General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

[Rams]

But that's already what National Insurance is. If that's cut, then all that's happening is you're outsourcing the collection of that money. And if it isn't cut, you're double taxing people for something. If it is cut it would be a complete disaster because that money goes to more than just healthcare. And if stays intact, but people who earn over a certain amount are mandated to buy another insurance package - what's the point? Why not just raise NI contributions from that group of people?

The National Insurance is money paid to the government to fund the treasury and not just the NHS. I'm talking about compulsory private health insurance purchased from private health insurance companies to fund medical treatment in the NHS.
I'm not sure what you're trying to debate with me but it seems to me as if you're trying argue I mean something I don't actually mean (as I know exactly what I mean).
My argument is that a free for all NHS is not sustainable. Please debate that if you disagree with what I'm saying

 

[Cheesy]

It is true. I accept that the snap election probably resulted in rushed out proposals with errors. Tories fecked up school kids' meals, Labour didn't cost in expropriation costs of various industries.

Would be interesting to see if you can take one woman and one man from tonight and decide who you have a threesome with. Goes downhill if you exclude the saucy presenter.

I'd take the presenter and Nuttall: she's of foreign descent, meaning Nuttall would abstain, leaving me alone with her.

 

[Rams]

Do you believe that the renationalisation of four industries will amount to no additional costs for the taxpayer, even without Labour's pledged salary increases? The electorate is going to face a huge bill, one which Labour has neglected to inform them of.

Their pledge is that the wealthy will be taxed more to fund their promises on items such as nationalisation.
Personally I think that's naieve as it will make it harder for Britain to attract investment at a time they'll need it the most.

 

[berbatrick]

It is true. I accept that the snap election probably resulted in rushed out proposals with errors. Tories fecked up school kids' meals, Labour didn't cost in expropriation costs of various industries.

Would be interesting to see if you can take one woman and one man from tonight and decide who you have a threesome with. Goes downhill if you exclude the saucy presenter.

Spoiler that word, it's more effective than porn

 

[Silva]

The National Insurance is money paid to the government to fund the treasury and not just the NHS. I'm talking about compulsory private health insurance purchased from private health insurance companies to fund medical treatment in the NHS.
I'm not sure what you're trying to debate with me but it seems to me as if you're trying argue I mean something I don't actually mean (as I know exactly what I mean).
My argument is that a free for all NHS is not sustainable. Please debate that if you disagree with what I'm saying

I guess what I'm asking is - what's the difference between mandatory insurance plans and extra taxation? Surely either way, we don't want the NHS to decline anyone healthcare.

 

[Spark]

What do you mean the crowd was biased?

As someone from Cambridge, this is the least surprising thing ever - it's left wing as feck.

 

[Jippy]

I'd take the presenter and Nuttall: she's of foreign descent, meaning Nuttall would abstain, leaving me alone with her.

I think he'd enjoy watching to much though. Had you more as an Amber man, with her hippy name.

 

[Adzzz]

Yeah, while I can fundamentally understand the argument that taxes should be lowered to incentivise business in a post-Brexit Britain and that any move to increase them and attempt to eliminate austerity is risky, and while I can understand people who would be tempted to vote for that, I'm just not sure it's an argument Labour should be making. There surely has to be a credible major party who are fundamentally arguing against policies the Tories plan to enact.

And, again, plenty would argue that Corbyn's supposedly radical policies of renationalisation and increased taxes are simply him going back to how things used to be. For the most part his manifesto isn't that absurd or outlandish...it's just that it's one Labour haven't really been willing to put forward for a while. And, again, they have their reasons for doing so, but I've got a certain admiration for Corbyn at least trying to present a strong alternative argument to austerity.

This is probably the foundation of the PLP v Corbyn, he's an old school Labour man in that respect and at odds with Blairism and Neocons, New-Lab and that ilk. They call it going back to the 70's don't they? We had workers rights then, houses were affordable, the list goes on.

 

[Rams]

I guess what I'm asking is - what's the difference between mandatory insurance plans and extra taxation? Surely either way, we don't want the NHS to decline anyone healthcare.

To understand that you need to understand how insurance works. It's all about premiums vs claims. If a healthy somebody is paying premium without using the NHS then that reserve is then spent on the individual using a NHS service.
Basically the government is transferring a large part of their expenditure to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies) and thus freeing up government funds for investments in the NHS like new hospitals or increased wages for NHS staff.

 

[Jippy]

Spoiler that word, it's more effective than porn

It's effectively what it is though a la Nigeria.

I need to go bed, the 7am shift is looming.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Their pledge is that the wealthy will be taxed more to fund their promises on items such as nationalisation.
Personally I think that's naieve as it will make it harder for Britain to attract investment at a time they'll need it the most.

According to the New Statesman, Labour didn't need to provide any costings because nationalisation falls under infrastructure spending. In all likelihood, further billions each year will either be borrowed or taxed.

 

[Silva]

To understand that you need to understand how insurance works. It's all about premiums vs claims. If a healthy somebody is paying premium without using the NHS then that reserve is then spent on the individual using a NHS service.
Basically the government is transferring a large part of their expenditure to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies) and thus freeing up government funds for investments in the NHS like new hospitals or increased wages for NHS staff.

That's exactly how taxes work. We all pay our little bit, and the sum is used to benefit everyone. All that would happen with insurance companies is that a middle man is collecting healthcare money instead of HMRC. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like we'd be hiding a tax in the private sector.

 

[Ubik]

I could look it up I suppose (maybe in the morning), but does anyone know what our deficit and debt were when the NHS was founded and we built all those homes and introduced so much of the welfare state? I guess we must have been well flush then, right?

They did also go on a huge austerity drive in that period. They needed to after the war. Similarly, Labour in 97 delivered a surplus whilst also massively increasing funding for services.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

They did also go on a huge austerity drive in that period. They needed to after the war. Similarly, Labour in 97 delivered a surplus whilst also massively increasing funding for services.

Except that it's not quite that neat. The government's PFI debt is somewhere in the order of £225bn, which we'll be paying off for years to come.

 

[Ubik]

Except that it's not quite that neat. The government's PFI debt is somewhere in the order of £225bn, which we'll be paying off for years to come.

As bad as that (Tory invented) scheme is, wouldn't really have had an effect on the current budget would it? Was used for capital projects.

 

[SteveJ]

The human cost of more Tory rule isn't included in their intangible costings, unsurprisingly; I guess they feel it's of little account.

 

[Zii]

Only reason to get up and vote.

Labour dabs, torys dont. Labour in

 

[ThierryHenry]

Am I the only one who thinks Farron's done alright in this? Just about finished.

He did, but he's just such a laughable character I don't think people are really listening to him.

The Lib Dems suffered from this not becoming the Brexit election (well done to JC for this I suppose), but even still they've failed at gaining any presence or media profile in the campaign. Farron has to take the blame for that. Possibly after the calls for a second referendum (a rubbish idea even for a remoaner like me), the most press attention they've got in the campaign has been focused around Farron's views on gay sex.

 

[montpelier]

This Election is weird, I wasn't expecting this kind of campaign at all. The atmosphere suggests Corbyn has some kind of chance & that the Tories are really not all that popular - whether that idea might melt away in the privacy of the voting booth, who knows.

1 - Corbyn has been impressive. May has been terrible. Their names are not on the ballot paper though.

2 - Tory campaign has been shocking. They don't look like improving. May is already badly damaged for me. One soundbite replaces another - people don't like being treated as stupid.

3 - Media - newspapers not so relevant anymore, there's alternative sources & many of them present alternative views. Jezza needs that (younger) vote coming out.

4 - Brexit - Theresa May might recover a bit of form, if they focus on that from now on, because Labour have very little to say.

However, I found myself wondering if people think Brexit is done because they've voted for it, so the importance is kinda gone now, particularly the 50% who voted against it. Why vote for someone who seems obsessed with the issue?

Probably a drift left along the spectrum, for me. But unless Jezza gets that younger vote out, it's not enough for him.

UKIP --> Con --> LibDem --> Lab

May wins but if it's not enough for her Party, she is in the shit. Next leader of that lot likely to be nastier than her, too.

Supposed to be a straightforward Brexit Election, especially in Tory campaign eyes but Electorate possibly don't seem to be seeing it that way, atm.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Just as a response to some of the comments from last night, headline on the BBC website is "Rivals attack May for missing TV debate".

 

[Drainy]

The human cost of more Tory rule isn't included in their intangible costings, unsurprisingly; I guess they feel it's of little account.

something something.. Live within our means..

*ignore the explosion in the deficit caused by cutting taxes on the wealthy, while seeing the spending power of the public cut by increases in VAT and devaluation of the pound due to Brexit*

 

[Smores]

Just as a response to some of the comments from last night, headline on the BBC website is "Rivals attack May for missing TV debate".

Oh how nice of them. Not like them to put out a bias headline before switching it is it.

On the other hand the sub story attached to that is "May: We can do great things".

Then in their 5 Key things 3 of them are Magic Money Tree, Clash on Immigration, Coalition of Choas. The only negative story for the tories is May not turning up apparently.

 

[Sweet Square]

Jesus Christ !

 

[Nogbadthebad]

I could look it up I suppose (maybe in the morning), but does anyone know what our deficit and debt were when the NHS was founded and we built all those homes and introduced so much of the welfare state? I guess we must have been well flush then, right?

Actual figures mean little as you need to adjust them for inflation and so on to get a real terms equivalent.

However, when Attlee took office as PM we had a debt to GDP ratio of 250% (its currently about 90%) and he created the NHS and built 100,000 council homes a year, invested in infrastructure and rebuilt the country (literally in the case of many cities).

 

[Sweet Square]

I take it you've deleted it because you saw they changed it, but for anyone that didn't the original last tweet here was worded as if people preferred a Tory win and now is on their feed as the public expects a Conservative win (but only 62% which seems quite low) which makes much more sense.

Yeah, I thought it looked really odd. Although by the time I had posted it they had already deleted the tweet, so wasn't showing up on here.

 

[Kentonio]

To understand that you need to understand how insurance works. It's all about premiums vs claims. If a healthy somebody is paying premium without using the NHS then that reserve is then spent on the individual using a NHS service.
Basically the government is transferring a large part of their expenditure to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies) and thus freeing up government funds for investments in the NHS like new hospitals or increased wages for NHS staff.

Ask yourself one simple question, if insurance was expenditure, then why exactly would any private insurance company exist?

 

[Jippy]

I could look it up I suppose (maybe in the morning), but does anyone know what our deficit and debt were when the NHS was founded and we built all those homes and introduced so much of the welfare state? I guess we must have been well flush then, right?

It would be fiendishly difficult to calculate a comparison, factoring in inflation, increased population and longevity etc...

 

[Untied]

I don't know if this was posted yesterday, but Barry Gardiner was on form

 

[Smores]

Jesus Christ !

As others have pointed out its very clear what her tactics are at this point. Stay out of trouble, chuck dirt at Corbyn and hope its enough (it will be).

The mainstream don't report this behaviour unless its Corbyn doing the interview so she can get away with it.

 

[Kentonio]

Jesus Christ !

She really is the worst major political interviewee I've ever seen. The really scary part is that she must be being media trained behind the scenes. For her to be this bad, they basically must have come to the conclusion that she's so bad on her feet that constant repetition of simple lines and talking points is all she can handle. Pathetic.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

As others have pointed out its very clear what her tactics are at this point. Stay out of trouble, chuck dirt at Corbyn and hope its enough (it will be).

The mainstream don't report this behaviour unless its Corbyn doing the interview so she can get away with it.

The Tories have taken a crow (or maybe a blue tit) and thanks to their press pals they've managed to persuade the electorate that it's actually an eagle.

 

[rcoobc]

Jesus Christ !

She wasn't very clear there was she? Murky.

 

[rcoobc]

Any news on whether last nights debates have galvanised the nation?

 

[Rams]

Ask yourself one simple question, if insurance was expenditure, then why exactly would any private insurance company exist?

Where did I say insurance is expenditure? By the way, I work in the insurance industry and most countries with a NHS have compulsory private health insurance.

 

[Adisa]

This is extraordinary. I would expect Siri on my phone to come up with better answers.

 

[Kentonio]

Where did I say insurance is expenditure? By the way, I work in the insurance industry and most countries with a NHS have compulsory private health insurance.

You said..

Basically the government is transferring a large part of their expenditure to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies) and thus freeing up government funds for investments in the NHS like new hospitals or increased wages for NHS staff.

I'd love to hear your explanation for why a putting a part of the process into private hands, where they will certainly run it as a profit raising business will somehow save the government money. Because all I can see is that its going to cost more to the user because the private company will need to add a profit margin.

 

[Sweet Square]

As others have pointed out its very clear what her tactics are at this point. Stay out of trouble, chuck dirt at Corbyn and hope its enough (it will be).

The mainstream don't report this behaviour unless its Corbyn doing the interview so she can get away with it.

She really is the worst major political interviewee I've ever seen. The really scary part is that she must be being media trained behind the scenes. For her to be this bad, they basically must have come to the conclusion that she's so bad on her feet that constant repetition of simple lines and talking points is all she can handle. Pathetic.

She wasn't very clear there was she? Murky.

The video isn't any better

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/thr...pm-encounter/story-30363961-detail/story.html

 

[Kentonio]

This is extraordinary. I would expect Siri on my phone to come up with better answers.

Siri is very clear about her superior interviewing skills, and fully expects your vote in the upcoming election to deliver a strong and stable iPhone.

 

[Smores]

She wasn't very clear there was she? Murky.

"Im absolutely clear, i have a plan to answer the important questions while the coalition of chaos led by Jeremy Corbyn squabbles over where to spend the money tree"

Do you think this training seeps into her daily life? Is she now incapable of ordering a coffee or answering her husband how her day went?

 

[rcoobc]

The video isn't any better

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/thr...pm-encounter/story-30363961-detail/story.html

I have a job interview today. After watching that, I'm going to have "I'm very clear" in my head the whole time.