I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What would be the bet, though ? Pence as Republican nominee offers much better odds than Trump not seeking re-election, for example...
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I'd suggest £49.9bn is still a little bit better than Labour's legacy of £160-odd billion.
The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
You keep saying this and a few of us keep pointing out to you that NI raises just over half that which is spent on the state pension, contributory JSA and the NHS etc. Hypothecation would cut spending dramatically not increase it.
No it wouldn't as income tax would remain the primary funder of the NHS and social care (with residential social care already paid for by the sale of the family home and other assets down to £23k too) higher National Insurance would just pay for any increases in the NHS and social care budget
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.
What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
UK residents have spent £45bn on foreign holidays during the last twelve months:
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
Surprised Edmund's got through to the semis, but good for him. I wonder what odds he was to win the quarters?
Not actually that high, around 3.33ish. He's been good this event, and Dimitrov has struggled in most matches (he almost lost to an American qualifier ranked 200ish).
I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.
If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.
If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.
Many non-Trump Republicans probably like having Trump in the White House, in the same way they are said to have liked Reagan and GWBush as genial front men with few ideas of their own. With Trump, they are free to write their own legislation, for which the battle is within the House and the party, not with the White House. This seems to have happened with Trump's two big bills so far on gutting Obamacare and cutting tax: both existing GOP programmes; neither with any obvious Trump stamp.
Why would House Republicans want to throw this away? And for what? Pence might have his own ideas. It is said the GOP in the mid-1980s preferred to keep a deteriorating Reagan than Bush Sr.
The only reason to dump Trump is if he costs Republicans their seats and majority. Trump will continue to 2020. Beyond that, does he want to stand again? Is his heart in it and does he want to try and help Ivanka become America's first woman president?
Both Clinton and Obama saw their party lose control of the House in their first mid terms and were re elected
That's not quite the same thing but draws attention to another American phenomenon the Democrats appeared to be backing away from. Ever since Newt Gingrich invented the tactic of shutting down the government, the American public has tended to side with the (usually Democrat) president over the (Republican, and actually Tea Party) House.
Though the opposition party actually controlled Congress then
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could gestion.
And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.
What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment.
The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
If NS is finally to be admitted to be not a pot for working age benefits and pensions, then it is time to stop exempting people beyond retirement age.
I'd suggest £49.9bn is still a little bit better than Labour's legacy of £160-odd billion.
We are drunk on overspending.
Not really. One of the big issues was the decision taken by the Coalition in 2010 to ring-fence areas of public expenditure such as pensioner benefits, NHS and education.
The Coalition inherited Brown and Labour's public spending disaster but only tackled part of the problem. Had the same rigour gone into reducing all aspects of public spending as went into reducing local Government expenditure the finances would look healthier.
If of course all you judge a country by is its ability to live within its means, fine. There are other measures which perhaps are less quantifiable.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.
What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
I echo some other posters today; given our deficit is still more than £30 billion p.a., what taxes are going to be raised in order to fund the NHS (in our time honoured tradition of just throwing money at the problem)?
Unusually, I also agree with Soubry. Johnson should be sacked.
If i could choose: Land value tax, introduce overall limit for ISA at say 100k, slash pensions tax relief, raise corporation tax as Labour planned if not more, raise capital gains tax. Obviously clamp down more on tax avoidance which should be a no brainier for all parties. Internationally throw full weight behind going after tax havens including the British ones.
The issue with your idea is corporation tax raises around £47 billion p.a. It's a relative tiddler, accounting for about 6% of government revenue.
I have no idea how an LVT would work. While I see some utility in it, it would be quite difficult politically, don't you think?
It's unpalatable, but in my view we're going to have to raise general taxation in some fashion, permed from income tax, NI or VAT. I do like the idea of taxing middle and high income pensioners more (and I say that as one of them!).
IFS reckoned labours corporation tax change could raise £19bn in short term. That’s substantial. LVT I think would need to be accompanied by a reduction in council tax - otherwise i suspect it would be too tough politically. It could however have positive macro economic inpacts if it replaced other more distortionary taxes. I’d prefer to avoid raising income tax - except for the very well off. I think we should be trying to tax wealth more and income less/the same if possible.
Pension relief is a big target - it doesn’t seem to be an efficient way of getting people to save - and the benefit mainly goes to the well off.
I don’t see any chance of the Tories doing any of these things though. Labour would do some I reckon.
Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.
Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.
I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.
Wheras the NHS income of a typical DGH has flatlined since 2010/
My local hospital gets 3% more NHS cash for a 64% increase in throughput in the last 8 years.
It now resorts to very dodgy accountancy to try to meet "control totals"
I'm not arguing with that. The NHS here in Wales is even more tragic - it's obvious that despite all the money pouring in the NHS is getting worse.
All I'm saying is that we could add, say, another £20bn to the NHS budget for next year and we'd still have same problems and cries for more cash.
Where is the extra money going. Its not going to Acute Hospitals. GPs are saying they arent getting it. Where is it going???
The medical rate of inflation is far higher than the standard measures. There are more people employed, and by and large, those people are paid more (at inception the NHS had ~400k employees. It's likely to hit 1.7m this decade). The budget has often been spent...unwisely (e.g. PFI).
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.
Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.
I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.
Wheras the NHS income of a typical DGH has flatlined since 2010/
My local hospital gets 3% more NHS cash for a 64% increase in throughput in the last 8 years.
It now resorts to very dodgy accountancy to try to meet "control totals"
I'm not arguing with that. The NHS here in Wales is even more tragic - it's obvious that despite all the money pouring in the NHS is getting worse.
All I'm saying is that we could add, say, another £20bn to the NHS budget for next year and we'd still have same problems and cries for more cash.
Where is the extra money going. Its not going to Acute Hospitals. GPs are saying they arent getting it. Where is it going???
Although it would inevitably be imperfect - this debate would Ben helped imo by some academics coming up with a decent aggregate measure of medical demand.
As the population ages - just to stand still we need to spend much more on health and social care.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
I would apply NI on all income to the end of life, which is when people are using the NHS most. I am not sure how much that would raise, but it should be meaningful.
The biggest thing is keeping immigration rates up, so you have a higher proportion of taxpayers to health consumers. This doesn't solve the problem you mentioned but it does stop it getting sharply worse.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
I would apply NI on all income to the end of life, which is when people are using the NHS most. I am not sure how much that would raise, but it should be meaningful.
The biggest thing is keeping immigration rates up, so you have a higher proportion of taxpayers to health consumers. This doesn't solve the problem you mentioned but it does stop it getting sharply worse.
High skilled immigrants who pay lots of tax maybe, immigrants will also need healthcare
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I've always labelled myself as a traditional One Nation Conservative. Socially dripping wet, fiscally incredibly dry. I have no fucking idea what May's rabble is doing masquerading as a Conservative administration. It should be arrested under the Trades Description Act. Is there a ritual involved in becoming an ex-PBtory?
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I've always labelled myself as a traditional One Nation Conservative. Socially dripping wet, fiscally incredibly dry. I have no fucking idea what May's rabble is doing masquerading as a Conservative administration. It should be arrested under the Trades Description Act.
That is not a Disraeli or Macmillan One Nation Tory that is a fiscal classical liberal
Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.
Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.
I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.
Wheras the NHS income of a typical DGH has flatlined since 2010/
My local hospital gets 3% more NHS cash for a 64% increase in throughput in the last 8 years.
It now resorts to very dodgy accountancy to try to meet "control totals"
I'm not arguing with that. The NHS here in Wales is even more tragic - it's obvious that despite all the money pouring in the NHS is getting worse.
All I'm saying is that we could add, say, another £20bn to the NHS budget for next year and we'd still have same problems and cries for more cash.
Where is the extra money going. Its not going to Acute Hospitals. GPs are saying they arent getting it. Where is it going???
The medical rate of inflation is far higher than the standard measures. There are more people employed, and by and large, those people are paid more (at inception the NHS had ~400k employees. It's likely to hit 1.7m this decade). The budget has often been spent...unwisely (e.g. PFI).
The number of nursing staff has increased by 1.8 per cent from 281,064 FTEs in 2010 to 286,020 FTEs in 2017.
A 1.8% increase in nurse numbers and a 64% increase in patients seen. Doesnt take a brain Surgeon to work out whats wromg does it
Health Education England has estimated a shortfall in nursing staff of 11.4 per cent by 2020.
Boris is right. A lot of people voted to LEAVE on the premise that it would produce a Brexit dividend for the NHS and that should be followed through.
Frankly it was madness for the Con 2017 manifesto not to mention the money they'd spend on the NHS after we leave... If they'd wrapped themselves up in the NHS flag instead of threatening their core voters, Theresa and Timothy would've won the general election handsomely.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
I've always labelled myself as a traditional One Nation Conservative. Socially dripping wet, fiscally incredibly dry. I have no fucking idea what May's rabble is doing masquerading as a Conservative administration. It should be arrested under the Trades Description Act.
That is not a Disraeli or Macmillan One Nation Tory that is a fiscal classical liberal
Difficult to find a home when you're a eurosceptic classical liberal .
The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
You keep saying this and a few of us keep pointing out to you that NI raises just over half that which is spent on the state pension, contributory JSA and the NHS etc. Hypothecation would cut spending dramatically not increase it.
No it wouldn't as income tax would remain the primary funder of the NHS and social care (with residential social care already paid for by the sale of the family home and other assets down to £23k too) higher National Insurance would just pay for any increases in the NHS and social care budget
No it wouldn't pay for anything extra as every single penny of it is already being spent on those areas. Hypothecation would achieve absolutely nothing.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.
What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.
Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.
I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.
Wheras the NHS income of a typical DGH has flatlined since 2010/
My local hospital gets 3% more NHS cash for a 64% increase in throughput in the last 8 years.
It now resorts to very dodgy accountancy to try to meet "control totals"
I'm not arguing with that. The NHS here in Wales is even more tragic - it's obvious that despite all the money pouring in the NHS is getting worse.
All I'm saying is that we could add, say, another £20bn to the NHS budget for next year and we'd still have same problems and cries for more cash.
Where is the extra money going. Its not going to Acute Hospitals. GPs are saying they arent getting it. Where is it going???
The medical rate of inflation is far higher than the standard measures. There are more people employed, and by and large, those people are paid more (at inception the NHS had ~400k employees. It's likely to hit 1.7m this decade). The budget has often been spent...unwisely (e.g. PFI).
The number of nursing staff has increased by 1.8 per cent from 281,064 FTEs in 2010 to 286,020 FTEs in 2017.
A 1.8% increase in nurse numbers and a 64% increase in patients seen. Doesnt take a brain Surgeon to work out whats wromg does it
Health Education England has estimated a shortfall in nursing staff of 11.4 per cent by 2020.
I'm up to date with the health numbers. You highlight the issue yourself; the demand on the NHS is going up far faster than its capacity.
To reiterate, even if we matched the highest ratio of health spending in the developed world, that allows around £25 billion p.a. additional funding. That would increase the overall NHS budget by ~17%, which would meet increasing demand for about four years. Any further increase would have to broadly match UK economic growth which has a trend rate of ~2.2%.
Something will have to give. We should probably look at the inputs. Thus far, I've not seen decent, accessible figures for where the increased demand is coming from (handwaving about 'an aging population is not terribly useful). Any pointers welcome.
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
I would apply NI on all income to the end of life, which is when people are using the NHS most. I am not sure how much that would raise, but it should be meaningful.
The biggest thing is keeping immigration rates up, so you have a higher proportion of taxpayers to health consumers. This doesn't solve the problem you mentioned but it does stop it getting sharply worse.
How would you get that through politically. The dementia tax was a modest change of policy and was trashed. The abolition of the triple lock and the means testing of WFA was sabotaged by labour.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
Spot on and a few of us have been saying this for a while
I'll also remind everyone that our national debt has increased by £62 billion over the last twelve months, our deficit is forecast to be £49.9 billion and December borrowing was 'only' £2.5billion. Our public purse is really, really fucked up.
And the tories still think economic competence is the power up that's going to win them the next GE.
differential economic competence.
That'll look good on a poster.
Actually, it would.
Corbyn celebrating with his Union mates, Hammond with his budget box.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
Spot on and a few of us have been saying this for a while
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
Spot on and a few of us have been saying this for a while
Problem is the NHS itself is extremely resistant to change, anything the Tories do will be imeediately countered with 'privatisation!!!!' and Labour are in with the unions too much to do anything other than throw cash it.
the NHS is a Religion thing is often a millstone around it's neck as well.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
Additionally, it also looks to me as if the economy has been picking up in the second half. The momentum going into 2018 might see growth go over 2% this year. We've hit a nice little spot in terms of sterling, still weak against the Euro but stronger against USD. It allows our companies to compete for contracts internationally with EU companies but eases the price pressure on dollar priced commodities.
If we can stay in the €1.10-15 range and $1.40 range it will be very good for export growth.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
Spot on and a few of us have been saying this for a while
It's a view that crosses Party lines, Big G.
It's been said by 90 MPs including Wollaston, Lamb and Kendall. They've been politely dismissed by the govt.
Other ex-MPs who know a lot about health would almost certainly agree with the above letter, including Stephen Dorrell and David Owen.
Lansley of all people has agreed that it needs an extra £30M/y. He changed his tune as soon as he
a) left govt b) needed major attention from the NHS.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Which, by the way, is slightly more than £100m a week.
Boris is talking about after we leave though (not now)
I know. If he gets another £100m at that point the additional £350m will probably have been delivered from the time of the referendum. Not much to do with Brexit of course but not bad for Boris either. He's undisciplined, untrustworthy, more than a little chaotic and prone to idiotic mistakes but he has more political nous than the rest of the Cabinet put together. Not that that is saying a lot.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
Much as I hate to disagree with you David, we're essentially borrowing our (say) defence budget and patting ourselves on the back while we're doing it. Ten years after the crash and our public finances are still wrecked.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
It's not that perplexing, the ONS are just useless.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
Much as I hate to disagree with you David, we're essentially borrowing our (say) defence budget and patting ourselves on the back while we're doing it. Ten years after the crash and our public finances are still wrecked.
Oh I agree that this is only relatively good, not great. By this time in the cycle we should be paying down debt, not adding to it. But the fear and expectation was that with the economy slowing down a bit and the uncertainties of Brexit the deficit would start to creep up again. That is not happening. It is still coming down and by reasonably large chunks. This is very encouraging.
The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
You keep saying this and a few of us keep pointing out to you that NI raises just over half that which is spent on the state pension, contributory JSA and the NHS etc. Hypothecation would cut spending dramatically not increase it.
No it wouldn't as income tax would remain the primary funder of the NHS and social care (with residential social care already paid for by the sale of the family home and other assets down to £23k too) higher National Insurance would just pay for any increases in the NHS and social care budget
No it wouldn't pay for anything extra as every single penny of it is already being spent on those areas. Hypothecation would achieve absolutely nothing.
I was talking about an increase in National Insurance being used to pay for an increase in NHS and social care funding, which yougov shows more than 50% of voters support
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
It's not that perplexing, the ONS are just useless.
They really should appreciate the damage this can do. If I don't win my bet with RCS our balance of payments will deteriorate by another £50!
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Cameron was a proven winner too, until he wasn't. Perhaps Boris is just a more reckless version of Cameron, minus the competence.
Mr. Gin, that's true. But Remainers will hate him more than anyone else, and Leavers will not correspondingly be right behind him. He'd lose more than he'd win.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
Much as I hate to disagree with you David, we're essentially borrowing our (say) defence budget and patting ourselves on the back while we're doing it. Ten years after the crash and our public finances are still wrecked.
The fiscal consolidation has been slower than I'd like, but it is at at least still happening. From 12% down to 2% in 9 years. It's a reasonable rate of reduction.
Also the net debt is falling, Phil Hammond decided to make a rod for his own back by including BoE debt in the headline figure. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Is it really debt if no net interest is paid?
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Cameron was a proven winner too, until he wasn't. Perhaps Boris is just a more reckless version of Cameron, minus the competence.
I always had my doubts about Cameron. He blew it against El Gord and whilst he did scrape a majority in 2015 that was a lot to do with Farage eating into Labour's vote in the Midlands and North.
What I will say about Cameron is that he was very lucky... Until he wasn't.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Cameron was a proven winner too, until he wasn't. Perhaps Boris is just a more reckless version of Cameron, minus the competence.
And Boris only won a second term because he was up against a tired and over-the-hill Livingstone. It was the only time I have ever given a second preference to a Tory.
Well in some kind of good news the government is borrowing a whole lot less. Annual borrowing could come in as low as £38bn for 17/18. Also, on the true measure of net debt there will be a 3-4 point drop from last year.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
The borrowing figures are really surprisingly good, as they were last year. I am perplexed that the additional revenues being generated are not showing more clearly in the GDP numbers. The target of a balanced budget is not that far away at the current rate of progress, which is a surprise. It gives Hammond some room for manoeuvre if he needs it.
It's not that perplexing, the ONS are just useless.
They really should appreciate the damage this can do. If I don't win my bet with RCS our balance of payments will deteriorate by another £50!
Lol. Someone at work asked me why the UK statistics body was continuously adjusting for mistakes and errors when most others don't need to. I asked him, if you were one of the world's top statisticians, would you want to go and live in Newport?
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Very true , he can change the consensus .He is a very dangerous opponent to any Labour politician ,which ever part of the party they come from.The conservatives would be mad to dismiss his leadership potential out of hand.
I know there are always divisions in parties, but this seems an order of magnitude worse than anything else I can remember.
Boris has deduced - probably correctly - that if he doesn't move against May now, he won't see another chance. The ambitious up-and-coming junior ministers mean that his window of opportunity to fulfil his ambition (the position of world king being unavailable) is fast closing for him.
Oh I agree that this is only relatively good, not great. By this time in the cycle we should be paying down debt, not adding to it. But the fear and expectation was that with the economy slowing down a bit and the uncertainties of Brexit the deficit would start to creep up again. That is not happening. It is still coming down and by reasonably large chunks. This is very encouraging.
Unfortunately we're also hearing the siren calls from the usual suspects that the Chancellor has "room for manoeuvre" which translates as "please cut my taxes". I'd much prefer Hammond to rule out tax cuts and insist the deficit is turned into a surplus and we start making inroads into reducing the debt interest (which we have to pay each year as an item of public expenditure and stops us spending on other things).
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Yes, that was during the day or so of the Boris-Gove dream ticket. Soames, Boles and Vaizey were allies of Gove. I am relying on the Shipman book here.
I know there are always divisions in parties, but this seems an order of magnitude worse than anything else I can remember.
Boris has deduced - probably correctly - that if he doesn't move against May now, he won't see another chance. The ambitious up-and-coming junior ministers mean that his window of opportunity to fulfil his ambition (the position of world king being unavailable) is fast closing for him.
Yes, Boris must be going for the kill shortly. He's been playing a blinder though: first as king of infrastructure with the Boris Bridge; now as the saviour of the NHS. Theresa just looks like a cuckoo in his rightful nest.
Oh I agree that this is only relatively good, not great. By this time in the cycle we should be paying down debt, not adding to it. But the fear and expectation was that with the economy slowing down a bit and the uncertainties of Brexit the deficit would start to creep up again. That is not happening. It is still coming down and by reasonably large chunks. This is very encouraging.
Unfortunately we're also hearing the siren calls from the usual suspects that the Chancellor has "room for manoeuvre" which translates as "please cut my taxes". I'd much prefer Hammond to rule out tax cuts and insist the deficit is turned into a surplus and we start making inroads into reducing the debt interest (which we have to pay each year as an item of public expenditure and stops us spending on other things).
I'm a bit more pragmatic. If the rate of progress is slower than optimal but that keeps McDonnell out of Number 11 that looks a very good trade to me. Like Osborne Hammond needs to work in the real world, not an economics classroom.
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Yes, that was during the day or so of the Boris-Gove dream ticket. Soames, Boles and Vaizey were allies of Gove. I am relying on the Shipman book here.
Just imagine how different the government would have been if Boris and Gove had held it together...
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
I know there are always divisions in parties, but this seems an order of magnitude worse than anything else I can remember.
Boris has deduced - probably correctly - that if he doesn't move against May now, he won't see another chance. The ambitious up-and-coming junior ministers mean that his window of opportunity to fulfil his ambition (the position of world king being unavailable) is fast closing for him.
Yes, Boris must be going for the kill shortly. He's been playing a blinder though: first as king of infrastructure with the Boris Bridge; now as the saviour of the NHS. Theresa just looks like a cuckoo in his rightful nest.
The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.
I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
What might happen? Events, dear boy!
Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash
Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
Income tax or National Insurance or both
And who is going to put the equivalent of 5p on basic tax.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
We need a complete revamp of the NHS from Primary care through to end of life. A lot of pressure on A&E and hospitals is people turning up because they can't see a GP and bed blocking because there's no social care provision. We needto look atthe wholeof this, not just parts.
While that might be true, it still means more spending. Social care provision which currently isn't there won't be cheap.
I know there are always divisions in parties, but this seems an order of magnitude worse than anything else I can remember.
Boris has deduced - probably correctly - that if he doesn't move against May now, he won't see another chance. The ambitious up-and-coming junior ministers mean that his window of opportunity to fulfil his ambition (the position of world king being unavailable) is fast closing for him.
Yes, Boris must be going for the kill shortly. He's been playing a blinder though: first as king of infrastructure with the Boris Bridge; now as the saviour of the NHS. Theresa just looks like a cuckoo in his rightful nest.
"king of infrastructure" ? The bridge, like his other silly schemes is an absurd piece of grandstanding.
Where's the sense in replacing one PM with poor judgment with one who is even worse ?
Oh I agree that this is only relatively good, not great. By this time in the cycle we should be paying down debt, not adding to it. But the fear and expectation was that with the economy slowing down a bit and the uncertainties of Brexit the deficit would start to creep up again. That is not happening. It is still coming down and by reasonably large chunks. This is very encouraging.
Unfortunately we're also hearing the siren calls from the usual suspects that the Chancellor has "room for manoeuvre" which translates as "please cut my taxes". I'd much prefer Hammond to rule out tax cuts and insist the deficit is turned into a surplus and we start making inroads into reducing the debt interest (which we have to pay each year as an item of public expenditure and stops us spending on other things).
We're going to pay £43 billion to service our debt this year. If we didn't have that albatross round our neck, we could have the best funded (as a proportion of GDP) health service in the world, bar the USA. Of course, it still wouldn't be enough to stop the sucking maw that is health care, but it would go a long way to shutting Labour up.
I echo some other posters today; given our deficit is still more than £30 billion p.a., what taxes are going to be raised in order to fund the NHS (in our time honoured tradition of just throwing money at the problem)?
Unusually, I also agree with Soubry. Johnson should be sacked.
If i could choose: Land value tax, introduce overall limit for ISA at say 100k, slash pensions tax relief, raise corporation tax as Labour planned if not more, raise capital gains tax. Obviously clamp down more on tax avoidance which should be a no brainier for all parties. Internationally throw full weight behind going after tax havens including the British ones.
The issue with your idea is corporation tax raises around £47 billion p.a. It's a relative tiddler, accounting for about 6% of government revenue.
I have no idea how an LVT would work. While I see some utility in it, it would be quite difficult politically, don't you think?
It's unpalatable, but in my view we're going to have to raise general taxation in some fashion, permed from income tax, NI or VAT. I do like the idea of taxing middle and high income pensioners more (and I say that as one of them!).
It needs to be done in stages. Firstly, better than taxing people a big lump of money every time they move house, in the form of stamp duty, is to abolish stamp duty and levy the same average annual amount as a tax on property (ideally land value, as the OP says, to disincentivise under-utilisation whilst not discouraging property improvement). The spin-off benefit is less disincentive to move house and thus greater labour mobility, greater willingness of older people to downsize, etc. Second, rather than fund local government through council tax, abolish council tax and raise the same amount by allowing councils to levy a local rate of land value tax to raise the same funds. Third, consider ways to gradually reduce the tax burden on income and spending, allowing the land value tax to pick up the difference.
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Yes, that was during the day or so of the Boris-Gove dream ticket. Soames, Boles and Vaizey were allies of Gove. I am relying on the Shipman book here.
Just imagine how different the government would have been if Boris and Gove had held it together...
Probably Boris and Gove would have won a big majority then imported Dominic Cummings into Number 10 to insult the entire home civil service and Brussels bureaucrats to boot, and they'd wonder why nothing got done. (According to Shippers, that was roughly the Gove/Cummings plan in a nutshell.)
ETA: as in Trump's America, the fireworks would make for good sport and betting opportunities.
Fake news! Fake news from the Times. Boles, Vaizey and Soames were in the Gove not Boris camps. So what is the Kremlinology now? Friends of Gove urge Boris onto the high wire? Cui bono from Boris falling?
Yes, that was during the day or so of the Boris-Gove dream ticket. Soames, Boles and Vaizey were allies of Gove. I am relying on the Shipman book here.
To be fair right now, Boris with Gove as CoE looks like a better bet than May with Hammond.
They would at least get some wins and do some stuff and stick it to labour.
Oh I agree that this is only relatively good, not great. By this time in the cycle we should be paying down debt, not adding to it. But the fear and expectation was that with the economy slowing down a bit and the uncertainties of Brexit the deficit would start to creep up again. That is not happening. It is still coming down and by reasonably large chunks. This is very encouraging.
Unfortunately we're also hearing the siren calls from the usual suspects that the Chancellor has "room for manoeuvre" which translates as "please cut my taxes". I'd much prefer Hammond to rule out tax cuts and insist the deficit is turned into a surplus and we start making inroads into reducing the debt interest (which we have to pay each year as an item of public expenditure and stops us spending on other things).
We're going to pay £43 billion to service our debt this year. If we didn't have that albatross round our neck, we could have the best funded (as a proportion of GDP) health service in the world, bar the USA. Of course, it still wouldn't be enough to stop the sucking maw that is health care, but it would go a long way to shutting Labour up.
Not sure that is a real figure. About 1/3 of our debt is now owned by the BoE who don't get interest so my guess is the interest actually paid by the government is nearer £30bn. Still a hell of a lot of money of course.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Very true , he can change the consensus .He is a very dangerous opponent to any Labour politician ,which ever part of the party they come from.The conservatives would be mad to dismiss his leadership potential out of hand.
I remain unconvinced that BJ can deliver votes in the North, Scotland, Midlands, Wales and probably London at the moment. Gambler yes, winner no......I dont think the Tory party are in the mood for gambles by PMs at the moment the last 2 gambles (referendum and GE) both backfired spectactularly - I sense they want a proper vision and not an aging bluffer.
Boris is not a team player , but he is a winner.Leadership suits his style, where as May does not do the future vision for the people very well.
Exactly.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
Are you confusing a winner with a gambler?
No he's a proven electoral winner.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Very true , he can change the consensus .He is a very dangerous opponent to any Labour politician ,which ever part of the party they come from.The conservatives would be mad to dismiss his leadership potential out of hand.
Data shows his appeal is regional. The North and Midlands don’t get him. And several key stakeholders despise him
Comments
Ironically Labour have a much better chance of doing that the Tories will.
All I'm saying is that we could add, say, another £20bn to the NHS budget for next year and we'd still have same problems and cries for more cash.
Pence as Republican nominee offers much better odds than Trump not seeking re-election, for example...
We are drunk on overspending.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/october2017provisionalresults
So if two thirds of that instead went to the NHS ...
Though I suspect that if that was done the NHS would claim it was still underfunded and needed yet another 20% increase in its money.
The Coalition inherited Brown and Labour's public spending disaster but only tackled part of the problem. Had the same rigour gone into reducing all aspects of public spending as went into reducing local Government expenditure the finances would look healthier.
If of course all you judge a country by is its ability to live within its means, fine. There are other measures which perhaps are less quantifiable.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/955736383154524160
LVT I think would need to be accompanied by a reduction in council tax - otherwise i suspect it would be too tough politically. It could however have positive macro economic inpacts if it replaced other more distortionary taxes. I’d prefer to avoid raising income tax - except for the very well off.
I think we should be trying to tax wealth more and income less/the same if possible.
Pension relief is a big target - it doesn’t seem to be an efficient way of getting people to save - and the benefit mainly goes to the well off.
I don’t see any chance of the Tories doing any of these things though. Labour would do some I reckon.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/955736383154524160
Big chunk went in wages and employee comp and another chunk in PFI spend.
Neither have a direct impact on health outcomes
As the population ages - just to stand still we need to spend much more on health and social care.
The biggest thing is keeping immigration rates up, so you have a higher proportion of taxpayers to health consumers. This doesn't solve the problem you mentioned but it does stop it getting sharply worse.
A 1.8% increase in nurse numbers and a 64% increase in patients seen. Doesnt take a brain Surgeon to work out whats wromg does it
Health Education England has estimated a shortfall in nursing staff of 11.4 per cent by 2020.
Frankly it was madness for the Con 2017 manifesto not to mention the money they'd spend on the NHS after we leave... If they'd wrapped themselves up in the NHS flag instead of threatening their core voters, Theresa and Timothy would've won the general election handsomely.
It needs a whole new innovative process which is currently beyond the weaponising of the NHS
It makes one feel unclean.
I'm up to date with the health numbers. You highlight the issue yourself; the demand on the NHS is going up far faster than its capacity.
To reiterate, even if we matched the highest ratio of health spending in the developed world, that allows around £25 billion p.a. additional funding. That would increase the overall NHS budget by ~17%, which would meet increasing demand for about four years. Any further increase would have to broadly match UK economic growth which has a trend rate of ~2.2%.
Something will have to give. We should probably look at the inputs. Thus far, I've not seen decent, accessible figures for where the increased demand is coming from (handwaving about 'an aging population is not terribly useful). Any pointers welcome.
It is just not politically feasable
Corbyn celebrating with his Union mates, Hammond with his budget box.
Getting to the point, the UK economy looks like it held up well over 2017, I'd guess GDP growth of between 1.8-2.1% once all the revisions are in. We'll be at the top end of the international pile and the IMF will, again, be left looking like chumps.
He can’t make UKIP politically viable, but it might be able to make it more governable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42783246
the NHS is a Religion thing is often a millstone around it's neck as well.
What we're seeing here is the difference between a politician who is a winner (and knows how to win) in Boris and politicians who are basically losers (Theresa and Nick Timothy)
If we can stay in the €1.10-15 range and $1.40 range it will be very good for export growth.
Other ex-MPs who know a lot about health would almost certainly agree with the above letter, including Stephen Dorrell and David Owen.
Lansley of all people has agreed that it needs an extra £30M/y. He changed his tune as soon as he
a) left govt
b) needed major attention from the NHS.
Much as I hate to disagree with you David, we're essentially borrowing our (say) defence budget and patting ourselves on the back while we're doing it. Ten years after the crash and our public finances are still wrecked.
He won't two terms as Mayor (in Labour London) and was on the winning side of the referendum.
Also the net debt is falling, Phil Hammond decided to make a rod for his own back by including BoE debt in the headline figure. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Is it really debt if no net interest is paid?
What I will say about Cameron is that he was very lucky... Until he wasn't.
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/747796354878050304
Social care provision which currently isn't there won't be cheap.
The bridge, like his other silly schemes is an absurd piece of grandstanding.
Where's the sense in replacing one PM with poor judgment with one who is even worse ?
ETA: as in Trump's America, the fireworks would make for good sport and betting opportunities.
They would at least get some wins and do some stuff and stick it to labour.
új téma