Corbyn is their latest excuse.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Read my earlier posts. the 7-25% is the culmination of 30 years of both parties desperately trying to get some kind of efficiency into the thing. The reason being because at times there was almost no fiscal responsibility operating at all. It is not some cunning Tory plan. Both parties, I'm sure have done their best and both HAVE failed. Look at NHS Wales - run by Labour and no better than anywhere else. Scotland too with the SNP and I won't even start on NI.
The vast majority of it is still state run. However, everyone agrees that it is not what it should be. Everyone has his/her own idea why. The truth is that is it is composite of many things. So just citing under-funding by 'mean Tories' as the cause implies that if you borrow 100 billion quid and chuck it at it then that'll fix it. It won't, and we have to stop the blame culture, grow up and talk about it sensibly and objectively.
Not a chance. Judging by the information Jeremy Corbyn is showing regarding the US participation in the NHS there has already been a significant amount of discussions and planning.
Much more than for the future trading agreement with the EU.
This is what the Tories are banking on.
Is this really offensive? Just asking.
Ha! Good question.That's fine, and expected even! I try not to simply post regurgitations of stuff already in the media or whatever which people can read with a quick browse of the net. Therefore most of what I post is at least somewhat contentious.
Which parts do you actually agree with?
I agree that Brexit party and Lib Dems are imploding. I also do see a small possibility for either a hung parliament or a small Tory minority. Despite the huge gap in the polls.I strongly disagree with all of your interpretations in relation to the impact of the anti semitism allegations. I think it is bad for Labour, there is no way it will gain them votes. It is a smear imo, but it has been repeated so many times people may buy into it.
Islamophobia or anti immigrant sentiment could potentially gain a party some votes. As we have seen from the brexit campaign, UKIP etc over the last few years.
Was a heavy Leave vote. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Brexit Party vote higher and definitely expect Labour vote to be lower. Filled out my postal vote yesterday and only one of the candidates (Labour) lives in the constituency.
Today I got a Brexit Party leaflet addressed to me in the post.
Got something from Labour yesterday. Nothing from Conservatives, Lib Dems or Greens yet.
Class dog!
I think they wanted to use the results to help narrow down marginals.
Corbyn being racist is a more popular sentiment than Johnson being one.
MRP models require a lot more data than a run of the mill poll, and so cost more and take longer. Pollsters can't just go to their usual panel. So I would expect not many will have been commissioned.
They will have lost the trust and respect of many fair minded people (including myself) during this campaign and will struggle to win it back. Far too many 'mistakes' made that have favoured one particular party.
Sky News head and shoulders above them at the moment in terms of content and impartiality.
This was the point the shouty guy on question time was making, when he said the top 5% aren't even working. I'm not a massive fan of raising income taxes below the very high level (150k) as I feel it penalises the person who came from nothing, will inherit no assets but has managed to put themselves in a situation where they are earning well.
For example I know some people who are on decent jobs (Paying £30-50k) but their parents have bought them a house in London. I'd much rather tax this person than the person from nothing and yet to acquire assets but earning £80k.
He was wrong about that of course. But more broadly, he isn't wealthy. I just think the argument about whether you should tax people a load more on an 80k salary is pointless - they are already pretty well taxed. The real argument IMO should be about wealth taxes, or inheritance taxes or capital gains taxes - taxes on the asset piles that are the real drivers of inequality. We should be going after the rentiers, not the salary earners.
Ha, we pretty much said the same thing at the same time.
The person earning 80k a year will not be paying a penny more tax. The person earning 125k will be paying about 2k more (I think, I did the math when the manifesto came out so this is a recollection), 100k earner pays about 1k more or so. I honestly don't see that as a particularly large burden for that level of remuneration given the state of public services.
No, its not a lot and that would probably be fair enough. I suppose it comes down to trust again, and I just don't believe that would be final word on taxation over 5 years of a Labour government, especially given the spending plans. Therefore it is the fact they are already pushing the narrative of taxing earners that I don't like, maybe in a year it would be everyone needs 2p on the pound to fix the latest NHS and social care crisis, but we'll make the top 20% pay 10p etc.
It truly shows how little I know about Britain and Brits and how virtually all my British friends and colleagues are not representative for a general population. Popularity ratings leave me genuinely perplexed - who on Earth finds Johnson likeable, never mind trustworthy? And yet majority of Brits seem to enjoy his style and approach. I don’t understand you at all, friends.
I live here and don't know anyone who likes Johnson or voted for Brexit. Clearly my group of acquaintances is very unrepresentative.
He was quite likeable back when the only real exposure anyone had to him was just his appearances hosting tv comedy gameshows.
To be fair though most people I know have equitable levels of disgust for Boris and for Corbyn, and just derision for Swinson.
All of the other countries are not an island off the coast of their biggest partners. Nor are all the other countries not in an economic partnership with a group of other countries. Nor are their economies reliant on the smooth uninterrupted flow of goods and people and services and documentation and judicial or criminal or defence co-operation. Brexit is the most idiotic thing the UK could have done.
Eventually people will understand why but much too late.
He wasn't likeable at any point.
They are supposed to ask for an extension by July. No-one can ever guarantee that there will be a deal - maybe they will never agree, who knows, but definitely can't see a trade deal being agreed in such a short space of time.
Can I ask, with regards to the standards dropping when privatised, why are the services not tendered again based on poor performance? On a very basic premise, when a supplier underperforms in the private sector, you take the business elsewhere, therefore the standard has to stay good enough, because someone else will come along and do it better. Is it that there aren’t enough providers of the necessary size and scale to give competition?
A very good twitter thread on some of the important elements of the trade negotiation documents. Especially for you Project Fear lot, afraid its not in shouty capitals for you so might be a tougher read.
No. Don't think I said that?
I think we'll have some things we'll negotiate on and some we won't.
Same as every Government and every trade deal.
The food standards question will definitely be the main negotiation point, I think the NHS stuff is a red herring.
You stated that the 10 point swings were unrealistic, which brought the reliability of the model into doubt. I was saying that I thought the 10 point swings in favour of Labour in 2017 were unrealistic. That's the opinion part (which is why I bolded it.)
I don't know specifically about health and africanspur will provide a better answer there but generally with government tender it's the low price point the government has increasingly enforced over the last decade. It just makes it inevitable that a poor service will be delivered because they give it to the one who will overpromise and cut corners to be competitive in cost.
You can move between the regular outsourcers in whatever industry but they're all competing under the same constraint.
The only way a trade deal could be done in that time is if one side just took whatever the other side offered with no negotiation... And given how politically charged it is I think the chances of that are about zero
How factual is the bolded part? Pretty sure the NHS comes out near the top in terms of health care outcomes. For example, this ranking has NHS top: https://fr.april-international.com/.../which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems
What is most interesting regarding the NHS is what does not appear in those documents. Namely that at no point during the 6 rounds of negotiations did the British inform the US that the NHS was off the table.
Yeah I can understand that. Though the costings document does seem to go as far as 2023/24 there doesn't seem to be a firm commitment against further income tax increases outside of that period. I guess like you say it comes down to trust, and maybe the weighing of that against the demonstrable need for public investment
No comment on the book written by Jeremy Hunt ex Tory health secretary on privatising the NHS then? It is so obviously an ideological attack on the NHS by the Tories.
Health spending as percentage of GDP is lower than it has been in a decade.
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-...-as-a-share-of-gdp-remains-at-lowest-level-in
Look at the health and social care act passed in 2012. A key step towards enabling privatisation in the long term by making core changes to NHS structure and responsibility.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/big-election-questions-nhs-privatised
Look at social care funding cuts by the Tories. This puts much more pressure on the NHS in aftercare particularly for the elderly with our ageing population.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-serious-are-pressures-social-care
"
the fundamental inadequacy of social care funding has become much worse as a consequence of the fiscal reduction programme since 2010 and the impact of this on local government.
Adult social care has experienced an unprecedented five consecutive years of budget cuts."
I've had nothing through my door, just got given a LibDem flyer for Nicola Horlick outside Sloane Square tube.
To be fair, your link also has a study which has the UK at 15th in Europe. That study also specifically makes the claim that the Beverige model isn't working very well for the UK. I don't know anything about that myself, but since you linked the article I thought it proper to point it out.
Last edited:
You aren’t going to raise much money from the very few people who earn that. What’s the point? Half of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of salary earners as it is. There comes a point when you have to widen the tax base if you want to fund more things, not continually narrow it. You need to go after assets not paycheques. (Also £100k earners will increase their pension contributions slightly to take their taxable pay under the limit - you won’t get anything extra from them).
Boris has refused to confirm whether or not he'll do the Neil interview.
It doesn't matter either way. Unless he comes out and says that he was the one who shot JFK it doesn't matter how badly he gets hit in the interview because the main headline on the Beeb and in the rags will be "man buys sandwich" or some other mundane as feck story that will suddenly rise to the top of the important news for the day, and the report into Boris will be sanitised.
It doesn't matter either way. Unless he comes out and says that he was the one who shot JFK it doesn't matter how badly he gets hit in the interview because the main headline on the Beeb and in the rags will be "man buys sandwich" or some other mundane as feck story that will suddenly rise to the top of the important news for the day, and the report into Boris will be sanitised.
I think in the costings doc Labour reckon it'll bring in about £11b or so, though I've no idea how reliable that estimate is. I don't entirely disagree with the bolded. I do disagree that a person earning £100k should be outraged at the prospect of shedding an extra £1k of it.
Many of those countries are islands, such as Japan or Taiwan. Taiwan literally has recognition from 15 countries, mostly completely irrelevant pacific islands and is consistently threatened by the powerhouse of the region, who see Taiwan as an indisputable part of their countries. Some of them are countries like South Korea with a very hostile neighbour to the North, no land links to any country and currently in a trade dispute with what should be a friendly neighbour to the East and concerned about a powerful China to the North.
Australia are yet another island, isolated completely with NZ.
Singapore's defence doctrine is based around deterring its neighbours, one of whom it was expelled from mere decades ago.
Norway and Switzerland do just fine.
I have to say, your posts on the matter are a combination, with all due respect, of incredible condescension and slightly weird attacks on Corbyn seeing as he will never get near Brexit negotiations.
As I said above, I desperately wanted the UK to remain part of the EU and still do. Short term, especially in the event of a no deal Brexit, I think there will be very negative impacts on the British economy. Medium to long term though, you, I nor anyone else really has any idea what direction the British economy may take, how it may be restructured, what it may look towards producing or exporting.
Which is Tory speak for 'feck no'. Do the Beeb have archived footage of him being interviewed where he we can listen to him talk about the best way to eat scones off Muslim women so we can all laugh hysterically with cries of 'oh Boris!', cue the polls the next day showing a 200 seat majority for the Tories.
- Status