital will clobber the U.K if he presses ahead with his manifesto.

The two things are quite different. One is an inept bully, the other a misguided idealist.

Give me the crap choice however Corbyn gets my vote every day of the week because his ideas would make the world a better place if every country adopted them, unlike Mays selfish tax haven motivated hard Brexit drivel.

Since when would being photographed with victims in order to get publicity and just generally using people to get power make anywhere a better place?

There is a difference between someone who doesn't claim to be doing something for the poor and someone who does claim to be doing something but isn't. I would suggest that someone who claims to be doing something for the poor whilst knowing that they actually aren't doing anything is dishonest and telling lies.

Tweeting old photographs without admitting to them being old is also bordering on dishonesty. At the very least it is misleading. So if that is misleading how much of the rest of what he says is misleading?

padington

Cakeguts wrote: »

Since when would being photographed with victims in order to get publicity and just generally using people to get power make anywhere a better place?

There is a difference between someone who doesn't claim to be doing something for the poor and someone who does claim to be doing something but isn't. I would suggest that someone who claims to be doing something for the poor whilst knowing that they actually aren't doing anything is dishonest and telling lies.

Tweeting old photographs without admitting to them being old is also bordering on dishonesty. At the very least it is misleading. So if that is misleading how much of the rest of what he says is misleading?

Monarchy often spend time in front of Cameras with ill people a lot, personally I don't have issue with it, often it helps show others the victims need more help , probably helps cheer some people up they visit as well.

The rest of you arguement is lost on me.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Chrysalis wrote: »

Both policies had similar costs, labours was costed the tories wasnt..

Tax cuts still costs money..

In fact cutting taxes is a very dangerous game, and can have severe long term repercussions.

Once you take away taxes, its very hard to get people to accept them again, e.g. corby's proposals wasnt even to put it back to what it was in 2009 and look at the road block he hit. So what was considered fine in 2009 suddenly isnt now.

So I guess not everyone agreed they were genuinely costed. Many didn't care and still don't if the calculations were at best hopeful.

It is a known and probably unavoidable effect that if you raise any tax but especially corporation tax even modestly, companies will behave very differently very fast, so to claim a massive hike will generate "fully" is fantasyland. It simply does not matter if the tax were previously same level in 2009 - 8 years ago. The reaction to a sudden > 25% hike in taxes would be commensurate and revenues would not match the manifesto projections.

All changes to anything cost money to implement - but the actual costs of changing tax rates is dwarfed buying back multiple industries into national ownerships for example.

Tax rises and tax cuts can all be dangerous if done in huge and sudden lumps - a gentle adjustment to taxes is understood by all to be necessary part of life. You put up tax on cigarettes every single year until the effect is achieved...likewise fossil fuels. You try to reduce the personal tax threshold every year by a margin. And so on...

gfplux

Cakeguts wrote: »

I just want to add to the bit about homeless people. What a lot of people don't realise is that the NHS is not very good at mental illness so treatment is patchy. A large proportion of homeless people who have addictions to alcohol or illegal drugs started out with a mental illness that was not very well treated. So what they did was they self medicated with something to deal with the problem that wasn't getting treated by any medical professionals. This causes a lot of problems because you then have an addiction on top of a mental illness that was a very large part of the cause of the addiction.

If you get a mental illness as a young person. You become invisible. If the illness means that you can't work you can't move out of your parent's home. There isn't enough supported housing for people who need help to live independent lives so they get stuck at home with parents to a much greater age than most other people would. Because they are invisible many people don't seem to realise that there are people in this position. These people are poor. They don't have the choices in life that many other people have. It isn't just money it is complete lack of choice.

Considering the number of people who suffer from mental illness there has been a very little research into the causes and into improving medication. This means that some of the medication still has severe side effects.

It would be possible for a government to improve the prospects of people with mental illness but it would mean changing some of the ways that it is treated. At the moment quite a lot of care of mental illness comes under adult care rather than under the NHS. What this means is that the illness comes under the budget of local councils rather than under the NHS budget. If this was cancer instead it would mean that you go into hospital for the initial dose of chemotherapy and then once they have decided that the chemotherapy suits you and isn't making you worse you would be discharged to continue your chemotherapy at home by yourself and if you had a problem you would go to your GP who would send you to a council run centre to check how you are getting on taking your chemotherapy at home. They might give you a social worker to help you manage your treatment at home. It would be extremely difficult for you to have any more hospital treatment after the initial admission. Any changes of chemotherapy would be handled by an oncologist on an outpatient basis. The chemotherapy given to you would have a lot of side effects because it would not have had very much research done to improve it. Your local council centre could have its range of services reduced at the whim of the council if it decided to save some money. In which case you would be left to take the chemotherapy at home on your own with minimum help.

Thank you for that insight.
In my humble opinion (from your first line)
"The NHS is not very good at mental illness"
Is because they are starved of funding and have to CHOOSE where to allocate resources.
STARVED OF FUNDS

It's called Tory cuts

A_Medium_Size_Jock

gfplux wrote: »

Thank you for that insight.
In my humble opinion (from your first line)
"The NHS is not very good at mental illness"
Is because they are starved of funding and have to CHOOSE where to allocate resources.
STARVED OF FUNDS

It's called Tory cuts

Cuts?
On the contrary, NHS funding has increased:

In real terms the budget is expected to increase from £117.229bn in 2015/16 to £120.151bn by 2019/20.

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

If you don't like those figures try Fullfact, who say in summary (right at the end if you want to read the pro's and con's first; there are some of each):

That means, overall, health spending in England is set to rise by £5.9 billion between 2015/16 and 2020/21.

https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

padington

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Cuts?
On the contrary, NHS funding has increased:

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

If you don't like those figures try Fullfact, who say in summary (right at the end if you want to read the pro's and con's first; there are some of each):

https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

Does that take into account rising elderly population, rising mental health problems and raising population generally ?

Lies, damn lies and Tory statistics ..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-are-more-dissatisfied-than-ever-with-nhs-poll-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other