My post wasnt about never raising taxes, it was about the vacuous gesture of cutting duty on draught beer by 1p a pint.
You have said elsewhere that they boxed themselves in by saying they wouldn’t raise taxes on working people. Personally I think employee NICs should have gone up, Hunt reducing them was also a con trick.
And, of course, I wouldn’t have been agreeing to the train drivers pay rise with out any modernisation of working practices. Even Andy Burnham can’t believe that Northern rail still use fax machines because the staff won’t agree to us of iPads. (GPs have at times been little better). I wouldn’t be putting £8.3 billion in to Great British Energy either. But you knew that anyway.
I don’t bloody believe it!Yeah I agree. The smart thing would be to go “the Tories didn’t budget for this and we can’t afford it so have to reverse it”
There's a quote in that article which absolutely nails it, “The only way to cut illegal migration is a combination of safe and legal routes and a change in foreign policy”, but that isn't what the electorate want and Starmer seems scared to do it.'Smash the Gangs won't work': Home Office officials doubt Labour small boats plan
Insiders tell of confusion over the Government's 'Border Security Command' and warn people smugglers will just adapt and carry oninews.co.uk
That's piss poor analysis tbh. They've just taken what the extra tax bill will be and divided it by the cost of a GP appointment and decided that many appointments will be cut.National insurance rise gives GPs 'no choice but to cut services and staff'
Analysis by the Liberal Democrats suggests the rise could cost GP surgeries the equivalent of over two million appointments a yearinews.co.uk
Who is breaking the NHS now?
Well, I suppose it was the Liberal Democrats doing the analysisThat's piss poor analysis tbh. They've just taken what the extra tax bill will be and divided it by the cost of a GP appointment and decided that many appointments will be cut.
Far more complex than that. For example despite a huge shortage of GP appointments thats actually an increasing number of GPs out of work because surgeries are replacing GPs with Advanced Nurse Practioners as the previous government decided they were a solution to the appointment shortage and should be subsidised.
As the article points out lots of surgeries are run as small businesses so rather than adding staff and increasing capacity they instead saw it as a means to reduce costs and increase profits.
I heard some Labour minister, can't remember who it was, talking about this. Essentially they looked into it and so much is privatised into a huge number of different companies its basically impossible to implement.Well, I suppose it was the Liberal Democrats doing the analysis.
It does seem bizarre to have “protected” the NHS but not General Practice, Dentistry and Social Care.
(I edited in quite a bit more.)I heard some Labour minister, can't remember who it was, talking about this. Essentially they looked into it and so much is privatised into a huge number of different companies it’s basically impossible to implement.
well no but then you wouldn't be making the same saving and they seem obsessed with 'balancing the books' like they're doing the household accounts.(I edited in quite a bit more.)
Is it that difficult to just increase the value of the GP and dentistry contracts and provide councils with an equivalent level of funding to cover theoretical increased NI costs? Sounds like an excuse to me.
It will backfire badly if even more people inappropriately go to A&E for lack of GP access and at the same time even more people block hospital beds for lack of social care.well no but then you wouldn't be making the same saving and they seem obsessed with 'balancing the books' like they're doing the household accounts.
All of these things were broken long before Labour got near it. This is the culmination of years of Tory govts underfunding with the intention of increasing privatisation in the health service. Do you really think that the system has broken because Labour have been in power a few months and before that it was fine? Of course it wasn't.It will backfire badly if even more people inappropriately go to A&E for lack of GP access and at the same time even more people block hospital beds for lack of social care.
A&E waits will go up, people will stay in trolleys in corridors for hours or days, people will die on those trolleys.
People will die waiting for ambulances to turn up as they are all sat outside those crowded A&E departments unable to transfer patients,
Admissions for surgery will be cancelled because of lack of beds, waiting lists will go up, people on waiting lists will die.
Social care won’t be available for all the working age people referred to in the article I posted above,
A truly broken health and social care system on Labour’s watch. Brilliant.
It is so annoying.There's a quote in that article which absolutely nails it, “The only way to cut illegal migration is a combination of safe and legal routes and a change in foreign policy”, but that isn't what the electorate want and Starmer seems scared to do it.
Now is the time really. He can do it now and then he will have five years of figures to show the difference it has made by the next election. What he's planning is just more of the same which will have very little impact.
I was looking forward given the increase in employers NI costs - which wasn't Tory policy.All of these things were broken long before Labour got near it. This is the culmination of years of Tory govts underfunding with the intention of increasing privatisation in the health service. Do you really think that the system has broken because Labour have been in power a few months and before that it was fine? Of course it wasn't.
What labour are doing is close to previous Tory policy, so why are you complaining now and not over the last 14 years? If you want to say Labour have broken the health service then you have to also say the Tories broke it for the last 14 years.
The core payment for a GP surgery at the basic level per year areThat's piss poor analysis tbh. They've just taken what the extra tax bill will be and divided it by the cost of a GP appointment and decided that many appointments will be cut.
Far more complex than that. For example despite a huge shortage of GP appointments thats actually an increasing number of GPs out of work because surgeries are replacing GPs with Advanced Nurse Practioners as the previous government decided they were a solution to the appointment shortage and should be subsidised.
As the article points out lots of surgeries are run as small businesses so rather than adding staff and increasing capacity they instead saw it as a means to reduce costs and increase profits.
You sound like an NHS finance chap.The core payment for a GP surgery at the basic level per year are
(Weighted list size x £107.57)
On top of that are payments for providing additional / enhanced services, a QOF payment (roughly 15% of core subject to achievement of targets).
They are also bribed with ARRS payments which are what fund the various non GP roles.
The reality is that it's not practices using non GPs to make profit it's that they are made to use those roles to draw down ARRS funding. This is all by design by NHS England and supported by the new SOS.
You sound like an NHS finance chap.
Procurement in the NHS?No, procurement. Though tbh all of this information is easily accessed and in the public domain.
That’s sounds like commissioningProcurement in the NHS?
Do you still spend the last day of the financial year placing elective framework contracts with other Trusts? That's what we had to do when I was there about 25 years ago, then some fekker placed a late one with you and we had to spend all over again to get rid of the cash when the wheels stopped at 5pm, otherwise we were stuck with a reduced budget the following year! One massive game of bluff is pretty much all I remember about that job.
It is so annoying.
If you're going to make changes you believe in, do it now and give yourself 5 years to show they are an improvement.
It seems like they're going down the route of steady the ship and then make the changes, but haven't worked out what they're doing is the same as what hasn't steadied the ship for the last few governments. So the economy and finances will never get to a good enough position for them to put through any policies. Even if they miraculously did they'll not leave enough time for the policies to show an effect.
It's a strategy that is destined to lead them to a massive election loss next GE.
Not really but the same old rush to spend budgets happens throughout the public sector every last quarter of the financial year. It's stupid imo.Procurement in the NHS?
Do you still spend the last day of the financial year placing elective framework contracts with other Trusts? That's what we had to do when I was there about 25 years ago, then some fekker placed a late one with you and we had to spend all over again to get rid of the cash when the wheels stopped at 5pm, otherwise we were stuck with a reduced budget the following year! One massive game of bluff is pretty much all I remember about that job.
Completely. Never understood it. Well I understood in so far as they'd lose budget, but still much better you'd have thought to be rewarded for saving and not penalised.Not really but the same old rush to spend budgets happens throughout the public sector every last quarter of the financial year. It's stupid imo.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Most family farms won't pay anything. The exemption has only existed for 40 years and has led to land banking by the ultra wealthy and no extra production. It doesn't help food prices when these exemptions have seen land values increase by 400%. It's a good policy of Labour and spare the tears of the likes of James Dyson.Growth going well on family farms not - you have to sell some of the business to pay IHT - similar to Cov being told to sell some of the seats in the ground - bunch of twats
Doesn’t effect the company farms but willMost family farms won't pay anything. The exemption has only existed for 40 years and has led to land banking by the ultra wealthy and no extra production. It doesn't help food prices when these exemptions have seen land values increase by 400%. It's a good policy of Labour and spare the tears of the likes of James Dyson.
I genuinely don’t know - has there been austerity politics in the USA?
Nothing short of a scandal, austerity politics must be consigned to history
From a different starting point, USA public spending per head is quite a bit lower as a % of GDP than the UK, the UK itself being quite a bit lower than European peers eg France.I genuinely don’t know - has there been austerity politics in the USA?
Looking at those over around the last ten years, France and Germany seem to be on an upward trajectory?From a different starting point, USA public spending per head is quite a bit lower as a % of GDP than the UK, the UK itself being quite a bit lower than European peers eg France.
What if publicly funded health and social care is taken out?From a different starting point, USA public spending per head is quite a bit lower as a % of GDP than the UK, the UK itself being quite a bit lower than European peers eg France.
Nothing short of a scandal, austerity politics must be consigned to history
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?