Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Pretty much agree with your first and third paragraphs.

 

Re. your second paragraph, perceptions of harm done by immigration were certainly a factor. But were they reality or just perceptions of people having a bad time and finding a handy scapegoat. A bit of the former, but mainly the latter, I'd say.

 

Also, there's a tendency to generalise too much about the "North and Midlands". The map below showing Leave areas in blue and Remain areas in yellow is interesting:

- A bit of elementary geographical knowledge will tell you that most of the big Northern/Midlands cities voted Remain, albeit narrowly

- The areas of the North/Midlands that voted Leave (the majority) were the smaller, less prosperous cities/towns and former industrial areas, along with rural areas

Are we really saying that there has been mass immigration into Nuneaton, Mansfield, Hull and Sunderland, but not into Brum, Manchester and West Yorks??

A bigger correlation of Leave votes to areas facing hard times than to areas with high immigration, I'd say.

 

Ignoring Scotland and N. Ireland, where the vote related more to national sentiment, there's a big correlation to prosperity/poverty in other areas, too:

- In SE, many of the most prosperous, Tory-voting parts of the Home Counties voted Remain (many of them commuters to nice jobs in the City, no doubt)

- But struggling areas like coastal towns and the SW generally voted Leave

  

That map supports your 1st and 3rd paragraph, not so much the idea of direct adverse experience of immigration (apart from a few places like Boston). Many high immigration areas voted Remain - not least London.

To me, that suggests that a lot of struggling, low-immigration areas were more concerned about immigration than high-immigration cities....makes sense, not least as EU immigrants mainly go to places with jobs, more prosperous areas... 

 

 

I agree, this is likely. There are also screws in some bigger northern/midlands cities due to their large student populations who may lean differently to the traditional local demographic.

 

I do think there is a n element in some areas of an immigrant population being introduced into already struggling areas and compounding the issue, I think there are a few towns in the North East where this has been the case. 

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Study on generational inequality proposes gifting 25-year-old’s £10k and raising taxes on pensioners.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

 

The bit towards the end is most interesting, making more wealthy people pay privately for medical care. That makes me uneasy because we know “wealth” in this sort of context is never aimed at the truly wealthy, but like higher rate tax is aimed at people who are just doing slightly better than average. 

 

Generational inequality is an issue but we should be looking at the reasons why the country isn’t working as well as it could, why productively is so poor, why wages are so poor and so on, instead of just looking at brash arbitrary redistribution measures that will punish people who have worked hard and saved diligently for their futures.

 

Also, and maybe slightly more controversially, let’s have an open conversation about how much life-extending healthcare we actually want, and whether being kept alive for some years at the very end of our lives is really worth the expense.

 

 

 

Great that slowly slowly people are waking up to other ways of funding health and social care. 

 

However, yet more absolutely daft suggestions to 'heal the divide' (tell people they're a victim enough times and they'll believe). Good luck explaining to a 40 year old on minimum wage why a graduate with far higher lifetime earning potential is getting a random gift of 10k. As you say, look at the reasons for the problems/directly address problems rather than throw money at the problem.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Great that slowly slowly people are waking up to other ways of funding health and social care. 

 

However, yet more absolutely daft suggestions to 'heal the divide' (tell people they're a victim enough times and they'll believe). Good luck explaining to a 40 year old on minimum wage why a graduate with far higher lifetime earning potential is getting a random gift of 10k. As you say, look at the reasons for the problems/directly address problems rather than throw money at the problem.

I'd agree regarding the ten grand lump sum at 18. Four trips to Faliraki and it'll be gone.

 

Re healthcare I think it's the usual tory thing of not funding something properly then when it fails telling everybody we need to look at a new funding model. No, just fund it properly to start with. If needs be, tax the rich more to pay for it given they've gained far more % wise in recent years than anybody else.

When it was funded to EU average levels under Blair, surprise surprise, waiting times dropped like a stone and healthcare wasn't in the papers. Turn off the money and suddenly it's crisis time - it isn't hard to see the reason. 

Low tax and low spend does not work.

 

Re care homes then a new system is needed. That is a more difficult one. To be fair to TM, she did at least raise a real issue in the election campaign it just wasn't a sensible time to do it.

Edited 8 May 2018 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

Heidi Alexander resigns - by election in Lewisham East over the summer, will be a comfortable Labour hold.

[Guest]

I suspect this might be yet another government policy that the government can't bring itself to vote over. 

 

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

11 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This is all becoming like a poker game within the Tory party.

 

It's ironic that the resignation of Rudd, a Remainer, over the incompetent implementation of a right-wing immigration policy, has shifted the cabinet balance towards Hard Brexit, with Javid supporting Gove, Boris & co.

 

There'll be fireworks well before Bonfire Night. 

 

I find the Rudd point interesting, because I can’t help feel there was active briefing against her for political purposes. The constant leeks were to frequent and too well organised to be just a pissed off staffer - that was orchestrated to damage not only Rudd and the Brexit balance of cabinet but specifically Theresa May who may have re-established an resemblance of strength through simple ‘still being there.’ 

 

I suspect this could play out as a ‘transition arrangement’ with the EU being agreed, followed by an internal Tory leadership challenge being launched, ahead of the party conference... which is 30th Sept to Oct 3rd. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'd agree regarding the ten grand lump sum at 18. Four trips to Faliraki and it'll be gone.

 

Re healthcare I think it's the usual tory thing of not funding something properly then when it fails telling everybody we need to look at a new funding model. No, just fund it properly to start with. If needs be, tax the rich more to pay for it given they've gained far more % wise in recent years than anybody else.

When it was funded to EU average levels under Blair, surprise surprise, waiting times dropped like a stone and healthcare wasn't in the papers. Turn off the money and suddenly it's crisis time - it isn't hard to see the reason. 

Low tax and low spend does not work.

 

Re care homes then a new system is needed. That is a more difficult one. To be fair to TM, she did at least raise a real issue in the election campaign it just wasn't a sensible time to do it.

 

 

I realise we're never going to agree on health policy cos you have faith in the NHS where as I'm firmly of the opinion its inherently shit. I'm not going to dispute that you have to fund it properly and I'm not going to defend the government's running of it. But you're also just wrong. Look at the ECHI rankings for the 2006-2008 period and look at it now. We're positioned similarly now overall, outcomes were equally as shit as they are now (though they note they're improving currently) and yes we've got worse on waiting times, going from 5th bottom to 2nd bottom. I was reading the cancer survival rates study in the Lancet not long after it came out and it's truly pitiful. That whole report should be help up as a national embarrassment. Funding at EU average levels improved it no more than the global trend. 

 

Also false that wait times came down under Labour, they did well at bringing down the ridiculously long wait times for treatment but average wait times went up.

 

It's bizarre that you stress the funding point yet support a system that centralises such decision making and places it in the hands of politicians to use on a whim. The whole top down autocratic management should definitely come under scrutiny if you have problems with the funding (that is unless you prefer political point-scoring). But yet you struggle to find a Beveridge system that does do well. Norway being the most obvious exception where funding per capita is almost twice that of the UK. That's going to require a lot more than just taxing the rich a bit more. Even then, citizens have to contribute an 'insurance excess' for pretty much any care that isn't emergency hospital treatment. 

 

I actually think we're too ambitious on health care (whilst also being terribly unambitious). You just can't have a health service the people deserve with a top-down, statist, discretional, free at the point of use system that isn't backed by serious funds. 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

‘Our NHS’ is the best thing the left ever did. It’s survival basically ensures a left wing presence in British politics forever. Hilarious to see the right try and win the argument. They never will.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I realise we're never going to agree on health policy cos you have faith in the NHS where as I'm firmly of the opinion its inherently shit. I'm not going to dispute that you have to fund it properly and I'm not going to defend the government's running of it. But you're also just wrong. Look at the ECHI rankings for the 2006-2008 period and look at it now. We're positioned similarly now overall, outcomes were equally as shit as they are now (though they note they're improving currently) and yes we've got worse on waiting times, going from 5th bottom to 2nd bottom. I was reading the cancer survival rates study in the Lancet not long after it came out and it's truly pitiful. That whole report should be help up as a national embarrassment. Funding at EU average levels improved it no more than the global trend. 

 

Also false that wait times came down under Labour, they did well at bringing down the ridiculously long wait times for treatment but average wait times went up.

 

It's bizarre that you stress the funding point yet support a system that centralises such decision making and places it in the hands of politicians to use on a whim. The whole top down autocratic management should definitely come under scrutiny if you have problems with the funding (that is unless you prefer political point-scoring). But yet you struggle to find a Beveridge system that does do well. Norway being the most obvious exception where funding per capita is almost twice that of the UK. That's going to require a lot more than just taxing the rich a bit more. Even then, citizens have to contribute an 'insurance excess' for pretty much any care that isn't emergency hospital treatment. 

 

I actually think we're too ambitious on health care (whilst also being terribly unambitious). You just can't have a health service the people deserve with a top-down, statist, discretional, free at the point of use system that isn't backed by serious funds. 

 

Whilst we haven't agreed thus far, I'm not against looking at other models. It's really difficult politically though isn't it? It'll never happen without cross party support. What I do have issues with is anything that works like an insurance scheme or anything where only those who can afford it can get the full service. 

Personally I'd ban private healthcare (which just takes consultants away from their NHS posts) and look at how we can find the money to fund the NHS better. 

I take your point on outcomes but the figures alone don't explain WHY the difference exists. That may well be down to something other than funding - I'd want that fully researched. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Personally I'd ban private healthcare (which just takes consultants away from their NHS posts) 

LAV IT

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Whilst we haven't agreed thus far, I'm not against looking at other models. It's really difficult politically though isn't it? It'll never happen without cross party support. What I do have issues with is anything that works like an insurance scheme or anything where only those who can afford it can get the full service. 

Personally I'd ban private healthcare (which just takes consultants away from their NHS posts) and look at how we can find the money to fund the NHS better. 

I take your point on outcomes but the figures alone don't explain WHY the difference exists. That may well be down to something other than funding - I'd want that fully researched. 

 

Impossible politically. What chance do we have when the DoH and PM always cite the Commonwealth Fund saying its the best health system in the world, despite the same report telling us that its outcomes are poor. And obviously the conservatives would get hounded for evening trying to touch the NHS, Labour have no incentive cos its a vote winner for them. I think Nigel Lawson was quite correct to say the NHS is the closest thing we have to religion in this country/ Sad really. And again what chance do we have when an intelligent guy like Alan Johnson, when it was discussed on This Week, didn't grasp that the American system isn't the only alternative (that was amusing because Anna Soubry at the same time effectively boasted it was a postcode lottery). 

 

I realise there is no perfect model for a health system, they all have their challenges and problems. Figures indeed don't explain why differences exist, there are a lot of reasons which won't show up in figures. But when related systems, bar Norway, have similar struggles (even Sweden now) and fall behind others that have different systems which are similar in many ways, you have to start questioning the system. And that those countries manage higher funding must surely say something about the system in that it ensures funding. Which in the case of Netherlands results in a lot of waste so yes its not all sunshine and roses.

 

So you're opposed to the Swiss system which requires everyone to have private insurance but also mandates basic level of cover and for which the government sets minimum and maximum deductibles and then effectively helps with the rest. It's still universal, nobody goes without but it produces better outcomes and importantly for me places a lot more control into the hands of the patient. You can upgrade but that exists to a degree in the UK, wealthier people can afford better glasses, better dental care etc.

 

But yes we're not really on different wavelengths. You just put a heavy emphasis on funding, I put the emphasis on system and we would both prefer it properly looked into. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

14 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Study on generational inequality proposes gifting 25-year-old’s £10k and raising taxes on pensioners.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

 

The bit towards the end is most interesting, making more wealthy people pay privately for medical care. That makes me uneasy because we know “wealth” in this sort of context is never aimed at the truly wealthy, but like higher rate tax is aimed at people who are just doing slightly better than average. 

 

Generational inequality is an issue but we should be looking at the reasons why the country isn’t working as well as it could, why productively is so poor, why wages are so poor and so on, instead of just looking at brash arbitrary redistribution measures that will punish people who have worked hard and saved diligently for their futures.

 

Also, and maybe slightly more controversially, let’s have an open conversation about how much life-extending healthcare we actually want, and whether being kept alive for some years at the very end of our lives is really worth the expense.

 

 

 

I looked at this a bit closer because I felt the reporting on its been largely awful... it's been largely labelled in the press as "give Millennial's £10,000 at 25" but the policy proposal is a lot more nuanced than that.

 

I'll add, I suspect the reporting has been fed / pushed by the press lines the Resolution Foundation have presented themselves as the takeaway from their report - that these headlines provokes reaction and discussion is possibly an intended consequence, I can't imagine that most journalists on the news desk side have taken more than a cursory look at the thing.

 

But then having looked over the 220 odd page report myself, I don't blame them.  

 

Yet when you do, you find this idea within the other ten policy areas is poorly constructed and full of holes. It then becomes very disappointing and a little disconcerting to see some of the respected names that have contributed to this report. 

 

I've summarised the detail of the "£10,000 takeaway" in my article here. It also has easy links to the full report.

 

https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/what-would-a-millennial-do-with-10000/

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Impossible politically. What chance do we have when the DoH and PM always cite the Commonwealth Fund saying its the best health system in the world, despite the same report telling us that its outcomes are poor. And obviously the conservatives would get hounded for evening trying to touch the NHS, Labour have no incentive cos its a vote winner for them. I think Nigel Lawson was quite correct to say the NHS is the closest thing we have to religion in this country/ Sad really. And again what chance do we have when an intelligent guy like Alan Johnson, when it was discussed on This Week, didn't grasp that the American system isn't the only alternative (that was amusing because Anna Soubry at the same time effectively boasted it was a postcode lottery). 

 

I realise there is no perfect model for a health system, they all have their challenges and problems. Figures indeed don't explain why differences exist, there are a lot of reasons which won't show up in figures. But when related systems, bar Norway, have similar struggles (even Sweden now) and fall behind others that have different systems which are similar in many ways, you have to start questioning the system. And that those countries manage higher funding must surely say something about the system in that it ensures funding. Which in the case of Netherlands results in a lot of waste so yes its not all sunshine and roses.

 

So you're opposed to the Swiss system which requires everyone to have private insurance but also mandates basic level of cover and for which the government sets minimum and maximum deductibles and then effectively helps with the rest. It's still universal, nobody goes without but it produces better outcomes and importantly for me places a lot more control into the hands of the patient. You can upgrade but that exists to a degree in the UK, wealthier people can afford better glasses, better dental care etc.

 

But yes we're not really on different wavelengths. You just put a heavy emphasis on funding, I put the emphasis on system and we would both prefer it properly looked into. 

These are my feelings exactly. I feel you could throw unlimited funds at the NHS, there will always be problems and scandals no matter what the government, there were some pretty horrendous incidents under Labours watch, the Mid Staffs issue and cover up, building of brand new hospitals to small for an areas populations.

 

I think we either have to accept the NHS as it is Free and OK or we need to revaluate its model in different times with different challenges, the idea was admirable and brilliant, the delivery in the modern world is difficult. We have longer lives, more expensive treatments/equipment than ever.

 

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

. 

Personally I'd ban private healthcare (which just takes consultants away from their NHS posts) and look at how we can find the money to fund the NHS better. 

 

I would rather those that can afford it be billed or use their private cover to fund treatment. Why should a millionaire get free NHS treatment? They absolutely don't need it. 

[Buce]

25 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

I would rather those that can afford it be billed or use their private cover to fund treatment. Why should a millionaire get free NHS treatment? They absolutely don't need it. 

 

 

Because once you abandon the principle of free for all, you have set a precedent; how long before the government says "why should a half-millionaire get treatment"? Then someone on 100k a year? Then 50K? Then everybody who is in full-time employment?

 

It would be the thin end of the wedge that takes us down the American road.

Edited 9 May 2018 by Buce

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

These are my feelings exactly. I feel you could throw unlimited funds at the NHS, there will always be problems and scandals no matter what the government, there were some pretty horrendous incidents under Labours watch, the Mid Staffs issue and cover up, building of brand new hospitals to small for an areas populations.

 

I think we either have to accept the NHS as it is Free and OK or we need to revaluate its model in different times with different challenges, the idea was admirable and brilliant, the delivery in the modern world is difficult. We have longer lives, more expensive treatments/equipment than ever.

 

I would rather those that can afford it be billed or use their private cover to fund treatment. Why should a millionaire get free NHS treatment? They absolutely don't need it. 

Because they've paid their taxes.

Increase taxes on the wealthy. 

[Rogstanley]

28 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

These are my feelings exactly. I feel you could throw unlimited funds at the NHS, there will always be problems and scandals no matter what the government, there were some pretty horrendous incidents under Labours watch, the Mid Staffs issue and cover up, building of brand new hospitals to small for an areas populations.

 

I think we either have to accept the NHS as it is Free and OK or we need to revaluate its model in different times with different challenges, the idea was admirable and brilliant, the delivery in the modern world is difficult. We have longer lives, more expensive treatments/equipment than ever.

 

I would rather those that can afford it be billed or use their private cover to fund treatment. Why should a millionaire get free NHS treatment? They absolutely don't need it. 

Why shouldn't they? A million quid in net worth isn't massive for someone who has worked all their life. A single property in London could do it. The risk is that once you make the NHS means tested how long before someone on £30k is deemed too wealthy?

Edited 9 May 2018 by Rogstanley

[ealingfox]

Where I would start is looking at how to discourage wastage at the point of use. I think you could start charging for DNAs, uncollected prescriptions and stuff like that without too much philosophical compromise. It's free at the point of use, not free at the point of abuse. If people are taking the piss and using it frivolously they should be called out on it because we can't and shouldn't carry that sort of thing anymore.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

But if your going to Tax them 75% anyway, they are still paying just in advance of something that might never happen. Why should you pay a massive amount for something you might never use?

 

Surely better to target the payments at those costing the NHS, people who smoke, drink, eat to much who are rich can pay for the services they use?

 

Ever increasing funding will just lead to more and more waste. Fact is we have too many people in the country, not enough hospitals, the conditions are becoming more complex and people are living longer. The current model I am afraid just isn't sustainable. 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Where I would start is looking at how to discourage wastage at the point of use. I think you could start charging for DNAs, uncollected prescriptions and stuff like that without too much philosophical compromise. It's free at the point of use, not free at the point of abuse. If people are taking the piss and using it frivolously they should be called out on it because we can't and shouldn't carry that sort of thing anymore.

Spot on. I recently visited my AE, actually the hospital is great, the staff are excellent.

 

Unfortunately late night the vast majority of people visiting the hospital are drunks and drug addicts so it makes it not a nice place to be. Its been like this for a long time, I am not sure how we solve that kind of problem, perhaps better rehabilitation services? Again this is a long neglected area much like social care, its a growing problem. 

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Spot on. I recently visited my AE, actually the hospital is great, the staff are excellent.

 

Unfortunately late night the vast majority of people visiting the hospital are drunks and drug addicts so it makes it not a nice place to be. Its been like this for a long time, I am not sure how we solve that kind of problem, perhaps better rehabilitation services? Again this is a long neglected area much like social care, its a growing problem. 

Did you really go to A&E under the impression it should be a "nice place to be"? It's A&E mate.

Edited 9 May 2018 by Rogstanley

[Rogstanley]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

But if your going to Tax them 75% anyway, they are still paying just in advance of something that might never happen. Why should you pay a massive amount for something you might never use?

 

Surely better to target the payments at those costing the NHS, people who smoke, drink, eat to much who are rich can pay for the services they use?

 

Ever increasing funding will just lead to more and more waste. Fact is we have too many people in the country, not enough hospitals, the conditions are becoming more complex and people are living longer. The current model I am afraid just isn't sustainable. 

 

 

Number of people doesn't matter, that's more people paying tax so more money to fund more hospitals. If they're not being built then where is the money going? Ask your government, they're the ones overseeing these problems.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

But if your going to Tax them 75% anyway, they are still paying just in advance of something that might never happen. Why should you pay a massive amount for something you might never use?

 

Surely better to target the payments at those costing the NHS, people who smoke, drink, eat to much who are rich can pay for the services they use?

 

Ever increasing funding will just lead to more and more waste. Fact is we have too many people in the country, not enough hospitals, the conditions are becoming more complex and people are living longer. The current model I am afraid just isn't sustainable. 

 

 

No, no, no, no, no. No. Horrendous idea.

You are the only person talking about 75% tax.

This 'why should they pay' rubbish - where would it end? Education only funded by people with children? The idea is that the country needs certain infrastructure and services for it's people. This should be provided by government, and paid for through general taxation. The end.

 

Ultimately we need to establish the services our country needs - health, education, social services, welfare, military, transport and energy - work out the cost, and tax to pay for it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Spot on. I recently visited my AE, actually the hospital is great, the staff are excellent.

 

Unfortunately late night the vast majority of people visiting the hospital are drunks and drug addicts so it makes it not a nice place to be. Its been like this for a long time, I am not sure how we solve that kind of problem, perhaps better rehabilitation services? Again this is a long neglected area much like social care, its a growing problem. 

That's modern culture for you.

When you sell off playing fields, public spaces, sports opportunities (see st Margaret swimming baths, aylestone road running track and cycling, Granby halls....), then people just get drunk as there's nothing else to do.

Everything is either sold off or built using tax payers money then privatised and made expensive to use.

This country is an absolute rip off. It's no wonder we have social problems, obesity issues etc 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No, no, no, no, no. No. Horrendous idea.

You are the only person talking about 75% tax.

This 'why should they pay' rubbish - where would it end? Education only funded by people with children? The idea is that the country needs certain infrastructure and services for it's people. This should be provided by government, and paid for through general taxation. The end.

 

Ultimately we need to establish the services our country needs - health, education, social services, welfare, military, transport and energy - work out the cost, and tax to pay for it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Its where Labours policy will lead us. 

 

We already pay enough tax, who has the right to decide the 'rich' who already pay more tax, need to pay more tax?

 

The last part I can agree with, people need to decide what level of service they want. 

 

At the moment we have adequate services for moderate taxation, if we want superb services we need very high tax, not just for the rich but for everyone. 

I question whether a government could ever deliver superb services no matter how much it spent. If people want great services then they will have to pay.

 

To be honest I would prefer a system where those who can afford to get better can pay for it when they need it and reduce the strain on public services of a one size fit all. A rich person can afford private education, private healthcare etc. that's one less place take in the state system and they are still contributing the tax

 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

22 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Number of people doesn't matter, that's more people paying tax so more money to fund more hospitals. If they're not being built then where is the money going? Ask your government, they're the ones overseeing these problems.

No necessarily more people paying tax. If the elderly are living longer, we are having more complex issues during lifetimes, more expensive drugs, more expensive equipment, new techniques etc etc etc, the cost will keep rising. We do not have the money for widespread building of new hospitals but then we are getting back into the old circular debate of national debt, deficit etc. 

 

The problems have been here long before this government for sure. There haven't been enough new hospitals or schools built for decades. Labour underwent a quite costly program of rebuilding existing schools and hospitals (many that could have been refurbed for half the cost) but built very few brand new schools.