Do you want to discuss boring politics? (178 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The IMF said the same back in 2010, the programme that followed is disastrous. It is not sustainable to pretend that a sovereign currency issuer must balance its income and expenditure.

The austerity programme has caused myriad problems that will cost a great deal to fix, it is not sustainable to ignore those problems with more austerity.

Every penny the government spends goes into the private sector including paying wages, every penny taken in tax takes money out of the private sector. Are you suggesting the government should be actively removing even more money and demand from the economy?

2+2=5 here my friend.

I just made an observation that your approach seems to be to just throw more money at whatever issue it is. Which is, at least, as damaging as austerity.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
2+2=5 here my friend.

I just made an observation that your approach seems to be to just throw more money at whatever issue it is. Which is, at least, as damaging as austerity.
The point is that the money spent on public services currently is insufficient, using terms like "throw more money at it" implies otherwise.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The point is that the money spent on public services currently is insufficient, using terms like "throw more money at it" implies otherwise.

It’s not even that it’s insufficient so much as it’s inefficient. We spend loads on supply/locum because we won’t pay properly up front, we spend loads on emergency because we cut prevention, etc.

Just the fact that the Tories haven’t cut spending in say Health but outcomes have still dropped through the floor shows it’s not just about total spend.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
As an aside, this is really interesting. The Sun are clearly batting for the Tories this election, which would mean them not backing the winner for the first time.


What do we think? Just not relevant any more? Starmer refused to do what Blair did? Will they still come out for Labour in the end but “with reservations”?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
It’s not even that it’s insufficient so much as it’s inefficient. We spend loads on supply/locum because we won’t pay properly up front, we spend loads on emergency because we cut prevention, etc.

Just the fact that the Tories haven’t cut spending in say Health but outcomes have still dropped through the floor shows it’s not just about total spend.

Yes, both can be true. We don't spend enough and what we spend is often reactive to problems. The Tories have cut spending in health relative to the age of the population.

In some respects the ministerial roles are not conducive to looking at things holistically.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
We’ve had the pandemic as a nice Petri dish. Europe went austerity. US went spending. We can see what happened (US recovered far better including inflation) and yet people still argue about it. 2008, Covid, the war. This happens again and again but people won’t accept it because they’ve got deeply held beliefs about how the economy “should” run.

US is a different beast though and nobody can judge until a few years down the line. They have the benefit of being global reserve currency, amazing tech companies and natural resources. If we’d done what the US had our bond yields/borrowing costs would’ve gone through the roof. As I mentioned on the US thread great GDP is possibly masking other issues and there’s increasing concerns around stickier inflation and the size of the national debt (interest payments $500bn in first 7 months of their fiscal year - more than defence and Medicare). Only time will tell I guess.

All this ties into Japan as well. Which itself could be an example of how things can come back to bite. They have 270% debt to gdp (40% of this debt is with BoJ) and are having to print more money to try to protect their currency. They can’t raise interest rates much because of the size of their debt so are praying global inflation goes down. The pound has been weak since Brexit yet has still gained 50% on the yen since 2020…yep…130 to £ to 200 to £ ! Bearing in mind our £ buys us a lot less than it did in 2020 and you can appreciate the level of debasement of their currency


Weird that the guardian doesn’t mention the debt to gdp or the costs of servicing the debt which from my layman’s view would be one of the major reasons they’ve had to keep rates low. Still a decent overview though
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The point is people changing their behaviour isn’t some amazing insight you’ve had that they don’t know. They know this. Like the “aha but then private school students will move to the state!!” Yes. We know. And the model accounts for it.

Pretending that the world is full of idiots and you as a layman have special insight is just the height of hubris.

And yes economic forecasts are hazy, both ways, it makes your predictions just as hazy. But data scientists will build models using the best they have and will be more accurate than you guessing.

We saw this with climate models, same whinges, yet over 40 years they’ve been shown to be remarkably accurate. Because these people actually know what they’re doing.

This “had enough of experts” mentality that’s come about since the advent of YouTube is one of the worst things to happen TBH. Just endless wasted time.

Firstly, people have a right to question experts and not take everything they do and say as gospel. What would be the point of democracy if we can outsource government to a technocratic elite if the experts were always right.

This policy will not set out what is intended to do. Even he Guardian of all sources reckons it will make the education system more ‘elitist’ - why? For every parent that cannot afford the £3,000 in VAT, they’ll send their child to the state sector at the cost of around £8,000 per year, per pupil. Now, who is this targeting? Not the wealthy but the aspirational middle class.

Already, without the policy even being implemented, private school places have increased costs by 8% and the drop in dropped by

As you say, the experts predict raising £1.7bn whereas the independent school sector saves the taxpayer c. £4.5bn per year. So if you shrink that sector, the costs will be footed by state sector is trying to increase funding for. The Independent Schools Council (ISC) has said 3,000 pupils have pulled out of private education which will cost an estimated £22m before the policy is implemented. Therefore, the experts at the Adam Smith institute reckon the policy could end up costing the taxpayer £1.6bn.

So, which experts should we believe? One set is saying it’ll raise £1.7 and another set is saying precisely the opposite.

I disagree with this in philosophical terms, it’s an attack on aspirational families who want the best education for their children.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Ps that doesn’t mean I’m not for spending more, especially on infrastructure etc. I just don’t follow the view that we can print and spend what we want with no consequences/repercussions
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The point is that the money spent on public services currently is insufficient, using terms like "throw more money at it" implies otherwise.
The NHS already takes up around 40% of government spending.That is one public service. To use the NHS as an example, the funding has increased from pre-COVID levels but not the productivity hasn’t recovered despite that increase.

Productivity is a particular problem in this country and in the public sector it’s actually slightly declining so we’re having to ‘fund’ more to maintain current levels of service.

Everyone always needs more funding, but the conversation is too one-sided. How will these service providers improve service and their efficiencies.

How much is too much to spend on public services?

The state can’t do everything without buckling underneath itself. I’d rather avoid turning into Argentina.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
As an aside, this is really interesting. The Sun are clearly batting for the Tories this election, which would mean them not backing the winner for the first time.


What do we think? Just not relevant any more? Starmer refused to do what Blair did? Will they still come out for Labour in the end but “with reservations”?
They're not really that relevant, the wording of that piece leaves it open as to who they'll back. Could they even just not explicitly support anybody?
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
They're not really that relevant, the wording of that piece leaves it open as to who they'll back. Could they even just not explicitly support anybody?
You can’t lose if you don’t have a horse in the race.

The winner of this election probably isn’t going to do anything particularly transformative. Here’s to 5 more years of stagnation…
 
Last edited:

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha ha. At last, a Brexit benefit


What do we want? A sovereign parliament free from EU interference. When do we want it? When it doesn’t benefit the plebs.
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
The NHS already takes up around 40% of government spending.That is one public service. To use the NHS as an example, the funding has increased from pre-COVID levels but not the productivity hasn’t recovered despite that increase.

Productivity is a particular problem in this country and in the public sector it’s actually slightly declining so we’re having to ‘fund’ more to maintain current levels of service.

Everyone always needs more funding, but the conversation is too one-sided. How will these service providers improve service and their efficiencies.

How much is too much to spend on public services?

The state can’t do everything without buckling underneath itself. I’d rather avoid turning into Argentina.
Reform are of the opinion that the NHS needs the money to be spent better, not more of it.
Some interesting proposals here NHS

The flip-side is social care, which was taken out of central government/NHS funding streams by the Care Act 2014, and handed over to local authorities who are now being crippled by the costs.
Worcestershire, where i live, spends 70 percent of its entire budget on adult and child social care, and they are having to ask for an additional 3% on the council tax bill every year. That is not sustainable, and is a major contributory factor behind the financial collapse of Northants CC and Birmingham.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Reform are of the opinion that the NHS needs the money to be spent better, not more of it.
Some interesting proposals here NHS

The flip-side is social care, which was taken out of central government/NHS funding streams by the Care Act 2014, and handed over to local authorities who are now being crippled by the costs.
Worcestershire, where i live, spends 70 percent of its entire budget on adult and child social care, and they are having to ask for an additional 3% on the council tax bill every year. That is not sustainable, and is a major contributory factor behind the financial collapse of Northants CC and Birmingham.

Agreed and the demand for health and social care services is only increasing.

The NHS is a really interesting ‘issue’ and if Labour cannot ‘fix’ or at least improve things, it will be the start of a v difficult national conversation around how we fund healthcare. A process that even Tony Blair tried to address.

The prevailing view at the minute is that the Tories have underfunded it so the expectation is that a Labour-led government will fix it. Personally, I think a lot of people who believe this are going to let down here.

We’re the only country in world that funds healthcare through direct taxation and with an aging population the issue is twofold: less people are putting money into the system and more people taking it out. Like pensions, it’s a ticking time bomb.
 

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
As an aside, this is really interesting. The Sun are clearly batting for the Tories this election, which would mean them not backing the winner for the first time.


What do we think? Just not relevant any more? Starmer refused to do what Blair did? Will they still come out for Labour in the end but “with reservations”?
Nah it’s not relevant - generations are quickly moving away print tabloids so their influences is dying.

I’d argue it’s another reason why millennials are the first generation not to become conservatives. Nobody outside of the older generations read the red top rags
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
,
They're not really that relevant, the wording of that piece leaves it open as to who they'll back. Could they even just not explicitly support anybody?

Agreed and the demand for health and social care services is only increasing.

The NHS is a really interesting ‘issue’ and if Labour cannot ‘fix’ or at least improve things, it will be the start of a v difficult national conversation around how we fund healthcare. A process that even Tony Blair tried to address.

The prevailing view at the minute is that the Tories have underfunded it so the expectation is that a Labour-led government will fix it. Personally, I think a lot of people who believe this are going to let down here.

We’re the only country in world that funds healthcare through direct taxation and with an aging population the issue is twofold: less people are putting money into the system and more people taking it out. Like pensions, it’s a ticking time bomb.
You mean the one the current Gov't have decided to reduce?
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
,



You mean the one the current Gov't have decided to reduce?

Reduced? YoY the spending has increased roughly 2.8%. The only ‘cuts’ are ‘real terms’. Even Labour accepts (in theory) it can’t just give the NHS major cash without reform.

Again, PFI was an attempt by the Blair government to privatise the day-to-day spending of the NHS - a clever balance sheet trick that backfired. The sustainability of the NHS isn’t an issue that started under the Tories.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Also why is all the blame put on VAT as to why they can’t afford private school? It will equate to about an extra £60 a week on average. How much has there weekly food bill risen in the last few years? How much has their energy bill risen in the last few years? How much has their mortgage increased because of Trussonomics? Why aren’t any of those the reason that they can’t afford to send their kids to private school? I guarantee all of those things and more have affected their ability to pay private school fees rather than an average of £3131 pounds a year for VAT. Why is all the onus put on a political decision to add VAT but not on the political decisions that have driven up the cost of living like making borrowing more expensive by crashing the economy, or the political decision to let energy companies to profiteer through a lack of intervention on energy prices? There’s plenty the outgoing government could have done to reduce everyone’s cost of living not just those who can afford private education for their kids.

A lot of people pay for these school fees by taking out loans and remortgages. Also of course the fees are going up every year in line with cost of living - many can’t afford it. They borrow
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
A lot of people pay for these school fees by taking out loans and remortgages. Also of course the fees are going up every year in line with cost of living - many can’t afford it. They borrow

It’s mean spirited and punishes aspirational people. If you’re raising a levy to increase funding for state education and then you fuel increase demand for the state sector, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If the private sector responds by getting wealthy foreign students, all the government would have achieved is raising £3,000 in VAT at the cost of £8,000 per pupil in state education…

It’s a poorly designed policy and if that’s a flagship policy, I’d be very worried for a Labour government.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It’s mean spirited and punishes aspirational people. If you’re raising a levy to increase funding for state education and then you fuel increase demand for the state sector, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If the private sector responds by getting wealthy foreign students, all the government would have achieved is raising £3,000 in VAT at the cost of £8,000 per pupil in state education…

It’s a poorly designed policy and if that’s a flagship policy, I’d be very worried for a Labour government.

There is a lot of ignorance around the subject as we can see here. There was already a plan to change the schools in Coventry and now I would be very surprised if they survive. They also do supply bursaries and support public sector schools in using facilities. That will stop.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
@skybluetony176 will you concede the claim most private school places are filled by overseas students is total nonsense?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It’s mean spirited and punishes aspirational people. If you’re raising a levy to increase funding for state education and then you fuel increase demand for the state sector, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If the private sector responds by getting wealthy foreign students, all the government would have achieved is raising £3,000 in VAT at the cost of £8,000 per pupil in state education…

It’s a poorly designed policy and if that’s a flagship policy, I’d be very worried for a Labour government.
Pretty sure people who don’t send their kids to private school are every bit as aspirational as those who do. It’s a bit patronising to suggest that only people who send their kids to private schools are aspirational.

The government will raise £3000 a year on every child that goes to private school. Your maths is flawed. Half a million students aren’t all of sudden going to leave private schools and go to state schools. It will be a percentage of a percent at best and any cost to state schools will be far outweighed by those who remain in private education.

This has all the rings of protest of Blair’s first campaign with minimum wage. All the right wing press pissed their pants, all the Tice types and all the right wing commentators were screaming from the rooftops that every small business would go out of business, prices would go up, the country would go to the dogs etc. In the end non off it happened and the policy has been continued by every government since.

Here’s a novel idea. Why don’t the private schools take some responsibility for their own business model? What’s stopping them having a means tested lower price for “aspirational” parents? Let the wealthy parents subsidies “aspirational” parent’s kids instead of the plebs. Why is it the government’s responsibility to make private schools business model work?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
It’s mean spirited and punishes aspirational people. If you’re raising a levy to increase funding for state education and then you fuel increase demand for the state sector, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If the private sector responds by getting wealthy foreign students, all the government would have achieved is raising £3,000 in VAT at the cost of £8,000 per pupil in state education…

It’s a poorly designed policy and if that’s a flagship policy, I’d be very worried for a Labour government.
This is why I think Labour framing taxing x to pay for y (as if government spending really works anything like that) is self defeating.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure people who don’t send their kids to private school are every bit as aspirational as those who do. It’s a bit patronising to suggest that only people who send their kids to private schools are aspirational.

The government will raise £3000 a year on every child that goes to private school. Your maths is flawed. Half a million students aren’t all of sudden going to leave private schools and go to state schools. It will be a percentage of a percent at best and any cost to state schools will be far outweighed by those who remain in private education.

This has all the rings of protest of Blair’s first campaign with minimum wage. All the right wing press pissed their pants, all the Tice types and all the right wing commentators were screaming from the rooftops that every small business would go out of business, prices would go up, the country would go to the dogs etc. In the end non off it happened and the policy has been continued by every government since.

Here’s a novel idea. Why don’t the private schools take some responsibility for their own business model? What’s stopping them having a means tested lower price for “aspirational” parents? Let the wealthy parents subsidies “aspirational” parent’s kids instead of the plebs. Why is it the government’s responsibility to make private schools business model work?

They have bursaries and do exactly that - I knew one person who was a single parent and her two children had 90% fee reduction.

What are you on about? Ironically do you not live in a grammar system in Rugby?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Reduced? YoY the spending has increased roughly 2.8%. The only ‘cuts’ are ‘real terms’. Even Labour accepts (in theory) it can’t just give the NHS major cash without reform.

Again, PFI was an attempt by the Blair government to privatise the day-to-day spending of the NHS - a clever balance sheet trick that backfired. The sustainability of the NHS isn’t an issue that started under the Tories.
Why have you put 'real terms' in inverted commas? Do you understand what the term means?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The government does not need to raise money to pay for anything. Labour should just ditch the plan to charge VAT on fees and pay for training new teachers anyway.

Its nonsense and as far as I am aware he is not stopping the 163 grammar schools so its not even selective education that is the issue - hardly surprising as he benefited from it
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Why have you put 'real terms' in inverted commas? Do you understand what the term means?

Why? Because the post I quoted stated the finding for the NHS had been reduced, the opposite is true. The funding hasn’t kept up with inflation - it’s not the same.

I got a 3% pay raise the year inflation was at 10%. My pay wasn’t reduced by 7%.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top