Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Real spending is going down though isn't it?

Can you actually admit that point?

Expenditure in % of gdp has also experienced the biggest ever fall over the last 7 years.

Not according to that graph you provided. 

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Carl, Carl, Carl please.

 

There are no cuts, spending is going up. We need more money because the ageing population is a problem but the NHS also needs reforms. Tell me what I've argued against on there?

 Technically none, but you've not been arguing for them either, this is the closest you've come to making a positive case for the government:

 

30 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There's a lot of shroud waving going on. Claims of third world conditions in a hospital that's just had a £350 million refurbishment is ridiculous. Maybe there does need to be more money spent on the NHS but it doesn't grow on trees. everyone is doing their best and to blatantly use what's happening for political gain is very poor imo.

The rest of the time you've been focusing on Channel 4's dishonesty and the fact that this doctor's concerns aren't valid because Labour.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not according to that graph you provided. 

That graph doesn't show expenditure by GDP webbo. Nor does it take inflation into account.

 

27 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If the doctor is a labour party activist, and channel 4 would know this, why not mention it at the start of the interview  and let people judge for themselves?

 

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Will the PM's former advisor do?

 

 

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think that covers what I've been saying. Good post.

 

[Nick]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Can you define that word? 

Yes.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That graph doesn't show expenditure by GDP webbo. Nor does it take inflation into account.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough I looked at the wrong line, there does seem to be a slight dip, it does take inflation into account though.

 

Real terms is more important anyway.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Fair enough I looked at the wrong line, there does seem to be a slight dip, it does take inflation into account though.

 

Real terms is more important anyway.

Right, okay. Yes real terms is most important.

The best way for us to discuss the issues is to not deny facts so we can talk about the other stuff. It's denial of cuts that drives me nuts.

Edited 4 January 2018 by Guest

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Right, okay. Yes real terms is most important.

The best way for us to discuss the issues is to not deny facts so we can gain about the other stuff. It's denial of cuts that drives me nuts.

If they froze spending and we had a recession and the economy shrunk it would appear as an increase in spending as a % of GDP which it would be technically but the NHS wouldn't be any better off. We haven't had any cuts. You can argue that changing circumstances mean we need more spending but that's not the same thing.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If they froze spending and we had a recession and the economy shrunk it would appear as an increase in spending as a % of GDP which it would be technically but the NHS wouldn't be any better off. We haven't had any cuts. You can argue that changing circumstances mean we need more spending but that's not the same thing.

But in real terms expenditure is falling. Forget gdp.?

[Webbo]

47 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Will the PM's former advisor do?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm looking at this graph and not seeing a fall in real terms.

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That graph doesn't show expenditure by GDP webbo. Nor does it take inflation into account.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm confused. Why would you say that when the top graph does show a fall in expenditure as a % of GDP (right axis, dashed line?)? 

 

The inevitable NHS crisis at this time of year does wind me up. Not because I don't believe it to be a crisis but because nobody really wants to do anything to address it. I have absolutely no doubt Conservative policy has caused problems (improvements too), particularly Lansley's reforms and Hunts lack of diplomacy. But I also can't bare the implication, in the criticism of the Conservative's, that all would be alright under Labour (or anyone else for that matter), it wouldn't. Just whacking in a bit more money, isn't going to solve the problem. Okay the King's Fund says it needs an extra £4bn, but I don't for one second believe that's going to give us some great health service devoid of crisis, nor any other figure. The solution, as advocated for a long-time by the CPS, IEA (yes heavily right-wing think tanks) and today by Nick Timothy(shudder) is for a Royal Commission to take politics away from it all and leave it up to an independent group of experts to put forward a plan of what is actually best. Okay Labour might oppose it as the NHS is a useful vote winner, but really this is what is best for the health of the nation. Besides, if the NHS with extra funding is the best way forward, then that's what the Commission will find and there will nowhere to hide for the sitting government. If it's not, then we face the difficult challenge of implementing a new system (I think only Germany has really made major changes to its health system in modern times because its so hard). As Tim Worstall (ASI, yes heavily right wing I appreciate) noted, the NHS is a reflection of how British healthcare should be arranged in the 40s, not necessarily now, and so it's a bit daft that criticisms of it are too toxic for anyone to suggest anything different. It really annoys me that we accept relatively poor health outcomes because the NHS is sacrilege. This week we see that almost £1bn is lost from unattended appointments, but it would be near politically impossible to suggest introducing a charge (as they do in France and Sweden) as a means to remove some of that waste. 

 

As I've said before, it's a matter that needs mature, apolitical national debate that acknowledges the failures of consecutive governments (the ongoing cost of PFI, Major's general incompetence on anything) but ultimately seeks to decide on a better way forward and preferably takes a large slice of politics out of healthcare for the rest of time.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'm confused. Why would you say that when the top graph does show a fall in expenditure as a % of GDP (right axis, dashed line?)? 

 

The inevitable NHS crisis at this time of year does wind me up. Not because I don't believe it to be a crisis but because nobody really wants to do anything to address it. I have absolutely no doubt Conservative policy has caused problems (improvements too), particularly Lansley's reforms and Hunts lack of diplomacy. But I also can't bare the implication, in the criticism of the Conservative's, that all would be alright under Labour (or anyone else for that matter), it wouldn't. Just whacking in a bit more money, isn't going to solve the problem. Okay the King's Fund says it needs an extra £4bn, but I don't for one second believe that's going to give us some great health service devoid of crisis, nor any other figure. The solution, as advocated for a long-time by the CPS, IEA (yes heavily right-wing think tanks) and today by Nick Timothy(shudder) is for a Royal Commission to take politics away from it all and leave it up to an independent group of experts to put forward a plan of what is actually best. Okay Labour might oppose it as the NHS is a useful vote winner, but really this is what is best for the health of the nation. Besides, if the NHS with extra funding is the best way forward, then that's what the Commission will find and there will nowhere to hide for the sitting government. If it's not, then we face the difficult challenge of implementing a new system (I think only Germany has really made major changes to its health system in modern times because its so hard). As Tim Worstall (ASI, yes heavily right wing I appreciate) noted, the NHS is a reflection of how British healthcare should be arranged in the 40s, not necessarily now, and so it's a bit daft that criticisms of it are too toxic for anyone to suggest anything different. It really annoys me that we accept relatively poor health outcomes because the NHS is sacrilege. This week we see that almost £1bn is lost from unattended appointments, but it would be near politically impossible to suggest introducing a charge (as they do in France and Sweden) as a means to remove some of that waste. 

 

As I've said before, it's a matter that needs mature, apolitical national debate that acknowledges the failures of consecutive governments (the ongoing cost of PFI, Major's general incompetence on anything) but ultimately seeks to decide on a better way forward and preferably takes a large slice of politics out of healthcare for the rest of time.

These same arguments occurred in the early 90s. Blair raised spending to the EU average and the change was transformational.

[Guest Kopfkino]

54 minutes ago, toddybad said:

These same arguments occurred in the early 90s. Blair raised spending to the EU average and the change was transformational.

 

I saw it pointed out on Twitter yesterday that the Guardian's report of the Commonwealth Fund's rankings in 2014 said: "The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive". This at a time when research published by the BMJ says we spend more than the EU average https://www.ft.com/content/4a009b68-7cf1-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928 (It can be picked apart a bit with per capita being slightly below or even the redefinition). I mean well done the Guardian for being so blunt about it, but given our comparatively poor record on, for example, cancer survival rates; stroke mortality rates; unnecessary deaths; even after Blair's "transformational change", I find it rather hard to believe that  more spending on our current system is going to deliver a health service that keeps people alive. 

 

Anyway, it's still no reason to oppose a Royal Commission. The only reason would be vested political interest. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I saw it pointed out on Twitter yesterday that the Guardian's report of the Commonwealth Fund's rankings in 2014 said: "The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive". This at a time when research published by the BMJ says we spend more than the EU average https://www.ft.com/content/4a009b68-7cf1-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928 (It can be picked apart a bit with per capita being slightly below or even the redefinition). I mean well done the Guardian for being so blunt about it, but given our comparatively poor record on, for example, cancer survival rates; stroke mortality rates; unnecessary deaths; even after Blair's "transformational change", I find it rather hard to believe that  more spending on our current system is going to deliver a health service that keeps people alive. 

 

Anyway, it's still no reason to oppose a Royal Commission. The only reason would be vested political interest. 

Yeah but under Blair you’d die in a bay instead of a corridor.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah but under Blair you’d die in some or other illegal war.

 

Fixed.

Edited 4 January 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Fixed.

It was on the tip of my tongue tbf.

Edited 4 January 2018 by Strokes

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I saw it pointed out on Twitter yesterday that the Guardian's report of the Commonwealth Fund's rankings in 2014 said: "The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive". This at a time when research published by the BMJ says we spend more than the EU average https://www.ft.com/content/4a009b68-7cf1-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928 (It can be picked apart a bit with per capita being slightly below or even the redefinition). I mean well done the Guardian for being so blunt about it, but given our comparatively poor record on, for example, cancer survival rates; stroke mortality rates; unnecessary deaths; even after Blair's "transformational change", I find it rather hard to believe that  more spending on our current system is going to deliver a health service that keeps people alive. 

 

Anyway, it's still no reason to oppose a Royal Commission. The only reason would be vested political interest. 

I think the issue is every time we spend what's required to get the NHS working the government changes and spending drops so the gains aren't cemented. You could say the same across a number of areas. Having two fundamentally different visions for the state and taxation is the cause of many ills.

 

We almost need a referendum with the choice of A-low taxes or b- good public services which both parties then have to live with

Edited 4 January 2018 by Guest

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think the issue is every time we spend what's required to get the NHS working the government changes and spending drops so the gains aren't cemented. You could say the same across a number of areas. Having two fundamentally different visions for the state and taxation is the cause of many ills.

 

We almost need a referendum with the choice of A-low taxes or b- good public services which both parties then have to live with

 

Yeah, there's a lot to be said for a one-party state, as long as it's the correct party...

Edited 4 January 2018 by Buce

[Guest]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Yeah, there's a lot to be said for a one-party state, as long as it's the right party...

I'd rather it was the left

[Guest Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think the issue is every time we spend what's required to get the NHS working the government changes and spending drops so the gains aren't cemented. You could say the same across a number of areas. Having two fundamentally different visions for the state and taxation is the cause of many ills.

 

We almost need a referendum with the choice of A-low taxes or b- good public services which both parties then have to live with

 

See this is interesting. Whilst some members are accused of being unable to criticise the government and defend at all costs, you seem to do similar for the NHS. A lack of money is always the problem and not the system itself. I'm not being critical or anything of whatever was derided for the last couple of days on here, it's just interesting you rarely acknowledge NHS problems exist outside of money or government decision. It's interesting because the first rule of Conservatism is do anything to protect existing institutions. 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd rather it was the left

 

Fixed.

[leicsmac]

Tbh regarding the NHS I'm still not convinced that health outcomes per capita are that negative in the UK compared to other OECD countries (the US in particular) that the system itself needs to be changed, especially when normalised for cost per patient.

 

The argument could be made that the NHS could be made more efficient when it comes to minor care, but it's at least equal in terms of care for severe injury/illness and better in terms of cost than many other systems round the world IMO.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

See this is interesting. Whilst some members are accused of being unable to criticise the government and defend at all costs, you seem to do similar for the NHS. A lack of money is always the problem and not the system itself. I'm not being critical or anything of whatever was derided for the last couple of days on here, it's just interesting you rarely acknowledge NHS problems exist outside of money or government decision. It's interesting because the first rule of Conservatism is do anything to protect existing institutions. 

The difficulty is I haven't seen anything wrong with the system. It spends half the time being underfunded then tories point and talk about the private sector being required. 

 

The American system shows what happens when you entirely privatise the system.

 

Granted, you're probably talking about something in between. 

 

I'd be open to understanding how those systems work but the issues I have are:

 

- very difficult to find a source without a vested interest

- I generally fail to see the benefits of privatisation having worked for an outsourcing company previously

[Strokes]

46 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The difficulty is I haven't seen anything wrong with the system. It spends half the time being underfunded then tories point and talk about the private sector being required. 

 

The American system shows what happens when you entirely privatise the system.

 

Granted, you're probably talking about something in between. 

 

I'd be open to understanding how those systems work but the issues I have are:

 

- very difficult to find a source without a vested interest

- I generally fail to see the benefits of privatisation having worked for an outsourcing company previously

Forgetting privatisation for a second, there are definitely efficiencies that can be made that require little or no capital investment. I listen to my wife whinge about things that are quite astonishing when you consider the apparent desperation for beds. For instance she regularly talks of patients having to wait several hours taking up beds with a signed discharge note, just because they are waiting for the pharmacy to provide the prescription. I mean common sense could tell you most of these could surely be told to pick them up from the local chemist on the way home. Or am I missing something?

Edited 4 January 2018 by Strokes

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Forgetting privatisation for a second, there are definitely efficiencies that can be made that require little or no capital investment. I listen to my wife whinge about things that are quite astonishing when you consider the apparent desperation for beds. For instance she regularly talks of patients having to wait several hours taking up beds with a signed discharge note, just because they are waiting for the pharmacy to provide the prescription. I mean common sense could tell you most of these could surely be told to pick them up from the local chemist on the way home. Or am I missing something?

 

There is a reason but I can’t remember what it is. Something to do with budgets, I think. 

 

Edit: Maybe I’m remembering wrongly as there is another possible explanation on Wikipedia. I can’t link from my phone app, but go on Wiki and search ‘hospital pharmacy’. 

Edited 4 January 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

There is a reason but I can’t remember what it is. Something to do with budgets, I think. 

Surely it wouldn’t cost much to change the policy though and might yeild some bed spaces? I’m sure it’s not a huge issue on its own but a few similar things could really help I would have thought.