Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!
The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
George Osborne? Although he only added £600bn to the national debt during his time as Chancellor. This is more debt than every Chancellor added before 1997 combined in the nation's entire history!
No fan of Osborne, but a bit unreasonable to not take into account either the starting deficit or inflation when comparing him to others.
Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
Decriminalised, taxed and produced to consumer standards with responsible companies you can sue if it isn't. It really is a no brainer. Taxed at the same level as cigarettes it might even pay for half the NHS increase!
Not sure all the increase in mental health problems caused by cannabis are going to help though.
I have a question...is there any hard medical evidence / trials that this stuff works. I know in the US there is a big debate for lots of the claims of things like CBD oil, but because cannabis is still illegal at the federal level it is very difficult to do any medical trials.
What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
It's explicitly Trumpian.
Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.
I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS
And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
Agreed.
The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.
Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
With a 0.25% cut in interest rates? That offset an immediate recession? I think Carney is good but he is not that good.
Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.
It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.
I have a question...is there any hard medical evidence / trials that this stuff works. I know in the US there is a big debate for lots of the claims of things like CBD oil, but because cannabis is still illegal at the federal level it is very difficult to do any medical trials.
I think that depends what you mean by works.
According to the press, in this case, no seizures for 18 months while taking it.
5 seizures in a week without.
That seems like a convincing result. Whether it is reproducible is not clear.
What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
It's explicitly Trumpian.
Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.
I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS
And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
Agreed.
The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.
Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
Surely a minor cut in interest rates would have been priced in to the predictions.
We've been over this also before.
The central forecast by the treasury, which was in fact produced by NIESR was a conditional model which asked the question in/out, and did not incorporate BoE action after the vote.
I have a question...is there any hard medical evidence / trials that this stuff works. I know in the US there is a big debate for lots of the claims of things like CBD oil, but because cannabis is still illegal at the federal level it is very difficult to do any medical trials.
I think that depends what you mean by works.
According to the press, in this case, no seizures for 18 months while taking it.
5 seizures in a week without.
That seems like a convincing result. Whether it is reproducible is not clear.
That isn't evidence, just like there are people who have positive results from bullshit like homeopathy. I don't like policy been made purely on the basis of tugging heart strings.
I wonder about BBC / ITV when they decide to hire some of these former pros for the WC coverage. Do they do any screen-tests with them? Because my neighbours kids are more informative about the game than Patrice Evra.
Pretty much no.
It is what sets Sky's sport coverage above the rest. Not just the footy, but pretty much all sports they on the whole get former pros that are able to disseminate insights into the professional game *. The golf when they have Butch Harmon is just fantastic, it is a window into the mind of the world top golf coach / all those players under this wings.
* Cricket is where they need a cull. Too many are now out of touch with what teams are trying to do in things like T20, which they never played.
Funnily enough, I'd say football is where Sky don't cover themselves in glory. Aside from Neville (and Carragher when available!), I'm not a huge fan of their other pundits. Thierry Henry, for example, is a complete waste of space.
I wonder about BBC / ITV when they decide to hire some of these former pros for the WC coverage. Do they do any screen-tests with them? Because my neighbours kids are more informative about the game than Patrice Evra.
Pretty much no.
It is what sets Sky's sport coverage above the rest. Not just the footy, but pretty much all sports they on the whole get former pros that are able to disseminate insights into the professional game *. The golf when they have Butch Harmon is just fantastic, it is a window into the mind of the world top golf coach / all those players under this wings.
* Cricket is where they need a cull. Too many are now out of touch with what teams are trying to do in things like T20, which they never played.
Funnily enough, I'd say football is where Sky don't cover themselves in glory. Aside from Neville (and Carragher when available!), I'm not a huge fan of their other pundits. Thierry Henry, for example, is a complete waste of space.
Well I would cull a few of those too....but Neville / Carragher have raised the bar for what football analysis should be.
We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.
There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).
Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
We don't know
We currently in a Schrodinger's Cat Brexit; leaving aside other economic impacts (cyclic or Brexit-related), it is impossible to say how much (if anything) will be 'saved' by Brexit. I hope it's a lot.
But the really honest answer is to say that it's f'all to do with Brexit, and that an increase in taxation will cover NHS changes now, and that they *hope* savings from Brexit will allow more spending.
The funny thing is I can imagine what you and others would be saying if Labour had said something like this.
Look, for avoidance of doubt, I hope Brexit is a success. I keep on swinging between optimism and despair over it, and I feel that if it is a success it will be in spite of, rather than because of, the government's skill. But linking this with Brexit is just silly politicing - and might even be harmful.
In fairness that was my original point. That in making this link what might have been a good news story for the government has got bogged down in yet another Brexit row. I think it was a mistake.
Double-blind trials are performed on new drug entities for a very good reason. When n = 1. nothing is convincing. However I believe some trials are being done at the moment.
It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.
She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings
I’m sure in many parts of the EU freedom of movement is very popular.
It is far less so in the UK.
Not everyone's household is a shining example of the benefits of free movement like yours.
If you’re trying to get personal with me, my wife came over to the UK well before Bulgaria joined the EU and had to go through full immigration checks, same as anyone else.
Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician
That's meant to be a compliment is it?
I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.
What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.
Hint: it's the latter.
On current form, we will certainly be paying less to the EU from 2021 than we currently are. The debate seems to be whether or not the fact we’re no longer members will lead our economy to grow slower in the medium-term than it otherwise would have done, such that our membership fees to the EU could have been viewed as an economic investment.
In my view, that’s quite a technocratic argument to make to the electorate and just as important will be spending per head/GDP per head and wage growth per head. Had we Remained immigration levels now would be at all time highs, which would have been another burden on the NHS.
"Had we Remained immigration levels now would be at all time highs"
Citation required.
It’s not possible for me to citate because it’s now an alternate scenario, but net immigration was already hitting record highs before the vote.
I expect Sterling would have surged with a Remain vote, and, with free movement assured for years to come, it would have increased still further.
Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
Decriminalised, taxed and produced to consumer standards with responsible companies you can sue if it isn't. It really is a no brainer. Taxed at the same level as cigarettes it might even pay for half the NHS increase!
Not sure all the increase in mental health problems caused by cannabis are going to help though.
But if it is legalised and regulated then the level of THC can also be controlled in a way that it just isn't at the moment. And, as I have said before, the war on drugs is over. We lost.
What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
It's explicitly Trumpian.
Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.
I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS
And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
Agreed.
The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.
Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
With a 0.25% cut in interest rates? That offset an immediate recession? I think Carney is good but he is not that good.
Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.
It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.
And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.
There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.
It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.
She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings
It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.
She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings
It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.
She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings
We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.
There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).
Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
Norway will be paying 378 million Euros to the EU to access the single market, and accept FoM. Given that the TM seems to think the UK will have almost as much access, the pro rata contribution might be £2.7 billion for the UK - how much of that is in the current assumptions?
I've set you off with the LOL's again haven't you, my apologies.
Yes and I could say Islamophobia, the 50's etc. but I would rather concentrate on the point we are supposed to be debating as opposed to your strange habit of declaring someone wrong and then just wanting to trade insults... almost as if you don't have an argument.
Unsurprisingly this doesn't appeal to you but I don't think men droning on about cultists is really Labour's target market to start with, I imagine you similarly decided you didn't like Labour general election offering.
We extended our offer to other people last time, that is why Labour had a bigger increase than the Tories in terms of votes.
Oh dear, you've got this strange obsession with 'LOL' again. It's quite simple: answer the question.
But I'm guessing you cannot. The question was, for those who are losing the will to live: what evidence do you have that the event was 'actually pretty successful' ? Because it seems all you have is faith that it was.
I've answered it a few times now, the fact you skip over the answer to rant on about cultists is not really something I can do much about, therapy might help though.
Comments
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsanddisorders/cannabismentalhealthkey.aspx
It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.
According to the press, in this case, no seizures for 18 months while taking it.
5 seizures in a week without.
That seems like a convincing result. Whether it is reproducible is not clear.
The central forecast by the treasury, which was in fact produced by NIESR was a conditional model which asked the question in/out, and did not incorporate BoE action after the vote.
Double-blind trials are performed on new drug entities for a very good reason. When n = 1. nothing is convincing. However I believe some trials are being done at the moment.
So jog on, old boy.
I expect Sterling would have surged with a Remain vote, and, with free movement assured for years to come, it would have increased still further.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/merkel-droht-seehofer-in-asylstreit-mit-richtlinienkompetenz-15646276.html
There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.
They think we are fucking morons.
new thread
They should have left it at ‘Brexit Dividend’ and let everyone work themselves up into a lather over it.