Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Macron becomes an even stronger favourite for French President

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Macron becomes an even stronger favourite for French President after a huge day of turbulence on the betting markets

It has been an extraordinary 24 hours on the betting markets for the French presidency. Everything was hinged on a planned statement that the Republican nominee and one time odds-on favourite had announced he was going to make yesterday evening.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Vive PB ... :smile:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited March 2017
    Deuxieme! Comme les Tories Ecossais!

    Edit - merde!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Deuxieme! Comme les Tories Ecossais!

    Edit - merde!

    My apologies.. accurate pre-2016 :smiley:
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
    The early Jacobite catches the (thread) worm .
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper between now and polling.....there must be something lurking in the closet....(and if its that, it shouldn't matter, outwith the question of honesty...)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Laying the various Juppe surges has been exceptionally profitable for the last week.

    Long may it continue.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
    The early Jacobite catches the (thread) worm .
    Speaking of Jacobites.. I assume you are aware of this latest pretender:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2988277/allan-evans-colorado-king-of-wales-claim-throne/
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper between now and polling.....there must be something lurking in the closet....(and if its that, it shouldn't matter, outwith the question of honesty...)

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Hope you are on the mend, Mike!
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Could have got a much better price on Juppé than the 7/2 (!) I have. Still, thanks in large part to a free bet on Macron at 5/1, I'm green on the top 4.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
    The early Jacobite catches the (thread) worm .
    Speaking of Jacobites.. I assume you are aware of this latest pretender:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2988277/allan-evans-colorado-king-of-wales-claim-throne/
    Chortle .... :smiley:
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    If Francois Fillon is staying in, Emmanuel Macron looks too long. M Fillon is preventing a less damaged candidate of the right from coming forward and stopping him reaching the last two.

    Moreover, even if, as @CarlottaVance suggests, M Macron will have a moment in the spotlight, M Fillon makes it much easier for him to brazen it out. Right now he looks like a clear buy at odds against.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited March 2017
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
    The early Jacobite catches the (thread) worm .
    Speaking of Jacobites.. I assume you are aware of this latest pretender:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2988277/allan-evans-colorado-king-of-wales-claim-throne/
    Chortle .... :smiley:
    From the article... The Attorney General’s Office said they had not yet received any claim from Mr Evans.

    Does this mean they have procedures in place for royal claimants? :D
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Vive PB ... :smile:

    Damn you, sir!
    The early Jacobite catches the (thread) worm .
    Speaking of Jacobites.. I assume you are aware of this latest pretender:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2988277/allan-evans-colorado-king-of-wales-claim-throne/
    Chortle .... :smiley:
    From the article... The Attorney General’s Office said they had not yet received any claim from Mr Evans.

    Does this mean they have procedures in place for royal claimants? :D
    "Orf with his head!"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    So that's gone through then:

    PSA Group (PEUP.PA) has agreed to buy European rival Opel from General Motors (GM.N) in a deal valuing the business at 2.2 billion euros ($2.3 billion), the companies said on Monday, creating a new regional car giant to challenge market leader Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE).

    The maker of Peugeot and Citroen cars pledged to achieve 1.7 billion euros in cost savings from the acquisition by 2026 and lift the Opel business and its UK Vauxhall brand to a 6 percent operating margin in the same period.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opel-m-a-psa-idUSKBN16D0J1?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....

    I'd love to know who was the single Conservative member polled who thinks there will be a Labour majority in the next general election.

    Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    How many times is that now that Fillon has allowed speculation about his imminent withdrawal to swirl about him? And is his own party not abandoning him? As well as his campaign manager?

    French politics is weird but surely even there Fillon is damaged beyond repair. And Juppe, what can you say? The man has more baggage than British Airways as well as a conviction for a serious offence of financial dishonesty.

    At a time when the left were in chaos having a leader who was pretty much the only western politician that might make Corbyn look good (although he had the self awareness not to run, something still to be tested) it is incredible how badly the centre right has screwed this up. I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    More bad news on the jobs front:

    Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management have agreed on the terms to create the UK’s largest asset manager.

    Following reports of an £11bn takeover over the weekend, the two companies said they would recommend an all-share deal to shareholders.

    https://www.ft.com/content/95474d9d-dfec-3144-8a76-849d6fd6083b
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    DavidL said:

    How many times is that now that Fillon has allowed speculation about his imminent withdrawal to swirl about him? And is his own party not abandoning him? As well as his campaign manager?

    French politics is weird but surely even there Fillon is damaged beyond repair. And Juppe, what can you say? The man has more baggage than British Airways as well as a conviction for a serious offence of financial dishonesty.

    At a time when the left were in chaos having a leader who was pretty much the only western politician that might make Corbyn look good (although he had the self awareness not to run, something still to be tested) it is incredible how badly the centre right has screwed this up. I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Isn't a conviction for fraud almost a necessity to be eligible to run for political office in France?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper between now and polling.....there must be something lurking in the closet....(and if its that, it shouldn't matter, outwith the question of honesty...)

    Thus far it's been the most seasoned old lags that's happened to.

    Anyway, I'm thinking of starting a rumour that Le Pen is guilty of the worst sort of Franglais, and ought really to be calling herself La Plume.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Sandpit said:

    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....

    I'd love to know who was the single Conservative member polled who thinks there will be a Labour majority in the next general election.

    Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
    The official excuse is out: apparently he put the LOTO part of his salary down as "pensions/other benefits".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited March 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....

    I'd love to know who was the single Conservative member polled who thinks there will be a Labour majority in the next general election.

    Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
    Yes, but everyone who talks about this (including, slightly alarmingly, the Labour spokesman) is missing the point. Although that money will probably have been taxed at source, it will have been taxed at the basic rate. Added to all his other income, however, most of it is at the 40p band, and some is at the 45p band. Moreover, he will have been calculated on having a small 0p tax band, when that should have been removed in its entirety.

    If the income is undeclared (which Labour deny, but their claims on the subject are unconvincing) his income was roughly £157,000. Of this 32,000 is at 20%, 118,000 at 40% and 7,000 at 45%. That comes to £56400 in tax. If we assume the income was (a) undeclared and (b) taxed at source it would have been taxed at 20% on three-quarters of it (due to personal allowance). So he would have paid £6000 on that plus 35,000 on the rest - total £41,000 and over £15,000 short of where he should be.

    Should the Revenue prosecute (which as this is the second year in a row he has messed up, they shoul) under such circumstances they could in theory have as much again in fines, although in this case it seems likely he would be fined 40% of the amount - so roughly £6,000. As a result including interest he could end up with a sudden bill for £22,000.

    Financially disastrous? Not for someone as rich as Corbyn. Highly embarrassing? Oh yes. Terminal? I think probably. He can't go after tax avoiders if he himself is convicted of tax evasion, which also punctures the idea of him as a wholesome outsider(!) cleaning up Westminster.

    If it happens, which it still may not. However it reveals two things (1) Labour's media spokespeople are idiots and (2) Corbyn couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel. But then, we knew that already.

    It also takes the heat nicely off the Tories in the run up to a difficult budget. No wonder George Osborne thought Corbyn's election proved God is a Conservative!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    DavidL said:

    I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Right now he (Macron) looks like a clear buy at odds against.

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
    Glad to see the pb consensus holding up :>

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....

    I'd love to know who was the single Conservative member polled who thinks there will be a Labour majority in the next general election.

    Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
    The official excuse is out: apparently he put the LOTO part of his salary down as "pensions/other benefits".
    That's still fishy, when he published his tax return last year he got in trouble for not including state pension income of around £10k, so he's still a few grand short of the right number. I'd like to be his accountant today about as much as I'd have liked to be the Acadamy's auditor last week!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Sandpit said:

    Meanwhile, over at the Office of 'Counting your chickens before they've hatched':

    Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html

    Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....

    I'd love to know who was the single Conservative member polled who thinks there will be a Labour majority in the next general election.

    Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
    The official excuse is out: apparently he put the LOTO part of his salary down as "pensions/other benefits".
    Which do not add up to £40,000. So unless he took a very much reduced salary that is clearly not the case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    I bet Hammond is feeling pretty smug this morning by refusing to publish his tax return.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    My last move was to lay Juppe at 13, I am now underwater on him to about 300 - including £100 @ 10-1 back.
    If he quits at 10-30 logically Fillon and Baroin should both shorten a bit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Sandpit said:

    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)

    Well, up to now I've been convinced nothing could harm him. But on top of Copeland and Brexit he has the stench of death about him now.

    Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Right now he (Macron) looks like a clear buy at odds against.

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
    Glad to see the pb consensus holding up :>

    Life would be very dull if we all always agreed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Releasing your tax return is a gimmicky piece of political theatre anyway, a transparent attempt to imply your opponent does something wrong without having to prove it, should they refuse to do so. Labour, Tory or anyone else should stop trying it, for all I know it's normal in some countries.

    Regardless, given the whole point is to get people thinking your opponent is dodgy, or just rich, it is surely not worth doing if you make mistakes on yours or yours leads to questions.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited March 2017
    RobD said:

    I bet Hammond is feeling pretty smug this morning by refusing to publish his tax return.

    He should be. We need to get away from this poor-off virtue signalling that the hard left is trying to instigate.

    Leadership is not achieved through the four yorkshireman sketch...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Right now he (Macron) looks like a clear buy at odds against.

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
    Glad to see the pb consensus holding up :>

    Life would be very dull if we all always agreed.
    I agree.

    ...wait
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Right now he (Macron) looks like a clear buy at odds against.

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
    Glad to see the pb consensus holding up :>

    Macron is a shoo-in. :)
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/06/francois-hollande-on-brexit-uk-has-made-bad-choice-at-bad-moment

    Absolutely typical. We must give up 'all perks' but he'd like us to contribute to European defence integration.

    It's about time the US and U.K. stopped subsidising France and Germany.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)

    Well, up to now I've been convinced nothing could harm him. But on top of Copeland and Brexit he has the stench of death about him now.

    Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
    I can't see him going until he gets his and McDonnell's new rules through the NEC, he won't stand down unless it's clear that another one of his bunch will take over.

    Watching JC, McIRA and Diane "private school for my kids, because black" Abbott in the heat of a general election campaign is going to be hilarious.

    Mrs May must be sorely tempted to call their bluff with a motion that Parliament be dissolved.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.

    Right now he (Macron) looks like a clear buy at odds against.

    I know the polling is what the polling is.....but can't help feeling someone of Macron's relative inexperience won't come a cropper

    Agreed. There is something flimsy about him. I cashed in my 7/1 Macron bet 10 days ago.
    Glad to see the pb consensus holding up :>

    Macron is a shoo-in. :)
    All we need now is Rogerdamus....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)

    Well, up to now I've been convinced nothing could harm him. But on top of Copeland and Brexit he has the stench of death about him now.

    Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
    It does have the feel of a situation where only the lack of a clear alternative on any of the multiple wings of the party is keeping him going. Given the quality available I suppose that situation could go on long enough.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Macron

    Cleggasm
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)

    Well, up to now I've been convinced nothing could harm him. But on top of Copeland and Brexit he has the stench of death about him now.

    Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
    It does have the feel of a situation where only the lack of a clear alternative on any of the multiple wings of the party is keeping him going. Given the quality available I suppose that situation could go on long enough.
    It's all up to the members - and for as long as the polls keep saying they'll re-elect him, he isn't going anywhere, no matter what Labour MPs think. Surely the May locals will be the trigger for another vote of confidence, and perhaps we might see get a better challenger than Owen Someone this year.

    Hillary Benn and Kier Starmer must be having a serious think about it, if Corbyn makes it to a 2020 election it might be too late to save the party.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @KateEMcCann: Leader's office last night confirmed Corbyn receives three pensions. If his leadership income is classed as one of those, where's the third?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Irked to see Juppe is now longer odds than Fillon. The latter really is an arse.

    Anyway, still pretty green on Macron and a little on Le Pen, so I'll probably just sit tight unless Le Corbyn gets prised out of the election.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    Other people's money is the answer to everything, eh?

  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    edited March 2017

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    More money is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

    The alternative is to accept a lower quality of service.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
    Let's encourage more spending on healthcare then. A reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of health insurance would be a good starter for the budget, but I'm not too sure that's what you're thinking!
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr @ydoethur, don't you dare suggest that anything might be terminal for Corbyn. He has the unfailing support of the Labour membership, and is determnied to stay in place until the election in 2020 - that glorious day when the country will unite in their love of 1970s socialism, unilateral disarmament and camper van trips behind the Iron Curtain.

    This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn :)

    Well, up to now I've been convinced nothing could harm him. But on top of Copeland and Brexit he has the stench of death about him now.

    Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
    I can't see him going until he gets his and McDonnell's new rules through the NEC, he won't stand down unless it's clear that another one of his bunch will take over.

    Watching JC, McIRA and Diane "private school for my kids, because black" Abbott in the heat of a general election campaign is going to be hilarious.

    Mrs May must be sorely tempted to call their bluff with a motion that Parliament be dissolved.
    I for one would feel very cheated if Labour moderates get their act together and we're denied the chance to see this spectacle unfold. Said moderates trying (or not) to defend a manifesto they don't believe in will also be a treat.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    Is percentage of GDP a meaningful figure?
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
    Let's encourage more spending on healthcare then. A reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of health insurance would be a good starter for the budget, but I'm not too sure that's what you're thinking!
    I'm thinking the NHS is remarkably resilient and efficient and has served this country well.

    I do not believe further moves towards a two-tier system, where the poor receive a low standard of service, is in the best interests of society as a whole.

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    More money is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

    This is correct. The problem is, a couple of decades of treating it as a sufficient condition has made the argument that it is a necessary condition less potent.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    Is percentage of GDP a meaningful figure?
    What measure do you suggest?
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    The 2012 'reform' was said to have cost £3 billion and fairly clearly didn't save that amount, it possibly saved zero or cost money.

    Most reforms since Thatcher have 'marketised' it and led to more inter-hospital billing and admin. and now there are referrals to the competition authorities. If hospitals are seen as profit- (or loss!!-) making entities, who's surprised that they start to behave more like FTSE-100 PLCs?
  • On Corbyn's tax returns - if the leadership income is being recorded under pension/other then that suggests he hasn't drawn his MP's DB gold-plated pension as yet and continues to accrue service in that - this is because the state pension would broadly make up the difference in his return. Perhaps he should reveal what his accrued MP pension is too?

    Assuming the leadership income is pensionable and that would mean a big step up in the reference salary if so, such is the length of service he has I'm surprised that hasn't caused him to breach his Annual Allowance and to face a tax-bill for that?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    Is percentage of GDP a meaningful figure?
    What measure do you suggest?
    Well, it certainly needs a per capita element.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    The 2012 'reform' was said to have cost £3 billion and fairly clearly didn't save that amount, it possibly saved zero or cost money.

    Most reforms since Thatcher have 'marketised' it and led to more inter-hospital billing and admin. and now there are referrals to the competition authorities. If hospitals are seen as profit- (or loss!!-) making entities, who's surprised that they start to behave more like FTSE-100 PLCs?
    One of the things that struck me on my last visit to the US was hearing radio advertising for a particular hospital, trumpeting the recruitment of a new specialist.

    No wonder the US spends so much, so inefficiently, on healthcare.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    I doubt if health outcomes are better in Lesotho than in the UK.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    I doubt if health outcomes are better in Lesotho than in the UK.
    Try answering the question.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    I doubt if health outcomes are better in Lesotho than in the UK.
    Outcomes!? Blasphemy!!!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
  • On Topic: If Macron does win eventually, what is the impact on the elections for the National Assembly elections in 2017?

    Will he create a party for deputes to run on his platform?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    I doubt if health outcomes are better in Lesotho than in the UK.
    Try answering the question.
    The question is flawed. GDP per capita in Lesotho is about $3,000, compared to $40,000 in the UK. There's not much doubt about which country is spending more on healthcare. Life expectancy is 55 in Lesotho, compared to 81 here.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
    Let's encourage more spending on healthcare then. A reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of health insurance would be a good starter for the budget, but I'm not too sure that's what you're thinking!
    I'm thinking the NHS is remarkably resilient and efficient and has served this country well.

    I do not believe further moves towards a two-tier system, where the poor receive a low standard of service, is in the best interests of society as a whole.

    On the contrary, with large numbers of the population encouraged to avoid using the NHS, the limited resources available can be better utilised by those who wish to do so. The reduction in NHS demand would lead to lower waiting times.

    Oh, and get rid of all the six-figure quangocrats highlighted in the article above, spend the money saved on respite centres to stop the hugely inefficient bedblocking that goes on every winter.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Meanwhile, the descent into the tertiary stages of the Leaver virus continues:

    https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/838665754920824832
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Jonathan said:

    Macron

    Cleggasm

    But there Presidential election system is so different to our Parliamentary electoral system that the outcome could be different too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited March 2017

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    The 2012 'reform' was said to have cost £3 billion and fairly clearly didn't save that amount, it possibly saved zero or cost money.

    Most reforms since Thatcher have 'marketised' it and led to more inter-hospital billing and admin. and now there are referrals to the competition authorities. If hospitals are seen as profit- (or loss!!-) making entities, who's surprised that they start to behave more like FTSE-100 PLCs?
    One of the things that struck me on my last visit to the US was hearing radio advertising for a particular hospital, trumpeting the recruitment of a new specialist.

    No wonder the US spends so much, so inefficiently, on healthcare.
    What really struck me in the US is the constant advertising on TV and in print for branded drugs. Pharmaceutical companies appear to have limitless marketing budgets, and that clearly drives up the price of their products.

    The NHS has its flaws, and is in desperate need of reform - but the USA really isn't the place to look for solutions. Healthcare there is a mess too, just for different reasons.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    Jonathan said:

    Macron

    Cleggasm

    But there Presidential election system is so different to our Parliamentary electoral system that the outcome could be different too.
    I don't believe that I typed 'there', 'their' of course
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    We have an international commitment for the defence percentage and no such international commitment for the NHS, so you can't compare.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    Yet it cannot it continue as it is.

    You are right about dogma. The NHS was set up with three guiding principles:

    It is free at the point of delivery.
    It is based on clinical need and not the user's wealth.
    It is universal: it meets the needs of all its users.

    All three of these have been watered down over the years, some very soon after 1948. However they seem a good basis, and far better than the wordier 'NHS constitution'.

    If we are to reform the NHS, we need to either make it match those guiding principles, or define different, but equally simple and understandable, principles.

    Perhaps we need similar guiding principles for social care, especially of the elderly?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    GeoffM said:

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    We have an international commitment for the defence percentage and no such international commitment for the NHS, so you can't compare.
    Of course you can. You just don't want to.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Not sure what game Fillon is playing at, he actively encourages speculation as to an imminent departure, then disappoints. It’s becoming almost Pythonesque...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Morning all,

    Just catching up. Seems by spending the evening watching House of Cards, I have missed on a wild betting opportunity. Just so I am clear Juppe is announcing something at 10:30am this morning?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    I wouldn't mind one, but minimum expenditure targets just result in loads of waste. The NHS is already extremely wasteful, I'd much rather begin to fix the social care system and create a new department either within the DSS or entirely new that deals with social care rather than leaving it for a mix of the NHS and local authorities to deal with.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    More money is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

    This is correct. The problem is, a couple of decades of treating it as a sufficient condition has made the argument that it is a necessary condition less potent.
    It may have made people less sympathetic to the argument but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. Worse service or more funding are your two options.

    I would say in the last 10 years or so the problem has more been promises that magical reform will avoid us having to confront that choice.

    There are some reforms that could help - I personally think we need to look at reducing drug prices...
    I like value based pricing in theory... But not sure we are getting a good deal.

    Spending on ineffective and expensive cancer treatments also - but politically that's very difficult.
    I also wonder if there isn't some way out of the dreadful PFI mess...
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited March 2017
    Every public service would benefit from more investment, and would equally benefit from reform-as long as reform isn't "Do more with less", which is really the only type of reform that any government is interested in.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    I go in the other direction: all departments should have funding based as a percentage of GDP. If the economy does well, then all departments get more funding. If the economy does less well, they all get hurt equally.

    Add in a few percentage of contingency, and you move away from politics where spending is hidden to the public by vague figures (who knows whether another £100 million for the NHS is meaningful or a tiny proportion), to one where spending becomes much more visible.

    Which is why politicians will hate it.

    At an election, the Conservatives may say they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, health 18%, education 9% (and split it according to primary, secondary and tertiary), etc, etc. Labour may say 1.5% defence, heath 20%, education 10%.

    The public would have real visibility and a real choice.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Morning all :)

    Well, it's Budget week (the unimportant one if we are to believe the increased emphasis on the Autumn Budget, or is it still a Statement).

    Hammond read very poorly in yesterday's Telegraph not helped by the eulogising fawning of the piece. Putting "gas in the tank" sounds like a 60-year old trying to sound like a 25-year old.

    The central tenet of the May-Hammond-Clarkson (sorry, Johnson) Government is to convince everyone everything will be all right if not better when we leave the EU. Now, I understand that - the political leaders of the country have to talk up the country, it's part of their function. Absolute honesty from political leaders is only to be provided in the smallest of doses.

    So we are to believe the British Government will "stand firm", get everything it wants, give nothing away and above all not pay some form of dowry, fine, exit fee, whatever you like, when we finally exit the EU.

    The Government and the Prime Minister coast along, aided by the lack of an Opposition though it would actually be difficult to oppose a vacuum, with everyone hoping/believing everything will be all right based on little more than a few confident sounding words from the Prime Minister. It doesn't convince me but then I'm not typical.

    The difference between "we're leaving, it will be wonderful" and "we're leaving and we'll have to make the best of it" is quite profound in terms of mood and expectation.

    On a more practical level, it will be fascinating to see how much Hammond finds from his "war chest" of £60 billion (shouldn't that be being used on defence or reducing the debt ?) to offset the very real concerns about the provision of adult social care and how it will be couched politically. SCC leader David Hodge called Hammond's bluff a couple of weeks ago and it remains to be seen if some "additional funding" will be forthcoming.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Pierre Briançon‏Verified account @pierrebri 3m3 minutes ago
    More
    Sarkozy offers to meet Juppé & Fillon to "find a dignified and credible" solution to get Rép. party out of the funk
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jessop, an interesting idea. A potential problem is that Health and Education (and, to a lesser extent, Policing) are vote-winners. Defence tends not to be. There'd be pressure with such an approach to starve an already underfunded MoD because voters are more into other areas.

    Also, there's a problem with number bias. Twenty percent sounds a lot more than 19% (hence why books are priced Something-Ninety-Nine, but wages are £8 an hour, rather than £7.99).
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    "Throwing money at" means "spending money on things we disagree with" in the PB Tory lexicon.

    Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
    What's better:

    (a) Spending £10 to get 11 items
    (b) Spending £11 to get 10 items

    Customers prefer option (a) whereas the producer interests prefer option (b).

    You should be focusing on NHS outputs not NHS inputs if you actually care about health services in this country.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    Every public service would benefit from more investment, and would equally benefit from reform-as long as reform isn't "Do more with less", which is really the only type of reform that any government is interested in.

    Govt depts cost up to 6 times more than private companies. When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too. The system is broken. Too many chiefs, too many idiots, poor management. Get that right and costs come tumbling down. good example, should the head of waste collection in my borough earn £84,000? Shoudl there be 6 layers between him and a street sweeper? Either public or private, these depts are monopolies and act like it.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    Every public service would benefit from more investment, and would equally benefit from reform-as long as reform isn't "Do more with less", which is really the only type of reform that any government is interested in.

    ... but that ultimately is the point of any reform, otherwise what's the point?

    "Do more with less *here* so we have enough to what we want *over there*"

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.

    Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    I go in the other direction: all departments should have funding based as a percentage of GDP. If the economy does well, then all departments get more funding. If the economy does less well, they all get hurt equally.

    Add in a few percentage of contingency, and you move away from politics where spending is hidden to the public by vague figures (who knows whether another £100 million for the NHS is meaningful or a tiny proportion), to one where spending becomes much more visible.

    Which is why politicians will hate it.

    At an election, the Conservatives may say they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, health 18%, education 9% (and split it according to primary, secondary and tertiary), etc, etc. Labour may say 1.5% defence, heath 20%, education 10%.

    The public would have real visibility and a real choice.
    "Daddy, why does Labour's total add up to 110%"
    "Investment, son. Investment".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    I go in the other direction: all departments should have funding based as a percentage of GDP. If the economy does well, then all departments get more funding. If the economy does less well, they all get hurt equally.

    Add in a few percentage of contingency, and you move away from politics where spending is hidden to the public by vague figures (who knows whether another £100 million for the NHS is meaningful or a tiny proportion), to one where spending becomes much more visible.

    Which is why politicians will hate it.

    At an election, the Conservatives may say they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, health 18%, education 9% (and split it according to primary, secondary and tertiary), etc, etc. Labour may say 1.5% defence, heath 20%, education 10%.

    The public would have real visibility and a real choice.
    That's nice in theory, but there are two big numbers missing. The first is what percentage of GDP should be spent by the government in total, and the other is the department of debt interest - which currently has a budget higher than defence and will soon go higher than education.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    GeoffM said:

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    We have an international commitment for the defence percentage and no such international commitment for the NHS, so you can't compare.
    Of course you can. You just don't want to.
    We pledge to spend as much as our health service as Zimbabwe. Happy now?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Wise words from Nadhim Zahawi:

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/03/nadhim-zahawi-it-isnt-ukip-that-stands-to-gain-from-the-collapse-of-labour-its-the-conservatives.html

    this is often the reason Remain voters dislike the result; they fear UKIPs influence. Luckily, this isn’t there.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545

    Mr. Jessop, an interesting idea. A potential problem is that Health and Education (and, to a lesser extent, Policing) are vote-winners. Defence tends not to be. There'd be pressure with such an approach to starve an already underfunded MoD because voters are more into other areas.

    Also, there's a problem with number bias. Twenty percent sounds a lot more than 19% (hence why books are priced Something-Ninety-Nine, but wages are £8 an hour, rather than £7.99).

    Yes, but it's far more open than the current system, where any spending increase, however trivial in the grander scheme of things, becomes lauded, and spending on less sexy items, or more controversial ones, tend to get hidden.

    It highlights a party's priorities very starkly. I'd go even further in the case of the NHS, but that's a much longer and far more controversial post.

    I think the discussion we're having other DFID and MOD spending are indications that we're heading in this sort of direction. However I think it only works as a system if a certain percentage is left to one side for discretionary spending.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Pierre Briançon‏Verified account @pierrebri 3m3 minutes ago
    More
    Sarkozy offers to meet Juppé & Fillon to "find a dignified and credible" solution to get Rép. party out of the funk

    They can all compare notes about the various allegations made against each of them.

    Dangerous betting market until the candidates are finalised, I think. I've laid Le Pen heavily and bet on Macron with a saver on Juppe, but am now staying out of it till the situation clarifies. It's possibly worth a saver on Hamon at 60-1 - if the anointed Republican were to stumble after nominations close (e.g. literally fall under a bus), Macron would be the only plausible non-Le Pen candidate left.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545
    Sandpit said:

    The NHS requires far more money than it currently gets if it is to provide the type of service that the public expects.

    Reform might also be useful.

    If ‘Reform’ means naive politicians pushing ill-thought out ideas, conceived with political dogma as the main driver,on the health service AGAIN, then reform is the last thing the NHS needs.
    I agree. Hence the word "might".

    I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
    I go in the other direction: all departments should have funding based as a percentage of GDP. If the economy does well, then all departments get more funding. If the economy does less well, they all get hurt equally.

    Add in a few percentage of contingency, and you move away from politics where spending is hidden to the public by vague figures (who knows whether another £100 million for the NHS is meaningful or a tiny proportion), to one where spending becomes much more visible.

    Which is why politicians will hate it.

    At an election, the Conservatives may say they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, health 18%, education 9% (and split it according to primary, secondary and tertiary), etc, etc. Labour may say 1.5% defence, heath 20%, education 10%.

    The public would have real visibility and a real choice.
    That's nice in theory, but there are two big numbers missing. The first is what percentage of GDP should be spent by the government in total, and the other is the department of debt interest - which currently has a budget higher than defence and will soon go higher than education.
    The percentage of GDP that should be spent by the government in total would be part of the published calculation, and debt interest repayments would either be a separate figure, or come out of the discretionary spending percentage.

    It's not a flawless idea, and there are problems with it, especially at the political level. However it's much better than the opaque mess we have at the moment.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is why, apart from Corbyn being crap, Labour's NHS messages aren't getting through to the public.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/

    People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.

    Yes, because we haven't reformed the NHS for - ooh it must be - at least a couple of years now.
    Not sufficiently or appropriately reformed, clearly.
    It's obvious what sufficient reform looks like. Lesotho spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than the UK.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true


    So "reform" means "throwing yet more money at it"?

    Well, it's a view.
    Indeed. My local health service is utterly self serving. Over-personed, long waiting times, yet when I go there the 4 receptionists seem to spend most of their time talking about Coronation Street. And how much does a smile cost?
  • Every public service would benefit from more investment, and would equally benefit from reform-as long as reform isn't "Do more with less", which is really the only type of reform that any government is interested in.

    ... but that ultimately is the point of any reform, otherwise what's the point?

    "Do more with less *here* so we have enough to what we want *over there*"

    But "over there" never seems to be any good either!
    Reform in my sector tends to be a case of "Here's less money than you need, sort yourself out. Don't come back for another 3 years". There is then a knee jerk reaction that results in a poorer service than required. Genuine reform would be something like amalgamating the Fire Service and Ambulance Service, which might cost extra to implement, but would save money over the medium term and result in far better service for the public.
This discussion has been closed.