Mucca Mad Boys
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 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?
The point is that the money spent on public services currently is insufficient, using terms like "throw more money at it" implies otherwise.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The point is that the money spent on public services currently is insufficient, using terms like "throw more money at it" implies otherwise.
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?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.
Reeves mocked after Labour list of 120 business backers include no UK CEOs
RACHEL Reeves was mocked after a Labour list of 120 business backers was found to include no CEOs from Britain’s top 100 firms. And one even sits on the board of Thames Water as it teeters on the b…www.thesun.co.uk
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”?
You can’t lose if you don’t have a horse in the race.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?
* isn't???You can’t lose if you don’t have a horse in the race.
The winner of this election probably is going to do anything particularly transformative. Here’s to 5 more years of stagnation…
Yes* isn't???
Reform are of the opinion that the NHS needs the money to be spent better, not more of it.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.
Nah it’s not relevant - generations are quickly moving away print tabloids so their influences is dying.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.
Reeves mocked after Labour list of 120 business backers include no UK CEOs
RACHEL Reeves was mocked after a Labour list of 120 business backers was found to include no CEOs from Britain’s top 100 firms. And one even sits on the board of Thames Water as it teeters on the b…www.thesun.co.uk
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?
You mean the one the current Gov't have decided to reduce?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?
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
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.
A gentle reminder that they are still there???I’ve no issue with striking, but striking when there’s no government? Hmmm…
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.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.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?
Why have you put 'real terms' in inverted commas? Do you understand what the term means?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.
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.
Why have you put 'real terms' in inverted commas? Do you understand what the term means?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?