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


Goto Page: 1234567891011Next
Current Page: 1 of 11
O/T Election
Discussion started by DanWiley (IP Logged), 13 November, 2019 08:18
DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 08:18
Someone's going to create this thread sooner or later so I thought I might as well.

As a first thought, does anyone else think that the campaigns so far have been terrible?

Combined with the the winter date, brexit and the general instability at the moment and this really could be weird result and one we'll have to live with for 5 years probably.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
13 November, 2019 09:01
Itís a bit like a kids argument so far. Iím going to spend a billion on this...well Iím going to spend 2 billion...until it get to the point where one says that they will spend the other sides sum +1.

Iím no closer to being convinced by any of them, I have to say.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

JFPC
JFPC
13 November, 2019 09:08
Reminds me of a my Dad's bigger than your Dad argument I overheard;
my Dad's got a shotgun.
Yeah, well my Dad's got a rifle.
Yeah, well my Dad's got a pump action shotgun.
Yeah, well my Dad's got a machine gun.
Yeah, well my Dad's got a, a, a pump action machine gun.



Adopted player 2019/20 Will Chudley.

MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath
13 November, 2019 09:44
Quote:
BathMatt53
Iím no closer to being convinced by any of them, I have to say.

+1

Candidates desperate to get on the gravy train saying whatever they think the electorate want to hear full in the knowledge they have no intention honouring their commitments.

annie blackthorn
annie blackthorn
13 November, 2019 10:00
Sadly we are (or some of us are) being duped. Last night's Conservative Party Political with Boris only starring role (where did the teabag go or did he not actually drink that mug of tea) said it all.

Boris and his ideological shortsighted rightwing self interested privileged gang backed by the cash of wealthy investors, will get it. We will leave the EU without a deal. The less well off will then find out exactly what they voted for over the next 5 years, many of whom will find their jobs have disappeared esp north of Manchester, The US will be the only beneficiaries of any trade deal we manage to persuade them to agree to. I'd almost bet that in 20 years we will back in a European trading organisation.

MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked
13 November, 2019 10:15
Sadly I think this thread is doomed to replicate the current political situation in the country. Claim, counter claim, misinformation etc. etc. Its existence is futile. Please lets return to the rugby where Stuart Hooper is our current leader. There is no other option. (Sm120)



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
13 November, 2019 10:34
As this election is about Brexit it is quite likely to develope into another Brexit O/T. I am tempted to merge, anyone in disagreement?



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 11:15
I have to say I wouldn't, I do think they are distinct things and I don't see what the problem is? But I'm not going my to stick my neck of too far over it so if it makes things easier.

If there isn't much non brexity to say is just let this I've die.

BBandW
BBandW
13 November, 2019 11:29
Quote:
CoochieCoo
As this election is about Brexit it is quite likely to develope into another Brexit O/T. I am tempted to merge, anyone in disagreement?

If you merge it then the election thread and Brexit will become the same: but they are not. Under the Tories we have had years of cuts to all types of services which have had nothing to do with Brexit. There are other issues in this election other than Bexit.

You should keep the threads separate, IMHO, as they are 2 separate subjects.

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
13 November, 2019 12:18
Here's a topic to discuss - HS2.
£88bn minimum?
Maybe not in our back yard to worry about but by cancelling this project that would fund huge improvements in existing services and all walks of life, not to mention the horrible loss of homes along the route.
Just so businessmen can get to Manchester quicker for a meeting that could have been done over Skype?
No thanks. Surprised this isn't a front line election topic TBH.

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 12:32
I think we're going to need projects like HS2 in order to stimulate things after brexit. I'm talking about much of that 88bn going straight into British pockets, so its not lost in that sense. Whether there is a further economic benefit from having high speed rail is another thing, and I suspect it will depend on whose side the person who commissioned the report your reading is on, but my general feeling is it probably will (and will support our existing infrastructure in any case) and it seems to me that its the sort of thing a country of our size, population an affluence should have.

I think part of the issue is people hear £88Bn and think "that's a lot of money!" but its isn't really.

Anyway, I can see why all parties don't really want to get drawn to a particular position on it.

DorsetBoy
Dorset Boy
13 November, 2019 12:41
Labour's Shadow Health Secretary was on R5 this morning.The NHS doesn't have enough staff he said (but he clearly doesn't know it is the 5th largest employer on the planet with 1.7 million employees). He then said about throwing more and more money at the NHS, but zero mention of reform.
He followed up by saying we should have a grown up conversation about the future of the NHS, but anytime anyone dares suggest reform and change the left shoot them. Totally disingenious of him to suggest Labour are interested in any conversation about NHS reform.

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
13 November, 2019 12:45
Sorry Dan but I do think £88bn is a lot of money!

That's about 30 aircraft carriers, I am sure there are better comparisons out there.

2 Brexits?

Sarries salary spend for 10 seasons?

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 13:03
It's nothing like 30 aircraft carriers if you include the air wing and running costs. The two we currently have would cover it quite easily.

It is substantially less than the yearly cost of the NHS and it's not an ongoing cost nor is it going to be paid in one year.

MESSAGES->author
hemington
13 November, 2019 13:04
Anything that gets traffic off the roads and reduces CO2 and other emissions is good in my book. Far better than having to do trade deals with far flung countries that will increase flights and ship movements and therefore emissions by massive amounts. Should have invested in railways years ago but all governments (of both shades) were seduced by the road lobby and look where that has got us. i'm all for HS2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc. if it stops more roads being built/widened and reduces flying.

Mike the Taxi
Mike the Taxi
13 November, 2019 13:11
A bit Devil's Advocaat here, but what happened to all the money that was saved by the 'austerity' regime?

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
13 November, 2019 13:22
I am all for the rail investment as seen with our local electrification.

My preference would be £88bn spent across the entire rail network rather than a single new route, buying up land, demolishing houses with very few stations.

I think Paddington to Bristol was budgeted at about 3bn(?) which is a very complex project, that shows how much could be done with 88bn.

John Tee
John Tee
13 November, 2019 13:26
Hs2.. ? very expensive and they say likely cost could be over 100bill.

how much per mils to build as compared to say, tgv and equivalents?
On balance, cancel it as too expensive, but not a vote winner one way or another imv.

Talking to Nhs doctors who said money not the problem as such...and this was from 3 years ago upto now as you always meet doctors on holiday...but how you spend it certainly is.

I think the nhs always wants more money... accept it and move on.

Looking at frontine benches is the real worry though imv.
really really scary and laughable.

So, it will be about Brexit.

DorsetBoy
Dorset Boy
13 November, 2019 14:19
Quote:
John Tee
Hs2.. ? very expensive and they say likely cost could be over 100bill.
how much per mils to build as compared to say, tgv and equivalents?
On balance, cancel it as too expensive, but not a vote winner one way or another imv.

Talking to Nhs doctors who said money not the problem as such...and this was from 3 years ago upto now as you always meet doctors on holiday...but how you spend it certainly is.

I think the nhs always wants more money... accept it and move on.

Looking at frontine benches is the real worry though imv.
really really scary and laughable.

So, it will be about Brexit.

It would be interesting to compare the cost of HS2 to a new TGV line.

If there is a shortage of front line NHS staff then considering it is the 5th largest employer on the planet then it needs no additional funds until most of the non-front line staff, who clearly are far from essential are kicked out and the system reformed to stop wasting such monstrous amounts of cash (it costs around £2,200 per person pa).

Senior doctors might well be working less, but that is due to the taxation impact of them working on their pensions - many are 'high earners' and so only have a £10k pa pension contribution allowance but their NHS pension value grows by more than that each year resulting in a hefty additional tax bill.

Mike Parton
TOKS
13 November, 2019 14:28
Quote:
Mike the Taxi
A bit Devil's Advocaat here, but what happened to all the money that was saved by the 'austerity' regime?

It largely (not all of course) went on repaying the debt that was generated between 1997 and 2010.

Mike the Taxi
Mike the Taxi
13 November, 2019 14:32
Does that include the Banks' bail-out, or is that treated separately?

BerkeleyWood
The Bear
13 November, 2019 14:41
Quote:
Dorset Boy
Labour's Shadow Health Secretary was on R5 this morning.The NHS doesn't have enough staff he said (but he clearly doesn't know it is the 5th largest employer on the planet with 1.7 million employees). He then said about throwing more and more money at the NHS, but zero mention of reform.
He followed up by saying we should have a grown up conversation about the future of the NHS, but anytime anyone dares suggest reform and change the left shoot them. Totally disingenious of him to suggest Labour are interested in any conversation about NHS reform.

Agreed. Living in Belgium, I can safely say I'd be happy having their style of healthcare in the UK. Is the person going through the hospital door going to see any difference? No. Do poor people receive different treatment? No.

Instead, Labour just shout 'US healthcare' and 'privatisation', the voters buy it, the Tories run scared and then we're left with the same system, asking for ever more money with no plan or incentive on how to improve.

An NHS is not a bad idea, though other ways exist. But it's expanded so far from it's initial remit that we really need to have a grown up discussion and decide what we need and how we pay for it. It's not a religion where dogma must be accepted.



Adopted Player:
[18] - Taulupe Faletau

Mike Parton
TOKS
13 November, 2019 14:46
I believe it was treated separately Mike, but I'm not 100% sure.

Labour talk about their spending promises being funded by reversing corporation tax and taxing "the wealthiest in society". I read somewhere else (and I am racking my brains to remember where) that an independent think-tank had worked out that, under the Labour spending plans, the increasing spending would hit those earning £28,000 and over. Now £28,000 doesn't really strike me as the wealthiest in society.

If I remember where I saw it I'll link to it. Has anyone else seen something similar which attempts to unravel the impact of the increase in spending on "ordinary" people (yes, I know our mums tell us we are all special....)

SimonG19
SimonG19
13 November, 2019 14:47
Quote:
annie blackthorn
Sadly we are (or some of us are) being duped. Last night's Conservative Party Political with Boris only starring role (where did the teabag go or did he not actually drink that mug of tea) said it all.
Boris and his ideological shortsighted rightwing self interested privileged gang backed by the cash of wealthy investors, will get it. We will leave the EU without a deal. The less well off will then find out exactly what they voted for over the next 5 years, many of whom will find their jobs have disappeared esp north of Manchester, The US will be the only beneficiaries of any trade deal we manage to persuade them to agree to. I'd almost bet that in 20 years we will back in a European trading organisation.

You have highlighted in a nutshell the problem with politics.

Politicians spending far too much time slagging off each other and far too little time telling us what they will do to improve the situation.

And it's the same in all the main parties and it's why people have no respect for them.

Mike Parton
TOKS
13 November, 2019 15:01
That's been the situation since time immemorial and I have no idea how you could change it.

Chuck in the modern phenomenon of prioritising your own beliefs over those of your constituents and you can see why lots of people have lost faith in "the system".

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
13 November, 2019 15:02
Mike the Taxi and TOKS

Government spending has not reduced in the past 10 years.

The pace of increase was reduced from what Gordon Brown had planned.

Government revenue (tax) has been increasing at a faster rate than government spending which is why the annual deficit has been gradually reduced over this time period.

The deficit each year, ie the amount that we as a nation overspend, has been financed by borrowing each year such that our borrowings as a result are some £1.85trillion which have increased massively under the Coalition and Conservative Governments.

The funds used to bail out the banks are in fact assets, albeit somewhat down from when we first committed the funds.

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
13 November, 2019 15:24
Quote:
annie blackthorn
Sadly we are (or some of us are) being duped. Last night's Conservative Party Political with Boris only starring role (where did the teabag go or did he not actually drink that mug of tea) said it all.
Boris and his ideological shortsighted rightwing self interested privileged gang backed by the cash of wealthy investors, will get it. We will leave the EU without a deal. The less well off will then find out exactly what they voted for over the next 5 years, many of whom will find their jobs have disappeared esp north of Manchester, The US will be the only beneficiaries of any trade deal we manage to persuade them to agree to. I'd almost bet that in 20 years we will back in a European trading organisation.


Sensible people with some or lots of assets are backing a Conservative Party to win the election because history has shown that Labour Governments, always end in economic problems which is in fact no good for anyone, including people who start with no money in the first place.

I believe, as do a number of senior ex-labour ministers, that the plans of the Corbyn led Labour Party will, if implemented lead to an economic crisis quicker and worse than we have ever experienced before.

If the Conservative win the election we will leave with the Deal that has been agreed with the EU and is on the table now ready to be signed. I do not understand why you think we will leave with no deal unless we end up with a hung parliament who cannot agree on this deal and the EU decline to allow yet another extension.

As I have said repeatedly it is my belief that wages of the less well off will start to rise, which is the main reason I voted to leave. A shortage of available labour would do wonders for wage rates......In a company I am involved with we were paying £11 per hour, have lost a few people for £13 per hour, whom we are now trying to encourage back at £14.

It will be this available labour shortage, which will only get worse over the next 20 years, which will protect labour rights/pay and conditions.

There is an old saying in my world which is, "follow the money". Sterling has been gently moving up, the shares in UK'centric companies have been rising sharply in the past month. The FTSE 100 companies are approximately 25% UK, 25% EU, 25% USA and 25% Rest of the World. Therefore if sterling goes down they tend to go up as overseas profits, being 75% of the total go up on translation. All the BBC reports is sterling going down and the FTSE 100 going up or down........a much better index for UK plc is the FTSE 250.

I am hopeful in fact that within two years we will be back in a formal trading relationship with the EU. Given we are today as compliant as anybody............and we are a large market on their doorstep with a big deficit to them!!

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
13 November, 2019 15:43
There are some clever, educated people out there in all our political parties and abroad. Sadly I do not think that Johnson and Trump are amongst them.

I can put up with one annoying leader but having 2 in power at the same time is a concern.

I actually like the idea of an income tax rise, it is a sensible option. What use is a few hundred extra pounds in the bank when you can't channel that into improving all the important state provided functions that are discussed during elections?

It doesn't seem popular though, the LDs are dropping in the polls. I thought they would gave gained some remainers along the way.

MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked
13 November, 2019 16:16
Quote:
B4thB4ck
There are some clever, educated people out there in all our political parties and abroad. Sadly I do not think that Johnson and Trump are amongst them.

In terms of education putting Trump and Johnson together is nonsense, Trump is nowhere near as educated as Johnson. The fact that they hold different political views to others should not be confused with their intellectual ability. Johnson holds a Classics degree from Balliol College, Oxford. In addition he has far more liberal views on LGBT issues for example where Trump has actively legislated against those issues. They are different leaders.
I don't believe Jeremy Corbyn has any qualifications in further education.



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

John Tee
John Tee
13 November, 2019 16:25
The below is sensible mans thinking..... but sometimes a show of real intent is required to stop people playing politics ..hence no deal on the table.


copied from bsj.
..... within two years we will be back in a formal trading relationship with the EU. Given we are today as compliant as anybody............and we are a large market on their doorstep with a big deficit to them!!

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
13 November, 2019 17:21
Sadly B4thB4ck I don't think anyone has ever got elected by promising a tax rise.......the Lib Dems tried it before with a penny on income tax and all the proceeds to go to the NHS as I recall.

Had a conversation last night with a lady who volunteers, is in the Salvation Army, is basically a very lovely person and even on a bad day is a much nicer and kinder person than I could ever be even if I really tried!

She is a Labour supporter and voter (certainly more old school labour) one of her volunteering jobs is working in a Food Bank and says that a number of people are coming in for food who are abusing the system........

Like B4thB4ck I would pay more tax, happily, if I knew it was going to people who she would consider deserved it .

Chris1850
Chris1850
13 November, 2019 17:22
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

It is much too easy to simply throw extra money at the problems as a solution. The problem is that there is no incentive or accountability in the Public Sector to ensure that funds are allocated and spent wisely.

I despair of both parties' spending and revenue raising rhetoric. But I do genuinely worry about the effect on the economy of Labour's plans which are completely irresponsible. If you think Brexit will be bad for the economy (which it will), then you ain't seen anything should John Mcdonnell ever get his hands on the purse strings.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
13 November, 2019 17:56
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
13 November, 2019 18:11
If you can't get to see a doctor or dentist or policeman when you want one it is little comfort to be told we are running public services really efficiently.

If it is easy to throw tax at a problem and solve it then lets do it sooner rather than later and work on the efficiency as we go along. That's a given.

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
13 November, 2019 18:38
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Iíll give you an example. In 2014 I had an operation and recovering in a ward afterwards. The Surgeon had agreed to let me go home, but I had a swollen ankle which didnít affect my walking. I had a visitation from the Registrar and the Surgeonís assistant who diagnosed gout but the registrar wanted it X-rayed. They forgot to organise the X-ray so I stayed another night.

Next day X-ray was done but not until quite late in the day so I stayed another night as Registrar had not made a decision!

I was discharged the following day so I had used up a bed for two extra nights because of communication issues!

I have other examples! The NHS was great for me as I recovered from my two bouts in the BRI and RUH but yes there is waste!



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13/11/2019 18:45 by CoochieCoo.

MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked
13 November, 2019 18:56
No purines for you then CC! winking smiley



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
13 November, 2019 19:11
Funnily enough they gave me something for the gout And it disappeared and now I can eat and drink purines very happily, in moderation of course!



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 19:23
I'm sure you'd feel better if you had exactly the same experience, these things happen in big organisations, public and otherwise, but were paying for an insurance middle man as well.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
13 November, 2019 19:33
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Iíll give you an example. In 2014 I had an operation and recovering in a ward afterwards. The Surgeon had agreed to let me go home, but I had a swollen ankle which didnít affect my walking. I had a visitation from the Registrar and the Surgeonís assistant who diagnosed gout but the registrar wanted it X-rayed. They forgot to organise the X-ray so I stayed another night.

Next day X-ray was done but not until quite late in the day so I stayed another night as Registrar had not made a decision!

I was discharged the following day so I had used up a bed for two extra nights because of communication issues!

I have other examples! The NHS was great for me as I recovered from my two bouts in the BRI and RUH but yes there is waste!

And would that "waste" be eliminated by reducing funding to the NHS?



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

JFPC
JFPC
13 November, 2019 19:41
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Iíll give you an example. In 2014 I had an operation and recovering in a ward afterwards. The Surgeon had agreed to let me go home, but I had a swollen ankle which didnít affect my walking. I had a visitation from the Registrar and the Surgeonís assistant who diagnosed gout but the registrar wanted it X-rayed. They forgot to organise the X-ray so I stayed another night.

Next day X-ray was done but not until quite late in the day so I stayed another night as Registrar had not made a decision!

I was discharged the following day so I had used up a bed for two extra nights because of communication issues!

I have other examples! The NHS was great for me as I recovered from my two bouts in the BRI and RUH but yes there is waste!

If you think that the private sector is better allow me to relate how a friend (John) got on with Western Power (WP) when he wanted a three phase electric supply.

Having gone through the paperwork and paid for the job he was informed of the scheme of work:
Day one; the pole would have been delivered and a team would arrive to erect it.
Day two; a transformer would be delivered and mounted on the pole.
Day three; the wires would be connected.

The day before work is to commence John notes that there is no pole so rings WP to let them know. They thank him for the call and promise to notify the pole erecting team.
On day one the pole erecting team arrives but as the pole isn't there, there is nothing for them to do. They and John both inform WP about the situation, John asks why his call yesterday wasn't passed on and WP promise to inform the transformer mounting team.
On day two the transformer arrived as did the transformer mounting team. Again they and John rang WP to inform them of the situation and John reminded them of his wasted calls of the previous days in the hope that this time the message really would get passed on.
On day three the wire connecting team arrived.



Adopted player 2019/20 Will Chudley.

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
13 November, 2019 19:56
Quote:
JFPC
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Iíll give you an example. In 2014 I had an operation and recovering in a ward afterwards. The Surgeon had agreed to let me go home, but I had a swollen ankle which didnít affect my walking. I had a visitation from the Registrar and the Surgeonís assistant who diagnosed gout but the registrar wanted it X-rayed. They forgot to organise the X-ray so I stayed another night.

Next day X-ray was done but not until quite late in the day so I stayed another night as Registrar had not made a decision!

I was discharged the following day so I had used up a bed for two extra nights because of communication issues!

I have other examples! The NHS was great for me as I recovered from my two bouts in the BRI and RUH but yes there is waste!

If you think that the private sector is better allow me to relate how a friend (John) got on with Western Power (WP) when he wanted a three phase electric supply.

Having gone through the paperwork and paid for the job he was informed of the scheme of work:
Day one; the pole would have been delivered and a team would arrive to erect it.
Day two; a transformer would be delivered and mounted on the pole.
Day three; the wires would be connected.

The day before work is to commence John notes that there is no pole so rings WP to let them know. They thank him for the call and promise to notify the pole erecting team.
On day one the pole erecting team arrives but as the pole isn't there, there is nothing for them to do. They and John both inform WP about the situation, John asks why his call yesterday wasn't passed on and WP promise to inform the transformer mounting team.
On day two the transformer arrived as did the transformer mounting team. Again they and John rang WP to inform them of the situation and John reminded them of his wasted calls of the previous days in the hope that this time the message really would get passed on.
On day three the wire connecting team arrived.

I didnít say the private sector was better and have examples of that as well. But the discussion was about the waste in the NHS which affects us all whereas the private sector waste does not!



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

BerkeleyWood
The Bear
13 November, 2019 20:17
Private/Public - it's a false comparison and typical diversion.

We pay for public services, so we all have a stake in their efficiency. We don't pay for private services except when we use them.

If a private company wants to be inefficient, so be it. It is only damaging itself. Until you require the service. But then you can request redress which damages costs the company.

If it's a public service and you seek redress, who pays? All of us. If you damage the reputation of the institution, who lose out? All of us.

That's why any criticism of the NHS is met with a religious-style denial. And it's similar, though with less attachment, for the Police, Fire service etc.

I can tell you, from my work, that public sector institutions tend to be very efficient at 'rationing' the service but very inefficient at addressing structural weakness and changing for the future. Hence, as they grow, their struggles increases. Many private companies do the opposite (and fail within a few years).

Few would argue that we need no public services, you just have to accept that it's a price worth paying. But if you never go through the painful process of review, and refresh public services, then structurally they'll only ending up costing you more to give you less...



Adopted Player:
[18] - Taulupe Faletau

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 20:25
'If a private company wants to be inefficient, so be it. It is only damaging itself. Until you require the service. But then you can request redress which damages costs the company."

Which they pass back onto you in the cost of their service. If its a service like health then you do require that service, you pay health insurance whether you visit the docs or not.

BerkeleyWood
The Bear
13 November, 2019 20:51
Quote:
DanWiley
'If a private company wants to be inefficient, so be it. It is only damaging itself. Until you require the service. But then you can request redress which damages costs the company."
Which they pass back onto you in the cost of their service. If its a service like health then you do require that service, you pay health insurance whether you visit the docs or not.

A private company can try and pass that cost on. But there is only so far they can do so. A public service institution must pass that cost on because it has no alternative. You can abandon a private company not a public institution.

Hopefully you never use it. But their inefficiencies would eventually prompt you to switch supplier.

But the point was not about the cost but the different incentives that increase the likelihood of different outcomes. Public services need renewal and politicians, representing us, are the only ones who can do that. Don't let them and they won't.



Adopted Player:
[18] - Taulupe Faletau

Chris1850
Chris1850
13 November, 2019 20:52
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Since I posted, others have posted concrete examples and indeed I could too. No doubt many others could also. However, you miss my point, I think.

I am not for one minute saying that 'private' is better than 'public'. I am sure we can all cite examples of inefficiency within the private sector as well. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no incentive for the Public Sector to spend efficiently because there is virtually no accountability with regards to that spending. Indeed, quite the opposite. If a department saves on its budget, it simply has that budget cut for the following year. It is a fact that, traditionally, departmental spending within the public sector peaks between January and March each year as organisations fall over themselves to spend their annual budget.

Mike the Taxi
Mike the Taxi
13 November, 2019 20:57
Didn't there used to be well-publicised 'Spending Reviews' amongst the various Public Services, that resulted in there being a lowering of their budgets?

DanWiley
DanWiley
13 November, 2019 21:06
That also happens in the private sector, budgets being cut if not spent, so caution early followed by a splurge before it's renewed.

It's a function of the nature of the industry, not whether it's public or private.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
13 November, 2019 21:07
Quote:
Chris1850
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
It's all very well both parties pledging to increase spending on the NHS, Education, Welfare, etc etc. Their priority should be to ensure that the vast sums of money already being spent, are spent more efficiently. The blatant wastes that are evident in all Government Depts and Local Authorities is criminal.

Do you have concrete examples of the wastes to which you refer or is this an "everybody knows" assertion?

Since I posted, others have posted concrete examples and indeed I could too. No doubt many others could also. However, you miss my point, I think.

I am not for one minute saying that 'private' is better than 'public'. I am sure we can all cite examples of inefficiency within the private sector as well. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no incentive for the Public Sector to spend efficiently because there is virtually no accountability with regards to that spending. Indeed, quite the opposite. If a department saves on its budget, it simply has that budget cut for the following year. It is a fact that, traditionally, departmental spending within the public sector peaks between January and March each year as organisations fall over themselves to spend their annual budget.

And , having worked for 30 years in the private sector, I can say with hand on heart that exactly the same thing happens there, as well. This tyoe of inefficiency is characteristic of large organisations not the NHS per se.

So my question is, would these inefficiencies be eliminated by reducing the available funding. My experience is, not. So then a related question becomes, how can we reform the system to improve outcomes per unit cost expended? And I think this is the right question and, pace The Bear above, large organisation's are extremely resistant to change.

As a longtime professional in the Healthcare arena the only way I think this can work is to expressly ration treatment. Common procedures and cheap treatments to be provided by the NHS, rare procedures and expensive treatments (based on NICE criteria) to be provided by an insurance based system. That way you provide the greatest good to the greatest number at reasonable cost.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13/11/2019 21:15 by joethefanatic.

Chris1850
Chris1850
13 November, 2019 21:42
Dan, Joe, I take your points re budgets in the private sector and don't dispute what you are saying. The fundamental difference however is that the profit motive within the private sector inherently helps to promote more comprehensive budgetary oversight.

Joe, you question whether simply cutting funding is an answer and I agree that it is not as simple as that. It seems to me that somehow we need to be much more conscientious about how and where money is spent. The principle applies to the Public Sector generally, not just the NHS.

However, in respect of the NHS specifically, I do not see how indefinite and potentially unlimited funding in order to provide free healthcare for all at the point of delivery is financially sustainable. At some point, some form of compulsory insurance to supplement the financial demands will, I think, become inevitable. My concern is that such a step would be political dynamite and, as such, it is far easier and politically expedient to simply throw more and more public money at the problem.

MESSAGES->author
hemington
13 November, 2019 21:49
Incidentally I believe that you do not have a choice in which Electricity (or Gas) Distribution Company you have to employ to put in new hardware etc. You can only use the one in your area and have to pay whatever they seem fit. So their inefficiencies are carried by the customer who has no choice. same with Water companies.

JFPC
JFPC
13 November, 2019 22:21
Quote:
The Bear
Private/Public - it's a false comparison and typical diversion.
We pay for public services, so we all have a stake in their efficiency. We don't pay for private services except when we use them.

If a private company wants to be inefficient, so be it. It is only damaging itself. Until you require the service. But then you can request redress which damages costs the company.

If it's a public service and you seek redress, who pays? All of us. If you damage the reputation of the institution, who lose out? All of us.

That's why any criticism of the NHS is met with a religious-style denial. And it's similar, though with less attachment, for the Police, Fire service etc.

I can tell you, from my work, that public sector institutions tend to be very efficient at 'rationing' the service but very inefficient at addressing structural weakness and changing for the future. Hence, as they grow, their struggles increases. Many private companies do the opposite (and fail within a few years).

Few would argue that we need no public services, you just have to accept that it's a price worth paying. But if you never go through the painful process of review, and refresh public services, then structurally they'll only ending up costing you more to give you less...

Before you post something as patronising as this (apologies if I am reading the tone wrong, but that's how it reads to me) check you have a clue what you are talking about.

I used the example of Western Power as they have a government granted monopoly. Now I grant you it's possible to get by without mains electricity, feel free to try (same goes for a water supply). If you need a power supply or an upgrade to your supply you have to go through WP in this area. All your power goes through the national grid and the regional network operators lines and you pay a fee for their services whether you know it or not.



Adopted player 2019/20 Will Chudley.

Mike Parton
TOKS
14 November, 2019 09:46
Quote:
The Bear
Private/
That's why any criticism of the NHS is met with a religious-style denial. And it's similar, though with less attachment, for the Police, Fire service etc.



Until some brainless pillock cooks a meal on an open fire in their front room, burns down an entire tower block, and kills 74 people. Then, by some truely extraordinary logic, we end up blaming the emergency services who will have done anything they possibly could to rescue the situation and are probably devastated how it turned out.

It wasn't a fridge fire apparently but, in this topsy turvy (nice words for PC) world we live in, we were never allowed to know that nor was blame ever to be attached to the original perpetrator.

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
14 November, 2019 10:00
Quote from ex Conservative MP Nick Boles:-

Mr Boles said the 12 December poll would be "the only election in modern times in which you wouldn't trust either of the prime ministerial candidates to mind your children for an hour, let alone run the country".

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Mike Parton
TOKS
14 November, 2019 10:35
Because Nick Boles proved himself to be a beacon of responsibility to his constituents over the past two years, didn't he.

jameswood14
Woodpecker
14 November, 2019 11:57
Quote:
TOKS
Because Nick Boles proved himself to be a beacon of responsibility to his constituents over the past two years, didn't he.

yes he did

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
14 November, 2019 12:25
A friend of mine is a surgeon who works in the NHS and in a private hospital.

In the private hospital he does 7 to 8 operations a day.........in the NHS he does 3 to 4.

Mike Parton
TOKS
14 November, 2019 13:11
Quote:
Woodpecker
Quote:
TOKS
Because Nick Boles proved himself to be a beacon of responsibility to his constituents over the past two years, didn't he.

yes he did

So the good people of Grantham and Stafford voted 61%/39% leave and their elected representative chose to ignore that. For good measure their elected representative, with his thumping 35.5% majority, then ceased to become a member of the party his electorate had voted for.

I take it we have a different interpretation of "responsibility".

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
14 November, 2019 13:20
Quote:
TOKS
Quote:
Woodpecker
Quote:
TOKS
Because Nick Boles proved himself to be a beacon of responsibility to his constituents over the past two years, didn't he.

yes he did

So the good people of Grantham and Stafford voted 61%/39% leave and their elected representative chose to ignore that. For good measure their elected representative, with his thumping 35.5% majority, then ceased to become a member of the party his electorate had voted for.

I take it we have a different interpretation of "responsibility".

That pattern of Brexit views v voters representation is repeated across the UK and the different parties. It is the main reason we are having this election. He tried, he failed, now he can speak his mind.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
14 November, 2019 17:02
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
A friend of mine is a surgeon who works in the NHS and in a private hospital.
In the private hospital he does 7 to 8 operations a day.........in the NHS he does 3 to 4.


Did he mention that the 7 to 8 operations tend to be the simpler, more routine ones while leaving the more difficult, more expensive ones for the NHS?

Or that the emergency back up for those 7 to 8 operations, should anything go wrong or there be complications, is provided without charge by the NHS?

It is not a level playing field. If it were, private health care would be a lot less attractive.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Chris1850
Chris1850
14 November, 2019 19:05
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
A friend of mine is a surgeon who works in the NHS and in a private hospital.
In the private hospital he does 7 to 8 operations a day.........in the NHS he does 3 to 4.


Did he mention that the 7 to 8 operations tend to be the simpler, more routine ones while leaving the more difficult, more expensive ones for the NHS?

Or that the emergency back up for those 7 to 8 operations, should anything go wrong or there be complications, is provided without charge by the NHS?

It is not a level playing field. If it were, private health care would be a lot less attractive.

Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist.

Oh, but wait! McDonnell's master plan has foreseen all this and all will be well. We shake the money tree again and hey presto! As if by magic, the top-earning 5% and the dastardly business sector that exploits the system as a whole and its employees in particular will gush forth with the billions to fill the gap.

The guy is an economically illiterate clown. If Brown drained the coffers, God help us if this fellow ever gets into number 11.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
14 November, 2019 19:09
Quote:
Chris1850
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
A friend of mine is a surgeon who works in the NHS and in a private hospital.
In the private hospital he does 7 to 8 operations a day.........in the NHS he does 3 to 4.


Did he mention that the 7 to 8 operations tend to be the simpler, more routine ones while leaving the more difficult, more expensive ones for the NHS?

Or that the emergency back up for those 7 to 8 operations, should anything go wrong or there be complications, is provided without charge by the NHS?

It is not a level playing field. If it were, private health care would be a lot less attractive.

Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist.

Oh, but wait! McDonnell's master plan has foreseen all this and all will be well. We shake the money tree again and hey presto! As if by magic, the top-earning 5% and the dastardly business sector that exploits the system as a whole and its employees in particular will gush forth with the billions to fill the gap.

The guy is an economically illiterate clown. If Brown drained the coffers, God help us if this fellow ever gets into number 11.

Is that a different magic money tree to the one that Sajid Javid is currently shaking as hard as he can?



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

DanWiley
DanWiley
14 November, 2019 19:44
"Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist."

Imagine if all the money spent on private medicine and school was spent on services for all of us. With that sort of money we easily cope with the extra people and then some, not too mention the economy of scale and lack of a corrosive private service picking off the low hanging fruit. That could work for everyone, but as long as you're alright...

MESSAGES->author
Clarkey3k
14 November, 2019 20:02
Quote:
DanWiley
"Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist."
Imagine if all the money spent on private medicine and school was spent on services for all of us. With that sort of money we easily cope with the extra people and then some, not too mention the economy of scale and lack of a corrosive private service picking off the low hanging fruit. That could work for everyone, but as long as you're alright...

@DW - can you provide evidence of the scale of difference in funding for the private v public sector funding for these services. IIRC private education spend is c6% of public sector education spend until 6th form after which it rises to just under 15%. Thanks in anticipation...



Adopted players: 2019/20 T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
14 November, 2019 20:06
Quote:
DanWiley
"Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist."
Imagine if all the money spent on private medicine and school was spent on services for all of us. With that sort of money we easily cope with the extra people and then some, not too mention the economy of scale and lack of a corrosive private service picking off the low hanging fruit. That could work for everyone, but as long as you're alright...

The £30bn-odd spent on private health care In the UK wouldnít make much of a dent in the £200bn-odd NHS budget Iím afraid. They spend more than that on a few loaves of bread these days.

Public school budget would make more of a difference though, by the looks of the figures.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

Chris1850
Chris1850
14 November, 2019 20:19
Quote:
DanWiley
"Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist."
Imagine if all the money spent on private medicine and school was spent on services for all of us. With that sort of money we easily cope with the extra people and then some, not too mention the economy of scale and lack of a corrosive private service picking off the low hanging fruit. That could work for everyone, but as long as you're alright...

So all those that choose to pay additional sums for private health treatment or additional sums to send their children to independent schools ( like Diane Abbott for example), suddenly no longer have that option. So what happens to those privately paid for operations or those independently educated children? They all use the NHS and state schools. How do you fund that?

It's all very well to espouse the politics of envy but the reality is that people are free to spend their money as they see fit. If they choose to prioritise their health or children's education then why shouldn't they? The priority is surely to improve the state provided services, not to penalise those that choose to go elsewhere (and earn enough, like Diane Abbott, to exercise that choice).

Chris1850
Chris1850
14 November, 2019 20:21
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Chris1850
Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
A friend of mine is a surgeon who works in the NHS and in a private hospital.
In the private hospital he does 7 to 8 operations a day.........in the NHS he does 3 to 4.


Did he mention that the 7 to 8 operations tend to be the simpler, more routine ones while leaving the more difficult, more expensive ones for the NHS?

Or that the emergency back up for those 7 to 8 operations, should anything go wrong or there be complications, is provided without charge by the NHS?

It is not a level playing field. If it were, private health care would be a lot less attractive.

Imagine the chaos in the NHS if private health care didn't exist, and the effect that would have on waiting times. And the extra strain on state-funded schools if private schools didn't exist.

Oh, but wait! McDonnell's master plan has foreseen all this and all will be well. We shake the money tree again and hey presto! As if by magic, the top-earning 5% and the dastardly business sector that exploits the system as a whole and its employees in particular will gush forth with the billions to fill the gap.

The guy is an economically illiterate clown. If Brown drained the coffers, God help us if this fellow ever gets into number 11.

Is that a different magic money tree to the one that Sajid Javid is currently shaking as hard as he can?

It's a full blown oak rather than a sapling!!

MESSAGES->author
Clarkey3k
14 November, 2019 20:32
Fake post alert - my apologies for the error in my post above, the 6 & 15% refers to pupil numbers in 2ndary education rather than cash spent. As C P Snow wrote "comment is free but facts are sacred".



Adopted players: 2019/20 T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/11/2019 20:54 by Clarkey3k.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
14 November, 2019 21:27
About £90bn public spending in total for education (down from about £104bn), breakdowns here:

[www.ifs.org.uk]

In 2016 that was 4.2% of GDP. Private spending on education is about 2% of GDP.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

JFPC
JFPC
14 November, 2019 21:34
My wife teaches in the private sector and a lot of private schools are struggling to get enough British pupils through the doors. They could fill the places twice over with foreign students but are trying to keep them at less than 50%.



Adopted player 2019/20 Will Chudley.

gaz59
gaz59
14 November, 2019 22:20
The politics of envy

A Johnsonian style quip that comes from seeing the world through the lens of those whose mum and dad paid for them to go to the likes of Dulwich college and can afford from the family inheritance to pay for BUPA premium

Wanting your kids to go to a decent, reasonably funded school where teachers are not on their knees with work overload and don't have to wait in war zone style A and E waiting area whenever they need urgent health care is not envy

Why should we have a third rate public service for those who can't afford premium class?

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
14 November, 2019 22:30
We are very lucky in Bath that we have many state primary and secondary schools that are as good at, if not better than the public school equivalents in a whole host of ways. I was lucky that I had the choice by my kids went to state because in my view it was better for them. Clearly not the case in many / most of the UK though.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
14 November, 2019 22:46
Labour promising to nationalise Openreach and provide FREE fibre broadband to all homes by 2030.

Sums up electioneering - stupid promises.

It would cost billions and timescales would not be achievable due to the scale of the engineering involved.

Furthermore it is not necessary, what is needed is better coverage of existing fibre to the street cab broadband for rural areas and gaps in the networks.

Do they make this stuff up on the bus travelling around?

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
14 November, 2019 23:34
Quote:
B4thB4ck
Labour promising to nationalise Openreach and provide FREE fibre broadband to all homes by 2030.
Sums up electioneering - stupid promises.

It would cost billions and timescales would not be achievable due to the scale of the engineering involved.

Furthermore it is not necessary, what is needed is better coverage of existing fibre to the street cab broadband for rural areas and gaps in the networks.

Do they make this stuff up on the bus travelling around?

When governments can borrow billions at negative rates of interest, why would you *not* do it?



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Chris1850
Chris1850
15 November, 2019 00:05
Quote:
B4thB4ck
Labour promising to nationalise Openreach and provide FREE fibre broadband to all homes by 2030.
Sums up electioneering - stupid promises.

It would cost billions and timescales would not be achievable due to the scale of the engineering involved.

Furthermore it is not necessary, what is needed is better coverage of existing fibre to the street cab broadband for rural areas and gaps in the networks.

Do they make this stuff up on the bus travelling around?

Come on! It's only £20bn. Pales into insignificance compared to everything else.

McDonnell is not simply economically illiterate, he is positively irresponsible, reckless and dangerous.

MESSAGES->author
hemington
15 November, 2019 07:24
The problem is most of the money tree is stashed away in offshore accounts not paying any tax.

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
15 November, 2019 08:03
Full fibre broadband is the ultimate technology and what should be delivered to new properties but isn't needed elsewhere. Unless you are a medium sized company, fibre to the street cabinet is fine. Full fibre would need nearly every street and pavement in the UK to be dug up and at the end of it a similar service could have been delivered by emerging 5G mobile technology with no disruption. Logistically this is silly.

If a govt wants to improve matters it needs to give incentives to existing companies to improve mobile coverage and broadband coverage into rural areas which don't offer a payback to investment. Labour is barking up the wrong tree just to appeal to younger voters and look hip.

Lib Dems comment:-
'Sam Gyimah, Liberal Democrat shadow secretary for business, energy and industrial strategy, said: "It might be a Christmas election, but this is getting silly. Another day, another unaffordable item on the wish list.'

gaz59
gaz59
15 November, 2019 08:32
Quote:
BathMatt53
We are very lucky in Bath that we have many state primary and secondary schools that are as good at, if not better than the public school equivalents in a whole host of ways. I was lucky that I had the choice by my kids went to state because in my view it was better for them. Clearly not the case in many / most of the UK though.

Exactly BathMatt. I moved from Bath to coastal Kent and my work is mainly in schools. The Bath standard is certainly not the experience of many in Kent

And to all those who blather about the "politics of envy" as a cosy defence for the status quo that simply doesn't work for so many people I suggest they take a look through a different lens that experiences the effect of the politics of privilege

DanWiley
DanWiley
15 November, 2019 09:11
"The £30bn-odd spent on private health care In the UK wouldnít make much of a dent in the £200bn-odd NHS budget Iím afraid."

Either you've got you figures wrong or £30bn clearly IS a dent into the NHS budget (£140Bn by the way, you might be referring to the total uk health spending? The 30Bn is more like 60). Given the percentage of people that £30Bn actually helps its quite significant. If you took that £30bn it would easily cover the extra people you'd be asking it to.

It's not politics of envy. I do have private healthcare, through my company, though I've never used it. I probably could send my kids to independent schools, I've chosen not to and, so far, the public system hasn't given me reason to regret that.

BerkeleyWood
The Bear
15 November, 2019 09:31
Quote:
DanWiley
healthcare, through my company, though I've never used it. I probably could send my kids to independent schools, I've chosen not to and, so far, the public system hasn't given me reason to regret that.

You realise, if you use private healthcare and schools, that you still pay the taxes that fund public healthcare and comprehensive schooling.

Aren't you just using principle, and a sense of 'getting what you pay for from taxes', to justify lowering (albeit slightly) the available resources for those unable to afford to do so?



Adopted Player:
[18] - Taulupe Faletau

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
15 November, 2019 18:11
Joe

Been out rushing round the country so not replied to your much earlier posed question.

When he told me this I immediately asked him, the surgeon, the same question as to whether it was "easy" planned operations privately and difficult ones on the NHS. He of course recognised the point of the question and said a tricky one privately might mean his output might drop to only 6 that day but the next session he might do 8 or even 9 in his private guise. Privately he might be operating later into the evening.

I read somewhere the other day that the amount spent on the NHS is now £2,200 per person in this country. I am sure someone better at doing linky things can pick up if that is real or fake or just plain nonsense. At my company I think we pay about £2,000 for health insurance.

On the school front my sons went to fee paying schools but if they had not they would, I imagine, have gone to Beechen or Ralph Allen......both good schools. I don't think that would have helped anyone.

ChippenhamRoman
ChippenhamRoman
15 November, 2019 18:31
I think itís more the tax breaks that Private schools enjoy as part of their ďCharityĒ status.

Itís certainly what I donít think is fair. Fair play if you want to pay for your kids education thatís your call. But donít expect me to fund it through tax breaks. Iíd rather that money goes into the state system.

Offer scholarships, but do it out of their own purse please, not the taxpayers.

Take the tax revenue that that would generate and plough it back into state schools.

J



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15/11/2019 18:32 by ChippenhamRoman.

DanWiley
DanWiley
15 November, 2019 21:18
"You realise, if you use private healthcare and schools, that you still pay the taxes that fund public healthcare and comprehensive schooling."

Of course, but the figures involved just emphasise how inefficient private care is.

"Aren't you just using principle, and a sense of 'getting what you pay for from taxes', to justify lowering (albeit slightly) the available resources for those unable to afford to do so?"

No, it doesn't work like that, there aren't enough medical resources and it's not efficient for there to be. As mentioned earlier I see largely the same personnel and use largely the same critical equipment. I'm not freeing up that resource, I just take priority over those that can't pay. If and where there are separated resources I would naturally expect the best, totally denying that resource to those that can't afford it.

In either case I'd be actively hurting those that can't afford it by pushing them back down the queue and denying them suitable care.

BerkeleyWood
The Bear
15 November, 2019 22:22
Quote:
DanWiley

Of course, but the figures involved just emphasise how inefficient private care is.

Private care can only operate in the environment it is provided with. On most measures, including cost efficiency (which I guess is not what you meant by inefficient), it exceeds public healthcare. But then, so it should, or it is not a provision for worth paying for.

Quote:
DanWiley
No, it doesn't work like that, there aren't enough medical resources and it's not efficient for there to be. As mentioned earlier I see largely the same personnel and use largely the same critical equipment. I'm not freeing up that resource, I just take priority over those that can't pay. If and where there are separated resources I would naturally expect the best, totally denying that resource to those that can't afford it.

Why do you think private healthcare often uses shared resources? Which sector do you think wants the other to bolster their finances. Private healthcare is not a leach and the NHS does not charge lightly...

Quote:
DanWiley
In either case I'd be actively hurting those that can't afford it by pushing them back down the queue and denying them suitable care.

That's not how the NHS works. Private healthcare is not simply buying your way to the top of the list.



Adopted Player:
[18] - Taulupe Faletau

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
15 November, 2019 22:27
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
Joe
Been out rushing round the country so not replied to your much earlier posed question.

When he told me this I immediately asked him, the surgeon, the same question as to whether it was "easy" planned operations privately and difficult ones on the NHS. He of course recognised the point of the question and said a tricky one privately might mean his output might drop to only 6 that day but the next session he might do 8 or even 9 in his private guise. Privately he might be operating later into the evening.

I read somewhere the other day that the amount spent on the NHS is now £2,200 per person in this country. I am sure someone better at doing linky things can pick up if that is real or fake or just plain nonsense. At my company I think we pay about £2,000 for health insurance.

On the school front my sons went to fee paying schools but if they had not they would, I imagine, have gone to Beechen or Ralph Allen......both good schools. I don't think that would have helped anyone.

BSJ

Thanks for the informative reply. These things are never cut and dried but it is as well to think about the factors that might affect the relative merits of public v private health care. My personal view is that it is the "free" emergency back up that is the kicker. If the private sector were required to, independently, provide the same emergency service as the NHS or, at the very least, pay a realistic rate for that service, I would be more sympathetic. I suspect doing so would sharply increase the premiums, lower the profits or both.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

DanWiley
DanWiley
16 November, 2019 07:31
"Private healthcare is not simply buying your way to the top of the list."

Really? That seems to be the main attraction to people at my work "Bupa it, if you want to see someone in less than 12 weeks..." The actual care you get, window dressing aside, seems pretty much the same. Why wouldn't it be, same people, same equipment?

DorsetBoy
Dorset Boy
16 November, 2019 07:34
When you say same equipment Dan, what do you mean? Are you suggesting the private sector rents equipment and operating theatres from the NHS?
That may have been the case 30 years ago, but aren't almost all private treatments undertaken in private hospitals?

DanWiley
DanWiley
16 November, 2019 07:39
Well, if I'm honest, I'm not sure. But it is the impression I get. I was at Swindon general a month or so ago and whilst the private clinic had it's own entrance, reception and consulting rooms (I think) I'm pretty sure the CT scan I was there for was used by the private sector and that the consultant I saw was exactly the same one as I'd have seen had I mentioned to me NHS gp "oh, by the way, I have private cover."

I'd also take issue with the private care is more efficient. It costs more money to treat fewer people. That's not more efficient.

JFPC
JFPC
16 November, 2019 07:53
Quote:
Dorset Boy
When you say same equipment Dan, what do you mean? Are you suggesting the private sector rents equipment and operating theatres from the NHS?

Can't speak for the entire country, but when my mother in law had treatment recently, this is exactly what happened.



Adopted player 2019/20 Will Chudley.

Barnoid
Barnoid
16 November, 2019 08:43
Quote:
TOKS
Until some brainless pillock cooks a meal on an open fire in their front room, burns down an entire tower block, and kills 74 people. Then, by some truely extraordinary logic, we end up blaming the emergency services who will have done anything they possibly could to rescue the situation and are probably devastated how it turned out.
It wasn't a fridge fire apparently but, in this topsy turvy (nice words for PC) world we live in, we were never allowed to know that nor was blame ever to be attached to the original perpetrator.

I wonder if the events in Bolton last night might give you cause to revisit this ridiculous comment, TOKS? Although I guess you need to wait and see what colour the student residents are before you can decide whether or not they were to blame, right?

MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked
16 November, 2019 10:03
Barnoid, I think that needs an edit above. Sorry but its out of order.



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

Chris1850
Chris1850
16 November, 2019 10:09
Quote:
Barnoid
Quote:
TOKS
Until some brainless pillock cooks a meal on an open fire in their front room, burns down an entire tower block, and kills 74 people. Then, by some truely extraordinary logic, we end up blaming the emergency services who will have done anything they possibly could to rescue the situation and are probably devastated how it turned out.
It wasn't a fridge fire apparently but, in this topsy turvy (nice words for PC) world we live in, we were never allowed to know that nor was blame ever to be attached to the original perpetrator.

I wonder if the events in Bolton last night might give you cause to revisit this ridiculous comment, TOKS? Although I guess you need to wait and see what colour the student residents are before you can decide whether or not they were to blame, right?

If what TOKS says is correct and that is how the fire started, then clearly 'brainless pillock' is an understatement to say the least. If this has then been covered up, for whatever reason, then I am not sure where a race element comes into it?

Chris1850
Chris1850
16 November, 2019 10:19
Quote:
DanWiley
Well, if I'm honest, I'm not sure. But it is the impression I get. I was at Swindon general a month or so ago and whilst the private clinic had it's own entrance, reception and consulting rooms (I think) I'm pretty sure the CT scan I was there for was used by the private sector and that the consultant I saw was exactly the same one as I'd have seen had I mentioned to me NHS gp "oh, by the way, I have private cover."
I'd also take issue with the private care is more efficient. It costs more money to treat fewer people. That's not more efficient.

I really don't get where your fundamental objection to private, paid for services comes from?

In the real world, rather than a Marxist utopia, people earn differing amounts. However, everyone is subject to the same tax regime and higher earners consequently pay higher taxes (generally). What they then choose to do with their disposable income is surely up to them?

If they choose to send their child to an independent school or to pay for a hip replacement then that is one less child and one less hip replacement that has to be funded by the state sector. Is that not a good thing?

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
16 November, 2019 10:32
It is an uncomfortable reality (literally) that someone with the same painful hip problem would have to wait longer in pain if they had less money - I think that all of us would have to agree that this is not something that sits well with anyone? But, making both wait longer doesnít seem the solution and people going on a different waiting list (that they are willing to pay for) and moving them off the NHS one seems to me to be not a bad thing - particularly as said above they are still making their contribution to the NHS through taxes but just not using the service.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

DanWiley
DanWiley
16 November, 2019 11:08
Ok, let's start with education, that's fairly easy to follow. Let's say one kid is moderately bright, but no Einstein. Goes to an independent school, receives a better education and goes on to take an important position in society.

A second kid is somewhat brighter, but goes to a state school and as a result does somewhat worse in life as a result.

That's not only unfair, magnifying the likely advantages the first child had with a better education, it's also not good for the country. The less talented person has taken the better position in life. As a country we're less effective. We're wasting our natural talent.

The real kicker is that the same teachers are likely to be available AND my preference would be to pay a bit more tax and get suitable resources for all. That's almost a no brainer, we're just investing in the countries future. So we could have a system where everyone gets a great education and the best not just the richest thrive, but it means you can't buy your child a station in life. That's the fundamental choice here. I'd say broadly that's what the left want, the right is happy with "Fu Jack".

MESSAGES->author
shipwrecked
16 November, 2019 11:14
Dan, its not the education that makes a difference to the success but the networking and contacts that the independent school offers that makes such a huge difference.



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
16 November, 2019 11:56
We have had this debate before about abolishing education and the same arguments are being expressed. Just two points to consider

1. The private system attracts many foreign students who boost the economy by fees earned that will be lost.
2. The UK Private children will have to be educated by the state system, this will put extra pressure on the state and of course be a considerable extra cost. Some of this money will come from the parents of the children in taxes but some of us will contribute as well. Hardly progressive.

There is an Oxford Think Tank report on this of 2018 which states the affects on the economy and jobs in the private system.



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

B4thB4ck
B4thB4ck
16 November, 2019 11:57
I would like to think that society is changing and in years to come the advantages of the independent school will be watered down.

Our friends son went to a local prep school and hated it. The small class size meant the class bully was hard to avoid, the school pretended that as private school everything was perfect, the actual education was the same as any other school but with an illusion of high standards. The trips were good though!

Now at a local secondary state school, he is happy and thriving, feels as though he can concentrate on learning a bit under the radar without the pressure and expectation.

Everyone is different I guess. We are lucky that where we live the state schools are very good, if they weren't then the situation would be different.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
16 November, 2019 11:59
I would debate that public schools have better teachers. I know it was a different age but I went to one of the Bath ones and on the whole they were total garbage with 95% of the kids and werenít bothered unless you were off to Oxbridge and they could put it in the paper. The ones who were Bath rugby players just read directly from text books and Iím not sure they had any teaching qualifications whatsoever? I totally agree with SW though, itís the privilege that comes with it, the doors that open.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

DanWiley
DanWiley
16 November, 2019 12:15
Either way we're giving that privilege to the wealthiest not the brightest.

ChippenhamRoman
ChippenhamRoman
16 November, 2019 13:21
Quote:
DanWiley
Either way we're giving that privilege to the wealthiest not the brightest.

Good video this.

[youtu.be]

J



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16/11/2019 16:55 by ChippenhamRoman.

Goto Page: 1234567891011Next
Current Page: 1 of 11

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