the snap general election thread

JP08

padington wrote: »

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

Indeed - every time I see just bald headline figures (whichever party and whether demonstrating an increase or a cut) I assume someone is trying to blind with statistics.

When I see a figure that is adjusted for inflation etc and is on a per capita (or equally sensible normalisation figure) basis then that is a comparison I have something to work with.

So to take A Medium Sized Jock's figures at face value 117.229 in 2015/16 at 2% inflation (say) should be 126.8924 by 2019/20. Its a cut not an increase. And that's before figuring the population demographics.

Fella

Conservatives & DUP have reached agreement. Queen's Speech should be voted through Parliament on Thursday.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Ironically, I thought the actual Labour and Conservative manifesto NHS funding commitments were not so far off each other?

So clearly a Labour policy to starve it of funds too or did I read that wrongly?

Of course, the question is where you take any extra money from - you could for example look to the better off (with more than 100k to their name) to pay more for their care later in life? (sic)

Or those who can afford it to give up their Winter Fuel allowance?

We cannot have it all.

mufi

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

My insight, from experience since 1973 with a close family member, is that it was neglected back then. The neglect got considerably worse once "care in the community" was introduced, and that must be getting on for forty years ago. Can't tell you whose bright idea that was, but neither Labour, the Tories, nor the Lib Dems (when in alliance) have done anything about it.

Fella

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Ironically, I thought the actual Labour and Conservative manifesto NHS funding commitments were not so far off each other?

So clearly a Labour policy to starve it of funds too or did I read that wrongly?

Nope, you're correct. During the nearly two-month campaign, Andrew Neil said it to a Labour MP & asked for an explanation (which he didn't get). It literally wasn't mentioned at all apart from that that I saw. Compare & contrast to the onslaught of questions that every Tory policy got pilloried with.

Of course Labour also proposed to put up taxes for low-income households by scrapping the marriage allowance, a move that would have potentially cost millions of people up to £230 a year & that never got any coverage at all. Again, compare & contrast to the trivial NI increase that Hammond foolishly included in the budget & the uproar that followed. The way the BBC reacted to that you'd have thought the Tories had increased Income Tax by 10%.

Whenever there is another election, I suspect Labour will be given a far far harder time over their costings etc. They were let off scott-free this time. The Tories won't make that mistake again & hopefully the BBC might actually do their job a bit more responsibly rather than seeming to take the view that it was OK to allow Labour's fantasy giveaway manifesto to be barely questioned either because of the massive left-wing bias at the BBC or because they didn't think Labour had any chance of winning therefore thought it might be fun to keep bashing the favourite to the benefit of the underdog.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mufi wrote: »

My insight, from experience since 1973 with a close family member, is that it was neglected back then. The neglect got considerably worse once "care in the community" was introduced, and that must be getting on for forty years ago. Can't tell you whose bright idea that was, but neither Labour, the Tories, nor the Lib Dems (when in alliance) have done anything about it.

Absolutely spot-on.
Child care and Social Services just the same BTW.

I have said the same in another thread about the so-called "Nursing Crisis" - there has been such a crisis for over 50 years and yet nothing has been done, by a series of successive governments.
Rather than importing (as we have for many years) it would be better (if not cheaper) to train many more of our own and put a restriction upon the earliest those newly-qualified may leave to work abroad of (say for example only) five years.

Doctors too, and more recently pharmacists; physios ........... the solutions are there but it seems that no-one wants to try and solve them up to now.
There might not be an "easy fix" and I for one quite accept that these so-called "crises" will not evaporate overnight, certainly not just from injections of cash but surely someone ................... it makes me wonder what it will take for the situation to change.

LHW99

My insight, from experience since 1973 with a close family member, is that it was neglected back then. The neglect got considerably worse once "care in the community" was introduced, and that must be getting on for forty years ago. Can't tell you whose bright idea that was, but neither Labour, the Tories, nor the Lib Dems (when in alliance) have done anything about it.

Another agree, from experience with 5 family members in various regions of the country from around the same time.

Rather than importing (as we have for many years) it would be better (if not cheaper) to train many more of our own and put a restriction upon the earliest those newly-qualified may leave to work abroad of (say for example only) five years.

When we appear to have to turn down well qualified 6th formers because the medical and nursing courses are full, and yet there are ever more students for journalism, sports management etc degrees (where you might assume getting an apprenticeship would be more appropriate) higher education spending priorities, given the large amount taken off current students, seem IMO to be rather skewed.

Fella

Haha, just heard a Welsh Labour guy on the radio saying how the Tories £1BN to the DUP was nothing more than "buying votes".

Buying votes eh. Disgraceful. I wonder if he read the Labour manifesto.

Chrysalis

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

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...

I do agree it would take tax avoidance up a level, the solution is to either close the avoidance loop holes, or implement a new tax targeted at at tax avoidance companies.

Trump threatened various manufacturers in america (who were planning to move manufacturing to mexico) with a fat 35% import tax, it soon changed their minds. All a government has to do is make tax avoidance unprofitable. In addition to penalise tax evasion with the same amount of effort as they put into dealing with benefit fraud, no sweet heart deals.

Fella

ilovehouses wrote: »

A little ironic yes but no money will change hands for those labour votes.

Er, yes, because they lost.