Oh Jeremy Corbyn (12 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He's not going to unite the party; he's not going to even try. He's going to entrench his position and Lansman et alia are only the start. This is a formula that the extreme left always follow.

I wish he weren't electable but I fear he is. If there were an election today Labour would win a majority, even if 42% of the population voted Conservative (see my other post about boundaries). Whilst there are videos around showing what he and McDonnell really want to do and what they believe, they've now stopped that and are on a full-scale attempt to persuade people that they are moderate Social Democrats. I wrote somewhere else on here something that Northern Wisdom objected to, but it wasn't intended to be inflammatory: he has the young who, generalising, don't have the knowledge or experience to know what they are voting for. He has a huge number of people who will vote Labour irrespective of their policies, many of whom also wouldn't understand the policies. And he has some people who believe in real socialism or think that it cannot be worse than capitalism. It looks like they add up to 42% of the population and I cannot see that changing anytime soon. If the Lords decide to reject the Brexit exit bill in autumn (and let's not forget that it is stuffed full of Liberal and Labour peers) then I've read that a General Election might need to be called.

A few days ago I researched the advisory committee of economists that McDonnell had put together to support his claim that he was fiscally responsible. Although it was filled with left-leaning economists I learned that it was disbanded in 2016 as they all quit. David Blanchflower said: "I advised Corbyn’s economics team to learn fast. They didn’t". Behind the mask, McDonnell hasn't changed one iota from the man that described some socialist activists giving people a 'good kicking' as 'the best of us'.

And you wonder why we don't vote Tory. There is also a large number of people who vote Tory in parts of the country the Tories couldn't give a flying toss about, even despite sustained cuts to the very services they use and a fall in living standards. The talk of the 'hard left' is just a reflection of how far right this country has been dragged, in no small part due to centrist Labour politicians who compromised on everything without a fight.

 

---

[mrtrench]

And you wonder why we don't vote Tory. There is also a large number of people who vote Tory in parts of the country the Tories couldn't give a flying toss about, even despite sustained cuts to the very services they use and a fall in living standards. The talk of the 'hard left' is just a reflection of how far right this country has been dragged, in no small part due to centrist Labour politicians who compromised on everything without a fight.

I imagine that 'we' in 'And you wonder why we don't vote Tory' is young people - from your bold typeface. No, I don't wonder and have never mentioned it. I know why you vote Labour. I also know why some people who boycotted Barclays; went on Anti Nazi League Rallies; sat up till two in the morning eating digestives discussing the benefits of communism and how much we hated the rich and voted Labour when they were 18 wouldn't dream of voting for Corbyn today.

However:

1. Very little has been cut. What has happened is that funding has not, in some cases, been raised by the same amount as inflation.
2. There are reasons why government spending has been controlled since 2010. At the time, every single party agreed that they would do the same. Whilst the recovery is now well under way we are not yet out of the woods.

Labour is playing politics. They fucked up the economy, lost the election as a result and now they are complaining about the cure because it suits them politically. It's valid to debate whether it may have been better to keep expenditure high and try to grow our way out of disaster. We'll never know if it would have been better or worse. But we cannot change history and 'austerity' was going to happen no matter which party had won the 2010 election. There's intelligent and thoughtful Labour politicians who understand a little about economics and there's Corbyn and his ilk. They are not the same.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I imagine that 'we' in 'And you wonder why we don't vote Tory' is young people - from your bold typeface. No, I don't wonder and have never mentioned it. I know why you vote Labour. I also know why some people who boycotted Barclays; went on Anti Nazi League Rallies; sat up till two in the morning eating digestives discussing the benefits of communism and how much we hated the rich and voted Labour when they were 18 wouldn't dream of voting for Corbyn today.

However:

1. Very little has been cut. What has happened is that funding has not, in some cases, been raised by the same amount as inflation.
2. There are reasons why government spending has been controlled since 2010. At the time, every single party agreed that they would do the same. Whilst the recovery is now well under way we are not yet out of the woods.

Labour is playing politics. They fucked up the economy, lost the election as a result and now they are complaining about the cure because it suits them politically. It's valid to debate whether it may have been better to keep expenditure high and try to grow our way out of disaster. We'll never know if it would have been better or worse. But we cannot change history and 'austerity' was going to happen no matter which party had won the 2010 election. There's intelligent and thoughtful Labour politicians who understand a little about economics and there's Corbyn and his ilk. They are not the same.

George Osborne himself admitted that this was most probably not the case and that the Brown government acted sensibly in response to a global crash. Worked a treat as it is now mindlessly repeated by unwitting members of the general public. In response to other points:

1. Real terms cuts are still cuts. Courtesy of the public sector pay freeze, I am on about £3k less than I would be had the government raised pay in line with inflation. Schools being in tricky financial waters is now a common occurrence and as you well know, inflation rises exceeding pay reduce your spending power.

2. And yet we somehow manage to afford gigantic tax giveaways to the wealthiest in our society and bungs to Northern Ireland to keep Mrs May in office. This is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet-the money is there, it is simply a question of priorities. The Conservatives are still blaming Labour who were last in power when Heskey last wore an England shirt. Their excuses have to stop-austerity has not worked as they planned and we are still massively in the red deficit wise.

Obama went in for a stimulus package and reversed the horrendous situation he inherited. The Tories went all in on austerity and we're still waiting for it to pay off. Nobody in 2010 minded that belts needed to be tightened, but you can just tell that Cameron and Co couldn't wait to take a knife to certain provisions. Which isn't a surprise, it's a party that stands up for the well off and blanket privatisation.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I imagine that 'we' in 'And you wonder why we don't vote Tory' is young people - from your bold typeface. No, I don't wonder and have never mentioned it. I know why you vote Labour. I also know why some people who boycotted Barclays; went on Anti Nazi League Rallies; sat up till two in the morning eating digestives discussing the benefits of communism and how much we hated the rich and voted Labour when they were 18 wouldn't dream of voting for Corbyn today.

However:

1. Very little has been cut. What has happened is that funding has not, in some cases, been raised by the same amount as inflation.
2. There are reasons why government spending has been controlled since 2010. At the time, every single party agreed that they would do the same. Whilst the recovery is now well under way we are not yet out of the woods.

Labour is playing politics. They fucked up the economy, lost the election as a result and now they are complaining about the cure because it suits them politically. It's valid to debate whether it may have been better to keep expenditure high and try to grow our way out of disaster. We'll never know if it would have been better or worse. But we cannot change history and 'austerity' was going to happen no matter which party had won the 2010 election. There's intelligent and thoughtful Labour politicians who understand a little about economics and there's Corbyn and his ilk. They are not the same.

Very little has been cut? The deficit has been reduced (according to the Tories who try to prove how economically sound they are) by approximately £80bn a year.

That's clearly not just not keeping with inflation. Many government departments have been cut by 25% or more in real terms. GDP has grown yet spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen by 14% from 2010.

There was no consensus on the scale of cuts, Alistair Darling proposed a something a fair bit slower than Osborne.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Dart]

George Osborne himself admitted that this was most probably not the case and that the Brown government acted sensibly in response to a global crash. Worked a treat as it is now mindlessly repeated by unwitting members of the general public. In response to other points:

1. Real terms cuts are still cuts. Courtesy of the public sector pay freeze, I am on about £3k less than I would be had the government raised pay in line with inflation. Schools being in tricky financial waters is now a common occurrence and as you well know, inflation rises exceeding pay reduce your spending power.

2. And yet we somehow manage to afford gigantic tax giveaways to the wealthiest in our society and bungs to Northern Ireland to keep Mrs May in office. This is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet-the money is there, it is simply a question of priorities. The Conservatives are still blaming Labour who were last in power when Heskey last wore an England shirt. Their excuses have to stop-austerity has not worked as they planned and we are still massively in the red deficit wise.

Obama went in for a stimulus package and reversed the horrendous situation he inherited. The Tories went all in on austerity and we're still waiting for it to pay off. Nobody in 2010 minded that belts needed to be tightened, but you can just tell that Cameron and Co couldn't wait to take a knife to certain provisions. Which isn't a surprise, it's a party that stands up for the well off and blanket privatisation.

Why should public servants get inflation proofed pay rises, I don't & I don't see why you should, in fact arresting spiralling public expenditure is key to resolving the problems.
Look at the way it got out of control under Labour from 2002 to 2010.

 

[clint van damme]

I imagine that 'we' in 'And you wonder why we don't vote Tory' is young people - from your bold typeface. No, I don't wonder and have never mentioned it. I know why you vote Labour. I also know why some people who boycotted Barclays; went on Anti Nazi League Rallies; sat up till two in the morning eating digestives discussing the benefits of communism and how much we hated the rich and voted Labour when they were 18 wouldn't dream of voting for Corbyn today.

However:

1. Very little has been cut. What has happened is that funding has not, in some cases, been raised by the same amount as inflation.
2. There are reasons why government spending has been controlled since 2010. At the time, every single party agreed that they would do the same. Whilst the recovery is now well under way we are not yet out of the woods.

Labour is playing politics. They fucked up the economy, lost the election as a result and now they are complaining about the cure because it suits them politically. It's valid to debate whether it may have been better to keep expenditure high and try to grow our way out of disaster. We'll never know if it would have been better or worse. But we cannot change history and 'austerity' was going to happen no matter which party had won the 2010 election. There's intelligent and thoughtful Labour politicians who understand a little about economics and there's Corbyn and his ilk. They are not the same.

Untrue to say very little has been cut.
The cuts have been drastic no matter how you try nd dress it up.
Just talk to anyone who works in education, the NHS or for the police.
The current crisis in the NHS, the increase in class sizes and the horrendous rise in crime prove this.
I could just about stomach it if the tory mantra of all in it together was true but with the top strata of society getting richer while our wage growth is the worse in the advanced economies, (1 of only 3 countries where wage are actually contracting).
I accept your reasons for not wanting Labour under the current leadership in No 10. But please don't try and make out that this government are doing a good job because they clearly aren't.

 

[clint van damme]

Why should public servants get inflation proofed pay rises, I don't & I don't see why you should, in fact arresting spiralling public expenditure is key to resolving the problems.
Look at the way it got out of control under Labour from 2002 to 2010.

If you accept that argument then surely you have to ask why should the system be loaded in favour of those at the top whose wealth has carried on increasing during austerity?

 

[Captain Dart]

If you accept that argument then surely you have to ask why should the system be loaded in favour of those at the top whose wealth has carried on increasing during austerity?

I have no problem with rich people paying more tax, having incentives to invest in an altruistic manner or tax avoidance schemes being shut down.
Nor do I have any issue with taxing foreigners who have bought property in London and driven the market there to unreasonable levels.

 

[mrtrench]

Untrue to say very little has been cut.
The cuts have been drastic no matter how you try nd dress it up.
Just talk to anyone who works in education, the NHS or for the police.
The current crisis in the NHS, the increase in class sizes and the horrendous rise in crime prove this.
I could just about stomach it if the tory mantra of all in it together was true but with the top strata of society getting richer while our wage growth is the worse in the advanced economies, (1 of only 3 countries where wage are actually contracting).
I accept your reasons for not wanting Labour under the current leadership in No 10. But please don't try and make out that this government are doing a good job because they clearly aren't.

That's not true Clint, the figures prove that in absolute terms funding has increased - but not in real terms. The NHS in particular is not true - the Tories have put loads of additional money into the NHS. The issue is that patient numbers have increased at a faster pace. Cold hard figures prove the point, not emotions and not the sticks that Labour uses for political ends.

And it's not true that the rich are getting richer either or that taxes have been cut for them. The top rate of income tax went down by 5%, but at the same time the limit on National Insurance was removed (which is greater at over 10%). Further, there have been stamp duty hikes on more expensive properties (and cuts on cheaper ones); new dividend taxes; Buy to Let taxes... If you look at the Lorenz curve since 2010, the richest have been hit hardest - reducing inequality in the years since 2010.

I don't know if the Tories are doing a good job or not, but they are certainly not doing as poor a job as many would have you believe. Given what they faced in 2010 I'm prepared to cut them some slack.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

That's not true Clint, the figures prove that in absolute terms funding has increased - but not in real terms. The NHS in particular is not true - the Tories have put loads of additional money into the NHS. The issue is that patient numbers have increased at a faster pace. Cold hard figures prove the point, not emotions and not the sticks that Labour uses for political ends.

And it's not true that the rich are getting richer either or that taxes have been cut for them. The top rate of income tax went down by 5%, but at the same time the limit on National Insurance was removed (which is greater at over 10%). Further, there have been stamp duty hikes on more expensive properties (and cuts on cheaper ones); new dividend taxes; Buy to Let taxes... If you look at the Lorenz curve since 2010, the richest have been hit hardest - reducing inequality in the years since 2010.

I don't know if the Tories are doing a good job or not, but they are certainly not doing as poor a job as many would have you believe. Given what they faced in 2010 I'm prepared to cut them some slack.

Just not true that inequality has reduced since 2010.

The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK | The Equality Trust

 

[clint van damme]

That's not true Clint, the figures prove that in absolute terms funding has increased - but not in real terms. The NHS in particular is not true - the Tories have put loads of additional money into the NHS. The issue is that patient numbers have increased at a faster pace. Cold hard figures prove the point, not emotions and not the sticks that Labour uses for political ends.

And it's not true that the rich are getting richer either or that taxes have been cut for them. The top rate of income tax went down by 5%, but at the same time the limit on National Insurance was removed (which is greater at over 10%). Further, there have been stamp duty hikes on more expensive properties (and cuts on cheaper ones); new dividend taxes; Buy to Let taxes... If you look at the Lorenz curve since 2010, the richest have been hit hardest - reducing inequality in the years since 2010.

I don't know if the Tories are doing a good job or not, but they are certainly not doing as poor a job as many would have you believe. Given what they faced in 2010 I'm prepared to cut them some slack.

NHS spending per person has been cut in real terms although funding is actually up.
We have had the largest rise in crime for a decade, (13%), because of cuts to policing.
People have died because of cuts to benefits, including seriously ill and disabled people. How many is hard to ascertain because the DWP won't release figures but it's in the thousands.
Today we find out we're 200 billion in hoc to PFI deals for the next 22 years.
Class sizes in state schools increased due to cuts, despite pledges in the 2010 manifesto to cut them.

I'm not sure why you're prepared to give them slack, whatever they inherited in 2010 they told us the deficit would be all but eradicated by 2016.
They said the public sector pay freeze would be for a year.
The 2010 manifesto is full of pledges they didn't carry out, I can't be bothered to type them all. I'm sure when we look at the 2017 manifesto in a few years it will be the same story.
I give them no slack at all, they're killing this country for all but a few.

 

[Grendel]

Untrue to say very little has been cut.
The cuts have been drastic no matter how you try nd dress it up.
Just talk to anyone who works in education, the NHS or for the police.
The current crisis in the NHS, the increase in class sizes and the horrendous rise in crime prove this.
I could just about stomach it if the tory mantra of all in it together was true but with the top strata of society getting richer while our wage growth is the worse in the advanced economies, (1 of only 3 countries where wage are actually contracting).
I accept your reasons for not wanting Labour under the current leadership in No 10. But please don't try and make out that this government are doing a good job because they clearly aren't.

Funding in the areas you describe have increased.

Also why they are given slack is because the experience of the past proved Corbynomocs makes the situation worse not better.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Funding in the areas you describe have increased.

Also why they are given slack is because the experience of the past proved Corbynomocs makes the situation worse not better.

Come on G...we all know that if cost increases by 10% a 5% increase in funding would in real value terms be called a cut!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

Come on G...we all know that if cost increases by 10% a 5% increase in funding would in real value terms be called a cut!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

But it isn’t and in the end the publics desire to continually pour money into a health and education system is not sustainable

Again also this isn’t a pro Tory argument. It’s a belief that this car wreck of a Government is in the end the only thing standing in the way of an economic and social collapse that would inevitably occur and that would be beyond anyone’s worst nightmares if Corbyn McDonnell and the ultimate puppet master McCloskey was allowed loose on the economy.

 

[mrtrench]

Just not true that inequality has reduced since 2010.

The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK | The Equality Trust

It is true.

How Has Inequality Changed? | The Equality Trust

Look at the Gini Coefficient graph - it fell since 2010. This text accompanies the graph:

"Since the early 1990s, changes in inequality have been less dramatic than the change from 1979 to 1991. After falling slightly over the early to mid-1990s, inequality, as shown by the Gini coefficient, reached a new peak of 0.358 in 2009–10. Inequality fell in 2010 and has stayed relatively level since."

And if you look at comparative Gini coefficient against other countries, the UK is amongst the best in the world. Even with selection in the link you provided, the UK comes out in the middle. The UK is better than every other country in the world that has been excluded from the selection.

You may wish to believe that inequality has increased since Cameron took office; and Labour continue to state it - but the facts don't stack up.

 

[clint van damme]

Funding in the areas you describe have increased.

Also why they are given slack is because the experience of the past proved Corbynomocs makes the situation worse not better.

no it hasn't, apart from the NHS which I acknowledged.
And "but this would happen under Corbyn, that would happen under Corbyn", isn't a valid excuse as far as I'm concerned.
He wasn't elected until 2015, they were well on their way to breaking many manifesto pledges by then.

Police funding in England and Wales

Bear in mind the pledge increase to counter terrorism spend came 4 months after the Manchester bombings and after then Home secretary Theresa May accused police chiefs scaremongering and crying wolf when they warned her of the effects of budget cuts.
That was 2 weeks after Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party though so I'm sure that somehow it was his fault!

 

[clint van damme]

It is true.

How Has Inequality Changed? | The Equality Trust

Look at the Gini Coefficient graph - it fell since 2010. This text accompanies the graph:

"Since the early 1990s, changes in inequality have been less dramatic than the change from 1979 to 1991. After falling slightly over the early to mid-1990s, inequality, as shown by the Gini coefficient, reached a new peak of 0.358 in 2009–10. Inequality fell in 2010 and has stayed relatively level since."

And if you look at comparative Gini coefficient against other countries, the UK is amongst the best in the world. Even with selection in the link you provided, the UK comes out in the middle. The UK is better than every other country in the world that has been excluded from the selection.

You may wish to believe that inequality has increased since Cameron took office; and Labour continue to state it - but the facts don't stack up.

this is more a prediction of things to come but it paints a bleak picture:

Subscribe to read

Edit: Bollocks! Subscribe to read! The article was based on the findings of the resolution foundation, I'll see if it's available on their web site.

Another edit:
the thrust of the FT article is here but the FT article was a little easier on the eye, but anyway:

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/11/RSS-Cathie-Marsh-Lecture-PDF.pdf

 

[mrtrench]

this is more a prediction of things to come but it paints a bleak picture:

Subscribe to read

Edit: Bollocks! Subscribe to read! The article was based on the findings of the resolution foundation, I'll see if it's available on their web site.

Another edit:
the thrust of the FT article is here but the FT article was a little easier on the eye, but anyway:

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/11/RSS-Cathie-Marsh-Lecture-PDF.pdf

You're right, it's not easy on the eye but it's a serious document - no misinformation. And I completely agree that young people have got the thin end of the wedge. You probably already knew I thought that from the EU thread and you possibly recall my opinion on why and what needs to be done to resolve the issue?

 

[clint van damme]

You're right, it's not easy on the eye but it's a serious document - no misinformation. And I completely agree that young people have got the thin end of the wedge. You probably already knew I thought that from the EU thread and you possibly recall my opinion on why and what needs to be done to resolve the issue?

Yeah, sorry about that! the FT article is a better read.
What can be done? Well I agree with the thrust of this article:
CAPITALISM IS BROKEN: Business leaders admit GREED is destroying UK’s economic model

I've said it before, I consider myself to be a small c capitalist. But I think it needs to go hand in hand with a certain amount of social responsibility and bit of forward thinking which is difficult when there is so much much greed enshrined in corporate law. Having said that, I believe what we are seeing now is and extreme version of capitalism. George Monbiot described it as totalitarian liberalism.
Can you recap on what you thought the solutions were?

 

[mrtrench]

Well I don't agree that capitalism is broken! There's always things that can be improved and we need to address some things, including but not limited to tax evasion and huge corporates taking the piss. But broken implies something far more severe. Let's not forget that it's only in the last 200 years that we have seen the first sustained fall in extreme poverty in all of human history. That fall and its continuation is due to capitalism and also recently due to globalisation, which is bringing wealth to historically poor countries.

Why are millennials getting a rough deal and what is the solution? This is what I think:

1) They came of age just as the world was going into the biggest recession in living memory. Not much we can do about that apart from working to get a stable recovery in place.
2) House prices in the UK are horrific. So we need to increase supply and reduce demand.
3) Wages at the low-skilled and inexperienced end of the job market are suppressed. Several reasons for this but the main one seems to be an oversupply of low-skilled labour - which is also causing a lag in productivity growth (when labour is cheap, why invest in automation - especially during times of uncertainty of recession or slow growth?)
4) Student debt and 50% of people going to university. Although this isn't as big an issue as some make out (it's effectively a tax and students that go on to make a good living and provides free education to those that don't) it must still make it difficult to get a mortgage.

2) and 3) will be helped by stopping free-movement. This is why I voted to leave the EU. That and my numbers on economic impact not coming close to what Osborn claimed. When the referendum was announced I had no opinion and the information from both sides was so poor I had to figure it out for myself.

4) Is a direct consequence of expanding 18+ education. When I was 18 we got free education and a grant. But then so few went to university anyway - I was the first in my family. I think we need to maintain the 3 years for the most talented doing difficult subjects and reduce the time for degrees in sport science; hotel management; events management etc. etc. down to 12, 18 and 24 months. Or make them part-time with paid placements inside companies. With ever increasing demands on the public purse, I'm clear in my mind that we cannot afford completely free education 18+ for 50%. The better alternative to student loans was a graduate tax IMO. That would spread a big number over many more people.

But in summary, I'd agree with you: Capitalism, hand in hand with a certain amount of social responsibility and bit of forward thinking.

EDIT: Just read the article. I agree that short-termism is/was rife - seen it myself - and much of it is just bloody stupid.

 

[clint van damme]

Well I don't agree that capitalism is broken! There's always things that can be improved and we need to address some things, including but not limited to tax evasion and huge corporates taking the piss. But broken implies something far more severe. Let's not forget that it's only in the last 200 years that we have seen the first sustained fall in extreme poverty in all of human history. That fall and its continuation is due to capitalism and also recently due to globalisation, which is bringing wealth to historically poor countries.

Why are millennials getting a rough deal and what is the solution? This is what I think:

1) They came of age just as the world was going into the biggest recession in living memory. Not much we can do about that apart from working to get a stable recovery in place.
2) House prices in the UK are horrific. So we need to increase supply and reduce demand.
3) Wages at the low-skilled and inexperienced end of the job market are suppressed. Several reasons for this but the main one seems to be an oversupply of low-skilled labour - which is also causing a lag in productivity growth (when labour is cheap, why invest in automation - especially during times of uncertainty of recession or slow growth?)
4) Student debt and 50% of people going to university. Although this isn't as big an issue as some make out (it's effectively a tax and students that go on to make a good living and provides free education to those that don't) it must still make it difficult to get a mortgage.

2) and 3) will be helped by stopping free-movement. This is why I voted to leave the EU. That and my numbers on economic impact not coming close to what Osborn claimed. When the referendum was announced I had no opinion and the information from both sides was so poor I had to figure it out for myself.

4) Is a direct consequence of expanding 18+ education. When I was 18 we got free education and a grant. But then so few went to university anyway - I was the first in my family. I think we need to maintain the 3 years for the most talented doing difficult subjects and reduce the time for degrees in sport science; hotel management; events management etc. etc. down to 12, 18 and 24 months. Or make them part-time with paid placements inside companies. With ever increasing demands on the public purse, I'm clear in my mind that we cannot afford completely free education 18+ for 50%. The better alternative to student loans was a graduate tax IMO. That would spread a big number over many more people.

But in summary, I'd agree with you: Capitalism, hand in hand with a certain amount of social responsibility and bit of forward thinking.

EDIT: Just read the article. I agree that short-termism is/was rife - seen it myself - and much of it is just bloody stupid.

3 would also be helped by more investment in high quality training. And that is where tax breaks should be targeted. I believe there are certain mechanisms in place but they are open to abuse.
I believe a highly skilled workforce in all sectors would benefit us more than anything else.
I remember in the recession of the late 80s the first thing many companies did was stop taking on apprentices.
Fast forward 15 years and engineers and plumbers were like gold dust.

During recession or slump the government should help companies to ensure the last measure they take is not investing in training.
Regarding automation, Mark Blyth makes a case for companies investing in automation actually increasing their workforce as improved productivity leads to fuller order books so gain, that probably hints at short sightedness though it's only his theory, I'm sure they'll be a studdy out there somewhere.

2 is the big one, it's going to take something very radical to change the housing situation and I would say it is nigh on impossible to come up with a solution that will suit everyone.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Why should public servants get inflation proofed pay rises, I don't & I don't see why you should, in fact arresting spiralling public expenditure is key to resolving the problems.
Look at the way it got out of control under Labour from 2002 to 2010.

Things being in line with inflation represents no real term increase in cost to the government or employer. If you want better services, provide better conditions and remuneration. That or we could all sod off and leave the country with no schools or hospitals.

 

[mrtrench]

3 would also be helped by more investment in high quality training. And that is where tax breaks should be targeted. I believe there are certain mechanisms in place but they are open to abuse.
I believe a highly skilled workforce in all sectors would benefit us more than anything else.
I remember in the recession of the late 80s the first thing many companies did was stop taking on apprentices.
Fast forward 15 years and engineers and plumbers were like gold dust.

During recession or slump the government should help companies to ensure the last measure they take is not investing in training.
Regarding automation, Mark Blyth makes a case for companies investing in automation actually increasing their workforce as improved productivity leads to fuller order books so gain, that probably hints at short sightedness though it's only his theory, I'm sure they'll be a studdy out there somewhere.

2 is the big one, it's going to take something very radical to change the housing situation and I would say it is nigh on impossible to come up with a solution that will suit everyone.

Cannot disagree with any of that. Robotics is coming... as I said in the cryptocurrencies thread, I've bought an exchange traded fund in Robotics companies for the long term. Many are concerned it will mean fewer jobs but history tells us that whenever there is a big leap in technology it just brings better jobs - not fewer.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

3 would also be helped by more investment in high quality training. And that is where tax breaks should be targeted. I believe there are certain mechanisms in place but they are open to abuse.
I believe a highly skilled workforce in all sectors would benefit us more than anything else.
I remember in the recession of the late 80s the first thing many companies did was stop taking on apprentices.
Fast forward 15 years and engineers and plumbers were like gold dust.

During recession or slump the government should help companies to ensure the last measure they take is not investing in training.
Regarding automation, Mark Blyth makes a case for companies investing in automation actually increasing their workforce as improved productivity leads to fuller order books so gain, that probably hints at short sightedness though it's only his theory, I'm sure they'll be a studdy out there somewhere.

2 is the big one, it's going to take something very radical to change the housing situation and I would say it is nigh on impossible to come up with a solution that will suit everyone.

Unlikely in a country where the general public view intelligent people with suspicion and where the government has a 1950s view on education policy. Also the guy who is proposing substantial investment in education is probably a Trot so can't risk having him in.

 

[shmmeee]

Edit: I can’t read.

 

[dancers lance]

But it isn’t and in the end the publics desire to continually pour money into a health and education system is not sustainable

Again also this isn’t a pro Tory argument. It’s a belief that this car wreck of a Government is in the end the only thing standing in the way of an economic and social collapse that would inevitably occur and that would be beyond anyone’s worst nightmares if Corbyn McDonnell and the ultimate puppet master McCloskey was allowed loose on the economy.

The NHS is in it's death throws, the Aneurin Bevan model for the NHS has long since vanished, the model has to change as the contribution by way of means strategy is no longer viable, it won't be long before we all have to have health insurance that covers a percentage with the government covering the rest.

 

[wingy]

The NHS is in it's death throws, the Aneurin Bevan model for the NHS has long since vanished, the model has to change as the contribution by way of means strategy is no longer viable, it won't be long before we all have to have health insurance that covers a percentage with the government covering the rest.

Sad sad day.
Can't help but think that is Mr Hunts and the Gov rationale, simply starve it to that point.

 

[dancers lance]

Sad sad day.
Can't help but think that is Mr Hunts and the Gov rationale, simply starve it to that point.

Truly sad, consecutive governments have all had a hand in it's destruction but at the moment is does feel like the powers that be are actively promoting it's demise. Perhaps they can make it so bad that we all lose trust in it and look for alternatives, which we have to pay for, which would be just perfect for them.

 

[clint van damme]

Sad sad day.
Can't help but think that is Mr Hunts and the Gov rationale, simply starve it to that point.

it's definitely hunts, he's even said so in a book in 2005, Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party.
Only the tories would put a man who wants to privatise the NHS in charge of the NHS!

 

[fernandopartridge]

That's not true Clint, the figures prove that in absolute terms funding has increased - but not in real terms. The NHS in particular is not true - the Tories have put loads of additional money into the NHS. The issue is that patient numbers have increased at a faster pace. Cold hard figures prove the point, not emotions and not the sticks that Labour uses for political ends.

And it's not true that the rich are getting richer either or that taxes have been cut for them. The top rate of income tax went down by 5%, but at the same time the limit on National Insurance was removed (which is greater at over 10%). Further, there have been stamp duty hikes on more expensive properties (and cuts on cheaper ones); new dividend taxes; Buy to Let taxes... If you look at the Lorenz curve since 2010, the richest have been hit hardest - reducing inequality in the years since 2010.

I don't know if the Tories are doing a good job or not, but they are certainly not doing as poor a job as many would have you believe. Given what they faced in 2010 I'm prepared to cut them some slack.

Zzzz same old "I'm alright Jack" drivel from you

I work in the NHS buying stuff. I know for an absolute nailed on fact that the Tories have NOT put loads of additional money in, apart from the millions on the pointless reorganisation

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[fernandopartridge]

The NHS is in it's death throws, the Aneurin Bevan model for the NHS has long since vanished, the model has to change as the contribution by way of means strategy is no longer viable, it won't be long before we all have to have health insurance that covers a percentage with the government covering the rest.

Yes it's happening subtly. "Push Doctor" and the like. Look out for she concept of Accountable Care Systems (ACS or ACO), currently being implemented in the NHS, adopted from America.
These will see services rationed in areas. The Tory government has already removed the responsibility for the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health system (I.e. a national health service) .
Shame on the selfish people who vote for them, let's hope none of them experience poor health in the coming years as they mighty find the comprehensive healthcare they took for granted no longer exists.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

Seems to me we have two choices. Vote Corbyn and save the NHS or vote Tory and either privatise the NHS and/or make it payable at source.

Whatever you think of Corbyn, his history, his other policies or whatever I struggle to see that if you value the NHS as it was envisioned you have any other choice. Even if he completely fucks everything else up (ha ha ha, compared to this poor excuse of a Tory government it really couldn’t get much worse. They’ve really lowered the bar, so much that they can make socialism look a better option) if he saves the NHS it’s a price worth paying in my opinion. We can recover from that, if the NHS disappears it ain’t coming back.

 

[skybluetony176]

Sad sad day.
Can't help but think that is Mr Hunts and the Gov rationale, simply starve it to that point.

That cat seems to be out the bag in Hereford watching question time tonight. If anyone hasn’t watched it try to if you can if only the last ten minutes.

 

[Ian1779]

That cat seems to be out the bag in Hereford watching question time tonight. If anyone hasn’t watched it try to if you can if only the last ten minutes.

I saw the young woman near the end who put it very succinctly.

 

[skybluetony176]

I saw the young woman near the end who put it very succinctly.

The audience wasn’t buying what the Tory minister was saying either. More than a few shouts of lies coming from the audience while she was trying to protest her innocence. Don’t think the audience was buying it at all.