Precautions in case of a Labour win

zagfles

Deleted_User wrote: »

The NHS scaremongering is silly.

It's predictable, all polls show the public trust Labour more with the NHS and the Tories more with the economy, so Labour always scaremonger about the NHS being "sold off" or "dismantled" at election time, remember the "10 days to save the NHS" etc in recent elections?

Fact is the NHS has been under Tory governments more than Labour and is better funded now than ever, only a couple of years ago it won an award as the best public health service in the world.

I'm not even voting Tory, I just don't like the disingenuous propaganda designed to appeal to the gullible.

zagfles

Albermarle wrote: »

-
As 40% tax relief on pension is basically the opposite of redistribution of wealth , and mainly enjoyed by richer voters , then this will always be an easy target for any government. Surprised it has survived so long.

It's the complication of how it'd affect people in DB schemes. That's the main reason it's not been doen already, after all higher rate relief has been phased out in loads of other areas such as childcare vouchers, marriage allowance, personal savings allowance, BTL etc, plus stuff like child benefit taper which is set at the same as the HRT now.

This would be deeply unpopular in many parts of society so unlikely to happen.

What happens in UK has very limited impact on global financial markets and even the FTSE 100 is mainly populated by global companies.

Anyway the current odds with Ladbrokes for a Labour majority government are 16/1 .
There are two joint favourites - Conservative majority or Hung parliament .

19.5 for a Lab majority at Betfair! Maybe that's a good hedge for anyone worried!

Linton

zagfles wrote: »

It's predictable, all polls show the public trust Labour more with the NHS and the Tories more with the economy, so Labour always scaremonger about the NHS being "sold off" or "dismantled" at election time, remember the "10 days to save the NHS" etc in recent elections?

Fact is the NHS has been under Tory governments more than Labour and is better funded now than ever,

The criterion that matters is funding vs demand. During the past 9 years of Tory governments waiting lists have increased significantly whilst they decreased under the previous administration. For examples of the current situation: in my local hospital cataract ops now have a 10 months wait and laser treatment 2 years.


The UK spend on health is less than most other similar countries in Europe as a % of GDP - eg France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Norway.

only a couple of years ago it won an award as the best public health service in the world.

Wasnt it "most efficient" which is rather different?

fred246

Yes it's pretty clear what is going on. The Tories are funding emergency care and cancer care. Elective operations you can go private or wait a long time for the NHS. If you wait expect it to be cancelled and rearranged on numerous occasions. More so for joint replacements than cataracts. Cataracts you now have to wait until you are really blind to get CCG funding.

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

The criterion that matters is funding vs demand. During the past 9 years of Tory governments waiting lists have increased significantly whilst they decreased under the previous administration.

At our local major NHS hospital 20% of patients do not turn up (i.e. cancel) for scheduled appointments. The Consultants could have occupied their time with performing operations..........

[Deleted User]

Funding for NHS (and any other public service) depends on how well the economy is doing, taxes generated as a result, size of debt and share of revenue spent on interest payments.

It is not “either we have good economy under one party or we have NHS under the other”. The two are correlated. There could be a time lag between cause and effect, but economic damage will damage NHS.

zagfles

Linton wrote: »

The criterion that matters is funding vs demand. During the past 9 years of Tory governments waiting lists have increased significantly whilst they decreased under the previous administration.

Well there was that slight recession to recover from...although they still managed to increase NHS spending in real terms.

For examples of the current situation: in my local hospital cataract ops now have a 10 months wait and laser treatment 2 years.

There was a lot of fiddling of the figures with the target obssession of the previous Labour govt, the Mid Staffs scandal being an extreme example of what happens when hospitals are incentivised to chase artifical govt set targets rather than doing what's best for patient care.

For instance prioritising patients who are close to the target waiting time rather than those who need treatment more urgently but haven't been waiting as long.

The UK spend on health is less than most other similar countries in Europe as a % of GDP - eg France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Norway.


Wasnt it "most efficient" which is rather different?

UK health spending is pretty much the EU average, and if we're more efficient then that money goes further.

zagfles

Deleted_User wrote: »

Funding for NHS (and any other public service) depends on how well the economy is doing, taxes generated as a result, size of debt and share of revenue spent on interest payments.

It is not “either we have good economy under one party or we have NHS under the other”. The two are correlated. There could be a time lag between cause and effect, but economic damage will damage NHS.

As has happened in the oil rich socialist paradise of Venezuela, who govt the current Labour leadership fawned over:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/19/venezuela-crisis-hospitals-shortages-barcelona-caracas

AnotherJoe

mat5664 wrote: »

If Corbyn becomes PM, there will be serious implications for pensions:

- the Nationalisation program will decimate current pension values as will the plans to 'give' shares to workers.
Whether you mean drop by 10% or 90% (traditional or modern meaning of decimate) if you pension drops by that because a few big UK domiciled companies have a drop, means you must be invested 100% in the FTSE10 or 20. Not a good plan. It will also drop the pound meaning that non Sterling investments will rise. So actually any reasonably invested pensions should rise

- Labour will probably eliminate higher rate tax relief within days on coming to power
Surprised it's hung on for so long. Will make all those assiduously paying off their 2% mortgages first ready to get 40% tax relief later sick to their stomachs.

- They might also cut tax free lump sum entitlement.
They might but that woudl be massively unpopular with lower earners (especially those looking to pay the final chunk offa mortgage befure they retired) and those with small pots as well. It would also prevent all that money com8ng back into the economy to be spent incurring vat so would be counterproductive

Still time to take precautions. If you are over 55 you can take tax free lump sum now without impacting on MPAA. Move funds to a safer place etc.
Why would your funds not already be in a safe place? Why would you be invested almost entirely in the FTSE10 amd need the scare of a Corbyn Govt to do so.?

(I didn't vote in the last election, so this is not a party political message, just based on Labour plans).

And ridiculous scaremongering

fred246

The Tories gave up on waiting list times because they want people to pay privately. With no waiting list there is no advantage in going private (unless you want a salmon sandwich after your op). So the Tories always create a big gap between private and state funded and labour always close the gap. It's exactly the same with education. State schools are in real poverty while private ones should be reasonably well funded. If the state ones are really good people won't pay for private education (OK some people will always pay because they think it means better).