news & politics:discussion

[lost]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

it was costed,

Theres been a book written about it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-2017-election-campaign-nhs-spending-plans-a8555621.html

[Skip997]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

anarchists voting?

Maybe not

 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, lost said:

Theres been a book written about it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-2017-election-campaign-nhs-spending-plans-a8555621.html

what's a few billion here and there.

Anyway, people did vote for it...nationisation programmes and higher taxes (for higher earners).

[lost]

Just now, steviewevie said:

what's a few billion here and there.

Anyway, people did vote for it...nationisation programmes and higher taxes (for higher earners).

Think its a bit more than that.

Anyway the plan worked perfectly. They were so far behind in the polls they needed to get the voter share up high enough so that they could justify Corbyn staying on and the right of the party not taking back over but not enough so they'd have to actually try to deliver after promising everything to everyone.

[steviewevie]

Can get what you want out of that 2017 result depending on your point of view... something for everyone.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

Think its a bit more than that.

Anyway the plan worked perfectly. They were so far behind in the polls they needed to get the voter share up high enough so that they could justify Corbyn staying on and the right of the party not taking back over but not enough so they'd have to actually try to deliver after promising everything to everyone.

Not everyone. For the many, not the few.

[kaosmark2]

52 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Its classic Conbynista behaviour to claim that 2017 was some triumphant result when in reality Labour lost the election and couldn’t beat Theresa May. 

If Labour had managed to leverage May's minority into actually having a say on Brexit, doing some sensible cross-party collaboration and expectations management, maybe we wouldn't have had the absolute trash fire idiotic version it ended up being.

But Corbyn is too stubborn for that.

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If Labour had managed to leverage May's minority into actually having a say on Brexit, doing some sensible cross-party collaboration and expectations management, maybe we wouldn't have had the absolute trash fire idiotic version it ended up being.

But Corbyn is too stubborn for that.

if they had just voted May's deal...which wasn't a million miles away from Labour's brexit plan...would have saved a lot of bother...and May might actually still be PM!

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

if they had just voted May's deal...which wasn't a million miles away from Labour's brexit plan...would have saved a lot of bother...and May might actually still be PM!

actually Labour voting for it could have opened up Tory divisions and been a disaster for May....but then would open up divisions for Labour too. Those brexit days were a bit mental.

[kaosmark2]

16 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

if they had just voted May's deal...which wasn't a million miles away from Labour's brexit plan...would have saved a lot of bother...and May might actually still be PM!

One of May's deals was kinda okay. I mean, it made Brexit pointless, but what was the point in it anyway?

A big problem was that Corbyn actually wanted Brexit, but he wanted to force through "left wing Brexit" which wasn't possible. Also he has no sense of compromise, negotiation, or pragmatism about getting an acceptable result.

The fact that May is the least sh*t PM we've had since Brown is just embarrassing.

Edited January 23 by kaosmark2

[lazyred]

7 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

One of May's deals was kinda okay. I mean, it made Brexit pointless, but what was the point in it anyway?

A big problem was that Corbyn actually wanted Brexit, but he wanted to force through "left wing Brexit" which wasn't possible. Also he has no sense of compromise, negotiation, or pragmatism about getting an acceptable result.

The fact that May is the least sh*t PM we've had since Brown is just embarrassing.

Starmer should get more blame for this. He was negotiating with May's team. When she realised she couldn't do a deal with the ERG types, she tried to get Labour to agree an approach based on a customs union and following EU social protcections. Starmer had called for this but refused to cooperate. He always had an eye on the leadership so went alomg with the second referendum. It was never going to happen and parliament voting down all Brexit options led to Boris and the hardest Brexit.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, lazyred said:

Starmer should get more blame for this. He was negotiating with May's team. When she realised she couldn't do a deal with the ERG types, she tried to get Labour to agree an approach based on a customs union and following EU social protcections. Starmer had called for this but refused to cooperate. He always had an eye on the leadership so went alomg with the second referendum. It was never going to happen and parliament voting down all Brexit options led to Boris and the hardest Brexit.

I'm not trying to let Starmer off the hook. Absolutely he should share in culpability here. But it wasn't him who led the whipping against all possible options.

[mattiloy]

5 hours ago, lost said:

I'd say Streeting is spot on and its the main reason I'll be voting labour next time. Labour are doing the right thing looking at the Australian system. You can see a little plateu around "austerity years"  2011 - 2013ish apart from that spending has just got straight up in real terms and as far as I can see hasn't provided a better service.

 

Lmao. This is completely f**king meaningless. Where did you get this graph? Torygraph? IEA newsletter?

We SHOULD be spending more after inflation vs 1960, since real gdp has also gone up.

Then the last jump on your graphs are just covid.

The trend between 2000 and 2019 was from 5% to 7% in spend / gdp.

Quite big. But the over 60 population has about doubled during that time. And people are living longer and with more chronic disease.

The NHS do a fine job and prior to austerity were often ranked near the top in the developed world for outcomes vs cost.

The NHS needs some reform. But it needs cash too. Indeed, it is hard to see how any organisation that size can dramatically change the way it operates without sizeable investment up front.

Edited January 23 by mattiloy

[lost]

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

But the over 60 population has about doubled during that time. And people are living longer and with more chronic disease.

I don't disagree but the NHS coupled with the triple lock, the trend under the Tories has been massive wealth transfer from the young who work to pay for this with the highest taxes in 80 years.

Hopefully labour have better ideas than to continue hiking taxes and I said, look at countries who are getting better outcomes whilst spending less.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

If Labour had managed to leverage May's minority into actually having a say on Brexit, doing some sensible cross-party collaboration and expectations management, maybe we wouldn't have had the absolute trash fire idiotic version it ended up being.

But Corbyn is too stubborn for that.

Oh yeah I know, there was a route to a government of national unity in late 2019 but Corbyn insisted he had to head that up as he was LOTO. If he had stepped aside and allowed a neutral to be PM for that period then we could’ve had a 2nd ref and possibly no Brexit. But as you say he’s too stubborn for that. 

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

what the f**k?

[Justiceforcedave]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

what the f**k?

"Read it exactly as it is on the card Rishi"

[mattiloy]

50 minutes ago, lost said:

I don't disagree but the NHS coupled with the triple lock, the trend under the Tories has been massive wealth transfer from the young who work to pay for this with the highest taxes in 80 years.

Hopefully labour have better ideas than to continue hiking taxes and I said, look at countries who are getting better outcomes whilst spending less.

They dont. The UK spends amongst the lowest per capita on health in the developed world and despite everything still has some of the best outcomes at the point of treatment. The problem is the wait for treatment. Waiting lists are too long and hospitals are overcrowded. The issue is simply that demand is greater than supply. The solution is more staff, more beds. That costs money.

Or lets solve the problem of the UK spending more than avg on chronic illness? Well, the stuff that is solveable is related to lifestyle right? So how do you get people to change their lifestyle? Build more municipal facilities! Incentivise it! Educate people!

All costs money.

The debate is only who puts the cash in. Wes wants to let the vulture capitalists in so he can balance the books whilst hitting targets. But in the long term this always works out worse - more costly, worse quality. Because companies are always trying to maximise profit.

The one quick way that the NHS could actually save dough is by clipping the wings of the private healthcare companies bleeding it dry and things like setting a fixed rate for all locum doctors- take it or leave it.

Edited January 23 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

32 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

They dont. The UK spends amongst the lowest per capita on health in the developed world and despite everything still has some of the best outcomes at the point of treatment. The problem is the wait for treatment. Waiting lists are too long and hospitals are overcrowded. The issue is simply that demand is greater than supply. The solution is more staff, more beds. That costs money.

Or lets solve the problem of the UK spending more than avg on chronic illness? Well, the stuff that is solveable is related to lifestyle right? So how do you get people to change their lifestyle? Build more municipal facilities! Incentivise it! Educate people!

All costs money.

The debate is only who puts the cash in. Wes wants to let the vulture capitalists in so he can balance the books whilst hitting targets. But in the long term this always works out worse - more costly, worse quality. Because companies are always trying to maximise profit.

The one quick way that the NHS could actually save dough is by clipping the wings of the private healthcare companies bleeding it dry and things like setting a fixed rate for all locum doctors- take it or leave it.

needs more money, as do a lot of public services...which means higher taxes, which labour is scared of suggesting because tories can attack them on it in the lead up to the election.

Edited January 23 by steviewevie

[lost]

43 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

They dont. The UK spends amongst the lowest per capita on health in the developed world and despite everything still has some of the best outcomes at the point of treatment.

Not sure where you've read that. The OECD average is 9.2% of GDP we spend 11.3%.

Remember the top countries in europe like Germany and France have a private element so we can't compare apples and oranges. From a purely state funded point of view we are pretty much maxed out.

Edited January 23 by lost

[lost]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

needs more money, as do a lot of public services...which means higher taxes, which labour is scared of suggesting because tories can attack them on it in the lead up to the election.

Not so sure. I think they realise what the Tories have been doing isn't working. I've read quite alot Streeting has written on the subject and he makes alot of sense.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

Not so sure. I think they realise what the Tories have been doing isn't working. I've read quite alot Streeting has written on the subject and he makes alot of sense.

well I'm not just talking about NHS, but all the other stuff...schools, social care, police, local govt etc etc

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

 

😂

[lost]

 

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well I'm not just talking about NHS, but all the other stuff...schools, social care, police, local govt etc etc

Yeah but I mean specifically the NHS. Do we raise taxes to 90 year highs, muddle along for 3 or 4 years for the pyramid on which social security is based to become a bit more oblongy then raise taxes to 100 year highs then repeat every 3 or 4 years?

As far I can see, refusing to even look into if a system that was set up when we had 40 - 50 workers paying in vs 1 taking out vs soon to be 3 to 1 needs a bit of an update, is like the yanks who still think every facet of the right to bear arms from the wild west days is still relevant.