Jump to content

UK Politics Unexpected Election edition


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But having said that, the NHS has been failing for decades, the school system hasn't been fantastic for decades ( trains id argue have actually improved since privatisation), and successive governments haven't been able to fix those problems. I'm not saying 'give up', but none of the other parties have any firm workable policies on how to fix these things outside of more tax to throw more money at the problem. Which won't work

What are these problems that cannot be fixed by adequate funding of these systems (or, in your words, "throwing money at the problem")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Notone said:

And I wonder whether little Donnie will go to war with Scotland, once he loses all his golf courses.

It's quite possible. He did once describe the decision to build some wind turbines near one of his golf courses as 'doing more damage to Scotland than virtually any other event in Scotland's history'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2017 at 8:06 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But having said that, the NHS has been failing for decades, the school system hasn't been fantastic for decades ( trains id argue have actually improved since privatisation), and successive governments haven't been able to fix those problems. I'm not saying 'give up', but none of the other parties have any firm workable policies on how to fix these things outside of more tax to throw more money at the problem. Which won't work

The failure of the NHS is simply down to lack of funding. We have gotten a very good deal for quite a long time with the NHS, having full health care for everyone at a much lower cost per-person than many countries pay even with partly privatised health care. However, that great ride was always going to come to a crashing end once we hit the explosion of baby boomers retiring, getting older and requiring substantially more healthcare. It was also going to be affected by long-term, systemic problems with growing obesity and a failure to invest in public health advice and programmes (or maintain previously extant) programmes.

These problems are purely financial: the NHS requires a certain level of funding per-person in the UK to continue operating effectively. When that amount keeps falling in real terms, the NHS fails to function adequately. This level of funding is constant, growing as the population grows (especially that part of the population most in need of healthcare, i.e. the elderly) and cares not one whit for the economic situation elsewhere.

So yes, the majority of the NHS's most pressing problems can indeed be resolved by throwing money at it: when the NHS equipment readiness budget is slashed by 25% in my local hospital (as it was in 2015), so the number of X-ray machines they have functional at any one time is markedly reduced, that is a major issue caused by money which can also be resolved by money.

For all of Labour's myriad faults, they at least attempted to fund the NHS towards something like an adequate level. The highest-ever rise in the NHS budget came under New Labour (in 2002/03). The second-highest, surprisingly, was under Thatcher (in 1980/81) but the rest of the biggest rises were then also under Labour. Some of the lowest real-time spending increases have come since 2010.

Schools are a more complex problem. We spend about the OECD average on education, but that's way behind a whole bunch of other countries (such as Finland, France and Belgium). Money is not entirely the issue though: we spend more as a relative amount per child than Japan, which buries us in education performance, but less than the United States, which does not. The crisis in education is more down to culture, most notably the culture of examinations and overzealous bureaucracy and pedantry (a lot of it brought in by New Labour, but maintained under the Conservatives) which has reduced teaching preparation time and created a crisis of recruitment and retention in the education sector. These can rather easily be fixed, but the political will to do so is lacking, especially when the Conservatives can use the poor performance of the education system to bring in pet and mostly useless projects like grammar schools and free schools, which merely increase division in the education sector and squeeze resources on state schools further.

The trains had a bump of investment after privatisation which helped things, but the long-term benefits of bump ended years ago. Few companies now see any logical reason to invest in the rail system given it is such a total clusterfuck, completely undermining the point of the whole competition system in the first place (when one or two companies, usually both of which are already running franchises elsewhere which may be underperforming, are the only ones bidding for a new network, the system basically collapses). The other problem is that political interference in the train franchise system makes the whole point of privatisation pointless, since the DoT's involvement in the running of the rail lines is so overwhelming simply nationalising the network would probably not be much more complex or expensive (the debacle on Southern is costing the government a large amount of money, since the DoT pays the franchise-holder a flat rate to run the sevice but accepts most of the profits and losses itself). With large-scale road-building pretty much impossible politically, we need a much higher-capacity, higher-performing rail network (sorry, having flashbacks to the PR emails I used to write on this matter) and, crucially, one which services areas where not many people live. That's impossible to do without much larger franchises, or a single national one, where busy lines can subsidise quieter ones.

For example, there's a real risk that the line on the Isle of Wight will be shut down because it's uneconomical for the franchise to run it, but for the people without cars who live on the island it's a vital lifeline they cannot do without. Or during last summer's strikes, the town of Seaford was completely cut off because Southern deemed it unviable to run trains down the branchline from Lewes, cutting off several thousand pensioners and students who use the line to get into London or Brighton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Werthead

yes maybe it's possible to throw ludicrous amounts of money at the NHS and get it to work, but the problem is nobody is willing to pay for it. The simple problem is that the world has changed since the NHS was started. Everyone is living longer and costs are constantly rising. 

New labour did increase the money pumped into the NHS and yet it was never really any better. I've worked in government agencies under the labour government and they were some of the most inefficient money wasting places I've ever come across. 

The answer for the NHS is either we end up paying A LOT more ( which will never happen) or we find another model.

I agree with your other points about education which I think has a lot to do with external culture regarding education in general.

Having been around in the 80s I remember the trains and transport in general being pretty dire. IMO things are much better now even if it's far from perfect, Southern Trains being a disaster for example. However we are hampered by a massive influx in people in the south east and london. Big investment needs to happen but I agree the current system discourages it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Commodore said:

when was the last time a single party won a majority of votes?

 

1931 apparently.

41 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The failure of the NHS is simply down to lack of funding... For all of Labour's myriad faults, they at least attempted to fund the NHS towards something like an adequate level. The highest-ever rise in the NHS budget came under New Labour (in 2002/03)...

It's not simply down to a lack of funding, though clearly that's part of the problem. An inefficient system cannot cope productively with extra funding. Also, much of the extra funding under New Labour did not go on patient care, but on increased wages for Labour supporting administrators and support staff, plus the disastrous improved GP contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

@Werthead

yes maybe it's possible to throw ludicrous amounts of money at the NHS and get it to work, but the problem is nobody is willing to pay for it. The simple problem is that the world has changed since the NHS was started. Everyone is living longer and costs are constantly rising. 

New labour did increase the money pumped into the NHS and yet it was never really any better. I've worked in government agencies under the labour government and they were some of the most inefficient money wasting places I've ever come across. 

The answer for the NHS is either we end up paying A LOT more ( which will never happen) or we find another model.

I agree with your other points about education which I think has a lot to do with external culture regarding education in general.

Having been around in the 80s I remember the trains and transport in general being pretty dire. IMO things are much better now even if it's far from perfect, Southern Trains being a disaster for example. However we are hampered by a massive influx in people in the south east and london. Big investment needs to happen but I agree the current system discourages it.

Yes, I agree, the government is not willing to pay for it. They already have the financial resources to address the problem without added taxation, by stopping their tax cuts for the rich or reducing overseas aid spending (not my first preference as it has a significant soft power impact, but they could reduce it to a level more keeping with the average and also stop giving money to countries where it disappears into a mire of corruption). They could also increase taxation by a very small amount and send the extra to the NHS, except people would scream blue murder because they already believe we live in a high tax economy (we do not, especially compared to countries like Denmark which has double our tax rate; our costs, however, are higher).

I was working for the NHS just before New Labour got in and it was a pretty miserable place. Within a couple of years the budget increases had had a positive net impact on the hospital and its staff and patients. When I returned to work for the the same hospital last year, it was in an appalling state of low morale, cancelled operations and it had been in special observation because of a cancer operations scandal.

Remember, the primary goal of hardcore Conservatives is the privatisation of the NHS and this will only be politically acceptable if it is shown to be "failing" first, and starving it of the resources required to do its job is one of the easiest ways of doing that.

As for government agencies, that's a perennial, worldwide problem regardless of the government. Some people coming into government agencies and departments from the private sector, used to tough, demanding targets and the threat of being fired if they underperform, usually maintain a shit-hot, efficient attitude for a year or two before realising that it's next to impossible to get fired (especially in the civil service) and start phoning it in and riding the gravy train to one of the few reliable and generous pensions (relatively) left in existence. The level of ineptitude or just plain indifference to the problems in the DoT last year, even in the middle of the biggest rail strikes for years, was pretty breathtaking.

 

Quote

 

It's not simply down to a lack of funding, though clearly that's part of the problem. An inefficient system cannot cope productively with extra funding. Also, much of the extra funding under New Labour did not go on patient care, but on increased wages for Labour supporting administrators and support staff, plus the disastrous improved GP contracts.

 

The number of doctors in the NHS has grown by 50% under New Labour and the coalition (less so under the Conservative government, falling far short of their targets). Although the bureaucracy grew under Labour, as well as the creation of bodies that have not performed well (the Care Quality Commission giving clean bills of health to hospitals with appalling standards), the number of doctors and nurses grew very significantly as well. Saying that the increase of funding under Labour went on administrators and bureaucrats instead of patient care may be trendy, but it's also historical revisionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it absolutely bonkers that not seeing the value of nuclear armament on our part makes a person unelectable, but I also find it absolutely bonkers that Corbyn can't even find it in him to say something like 'I'm strongly for the de-escalation and disarmament of the nuclear situation but I won't start getting rid of ours until everyone else starts getting rid of theirs. Obviously'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 5:35 PM, Isis said:

What is inner London please? And what are you calling the stockbroker belt? Because if you just mean London plus the home counties, why specify 'inner London'? 

Inner London is the old London County Council area, now the boroughs of Kensington, Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Islington, and Camden.   Politically, I would add the constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green.  Inner London voted 72% to Remain in the EU;  the 20 boroughs of Outer London only voted 54% to Remain.  Politically, Outer London is very different to Inner London.

The "Stockbroker Belt" covers wealthy constituencies down the M3 and M4 corridors.  The politics of counties like Hertfordshire and Essex are quite different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I find it absolutely bonkers that not seeing the value of nuclear armament on our part makes a person unelectable, but I also find it absolutely bonkers that Corbyn can't even find it in him to say something like 'I'm strongly for the de-escalation and disarmament of the nuclear situation but I won't start getting rid of ours until everyone else starts getting rid of theirs. Obviously'.

Thing is, it's not even that he should be saying that. I can respect that he doesn't want to betray his principles. I even largely agree with him that the party policy as it stands is wrong. But his position, as so often, is one that's fine for a man who stays on the back-benches out of principle, but not for a party leader in the middle of an election campaign. That is not a position where you can publicly disown, or appear to disown, an agreed party policy because you personally don't agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Inner London is the old London County Council area, now the boroughs of Kensington, Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Islington, and Camden.   Politically, I would add the constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green.  Inner London voted 72% to Remain in the EU;  the 20 boroughs of Outer London only voted 54% to Remain.  Politically, Outer London is very different to Inner London.

The "Stockbroker Belt" covers wealthy constituencies down the M3 and M4 corridors.  The politics of counties like Hertfordshire and Essex are quite different.

Ah, ok, your definition for inner/outer makes sense. I wasn't sure if you were talking about travel zones or something else though.

Almost every single trader or broker I have ever known was either from Essex or living in Essex. I am not sure there is so much difference in their politics though (that is, bankers living in Essex vs bankers living in Oxfordshire etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mormont said:

In the middle of an election campaign? That'll be the perfect time to have an internal party argument about nuclear disarmament, then!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39683989

At a distant remove, it seems like Corbyn acts like he's running for president rather than as head of a party with agreed policies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mormont said:

Thing is, it's not even that he should be saying that. I can respect that he doesn't want to betray his principles. I even largely agree with him that the party policy as it stands is wrong. But his position, as so often, is one that's fine for a man who stays on the back-benches out of principle, but not for a party leader in the middle of an election campaign. That is not a position where you can publicly disown, or appear to disown, an agreed party policy because you personally don't agree with it.

So you still think I was way too unfair when lashing out a Corbyn's leadership skills as harshly as I did?

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

A Channel 4 poll has the Tories ahead in Wales for the first time since the 50s... the 1850s. And ahead by 10 points at that. 

I am curious now. Hasn't @Roose Boltons Pet Leech always insisted that Corbyn's voters are the traditional old Union Labour guys, and not the leftist hipsters in London. I am curious how to fit Wales into that narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned the latest Panelbase poll from Scotland yet.

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 44% (-3)

CON: 33% (+5)

LAB: 13% (-1)

LDEM: 5% (+1)

Changes from Jan 2017

Another poll from Scotland by Survation was not so favourable, but the Scottish Conservatives were still on 28%. With 33% of the vote we would be looking at taking 10-14 seats from the SNP, and maybe even taking out Angus Robertson, the SNP's leader in London.

edit: that Welsh poll is quite something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...