UK Politics: Mone, Mone, Mone. It's not funny. It's a rich toff's world.

[The Anti-Targ]

It's funny how just extracting money from the NHS is all it takes to ruin it, but throwing money at it won't save it, of course that it just the conservative propaganda used to try to convince voters that all govt spending is wasteful.

To save the NHS it needs to be fully funded, however it will take a long time to effectively put that funding in place, because a lot of what's needed can't be fixed immediately, especially when it comes to the shortfall of professional staff. The whole world needs more medical professionals, and you can't magic up specialists it takes a long time to get the professionals in place at all levels of expertise to achieve a fully staffed health service. But it can be done with time and funding. Replacing, upgrading and getting new equipment, building new facilities and doing essential R&M on existing facilities it's all stuff that will take time, but from day it needs to be given guaranteed funding. Because if you don't fund it it won't happen.

One thing throwing money at the problem will fix immediately is staff retention, give everyone working in the NHS a decent pay rise now and at least you will keep more of the staff you have and they will at least be less financially stressed, if the pay is decent enough you might even get some people coming back into the workforce.

 

[Werthead]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's funny how just extracting money from the NHS is all it takes to ruin it, but throwing money at it won't save it, of course that it just the conservative propaganda used to try to convince voters that all govt spending is wasteful.

To save the NHS it needs to be fully funded, however it will take a long time to effectively put that funding in place, because a lot of what's needed can't be fixed immediately, especially when it comes to the shortfall of professional staff. The whole world needs more medical professionals, and you can't magic up specialists it takes a long time to get the professionals in place at all levels of expertise to achieve a fully staffed health service. But it can be done with time and funding. Replacing, upgrading and getting new equipment, building new facilities and doing essential R&M on existing facilities it's all stuff that will take time, but from day it needs to be given guaranteed funding. Because if you don't fund it it won't happen.

One thing throwing money at the problem will fix immediately is staff retention, give everyone working in the NHS a decent pay rise now and at least you will keep more of the staff you have and they will at least be less financially stressed, if the pay is decent enough you might even get some people coming back into the workforce.

Not to mention we've been here before. The Tories underinvested in the NHS for years through the 1980s and early 1990s with the intent of destroying and privatising it, but never got far enough down the road to make it a viable argument (and I think there were many saner, moderate Tories back then who saw it as a vote-loser and tried to moderate the damage), and then - for all his other myriad faults - Blair got in and made sure it got the correct levels of investment and then beyond that to make up for the Tory shortfall. He was helped by a huge boost in the UK economy in the mid-to-late 1990s and into the early 2000s.

Whilst I have low expectations from a new (new) Labour government, I do think they will immediately move to help right the ship with the NHS, but they're unlikely to have the economic firepower that Blair had available to really pour lots of new money into it, and a bigger problem with recruitment. Although it is possible that with greater investor confidence and a likely early deal with the EU that sorts out a lot of the current, major problems, we could have an economic boost that could help a lot.

[Raja]

Comforting ourselves that we're not as bad as the people 'over there', provides me no comfort at all when I look at the state of our public services.

[Spockydog]

There is a simple soluton.

The highest earners in the land are paying little or no tax.

Close the loopholes. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fucking share. 

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

... a likely early deal with the EU that sorts out a lot of the current, major problems, we could have an economic boost that could help a lot.

A likely early deal? You're having a laugh. Starmer has already ruled out any kind of common sense approach to reversing Johnson's disastrous Brexit. 

But, then again, everyone knows that Starmer can't be trusted to keep his electoral promises.

So here's hoping it's the promises he made to the Gammons that are the first to get jettisoned. But I doubt it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

There is a simple soluton.

The highest earners in the land are paying little or no tax.

Close the loopholes. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fucking share. 

Add corporations to the list. And tax the ever living fuck out of them too.

Frankly the base point should be there are no billionaires until billions of poor people aren't starving anymore.

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

There is a simple soluton.

The highest earners in the land are paying little or no tax.

Close the loopholes. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fucking share. 

It's talk like that that gave us Brexit in the first place!

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

Not to mention we've been here before. The Tories underinvested in the NHS for years through the 1980s and early 1990s with the intent of destroying and privatising it, but never got far enough down the road to make it a viable argument (and I think there were many saner, moderate Tories back then who saw it as a vote-loser and tried to moderate the damage), and then - for all his other myriad faults - Blair got in and made sure it got the correct levels of investment and then beyond that to make up for the Tory shortfall. He was helped by a huge boost in the UK economy in the mid-to-late 1990s and into the early 2000s.

Whilst I have low expectations from a new (new) Labour government, I do think they will immediately move to help right the ship with the NHS, but they're unlikely to have the economic firepower that Blair had available to really pour lots of new money into it, and a bigger problem with recruitment. Although it is possible that with greater investor confidence and a likely early deal with the EU that sorts out a lot of the current, major problems, we could have an economic boost that could help a lot.

 

10 hours ago, Spockydog said:

There is a simple soluton.

The highest earners in the land are paying little or no tax.

Close the loopholes. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fucking share. 

It's a cruel myth that the govt needs to be dependant on the economy and high tax revenues as a whole to invest in the NHS (and whatever other public services that have been made derelect in the last decade of austerity). If the govt needs to spend the money, they simply spend the money. One of the seven deadly frauds of economic policy is that the government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. Progressive governments unnecessarily hamstring themselves in being able to implement their progressive policies by believing this fraud as truth.

If you want to tax the rich because they really shouldn't be that rich, then fine, do that. But you don't need to tax them in order to be able to fully fund the kind of NHS that will serve the health needs of everyone.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want to tax the rich because they really shouldn't be that rich, then fine, do that. 

I'm saying tax the rich because they should pay their share, along with everyone else. At the moment, they are not.

It's not just the NHS that is crumbling. Our entire public infrastructure is falling apart.

 

[ants]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's a cruel myth that the govt needs to be dependant on the economy and high tax revenues as a whole to invest in the NHS (and whatever other public services that have been made derelect in the last decade of austerity). If the govt needs to spend the money, they simply spend the money. One of the seven deadly frauds of economic policy is that the government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. Progressive governments unnecessarily hamstring themselves in being able to implement their progressive policies by believing this fraud as truth.

Given a big driver of world inflation and higher interest rates was governments spending like you suggest through the pandemic I’d say this idea has already been disproven. 

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, ants said:

Given a big driver of world inflation and higher interest rates was governments spending like you suggest through the pandemic I’d say this idea has already been disproven. 

It wasn't productive govt spending at all, it was supply chain disruption, corporate profiteering, and govt money printing. There is a big difference between govt spending to build things, including a larger public work force in areas where it's sorely needed, and govts putting cheap money in the hands of the already wealthy. It is another small govt conservative falsehood that all govt spending is macro-economically the same. The govt can't spend what's needed in the NHS, education, police, emergency services, public transport and other similar public services all at once, unlike simply buying $100bn of bonds with the stroke of a pen. If the UK govt needs to spend an extra $200 bn to get all of those essential public services running properly that will be a 10 year project at least to spend all that money.

[mormont]

As an aside to this discussion, it's frequently said that the UK Conservatives want a US-style health system. This isn't true.

The US system relies on employers to provide health insurance. UK employers mostly don't do this (except for a small number of highly paid employees) and they won't. They'll say they can't afford to.

What we're moving towards, and what the Tories favour, is the worst of all worlds: individual health insurance, but not as comprehensive or well regulated as it is in, say, France. Healthcare that is both poor quality and expensive - unless you are very wealthy.

It's a frightening prospect.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I'm saying tax the rich because they should pay their share, along with everyone else. At the moment, they are not.

It's not just the NHS that is crumbling. Our entire public infrastructure is falling apart.

 

They haven't for a long time. I've joked time and again that I come from a wealthy background. The rich will be fine if you increase their taxes by 10% and the economy will probably do better overall if the increase in government revenues is smartly spent. Mismanagement and corruption is of course a concern, but not one great enough to stop the tax increases. The social good is fundamentally more important. Or just from a moral standpoint, how do you justify the rich paying nothing in taxes while poor kids don't know where their next meal will come from? It's wrong from every philosophical viewpoint except one that embraces greed as a positive attribute. 

 

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The govt can't spend what's needed in the NHS, education, police, emergency services, public transport and other similar public services all at once, unlike simply buying $100bn of bonds with the stroke of a pen.

If the UK govt needs to spend an extra $200 bn to get all of those essential public services running properly that will be a 10 year project at least to spend all that money.

We managed to find at least £137bn underneath the sofa cushions in 11 Downing Street when the bankers needed bailing out.

In addition, between 2009 and 2021, the Bank of England somehow managed to quantitatively ease approximately £895bn out of its arse. 

I guess we must have run out of lube.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Healthcare that is both poor quality and expensive - unless you are very wealthy.

That's what we've got in the USA.  As well as now denying health care to women who are pregnant, particularly in the first trimester, because doctors won't see them, for fear of being prosecuted for abortion, if they miscarry and / or have other problems.  Not to mention there is NO health care available for any or not money to anybody within hundreds of miles for a large swathe of USians.

[Raja]

An anon post regarding the A&E experience, and it's not an isolated incident. I feel like we're coming to the head here. It's bad for us, but worse for patients.

 

[Raja]

Something has to give because we cannot do this year on year

[ants]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It wasn't productive govt spending at all, it was supply chain disruption, corporate profiteering, and govt money printing.

Governments printing money is what you’re suggesting to do. It was also freaking necessary spending, the bulk of it. People needed to get through the pandemic. Supply chain disruption was a small factor. 
 

Quote

There is a big difference between govt spending to build things, including a larger public work force in areas where it's sorely needed, and govts putting cheap money in the hands of the already wealthy. It is another small govt conservative falsehood that all govt spending is macro-economically the same. The govt can't spend what's needed in the NHS, education, police, emergency services, public transport and other similar public services all at once, unlike simply buying $100bn of bonds with the stroke of a pen. If the UK govt needs to spend an extra $200 bn to get all of those essential public services running properly that will be a 10 year project at least to spend all that money.

Look, don’t be an arse and lump me with small government conservatives. I like big government, I just want it funded like Spocky Dog said. Increase taxes, especially on the wealthy and corporations. 
 

You are correct all government spending isn’t the same. But £200 given in nurse/doctor/teacher/police/train driver salaries will have exactly the same effect as £200 given to help people losing jobs during the pandemic. They’ll spend it. £200 on infrastructure when there are shortages of materials and labour will push up house build prices, as concrete, wood and labour are less available. 

It is very different for governments to spend when there is a recession due to lack of demand versus doing so when demand is strong and the labour market is tight. Especially when you’ve just shut the door to European labour. 
 

Interest rate rises are about as regressive as you can get. Your solution of government printed money at this time has already had an effect and would worsen things. 

[mormont]

'Prime Minister, the NHS is under unprecedented strain, workers are striking at a level unseen for decades under the pressure of runaway inflation, and the polls suggest we'd be lucky to remain the second biggest party after the election.'

'I have the answer to our woes:

Maths.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64158179
 

Quote

 

The prime minister is looking at plans to ensure all pupils in England study maths in some form until the age of 18.

Rishi Sunak will announce the aim in his first speech of 2023 later, which he will use to set out his priorities.

 

You'd think this appreciation for maths might help him understand that a 2% pay rise when inflation is 11% is a massive pay cut, and therefore nurses are likely to resign. Or, for that matter, that you can't even teach more maths without more maths teachers and if you can't recruit the number you need now, you're not going to be able to magically find more.

 

[kiko]

His maths is slightly off though. Compulsory math would probably lead to a better skill at logic thinking on average, which is good. But where does that leave the conservatives?