rugbyunion
Latest News:

The COML Message Board

The place for discussion, debate and nonsense about Bath Rugby.

Join our new Facebook Group today!

New visitors please read the house rules before posting

Test your prognostications at our Prediction League


Current Page: 12 of 14
 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 13:48
Quote:
jayeatman
'The share of working age Britons is forecast to be higher over the coming decades than most other G7 economies'
Why might that be I wonder?
'these population projections were published before the UK’s decision to leave the EU'

So Theresa May prioritising an anti-immigrant policy over all else in Brexit negotiations should scupper this forecast quite nicely.

Show me where Theresa May has suggested creating an "anti immigrant" policy. This really is empty scaremongering nonsense.

 
ade1865
Ade1865 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 13:49
Quote:
Stuart
Quote:
Ade1865
The government can try all they like, but the biggest problems are planning Dept's that are intrinsically anti development and developed that want to build larger house for more profit.

The former is certainly not my experience a very minor cog in the planning system on our Town Council's Planning Committee. The default position is that a development will be approved barring an incredibly good reason not to.

Matching the maximum profitability for developers to the needs of the community is, I agree, a massive problem and one where the free market is currently failing.

The answer? No one answer, but returning to council housing seems the most obvious way forward.

On your conclusion I agree, I see it as the only current way forward. However I cannot see central govt investing in local govt housing, and Mendip for one, and Somerset County Council for another are not in a position to cover any more costs.

As for your first point, it does depend largely on where you live. Mendip I find intransigent and overly controlling when they do allow planning. Their own plan states a need for 742 affordable homes alone, every year. It then states that this is unachieveable and the total number of houses required, including affordable and open market is only 400 odd. I think to date the actual number of affordable homes built in the last 5 years is 10.

South Somerset are proactive, BANES are a right muddle and Sedgemoor are building only in the towns.

the government insists that it is helping smaller housing providers by asking for affordable provision on schemes over 10 houses. therefore small and large providers alike skip affordable provision by one means or another. Its a pickle and no mistake.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 13:57
Got to love economists. A couple of data points suggesting slowdown and they project discaster forward 20 years. Now a few huge say things are OK and we're going to be top in the G7. Still we have no idea what our position will be post Brexit, and even if we did the number of confounding factors are virtually infinite. Any projection for 2050 is going to be nonsense.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:00
Quote:
malco

So you are happy to admit that post Brexit the economy is looking healthy, leaving EU member economies trailing, creating wealth and opportunity for British people then?

We aren't post Brexit. We are years away from being post Brexit, probably decades away from understanding the effects.

People on both sides are far too keen to call the result, when we haven't even begin to sing the anthems



Stuart

Former ed.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:00
Quote:
malco
Quote:
hasta
That's a predictive paper forecasting the next 30 years. It's major point is that for G7 countries GDP growth is correlated with %age of old people. It also notes:
Quote:
In nominal terms, the UK is predicted to slide to ninth from fifth position over the next three decades.

You really should try reading things beyond the headline malco. It also has absolutely nothing to do with any of my points above other than:

Quote:
PwC stressed that growth depended on the country “remaining open to talented people from around the world after Brexit”.

Seems pretty consistent with my opinion.

So you are happy to admit that post Brexit the economy is looking healthy, leaving EU member economies trailing, creating wealth and opportunity for British people then?

The forecast is pretty simplistic malco. It basically says, for G7 countries, growth is correlated with % of population in the workforce. And that the UK, pre-Brexit, had this in its favour. One of the reasons for this is there's a large number of young Europeans who come here for employment.

The whole point of the paper is to make people think about how economies need to change with respect to an aging population. It is unrelated to Brexit and is a 30-year forecast, not an immediate one. Maybe try reading it with both eyes open.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:02
Quote:
malco
Quote:
jayeatman
'The share of working age Britons is forecast to be higher over the coming decades than most other G7 economies'
Why might that be I wonder?
'these population projections were published before the UK’s decision to leave the EU'

So Theresa May prioritising an anti-immigrant policy over all else in Brexit negotiations should scupper this forecast quite nicely.

Show me where Theresa May has suggested creating an "anti immigrant" policy. This really is empty scaremongering nonsense.

Anti immigration, not anti immigrant. Cutting it by nearly three quarters suggests a certain ambivalence st best don't you think?



Stuart

Former ed.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:20
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
Quote:
malco
Quote:
jayeatman
'The share of working age Britons is forecast to be higher over the coming decades than most other G7 economies'
Why might that be I wonder?
'these population projections were published before the UK’s decision to leave the EU'

So Theresa May prioritising an anti-immigrant policy over all else in Brexit negotiations should scupper this forecast quite nicely.

Show me where Theresa May has suggested creating an "anti immigrant" policy. This really is empty scaremongering nonsense.

Anti immigration, not anti immigrant. Cutting it by nearly three quarters suggests a certain ambivalence st best don't you think?

Not in the slightest. The idea is to have control of immigration so that we can admit whoever we want to, from wherever they originate. Not just let anybody in who is an EU citizen and discriminate against the rest of the planet. The EU's policy is far more "anti immigrant" than the policy that will be instigated post Brexit, which will be transparent and fair to everybody.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:51
We can admit anyone we want to from wherever they originate.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 14:57
Quote:
hasta
We can admit anyone we want to from wherever they originate.

We have to admit anybody who is an EU citizen.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 15:21
Quote:
malco
Quote:
hasta
We can admit anyone we want to from wherever they originate.

We have to admit anybody who is an EU citizen.

2 true statements..

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 15:28
Quote:
woodpecker
Quote:
malco
Quote:
hasta
We can admit anyone we want to from wherever they originate.

We have to admit anybody who is an EU citizen.

2 true statements..

But if you aren't a citizen of an EU country you have to jump through all sorts of hoops. Meaning that prospective immigrants from non EU countries are actively discriminated against, regardless of their skills, qualifications or circumstances.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 15:32
Those hoops are there because we chose to put them there. We could choose not to.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 15:40
It all depends on the granularity in which you see the world doesn't it? You can see it from an European level or a British one. In both cases, you are discriminating.

On a British level you are favouring a person from Yorkshire over a person from Spain. On a European level you are favouring a person from Spain over a person from India.

Both the UK and the EU are able to choose to allow immigrants where they feel the indigenous population can't provide certain skills.

The only difference is the granularity, which I accept is important, I just feel that the world should be trying to reduce barriers, not create them. Naturally that leads to bigger political entities.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 17:25
Quote:
DanWiley
It all depends on the granularity in which you see the world doesn't it? You can see it from an European level or a British one. In both cases, you are discriminating.
On a British level you are favouring a person from Yorkshire over a person from Spain. On a European level you are favouring a person from Spain over a person from India.

Both the UK and the EU are able to choose to allow immigrants where they feel the indigenous population can't provide certain skills.

The only difference is the granularity, which I accept is important, I just feel that the world should be trying to reduce barriers, not create them. Naturally that leads to bigger political entities.

I agree with you.

So, we have replaced the granular EU barrier and gone for global equality.

 
Huxster
Huxster (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 17:57
Equality is a myth, as long as a human being is making the decision then there will always be a bias even sub-conciously.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/Huxster8/Huxster6.jpg

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
07 February, 2017 18:05
Are you saying we're going to offer the same deal that citizens of the UK have and citizens of the EU will lose to the world?

I think you might be mistaken there.

I think we'll hammer out some fairly limited free trade deals with a small number of countries. There won't be free movement of people involved in these deals. There won't be free movement of goods in these deals. There won't be the shared legislation required to make the free movement of goods possible. If there were one of your major arguments about sovereignty would disappear, but apart from that the US won't want China pumping steal over there through us so there will be restrictions on with whom we can make these deals and what we can offer.

There will be barriers, I doubt they will be equal or global.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 15:48
Quote:
malco
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
Quote:
malco
Quote:
jayeatman
'The share of working age Britons is forecast to be higher over the coming decades than most other G7 economies'
Why might that be I wonder?
'these population projections were published before the UK’s decision to leave the EU'

So Theresa May prioritising an anti-immigrant policy over all else in Brexit negotiations should scupper this forecast quite nicely.

Show me where Theresa May has suggested creating an "anti immigrant" policy. This really is empty scaremongering nonsense.

Anti immigration, not anti immigrant. Cutting it by nearly three quarters suggests a certain ambivalence st best don't you think?

Not in the slightest. The idea is to have control of immigration so that we can admit whoever we want to, from wherever they originate. Not just let anybody in who is an EU citizen and discriminate against the rest of the planet. The EU's policy is far more "anti immigrant" than the policy that will be instigated post Brexit, which will be transparent and fair to everybody.

I am quite certain that in most people's minds, pro- or anti- Brexit, 'controlling' immigration = reducing immigration. Why bother otherwise? Anybody who pretends otherwise is just being disingenuous. It is most certainly still the government's objective to get net migration down to the 'tens of thousands' no matter how impossible or economically desirable that actually is. Simple maths shows that will require reducing immigration from both the EU and non-EU. If that were to be achieved the implication would be a lower working age population and thus lower economic growth. As their living standards have stagnated for the last 10 years anyway, this wouldn't affect most ordinary people in this country hence their willingness to believe Farage and his ilk when they blame our every ill on the EU, immigration or worst of all immigration from the EU.



BATH supporter since 1975

Adopted players:
2015/6 Tom Homer
2016/7 Matt Banahan
2017/8 Jeff Williams

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 16:01
Quote:
jayeatman
If that were to be achieved the implication would be a lower working age population and thus lower economic growth.

Err... You know there's more to growth than getting more population, right?

Quote:
jayeatman
As their living standards have stagnated for the last 10 years anyway, this wouldn't affect most ordinary people in this country hence their willingness to believe Farage and his ilk when they blame our every ill on the EU, immigration or worst of all immigration from the EU.

Given their living standards have stagnated for the last 10 years I would sincerely hope they'd begin to question the consensus that had driven their life standards over the last 10-20 years. If mass immigration is so important, why has record numbers coincided with stagnation of living standards?

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 17:18
Quote:
Substitute
Quote:
jayeatman
If that were to be achieved the implication would be a lower working age population and thus lower economic growth.

Err... You know there's more to growth than getting more population, right?


Referring back a few posts, that PwC projection for 2050 is fundamentally based on working age population estimates.

Quote:
Substitute
Quote:
jayeatman
As their living standards have stagnated for the last 10 years anyway, this wouldn't affect most ordinary people in this country hence their willingness to believe Farage and his ilk when they blame our every ill on the EU, immigration or worst of all immigration from the EU.

Given their living standards have stagnated for the last 10 years I would sincerely hope they'd begin to question the consensus that had driven their life standards over the last 10-20 years. If mass immigration is so important, why has record numbers coincided with stagnation of living standards?

2007 financial crash followed by recession was by far the most important factor.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
MESSAGES->author
Garbageman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 19:45
Quite right Stuart but I think substitute inadvertently stumbled on something, coincide = coincidence

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 20:13
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
[
Referring back a few posts, that PwC projection for 2050 is fundamentally based on working age population estimates.

Quote:
Stuart Anderton
2007 financial crash followed by recession was by far the most important factor.

This is the point I'm making. Despite record levels of inward migration to 'western' nations these economies faltered significantly because other factors were 'more important'.

Coincidence? I suspect not entirely but the very people who failed to spot the looming crisis (and in many cases contributed to it) are the very same people telling us migration is the key to our economy. I can see why people might not trust them...

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
08 February, 2017 20:34
Brexit bill passed by 372 votes with no amendments.

That's what "Brexit means Brexit" means.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:12
Bullying? Pass this bill or lose your future. Seems to be what has been said to both the commons and the Lords.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:18
Quote:
DanWiley
Bullying? Pass this bill or lose your future. Seems to be what has been said to both the commons and the Lords.

If you have 408 constituencies for and 242 against and you are demanding that democracy be ignored then yes, your future is in peril.

It was a national vote. It returned a national majority and democracy has won over. It has become very clear which political factions are pro democracy and which consider themselves superior to it.

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:28
Quote:
DanWiley
Bullying? Pass this bill or lose your future. Seems to be what has been said to both the commons and the Lords.

Don't be ridiculous. These are grown men and women, perfectly capable of understanding the magnitude and personal consequences of the decisions they make.

In any case, just like you (and others) said the Remain side were entitled to point out to the voter the 'extreme negative effects' of a Leave vote, so 'negative effects' can be pointed out to an MP or a Lord. They might be equally wrong.

The voters took that 'risk' and therefore MPs and Lord's should be considered equally capable, without accusations of bullying.

Otherwise I'm going to have to start blaming Cameron for bullying the entire country...

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:33
I'm talking about the Lords being directly told to pass it without amendment or face abolition. That's bullying and Downing street is rightly now distancing itself from that comment.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:45
Quote:
DanWiley
I'm talking about the Lords being directly told to pass it without amendment or face abolition. That's bullying and Downing street is rightly now distancing itself from that comment.

I'm sorry, I thought it was you that was going on about "representative democracy" when you thought it suited you?

Which part of representative democracy doe the unelected upper house constitute?

You don't want people to think you a hypocrite, surely?

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 11:58
Quote:
DanWiley
I'm talking about the Lords being directly told to pass it without amendment or face abolition. That's bullying and Downing street is rightly now distancing itself from that comment.

We were told to vote Remain or we'll lose livelihoods.

It's official, David Cameron is a bully. Fortunately, Downing Street has rightly distanced itself from him.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 12:31
"Which part of representative democracy doe the unelected upper house constitute? "

It represents a very important part of our parliamentary democracy. I think an elected house that comes closer to reflecting the direct views of the people and time is a good thing. I do think this house should be proportional, but that's another issue. I think an unelected house that aren't tied to the whims of the current zeitgeist is an equally good thing.

Th only thing I think I would change is its hereditary nature. Elect people to the position for life on the basis of achievement in their given walk of life (rather that as a payment for services rendered). Someone who has risen to the top in their field probably is in a good position to make decision like this, but that doesn't mean their children will be.

A very real role of the Lords for me is exactly to stop the commons enacting legislation based on short-term, populist reactions.

"You don't want people to think you a hypocrite, surely?"
Can you find a place where I've said anything different from this?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 13:34
My preference for Lords would be 99 people, 33 elected each 5 years for a single term of 10 years, election by 100% PR.

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:11
Quote:
hasta
My preference for Lords would be 99 people, 33 elected each 5 years for a single term of 10 years, election by 100% PR.

+1

Although I'd prefer a single term of 5 years.

The Lords at present is stuffed with out of touch old people who mostly just turn up for the free lunch and lavish expenses.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:17
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
hasta
My preference for Lords would be 99 people, 33 elected each 5 years for a single term of 10 years, election by 100% PR.

+1

Although I'd prefer a single term of 5 years.

The Lords at present is stuffed with out of touch old people who mostly just turn up for the free lunch and lavish expenses.

Sounds attractive, how do I apply?

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:29
Quote:
woodpecker
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
hasta
My preference for Lords would be 99 people, 33 elected each 5 years for a single term of 10 years, election by 100% PR.

+1

Although I'd prefer a single term of 5 years.

The Lords at present is stuffed with out of touch old people who mostly just turn up for the free lunch and lavish expenses.

Sounds attractive, how do I apply?

Join the Liberal Democrats. Campaigning for reform of the Lords whilst doing everything they can to stuff it as full of members as possible in order to try to frustrate the democratic process.

There is nothing less liberal or less democratic than a Liberal Democrat.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:37
Stalin?

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:40
Quote:
DanWiley
Stalin?

In his dotage he did in fact joint the lib dems...

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 14:55
Quote:
woodpecker
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
hasta
My preference for Lords would be 99 people, 33 elected each 5 years for a single term of 10 years, election by 100% PR.

+1

Although I'd prefer a single term of 5 years.

The Lords at present is stuffed with out of touch old people who mostly just turn up for the free lunch and lavish expenses.

Sounds attractive, how do I apply?

I think all you have to be is a failed politician and/or demonstrate the ability to sit around doing nothing, fall asleep and generally be a drain on the tax payer.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:01
Quote:
DanWiley
Stalin?

Murdered millions but didn't attempt to deceive people by pretending to be the polar opposite of what he actually was.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:09
Just pointing out that, whilst your soundbite is pithy, it's also bullshit.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:22
Quote:
DanWiley
Just pointing out that, whilst your soundbite is pithy, it's also bullshit.

Stalin didn't lay claim to being a liberal or being interested indemocracy.

Trading Standards need to take a long, hard look at the Liberal Democrats. They are passing off on a grand scale. They have shown that, like Stalin, they are happy to be anti-democratic and there is nothing remotely liberal about any of their policies whatsoever. It's been this way since Shirley Williams and David Owen first laid covetous eyes on each other and just gets worse year on year. Liberals believe in small government, non interventionist policies and minimal bureaucracy. They believe in letting people get on with living their lives so long as what they do doesn't adversely affect the lives of others. The Liberal Democrats stand for massive statist bureaucracy and selling the soul of the nation to a federal EU.

Institutionally dishonest.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:28
If you say so, but then I think you're pretty dishonest yourself. Do we really want to dig into there policies to see if there is "nothing remotely liberal about any of their policies whatsoever"?

You'll accept, I presume, that If I can find just one minor aspect of any of their policies that you are yourself being dishonest?

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:40
So-called 'conservatives' don't want to conserve our strong economy and membership of the single market. Sad.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:42
Quote:
hasta
So-called 'conservatives' don't want to conserve our strong economy and membership of the single market. Sad.

Completely wrong. We want to strengthen our economy by freely trading with the whole world, not just the worst performing 15 per cent.

 
MESSAGES->author
hasta (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 15:47
So-called 'conservatives' unaware of the impact of geography and distance on trade. Read a map, losers! Sad.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 16:00
Quote:
hasta
So-called 'conservatives' unaware of the impact of geography and distance on trade. Read a map, losers! Sad.

Losers?

We have a Conservative government. Polling 14 per cent more than the opposition mid term. Labour are an embarrassment. The Lib Dems are polling fourth and have nine MPs, we are leaving the EU and our economy is growing faster than any other in the developed world.

If that's losing I look forward to lots more of it.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 16:09
Such indiscreet fishing is a little blunt isn't it hasta?

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 17:39
Think there was a bit of Trumpian parody going on there.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
09 February, 2017 18:43
Unnoticed apparently.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
BBandW
BBandW (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 05:00
Quote:
malco
Quote:
hasta
So-called 'conservatives' unaware of the impact of geography and distance on trade. Read a map, losers! Sad.

Losers?

We have a Conservative government. Polling 14 per cent more than the opposition mid term. Labour are an embarrassment. The Lib Dems are polling fourth and have nine MPs, we are leaving the EU and our economy is growing faster than any other in the developed world.

If that's losing I look forward to lots more of it.

Have a look at what you are doing to the NHS, and then deny that you're not losers.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 05:54
Quote:
BBandW
Quote:
malco
Quote:
hasta
So-called 'conservatives' unaware of the impact of geography and distance on trade. Read a map, losers! Sad.

Losers?

We have a Conservative government. Polling 14 per cent more than the opposition mid term. Labour are an embarrassment. The Lib Dems are polling fourth and have nine MPs, we are leaving the EU and our economy is growing faster than any other in the developed world.

If that's losing I look forward to lots more of it.

Have a look at what you are doing to the NHS, and then deny that you're not losers.

Have a look at what Labour and the EU have done to the NHS. Opened the floodgates to millions of people that we are unable to deal with because services are completely overwhelmed, junked the economy and then bleated because even as the economy is being fixed and more money is being put into the NHS it can't keep up with the demand from the number of people who want to use it.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 09:57
Ah yes, if all else fails, let's BLAME THE EU AND THE IMMIGRANTS.
(And Labour of course, how long since they've been in government?)

Immigrants are on average younger, fitter and use the NHS less than the general population. They are more likely to be in work and pay tax. They actually go a small way to balancing out the change in demographic. Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a xenophobic rant eh malco? You really should join UKIP.



BATH supporter since 1975

Adopted players:
2015/6 Tom Homer
2016/7 Matt Banahan
2017/8 Jeff Williams

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:01
Heard on Question Time last night, another one of those STFU phrases:
'We're all Brexiters now'

NO WE ARE NOT!

[www.economist.com]



BATH supporter since 1975

Adopted players:
2015/6 Tom Homer
2016/7 Matt Banahan
2017/8 Jeff Williams

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:28
Quote:
jayeatman
Ah yes, if all else fails, let's BLAME THE EU AND THE IMMIGRANTS.
(And Labour of course, how long since they've been in government?)

Immigrants are on average younger, fitter and use the NHS less than the general population. They are more likely to be in work and pay tax. They actually go a small way to balancing out the change in demographic. Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a xenophobic rant eh malco? You really should join UKIP.

I'm not blaming immigrants...typical Liberal approach to try to take the sanctimonious line and scream racism. I'm saying that there are many more people than our services can cope with. That's why there is such pressure not just on the Health Service, but also roads, housing and schools. Simple statement of fact and that's what happens when you are unable to maintain control over your own borders.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:30
Quote:
jayeatman
Heard on Question Time last night, another one of those STFU phrases:
'We're all Brexiters now'

NO WE ARE NOT!

[www.economist.com]

Yes we are. Whether you like it or not, we are leaving the EU. So we are all Brexiters now.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:34
Jayeatman,

Although your statements are broadly correct, you can't have net immigration of 335K or similar year on year with it not impacting services of every kind, not when the government is trying to reduce the massive deficit.

Also going back to a much earlier discussion, I really fail to see how people on minimum wage make a net positive contribution, if for example they have school age kids

On the other hand, I'm not a brexiter, I think its the dumbest thing I've ever heard of despite the above

 
Bath Supporter Jack

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:35
I think you are right Mr Jayeatman as the rest of the PEOPLE in the other EU countries discover things like the generosity of the unfunded EU pension scheme as compared to what they have in their own countries will become less sympathetic (were they ever?) towards the EU.

I don't believe there will be any sympathy for the Eurocrats when it becomes clearer how they have been living high on the hog at their two homes (what's all that about - ED)

Mrs Merkel has been told if she wants to win the election in September she has to move very quickly to an anti-immigration stance. An easy win would be to address the excesses of the EU particularly as your article says the Germans and the French will have to pick up the larger part of the budget shortfall created by Britain leaving.

Marine Le Pen, whilst very unlikely to win, although it appears more likely than a month ago is also running on a platform of anti euro.........which will of course wash through into anti-EU. Given their economic woes being asked for more funding from the EU will not go down well.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:42
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
I think you are right Mr Jayeatman as the rest of the PEOPLE in the other EU countries discover things like the generosity of the unfunded EU pension scheme as compared to what they have in their own countries will become less sympathetic (were they ever?) towards the EU.
I don't believe there will be any sympathy for the Eurocrats when it becomes clearer how they have been living high on the hog at their two homes (what's all that about - ED)

Mrs Merkel has been told if she wants to win the election in September she has to move very quickly to an anti-immigration stance. An easy win would be to address the excesses of the EU particularly as your article says the Germans and the French will have to pick up the larger part of the budget shortfall created by Britain leaving.

Marine Le Pen, whilst very unlikely to win, although it appears more likely than a month ago is also running on a platform of anti euro.........which will of course wash through into anti-EU. Given their economic woes being asked for more funding from the EU will not go down well.

BFJ,

Your pro brexit position appears to be based on a doom laden view of the EU, lots of bad stuff that might happen. Some or all of that is possible. What if it all turns out nicely, will you regret your position?

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:51
Brexiteer carries the connotation of supporting brexit and thinking its a good idea, otherwise it just describes British people and we don't need another term for that.

Clearly we are not all that.

"Also going back to a much earlier discussion, I really fail to see how people on minimum wage make a net positive contribution, if for example they have school age kids "

I'd say your typical immigrant really isn't costing that much: in work, young, healthy. The main cost of their children seems to be schooling. To me education is an investment we should offer to all future citizens for our own good. Whether those citizens had immigrant parents isn't really relevant.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:53
Quote:
woodpecker
Jayeatman,
Although your statements are broadly correct, you can't have net immigration of 335K or similar year on year with it not impacting services of every kind, not when the government is trying to reduce the massive deficit.

Also going back to a much earlier discussion, I really fail to see how people on minimum wage make a net positive contribution, if for example they have school age kids

On the other hand, I'm not a brexiter, I think its the dumbest thing I've ever heard of despite the above

Assuming every EU migrant is a low paid parent with school kids is also pretty dumb.

[www.theguardian.com]

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 10:56
Quote:
malco
Quote:
jayeatman
Ah yes, if all else fails, let's BLAME THE EU AND THE IMMIGRANTS.
(And Labour of course, how long since they've been in government?)

Immigrants are on average younger, fitter and use the NHS less than the general population. They are more likely to be in work and pay tax. They actually go a small way to balancing out the change in demographic. Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a xenophobic rant eh malco? You really should join UKIP.

I'm not blaming immigrants...typical Liberal approach to try to take the sanctimonious line and scream racism. I'm saying that there are many more people than our services can cope with. That's why there is such pressure not just on the Health Service, but also roads, housing and schools. Simple statement of fact and that's what happens when you are unable to maintain control over your own borders.

You forgot 'elitist'. Unashamedly both.

What bit of 'Opened the floodgates to millions of people' didn't I understand?

PS you should check the dictionary for the definitions of xenophobic and racist. If I thought you were a racist I'd have said so.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 11:02
Quote:
jayeatman
Quote:
malco
Quote:
jayeatman
Ah yes, if all else fails, let's BLAME THE EU AND THE IMMIGRANTS.
(And Labour of course, how long since they've been in government?)

Immigrants are on average younger, fitter and use the NHS less than the general population. They are more likely to be in work and pay tax. They actually go a small way to balancing out the change in demographic. Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a xenophobic rant eh malco? You really should join UKIP.

I'm not blaming immigrants...typical Liberal approach to try to take the sanctimonious line and scream racism. I'm saying that there are many more people than our services can cope with. That's why there is such pressure not just on the Health Service, but also roads, housing and schools. Simple statement of fact and that's what happens when you are unable to maintain control over your own borders.

You forgot 'elitist'. Unashamedly both.

What bit of 'Opened the floodgates to millions of people' didn't I understand?

PS you should check the dictionary for the definitions of xenophobic and racist. If I thought you were a racist I'd have said so.

You congratulate yourself as much as you like chum, the perfect word to sum up your views and position is loser.

You didn't understand that floodgates were opened to millions of people? I suggest you go and look up the rates of immigration since 1997. It isn't a matter of xenophobia, a typically lazy unqualified slur from an ignorant sanctimonious ideologist. It is a matter of fact.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 11:05
"You didn't understand that floodgates were opened to millions of people? I suggest you go and look up the rates of immigration since 1997"

He was talking about that statement in relation to you NOT blaming immigration.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 11:05
Quote:
jayeatman
Quote:
woodpecker
Jayeatman,
Although your statements are broadly correct, you can't have net immigration of 335K or similar year on year with it not impacting services of every kind, not when the government is trying to reduce the massive deficit.

Also going back to a much earlier discussion, I really fail to see how people on minimum wage make a net positive contribution, if for example they have school age kids

On the other hand, I'm not a brexiter, I think its the dumbest thing I've ever heard of despite the above

Assuming every EU migrant is a low paid parent with school kids is also pretty dumb.

[www.theguardian.com]

Yes someone who assumed that would be a retard

 
Bath Supporter Jack

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 11:11
Mr Woodpecker

I have said that if the EU, driven by the populace of each country moved rapidly our way and to a position of say 1975 I would consider/contemplate "cancelling"/revoking Article 50.

However until the Euro is cancelled, or Germany leaves the Euro, the EU project will continue........blundering along. As Lord Mervyn King said the other day the Euro will never work without full and complete political union in Europe, ie a United States of Europe, and we know that will NEVER happen.

If the euro continues the tensions in the EU will only get worse as evidenced today by Germany posting another record trade surplus at the expense of all countries including the Southern Europe members of the EU.

I have read that we are approaching the annual Greece crisis and the newspaper articles imply that the Greeks are fed up with being the can kicked down the road.

You may recall a survey last year (what value do they have?) which indicated that a large minority of people in the EU wanted to leave the EU, including a majority in Italy! Of course these people have been having a tough time for the past 10 - 15 years and therefore voting for change feels good but as you will point out may not necessarily lead to an improvement in their lives.

I am afraid I have not confidence in the EU or the Euro delivering for the people of Europe and I therefore believe that over time it will gradually diminish.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 11:43
I'm not questioning the numbers or even Labour's ill-advised decision not to limit immigration from the EU8 in 2004 although it seems a little disingenuous to blame the last 7 years of record immigration under a Tory government on a decision made 13 years ago.

I'll try one more time: Blaming the ills of the health service on a 'flood of millions of migrants' is the epitome of xenophobia. As is a pathological hatred for all things EU. Not even Jeremy Hunt is doing that.

PS Chum?

1. Close friend
2. shark bait
3. Dog food
or
4. Type of salmon?



BATH supporter since 1975

Adopted players:
2015/6 Tom Homer
2016/7 Matt Banahan
2017/8 Jeff Williams

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 12:02
Quote:
jayeatman
I'm not questioning the numbers or even Labour's ill-advised decision not to limit immigration from the EU8 in 2004 although it seems a little disingenuous to blame the last 7 years of record immigration under a Tory government on a decision made 13 years ago.
I'll try one more time: Blaming the ills of the health service on a 'flood of millions of migrants' is the epitome of xenophobia. As is a pathological hatred for all things EU. Not even Jeremy Hunt is doing that.

PS Chum?

1. Close friend
2. shark bait
3. Dog food
or
4. Type of salmon?

Let's try this again in simpler language shall we?

The main cause of the problems in the NHS, transport, schools and housing is not a lack of investment.

It is that there are too many people.

Labour operated an open door immigration policy.

The EU demanded that we accept all EU citizens.

The result has been a massive population growth at a time of economic difficulty.

Labour presided over the financial crash as well as the key negotiations with the EU. Labour was pro EU, in favour of freedom of movement, closer integration and all of the policies that directly led to the increase of people living in this country that exceed its ability to give them what they need.

I am not a xenophobe for pointing this out. I resent the suggestion. Although I'm not surprised that you resort to making it, in the absence of any relevant facts to debate with.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 12:17
Quote:
malco

Let's try this again in simpler language shall we?

The main cause of the problems in the NHS, transport, schools and housing is not a lack of investment.


I don't think you'll find many people agreeing with you there.

If all the extra people were highly paid and contributed lots of tax, would they still be 'too many'?
If all the extra people were born in the UK, would they still be 'too many'?

Your every post ends the same way: Blame Labour, The EU and immigrants. Xenophobia!

 
Huxster
Huxster (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 12:20
The EU opened the internal borders but failed to secure the external ones, idiots.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/Huxster8/Huxster6.jpg

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 12:29
Quote:
jayeatman
Quote:
malco

Let's try this again in simpler language shall we?

The main cause of the problems in the NHS, transport, schools and housing is not a lack of investment.


I don't think you'll find many people agreeing with you there.

If all the extra people were highly paid and contributed lots of tax, would they still be 'too many'?
If all the extra people were born in the UK, would they still be 'too many'?

Your every post ends the same way: Blame Labour, The EU and immigrants. Xenophobia!

You smear me as xenophobic simply because you are too stupid to understand the very simple point that I am making. That says much about you and nothing at all about me.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 12:32
We can all read what you're saying malco and decide who's stupid.

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 13:39
Quote:
jayeatman
Quote:
malco

Let's try this again in simpler language shall we?

The main cause of the problems in the NHS, transport, schools and housing is not a lack of investment.


I don't think you'll find many people agreeing with you there.

I (mostly) agree with Malco. I think the fundamental problems in the NHS, transport and schools is not because of lack of investment.

For housing, government policy was to sell and then not to invest.

Until this country has a sensible, non-religious debate about the health provision in this country then throwing more money at it is just kicking the can down the road.

This generation is spending more to get far less out. The need for further investment stems from the fact that our investments are ineffective.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 13:42
Although I hesitate to back up Malco on this thread sometimes it helps to separate the facts from causal relationships.

Firstly saying there are lots of immigrants or even too many immigrants is not necessarily 'blaming the immigrants' humans do what's in their interests so I could think there are too many arriving, but I wouldn't blame then, fair play to them, if they are allowed to come and they can get a better deal why not?

Why are services stretched, because demand is greater than supply i.e. there are more people than is resourced for, and there are more people every year than there were the previous year. if there weren't more people then it would be less of a problem (aging population and costs notwithstanding).

You could blame the government for not chucking money at it, but money is in short supply since 2008 and even if all 300K were graduates with needed skills I reckon you'd still have trouble funding that in the short term.

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. Regardless of what nice educated liberals think, the vast majority of the UK population want fewer immigrants. You can argue about it on here as much as you like, but its a fact.

Although some people like Malco, Substitute, BFJ and Huxter are more worried about other things like sovereignty, if we hadn't had very significant immigration since Tony Blair arrived on the scene, there would never have been a referendum and even if there was it wouldn't have got 52%.

So in summary if the liberal elite, UK governments, EU leaders had paid attention to this we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with having to leave the EU.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 13:50 by woodpecker.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 13:57
Quote:
woodpecker
Although I hesitate to back up Malco on this thread sometimes it helps to separate the facts from causal relationships.
Firstly saying there are lots of immigrants or even too many immigrants is not necessarily 'blaming the immigrants' humans do what's in their interests so I could think there are too many arriving, but I wouldn't blame then, fair play to them, if they are allowed to come and they can get a better deal why not?

Why are services stretched, because demand is greater than supply i.e. there are more people than is resourced for, and there are more people every year than there were the previous year. if there weren't more people then it would be less of a problem (aging population and costs notwithstanding).

You could blame the government for not chucking money at it, but money is in short supply since 2008 and even if all 300K were graduates with needed skills I reckon you'd still have trouble funding that in the short term.

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. Regardless of what nice educated liberals think, the vast majority of the UK population want fewer immigrants. You can argue about it on here as much as you like, but its a fact.

Although some people like Malco, Substitute, BFJ and Huxter are more worried about other things like sovereignty, if we hadn't had very significant immigration since Tony Blair arrived on the scene, there would never have been a referendum and even if there was it wouldn't have got 52%.

So in summary if the liberal elite, UK governments, EU leaders had paid attention to this we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with having to leave the EU.

Xenophobe.

(Newly defined as meaning "how dare you say truthful things that are not regarded as politically correct by adherents of 'progressive' dogma).

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 14:04
"Why are services stretched, because demand is greater than supply i.e. there are more people than is resourced for, and there are more people every year than there were the previous year."

That doesn't follow though. Immigration leads to more people than the there were the year before both paying into the system and taking from it. it's generally accepted that this is of benefit overall (admittedly by people who work with these stats and not taxi drivers). Without immigration we've just got more people (as they age) taking from it and not paying in. Our birth rate is low and the rate of people retiring is high.

 
MESSAGES->author
woodpecker (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 14:17
Quote:
DanWiley
"Why are services stretched, because demand is greater than supply i.e. there are more people than is resourced for, and there are more people every year than there were the previous year."
That doesn't follow though. Immigration leads to more people than the there were the year before both paying into the system and taking from it. it's generally accepted that this is of benefit overall (admittedly by people who work with these stats and not taxi drivers). Without immigration we've just got more people (as they age) taking from it and not paying in. Our birth rate is low and the rate of people retiring is high.

yes over time that's apparently true, but how long would it take to get a new fully funded hospital fully populated with qualified doctors nurses and everyone else and how much money.

Re-building Barts cost 1.1bn and i think that was just the shell, one MRI scanner is £500k

On the headcount you could either have had the foresight to start increasing medical school places in 2008 or you guessed it attract immigrants again both cost money.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 14:33
On the subject of immigrants and their economic contribution it is fair to point out that many work in the public sector and every person employed in the public sector is a cost to the economy.

100 per cent of their salary is funded by the taxpayer. Whatever percentage of this that they spend minimises that cost, but whatever services they make use of (healthcare, housing, education, etc) extend it.

It is fair to argue that many immigrants working in the public sector are doing vital jobs and are therefore worth investing in, but strictly in fiscal terms it remains the fact that public sector jobs cost the economy more than they make for it.

Pointing out this fact will, of course, result in me being targeted with more abuse from adherents of "progressive" political dogma, especially those who wish the state owned everything and kept us all as fully funded serfs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 14:50 by malco.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 14:59
"On the subject of immigrants and their economic contribution it is fair to point out that many work in the public sector and every person employed in the public sector is a cost to the economy. "

No it isn't. It's nonsense of many levels. Many of them DON'T work in the public sector. Many people who aren't immigrants DO work in the public sector. About 15% of public sector works are immigrants from the EEA, about 23% are non-EEA. Compared to about 13% of our general workforce.

Do you want fewer and more expensive Drs? Do you even have anything to back that disproportion up with?

Your problem there is with people working in the public sector, nothing to do with immigration. Shall we add that to the list of people you blame for your life?

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 15:06
Quote:
woodpecker

yes over time that's apparently true, but how long would it take to get a new fully funded hospital fully populated with qualified doctors nurses and everyone else and how much money.

Re-building Barts cost 1.1bn and i think that was just the shell, one MRI scanner is £500k

On the headcount you could either have had the foresight to start increasing medical school places in 2008 or you guessed it attract immigrants again both cost money.

Woodpecker is right, the model that EU migrants contribute more than they get from the NHS, obviously doesn't include the capital costs of building larger hospitals to meet the share of their demand.

It is also worth noting that many migrants do not benefit from the relatively expensive infant years and that they will become old some day, so it's a problem deferred in that sense.

Having said that, of the money asked for by the NHS, in its five year forward plan, the majority was to cover rising wages and associated staff costs, followed by equipment spending.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 15:09
Quote:
DanWiley
"On the subject of immigrants and their economic contribution it is fair to point out that many work in the public sector and every person employed in the public sector is a cost to the economy. "
No it isn't. It's nonsense of many levels. Many of them DON'T work in the public sector. Many people who aren't immigrants DO work in the public sector. About 15% of public sector works are immigrants from the EEA, about 23% are non-EEA. Compared to about 13% of our general workforce.

Do you want fewer and more expensive Drs? Do you even have anything to back that disproportion up with?

Your problem there is with people working in the public sector, nothing to do with immigration. Shall we add that to the list of people you blame for your life?

In rushes Dan Wiley, eager as ever to prove my point.

So, by your own figures, 38 per cent of the public sector workforce are immigrants. But oddly you clearly don't regard this as a high proportion.

I clearly made the point that many people in the public sector do vital jobs and are worth investing in. It was obviously helpful to your polemic to gloss over that part.

As for "people I blame for my life"...that's just laughable. I run my own business, I have a nice house in a nice place with no mortgage, an amazing wife, four cars, two motorcycles, a holiday home in the New Forest and I fly aeroplanes for fun. I am also an active member of the most popular political party in the country and am very much enjoying the fruits of success having campaigned long and hard for us to leave the EU.

Having come from a working class family and a comprehensive school I'm very aware of who to "blame for my life" and very grateful to them indeed.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 15:20
"s for "people I blame for my life"...that's just laughable. I run my own business, I have a nice house in a nice place with no mortgage, an amazing wife, four cars, two motorcycles, a holiday home in the New Forest and I fly aeroplanes for fun. "

... And yet you've never been truly happy (just what occurred to me reading that).

"I clearly made the point that many people in the public sector do vital jobs and are worth investing in. It was obviously helpful to your polemic to gloss over that part. "

No, you made that point then said "but they still cost us". Well no, they don't, not if we need those jobs done anyway.

 
MESSAGES->author
jayeatman (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 15:28
Quote:
malco
So, by your own figures, 38 per cent of the public sector workforce are immigrants. But oddly you clearly don't regard this as a high proportion.

But is it too high malco?
If so, how should we dispose of the surplus?
Who would then do their jobs?
Would they cost us more or less?

 
BBandW
BBandW (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 17:11
An educated Tory

one of yours Malco ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 17:12 by BBandW.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 17:17
Lots of numbers, but roughly speaking 8.5% of the population are non-UK citizens. If you think the under resourcing of the NHS is accounted for by the net load those 8.5% put on the system (and as they are typically young adults, the load they put on the NHS will be low in comparison to their numbers) then Malco's suggestion that "The main cause of the problems in the NHS .. is not a lack of investment. It is that there are too many people." might be true.

But I don't think many outside of Tory high command think that. By one measure (proportion of GDP spent) the NHS is underfunded by 24% compared to Germany, for example. That's a lot more than can be accounted for by immigrants.

If Malco was right you might also expect to see a great deal of regional variation, with those areas with high immigration struggling compared to those with low numbers. I've seen no evidence of that; have you?



Stuart

Former ed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 17:21 by Stuart Anderton.

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 18:00
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
By one measure (proportion of GDP spent) the NHS is underfunded by 24% compared to Germany, for example. That's a lot more than can be accounted for by immigrants.

We are underfunded by 103% compared to the US system but no one would advocate such a system.

It's an inevitable consequence of a universal health care system. In Germany those with the means can pay more to get more - it is their personal insurance(s). In the UK the rich are expected to subsidise the poor for no additional benefit.

This disincentives additional contributions by the rich, and the rich don't pull up the total spending. In the US and Germany the wealthy and other groups (churches, for example) can and do pay more and this brings up total GDP amount spent. It does not necessarily equate to increased spending on everybody.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 19:28
It's very hard to do comparisons between health systems, but it's pretty clear that we're under funding, and have done for a while.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
Substitute
Substitute (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
10 February, 2017 23:02
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
It's very hard to do comparisons between health systems, but it's pretty clear that we're under funding, and have done for a while.

For every Germany there is an America (which pay far more) and nobody here wants that.

The German numbers seem much more but, having lived there, once you take out the ability of the rich and those willing to pay almost punitive 'church taxes' for personally better healthcare, then it's not miles ahead.

The difference with our healthcare is that it disincentivises the rich to pay into the NHS with the carrot of better care.

That payment might have a trickle-down effect, which absolutely could be questioned, but it is absolutely against the spirit of the NHS and is thus impossible.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 00:09
There's plenty of private healthcare in the UK?



Stuart

Former ed.

 
Boldngrey
Boldngrey (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 09:39
Quote:
Substitute
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
It's very hard to do comparisons between health systems, but it's pretty clear that we're under funding, and have done for a while.

For every Germany there is an America (which pay far more) and nobody here wants that.

The German numbers seem much more but, having lived there, once you take out the ability of the rich and those willing to pay almost punitive 'church taxes' for personally better healthcare, then it's not miles ahead.

The difference with our healthcare is that it disincentivises the rich to pay into the NHS with the carrot of better care.

That payment might have a trickle-down effect, which absolutely could be questioned, but it is absolutely against the spirit of the NHS and is thus impossible.

Just the opposite. NHS problems are BUPA's best advert. So the wealthier will avoid the NHS.

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 12:34
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.

Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 12:42
Quote:
OutsideBath
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.
Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.

What damage has he done to the NHS?

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 12:52
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.
Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.

What damage has he done to the NHS?

Look at the waiting time in hospital emergency.

Try speaking to any junior doctor.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
Boldngrey
Boldngrey (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 13:00
look at the increase in patient numbers.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 13:45
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.
Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.

What damage has he done to the NHS?

Look at the waiting time in hospital emergency.

Try speaking to any junior doctor.

What does Jeremy Hunt have to do with waiting times?

Ask Senior Doctors what they think of Junior Doctors.

The BMA is now a left wing pressure group, it has left any pretence at being a professional body long behind.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 15:27
Quote:
malco

What does Jeremy Hunt have to do with waiting times?

Ask Senior Doctors what they think of Junior Doctors.

The BMA is now a left wing pressure group, it has left any pretence at being a professional body long behind.

The Health Secretary isn't responsible for the performance of the NHS? Any other government departments who aren't responsible for what they run either?

The BMA is a trade union, and should be thought of in those terms. Inevitably it takes the employees side against the employer. You'll find it did exactly the same when the government was Labour.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 19:14
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.
Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.

What damage has he done to the NHS?

Look at the waiting time in hospital emergency.

Try speaking to any junior doctor.

What does Jeremy Hunt have to do with waiting times?

Ask Senior Doctors what they think of Junior Doctors.

The BMA is now a left wing pressure group, it has left any pretence at being a professional body long behind.

Hunt is head of the NHS, of course he's responsible for wait times. He's absolutely clueless on how to resolve the issues.



Jack Wilson - Adopted player 2017/18

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 19:28
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
malco
Quote:
OutsideBath
The biggest threat to the NHS is Jeremy Hunt.
Given the damage he has caused to the NHS how on earth has he managed to keep his job?

If he had an ounce of integrity he'd resign immediately.

What damage has he done to the NHS?

Look at the waiting time in hospital emergency.

Try speaking to any junior doctor.

What does Jeremy Hunt have to do with waiting times?

Ask Senior Doctors what they think of Junior Doctors.

The BMA is now a left wing pressure group, it has left any pretence at being a professional body long behind.

Hunt is head of the NHS, of course he's responsible for wait times. He's absolutely clueless on how to resolve the issues.

He has no way of resolving the core issues.

He can't get enough money to make the NHS big enough to give all the people who want to use it what they demand.

Nobody can.

There are too many people demanding too many services. It has grown beyond the point of being serviceable.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 19:35
The NHS is indeed an infinite money pit. But to suggest that nothing can be done to improve it because it can never be made perfect is a counsel of despair and plainly nonsense.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 19:41
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
The NHS is indeed an infinite money pit. But to suggest that nothing can be done to improve it because it can never be made perfect is a counsel of despair and plainly nonsense.

Unsurprisingly I completely disagree.

Look back at the original 1948 charter. The NHS was originally intended as a safety net, not a universal service. And it was specifically designed to make ill people better. Not provide cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment and gender reassignment, for example.

It needs to go back to its original remit.

 
MESSAGES->author
TCM2007 (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 20:54
I don't think you'll find many who agree with you.



Stuart

Former ed.

 
malco
malco (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 20:56
That's why it is pointless and futile to blame Jeremy Hunt.

 
Boldngrey
Boldngrey (IP Logged)

Re: OT UK Politics
11 February, 2017 21:10
Quote:
malco
Quote:
Stuart Anderton
The NHS is indeed an infinite money pit. But to suggest that nothing can be done to improve it because it can never be made perfect is a counsel of despair and plainly nonsense.

Unsurprisingly I completely disagree.

Look back at the original 1948 charter. The NHS was originally intended as a safety net, not a universal service. And it was specifically designed to make ill people better. Not provide cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment and gender reassignment, for example.

It needs to go back to its original remit.


+1

Current Page: 12 of 14

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?