The 2017 GE & Politics Thread

[Aashenfox]

I think we'd all be too busy smoking our newly legalized pot to care, especially the lib dems themselves.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Aashenfox

[Ekona]

I just did some research and basic maths to work out just how much the NHS spends. According to the NHS Confederation, budget for this FY is just over £120Bn. Break that down per day and you get to a total of over £300M. Per day. Every day.

 

Ouch.

 

So when any of the political parties (and I do mean any) say they're going to spend X amount extra on the NHS, then it really should be compared with that figure. As an example, I looked up the LibDem 2015 manifesto (p67/68, as we were speaking about the LD above I figured I'd go take a look) and they said that they wanted to spend an extra £8Bn on the NHS. Sounds great, a whole 6% extra! 6% is peanuts, it's like earning £250 a week and getting an extra £15 in your pocket, it ain't going to set your world on fire. All of this assumes that NHS costs won't increase YOY, which of course they will because inflation and population etc.

 

 

I'm not actually picking on the LD specifically for this at all, as if you check the Tory manifesto in 2015 (p37) it makes the exact same promise, £8Bn increase per year by 2020. So this is the evil Tories vs cuddly LDs promising the same thing. For balance I looked at the Lab manifesto too (p40): They simply promised to spend £2.5Bn more than the Tories, which was to go on 8k GPS + 20k nurses + 3k midwives. Again though, an extra £8Bn still makes chuff all difference. When these parties are promising X amount of money, it really means nothing and won't make a real world difference unless they're talking MUCH bigger figures.

 

 

I've not checked, but I suspect all three made the same kinda promised about education too. It's all a crock of shite, there's simply not enough money to support the public services right now regardless. Tax the wealthy more and they'll simply leave, tax the public more and you'll just make us all hate you. I'm not saying there's not a difference between parties, or that you shouldn't bother at all, what I'm saying is don't believe all the numbers that get thrown around. Although you now see why people are getting twitchy over the £100Bn Brexit bill, as it would be enough to pay for the whole NHS for almost an entire year...

[coldel]

Good post Dan - I remember making the same points during the Brexit debate, everyone saying how the weekly £350m savings (ignoring for now that the actual number is less than £200m) put into the NHS etc it will barely touch the sides before disappearing down the hole. Politicians do a very good job of using numbers when it suits them i.e. when spending billions, or % when they need to. Ultimately to fool the public who believe whatever is put in front of them.

 

The real point is as you mention in the last paragraph, that the government currently spends more than it earns, yet there is a public expectation that spending should go up, but debt goes down (http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/) - its all a bit cockahoop really. Osbourne for all his unpopularity wanted us to be pushing that clock down, not up. He didn't expect to clear the debt, just change direction. Labour felt the way was to borrow more to generate more business in the UK but as we are now at something like 90% debt as a percent of GDP its such a high risk move to make with so little wiggle room before that goes over 100%

[gangzoom]

It's all a crock of shite, there's simply not enough money to support the public services right now regardless.

 

It's not just the NHS, social care, school, policing. All these 'state funded' services run at a 'loss' and none are cheap.

 

This chart below is produced by the institute of fiscal studies, and it essentially shows the balance of how much money people receive (top half of the graph) versus how much people contribute to tax (lower half of the graph) broken down according earnings.

 

Essentially if the top bar chart is the same as the bar chart at the bottom than that group of people use as much public resources as they contribute in tax. If you look carefully it's only the top 20% of the working public that contributes more to state funds through taxation than they consume in public services.

 

The old favourite line touted by many 'I deserve X/Y/Z from the state because I've worked all my life' is really only true if you earn at least £38K pre-tax.

 

Been devils advocate if you really wanted to run the country like a business and balance the books the only solution you have is to exclude 80% of the population from accessing public services once they have used up their 'allotted' amount - be that health care, school, housing etc. Would you expect Nissan to give you a GTR if all you could afford was a Note because you have previously owned a 350Z so clearly a Nissan citizen/club member? BUT would you judge one person life over another purely based on the size of their bank account? Because if all you care about is the financial figures that's what it comes down to, I know I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society.

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...e-and-after-tax

 

 

There loads of things I love about StarTrek, but the notion of humanity existing without money is probably the most exciting thing part of the StarTrek universe for me.....However I'm pretty sure that is also by far the most unrealistic SciFi idea anyone has come up with ...We'll probably have flying electric antigravity cars before than happens

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by gangzoom

[JetSet]

I just did some research and basic maths to work out just how much the NHS spends. According to the NHS Confederation, budget for this FY is just over £120Bn. Break that down per day and you get to a total of over £300M. Per day. Every day. as we are

 

Yeah a lot of money but if you take the original 15 member states we are ranked 13th on health spending by GDP, makes you wonder as we are reportedly the 5th or 6th richest country in the World .

 

Pete .

[coldel]

It's all a crock of shite, there's simply not enough money to support the public services right now regardless.

 

It's not just the NHS, social care, school, policing. All these 'state funded' services run at a 'loss' and none are cheap.

 

This chart below is produced by the institute of fiscal studies, and it essentially shows the balance of how much money people receive (top half of the graph) versus how much people contribute to tax (lower half of the graph) broken down according earnings.

 

Essentially if the top bar chart is the same as the bar chart at the bottom than that group of people use as much public resources as they contribute in tax. If you look carefully it's only the top 20% of the working public that contributes more to state funds through taxation than they consume in public services.

 

The old favourite line touted by many 'I deserve X/Y/Z from the state because I've worked all my life' is really only true if you earn at least £38K pre-tax.

 

Been devils advocate if you really wanted to run the country like a business and balance the books the only solution you have is to exclude 80% of the population from accessing public services once they have used up their 'allotted' amount - be that health care, school, housing etc. Would you expect Nissan to give you a GTR if all you could afford was a Note because you have previously owned a 350Z so clearly a Nissan citizen/club member? BUT would you judge one person life over another purely based on the size of their bank account? Because if all you care about is the financial figures that's what it comes down to, I know I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society.

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...e-and-after-tax

 

 

There loads of things I love about StarTrek, but the notion of humanity existing without money is probably the most exciting thing part of the StarTrek universe for me.....However I'm pretty sure that is also by far the most unrealistic SciFi idea anyone has come up with ...We'll probably have flying electric antigravity cars before than happens

 

 

I always wondered that, cashless society with no material ownership of anything. Then I thought, so whilst Jean Luc here gets all the glory who is cleaning the bogs back at HQ? And not getting paid for doing a rubbish job?

[Ekona]

And is it wrong that I immediately knew the exact moment in the film that quote came from?

 

Down the corridor, Picard chatting with Lily who is shocked he doesn't get paid.

[gangzoom]

So this is what happens to health care when you ask a business person to run it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39813825

 

I've spoken to many Americans abour Obama care the fear of those who can afford private health care is genuinely real. The thought of having to share a bay/hospital with people from the lower social groups strikes fear into peoples hearts. Obama care a big NO NO to most of the wealthy in the US.

 

Strange really that people in the supposedly most 'developed' nation on the planet essentially are so divided into the haves and have nots.

 

When I was in the US last I took a bus from the Hotel to SantaMonica beach, when I got back and some US colleagues found out I had taken a bus they really were genuinely relived I was 'OK'. It was almost as though just stepping onto a bus was some kind of danger sport, and I would catch some deadly disease. Its a really strange society over the pound, I really don't get it.

 

Having a private health system is also no guarantee of efficiency or value for money. The average pay for my job in the US is $270K and my wife could be on $400k!!! Our NHS salaries are not even 25% of that and yet both of us have given international talks on how to manage patients in the US, my wife even got an award last year for her work beating many US doctors up for the same award. So just because you pay your health care staff more it doesn't buy you better care.

 

So becarful of what you wish for interms of private health care, because let's be honest without the NHS the only alternative is the US system. Personally I hate the idea of private health care, I actively choose not to see patients who have private health insurance. The concept of segregating hospitals into different social economics zones is a step too far for me, but it happens and I accept need to try keep the books balanced .... But if that is route the national wants to go down I wouldn't fight it too hard, our bank accounts will certainly look happier. However a private NHS will not be good for the overall health care fo the national, not for those who cannot afford insurance anyways.

Edited May 5, 2017 by gangzoom

[Ekona]

Interesting stuff, well put fella

 

 

Personally speaking I think the NHS covers too many things, and that's the biggest issue. Stuff like PReP, anything cosmetic not due to accidents, and even things like IVF; I don't feel the public should be funding these until such a time as we have the budget to do so. We should be charging £25 or whatever for missed appointments too, it's not hard to ring up and cancel if you're not going to make it. I fully support the NHS in terms of emergency treatment, but people need to stop treating it like a free pass: How many times do we see and hear people going to their GP because they're got the sniffles, or a bit of a headache, or other such nonsense? That has to stop, and we need to take a collective look at how we use our services.

 

[GZ, this next bit isn't aimed at you personally] Private healthcare should not be seen as the root of all evil, and from personal experience I could not believe the change in attitudes in my fellow patients the other month when I got transferred from NHS to private. It was like I was the devil or something, despite me actually freeing up a bed and resources for someone who didn't have the option to go private like I did. That's an attitude I can't understand, as in theory the more people that go private the more space is available in the NHS for those who can't afford to. That would be the ideal system for me, perhaps a means-tested measure that says if you earn over X then you must have private healthcare. Sure, it would be seen as another tax, but I also can't see another way to free up space in the NHS system. Private insurance is relatively cheap these days anyway, I'm surprised that more people don't have it if I'm honest, it's actually quite cheap these days for the basic cover.

[Jetpilot]

Interesting stuff, well put fella

 

 

Personally speaking I think the NHS covers too many things, and that's the biggest issue. Stuff like PReP, anything cosmetic not due to accidents, and even things like IVF; I don't feel the public should be funding these until such a time as we have the budget to do so. We should be charging £25 or whatever for missed appointments too, it's not hard to ring up and cancel if you're not going to make it. I fully support the NHS in terms of emergency treatment, but people need to stop treating it like a free pass: How many times do we see and hear people going to their GP because they're got the sniffles, or a bit of a headache, or other such nonsense? That has to stop, and we need to take a collective look at how we use our services.

 

I didnt think cosmetic surgery was available on the nhs unless you had a medical condition or trauma from accident, i.e you can get a boobie job just because you want them?

 

Unused prescriptions is a big problem, but have no idea how they could be regulated, perhaps like you say, education and use of services. No different to a&e and how people use it.

 

So what about someone with obesity getting a gastric band, should they be done on the nhs? I know you make reference to smokers and you say we get a free ride, why is there no duty on fat foods, lets just say takeaways for example as a generic thing, pizza, kfc, macdonalds etc etc

[coldel]

To the very last point - the NHS is a fix for a problem in many cases which could be avoided. Sorting out the issues such as increasing obesity, alcohol (which I read yesterday is actually dropping in the UK) and the like is what the focus should really be on. Better to not have the problems in the first place than to constantly look to fix the outcomes of them.

[Ekona]

I was referring more to people who claim that they're mentally unwell and won't get better unless they get X surgery done, rather than just boob jobs for all. Although I'm not entirely against that policy...

 

As regards the fatties, obese people should be made to lose weight before being given surgery. No effort made, then no going under the knife. Same with alcoholics who need a liver, smokers who need lungs etc. If people don't help themselves first and foremost, then why should anyone else bother?

 

Disagree with a tax on fatty foods though. A burger once a week doesn't hurt anyone, unlike smoking. Quite where that attitude of mine leaves alcohol and the duty paid on that, I haven't a clue tbh!

[Jetpilot]

I was referring more to people who claim that they're mentally unwell and won't get better unless they get X surgery done, rather than just boob jobs for all. Although I'm not entirely against that policy...

 

As regards the fatties, obese people should be made to lose weight before being given surgery. No effort made, then no going under the knife. Same with alcoholics who need a liver, smokers who need lungs etc. If people don't help themselves first and foremost, then why should anyone else bother?

 

Disagree with a tax on fatty foods though. A burger once a week doesn't hurt anyone, unlike smoking. Quite where that attitude of mine leaves alcohol and the duty paid on that, I haven't a clue tbh!

 

Yeah i am with you on that, but its very easy to claim you are mentally unwell, same goes for the whole soft tissue whiplash bull.

 

Absolutely a burger a week doesnt hurt you, but you aint going to be a fatty from a burger a week, so yes i guess we would all get "punished" but would you really notice 10% for example on takeaways, just looking at some figures, 2015 they reckoned £8billion on takeaways (why is everything 8billion, lol) and yes i know its a drop in the ocean, but all these drops in the ocean might make a difference, if people started getting healthier, wouldnt nhs costs come down over time?

[Ekona]

Almost certainly, can't argue with that there. That said, if they won't treat you unless you do something about your weight then you get the same result without an extra tax.

 

I'm just against food taxes in general, like the sugar tax or the strong alcohol tax. I don't believe that you should punish those that choose to have a few things here or there that aren't necessarily going to kill you just because a few people can't stop eating everything in front of them.

 

 

I should add that I struggle massively with my weight, as I have the appetite of a horse and am constantly hungry regardless of what I eat, so I understand the urge to EAT ALL TEH FOODS but I don't because I don't want to be a fat c*nt again. Yeah yeah, I know that just makes me a skinny c*nt instead

[coldel]

If you buy the occasional burger the tax on it won't really affect your overall spending though? Effectively taxation was one of the main drivers of the reduction of smoking (along with all the supporting media, banning in public etc).

 

On the flip side, if they made healthy food cheaper that would also help. There is a programme called Early Doors a comedy set in a pub, there is a bit where the cantankerous old guy in the corner starts talking about organic food. How everything used to be organic in the old days (but not called that), then they put preservatives in food to make it last longer and charged us all for it, then took it out again called it organic and charged us more again, its a rip off!

[Jetpilot]

Interesting, just found an article, appreciate its purely circumspect, but figures of 16billion a year as a direct cause of obesity, thats more than us smokers and as before put 12billion into the pot.

 

http://www.telegraph...than-on-the-po/

 

Regarding not helping unless you help yourself, i agree, but it leaves so much to interpretation, would a fatty be classed as helping themselves if they lost a stone, effectively it would make no difference to someone of 30 stone, but they have "tried".

Edited May 5, 2017 by Jetpilot

[Ekona]

Would love to see just how they came to those figures, seems spectacularly high to me. Still could be achieved by refusing treatment, but I concede maybe it would be a good idea.

 

As an aside, do we know if smoking numbers are still on the decline, and if so by how much? Just wondering how much difference all the new rules on bland packets with death pics on them and hiding them away has made any difference to falling numbers at all. Interestingly my local Co-op no longer even stocks Bensons, according to the guy on the till the other day which I just found bonkers given they must be one of if not the biggest seller in the UK. I still think the guy couldn't find them because all the packs look the same, tbh.

[BobbyZ]

Well surely if you tax cigarettes for being unhealthy, in principal the same should apply to other unhealthy stuff. End of the day, if you're sensible and don't consume these things all the time then it won't put a huge dent in your wallet.

The alternative is just to not treat people who are responsible for their ailments, but then where do you draw the line?

[Ekona]

Holy crap, they're only 9th in the list now apparently! http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_123.pdf

 

Sterling are top. Never heard of them.

[Jetpilot]

The problem is, we are back to the popularity thing, if whoever decides to tax fatty foods, bang goes a sh*t load of votes from fatties!

 

Unless all parties decide to do it, which personally i think with issues like this, they should for the national interest.

 

I cant see the constant rise in, tax (of whatever form), duty on fuel, fags and alcohol is addressing the problems!

[Jetpilot]

Holy crap, they're only 9th in the list now apparently! http://ash.org.uk/fi...nts/ASH_123.pdf

 

Sterling are top. Never heard of them.

 

Reason, they are about the cheapest out there, by some margin

Edited May 5, 2017 by Jetpilot

[Ekona]

And I bet they taste absolutely disgusting too. I could never smoke cheap fags, I usually went for Embassy Blue when I smoked. Marlboro Lights were next best, or just plain Benson Gold if nothing else available.

[coldel]

The problem is, we are back to the popularity thing, if whoever decides to tax fatty foods, bang goes a sh*t load of votes from fatties!

 

Unless all parties decide to do it, which personally i think with issues like this, they should for the national interest.

 

I cant see the constant rise in, tax (of whatever form), duty on fuel, fags and alcohol is addressing the problems!

 

Taxation flew up on cigs but smokers still voted for the ruling party?

 

I agree though, any government should conduct some sort of policy research before committing.

[coldel]

...back on politics, a bit of a guide on the GE yesterday. UKIP smashed as basically there is no reason to vote for them anymore. Libs neither here nor there, Labour folding and losing seats. Its going to be nothing but a Tory landslide this year.

[Ekona]

I'm very surprised about how the LD have done, I'll be honest. SNP not making anywhere near the expected gains in Scotland either, with more Tory gains there as well. PC doing well in Wales though.