Norfolk born James Dyson, a generous man

[Big Vince 318]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:32, essex canary said:

Keith Joseph seems to have made some good contributions to politics (Health and Housing) in the immediate postwar period when they believed in Keynesian economics. Then he became a moneratist advocate with failed ideas like tuition fees and privatisation. In fairness to him he appeared quite self critical which is hardly the case with many of the current mob.

I would argue that monetarism has been a storming success. Using interest rates as the primary weapon to defeat inflation is now the standard, default position and was just the thing to address the economic ills of the 1980s.

What we should be more concerned about is the fiscal side of the economy where in the current year we are spending a horrific £510.5bn on health and welfare. About 25% of GDP. Sweeping reforms are required now in order to prevent future generations being consumed by overwhelming government debt.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Big Vince

[BigFish 1,988]

13 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

I would argue that monetarism has been a storming success. Using interest rates as the primary weapon to defeat inflation is now the standard, default position and was just the thing to address the economic ills of the 1980s.

What we should be more concerned about is the fiscal side of the economy where in the current year we are spending a horrific £510.5bn on health and welfare. About 25% of GDP. Sweeping reforms are required now in order to prevent future generations being consumed by overwhelming government debt.

You would argue that, and the evidence would point out to you that you are completely wrong. The Gap between the very rich and the rest of us has widened, taxes have risen, growth has stagnated, wages haven't risen in real terms for nearly two decades and the public realm is in tatters. It clear to anyone that looks that freeing the market did not improve the country, just a few bank balances.

[DraytonBoy 159]

9 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

What we should be more concerned about is the fiscal side of the economy where in the current year we are spending a horrific £510.5bn on health and welfare.

A major issue for me is that the money is primarily spent on cure and not prevention. Having one of the unhealthiest populations in Europe is a huge drain on government budgets so if more money was used to educate people to lead healthier lives then in a very short space of time we should see a reduction in obesity rates which are costing the country billions, current estimates show that nearly 65% of all adults are either obese or overweight which is crazy.

[duke63 543]

36 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

A major issue for me is that the money is primarily spent on cure and not prevention. Having one of the unhealthiest populations in Europe is a huge drain on government budgets so if more money was used to educate people to lead healthier lives then in a very short space of time we should see a reduction in obesity rates which are costing the country billions, current estimates show that nearly 65% of all adults are either obese or overweight which is crazy.

To do that you would need to have a complete revamp of the way we produce and market food.

Most people will do what they like rather than what they should.

It seems nearly every other advert on TV is for fast food and restricting or banning that would need to be the first port of call.

 

And as much as it pains me to say so, the way healthcare is provided and processed would also need a massive reset. Its obvious to anyone that a completely free healthcare service at point of service is no longer viable.

[DraytonBoy 159]

I didn't say it would be easy but things have got to change.

As for the free healthcare comment I totally agree, having spent nearly 20 years in France until the summer we simply accepted paying for health insurance knowing that in return there would be no wait time to see a GP or have an operation. However, just like the need to change people's eating habits there would have to an acknowledgement that completely free treatment from the NHS can't continue.    

[duke63 543]

46 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

I didn't say it would be easy but things have got to change.

As for the free healthcare comment I totally agree, having spent nearly 20 years in France until the summer we simply accepted paying for health insurance knowing that in return there would be no wait time to see a GP or have an operation. However, just like the need to change people's eating habits there would have to an acknowledgement that completely free treatment from the NHS can't continue.    

French healthcare system is very good. 

[Big Vince 318]

4 hours ago, duke63 said:

To do that you would need to have a complete revamp of the way we produce and market food.

Most people will do what they like rather than what they should.

It seems nearly every other advert on TV is for fast food and restricting or banning that would need to be the first port of call.

 

And as much as it pains me to say so, the way healthcare is provided and processed would also need a massive reset. Its obvious to anyone that a completely free healthcare service at point of service is no longer viable.

Agreed. Music to my ears.

[Big Vince 318]

2 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

I didn't say it would be easy but things have got to change.

As for the free healthcare comment I totally agree, having spent nearly 20 years in France until the summer we simply accepted paying for health insurance knowing that in return there would be no wait time to see a GP or have an operation. However, just like the need to change people's eating habits there would have to an acknowledgement that completely free treatment from the NHS can't continue.    

Agreed. Music to my ears 

[MORDENCANARY 71]

On 18/11/2023 at 09:49, Mello Yello said:

He'd only hoover up all the shares and leave us in a vacuum.....

Which will fall apart after a few months use.

[Big Vince 318]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

French healthcare system is very good. 

Get what you pay for. Pay and you get a service. Don't pay and you get no service and therefore die whilst waiting to be served, or if you're lucky, make it onto a trolley in a corridor, but still waiting to be served.

Where is the dignity? Are we humans or animals?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Big Vince

[Big Vince 318]

5 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

A major issue for me is that the money is primarily spent on cure and not prevention. Having one of the unhealthiest populations in Europe is a huge drain on government budgets so if more money was used to educate people to lead healthier lives then in a very short space of time we should see a reduction in obesity rates which are costing the country billions, current estimates show that nearly 65% of all adults are either obese or overweight which is crazy.

Anyone who's overweight, even by a fractional margin, should pay for healthcare at the point of delivery otherwise they are just taking the michaels. The country will run out of money and fat people will be high on the list of culprits.

[Big Vince 318]

5 hours ago, BigFish said:

You would argue that, and the evidence would point out to you that you are completely wrong. The Gap between the very rich and the rest of us has widened, taxes have risen, growth has stagnated, wages haven't risen in real terms for nearly two decades and the public realm is in tatters. It clear to anyone that looks that freeing the market did not improve the country, just a few bank balances.

But increasing interest rates does bring down inflation. That has been accepted by politicians, economists and the BoE since the 1980s. Both the rich and the poor are worse off with rampant inflation, the poor more so. Taxes have risen because the UK public want more spending on health and welfare and when you have a high tax burden it depresses economic activity and growth stagnates. The public sector is in tatters because it is a bottomless money pit and no politician has had the balls to make the sweeping reforms that are required. People should have to pay for healthcare and pay into their own pension scheme. The state and the individual need to be decoupled as a matter of economic emergency.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

2 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

I didn't say it would be easy but things have got to change.

As for the free healthcare comment I totally agree, having spent nearly 20 years in France until the summer we simply accepted paying for health insurance knowing that in return there would be no wait time to see a GP or have an operation. However, just like the need to change people's eating habits there would have to an acknowledgement that completely free treatment from the NHS can't continue.    

Talking to friends in France (unless they don't live in a typical area) my impression was that it wasn't having private insurance that got quick appointments, or at least not to see a GP. Seemingly the number of doctors is such that even without insurance you can see a GP within a very few days. What the insurance did, depending on the level of coverage, was to pay for the point-of-delivery charges there are, up to 100 per cent.

[BigFish 1,988]

6 hours ago, Big Vince said:

I would argue that monetarism has been a storming success.

 

23 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

But increasing interest rates does bring down inflation. That has been accepted by politicians, economists and the BoE since the 1980s. Both the rich and the poor are worse off with rampant inflation, the poor more so. Taxes have risen because the UK public want more spending on health and welfare and when you have a high tax burden it depresses economic activity and growth stagnates. The public sector is in tatters because it is a bottomless money pit and no politician has had the balls to make the sweeping reforms that are required. People should have to pay for healthcare and pay into their own pension scheme. The state and the individual need to be decoupled as a matter of economic emergency.

You obviously don't understand what monetarism is, because this second post has nothing to do with monetarism.

 

[Big Vince 318]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

 

You obviously don't understand what monetarism is, because this second post has nothing to do with monetarism.

 

The two go together. Controlling the money supply and then fiscal policy.

[BigFish 1,988]

6 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

The two go together. Controlling the money supply and then fiscal policy.

Face it, neo-liberalism failed because if individuals make decisions in their own interest often that has a negative impact on a larger number of people. We are often stronger together and collective decisions tend to benefit the majority rather than a minority. That is why countries with higher levels of taxation have better standards of living (and are more productive). France for example, their healthcare is better because they pay more. Simple.

[DraytonBoy 159]

25 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Talking to friends in France (unless they don't live in a typical area) my impression was that it wasn't having private insurance that got quick appointments, or at least not to see a GP. Seemingly the number of doctors is such that even without insurance you can see a GP within a very few days. What the insurance did, depending on the level of coverage, was to pay for the point-of-delivery charges there are, up to 100 per cent.

With the general public making a significant financial contribution to the health budget via the private health insurance schemes the country can afford to employ way more healthcare staff than the UK which translates to shorter wait times for all manner of appointments. 

 

[duke63 543]

I believe though even the French system is starting to feel the strain on an ageing population and younger people not wanting to go in to medicine. 
 

The way we live is not sustainable and we do have to face up to that fact. Endless consumption and consumerism is just not possible. Resources of any kind are not limitless in their supply. 

[DraytonBoy 159]

25 minutes ago, duke63 said:

I believe though even the French system is starting to feel the strain on an ageing population and younger people not wanting to go in to medicine. 

That is correct, in rural areas especially there are shortages of doctors and dentists, GP's are paid roughly 30% less than their UK counterparts. 

[essex canary 497]

The Tory MP on Question Time last week was challenged by a member of the audience about living in a £10 million house. He claimed to be a self made man without being clear how. Probably not as a brain surgeon at least in one sense. These are the kind of people who will cast aspersions about train drivers earning £60,000 per year.

[DraytonBoy 159]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He claimed to be a self made man without being clear how.

Sale of Sky shares when they got bought out in 2018, he was their Chief Operating Officer at the time. 

[Naturalcynic 641]

26 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Tory MP on Question Time last week was challenged by a member of the audience about living in a £10 million house. He claimed to be a self made man without being clear how. Probably not as a brain surgeon at least in one sense. These are the kind of people who will cast aspersions about train drivers earning £60,000 per year.

I’m not overly thrilled about train drivers earning £60k a year either, and I’m not a Tory MP and don’t own a £10 million house.

[Herman 9,793]

15 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I’m not overly thrilled about train drivers earning £60k a year either, and I’m not a Tory MP and don’t own a £10 million house.

Yeah, down with the working man earning a good wage.

[Naturalcynic 641]

9 minutes ago, Herman said:

Yeah, down with the working man earning a good wage.

By definition most of us are working men or women, including me, you and Tory MPs, but the question is whether train drivers warrant a salary double that of nurses, teachers, junior doctors etc.

[essex canary 497]

27 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I’m not overly thrilled about train drivers earning £60k a year either, and I’m not a Tory MP and don’t own a £10 million house.

What do you think is a fair wage then for what is still to a modest extent a skilled job where you could be exposed to the horror of someone committing suicide by throwing themselves in front of you and where you doubtless have to tolerate other inconveniences that disrupt the daily schedule such as signal failures, people rushing doors in stations etc?

[Herman 9,793]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

By definition most of us are working men or women, including me, you and Tory MPs, but the question is whether train drivers warrant a salary double that of nurses, teachers, junior doctors etc.

I think it is unfair their wages are so low. Bring up their wages rather than lowering train drivers.

[essex canary 497]

3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

By definition most of us are working men or women, including me, you and Tory MPs, but the question is whether train drivers warrant a salary double that of nurses, teachers, junior doctors etc.

A fair point but just reflects the fact that salaries linked to the public purse and many in catering and hospitality trades etc are vastly out of sync with some of the highest rewarded jobs.

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

On 24/11/2023 at 00:54, littleyellowbirdie said:

What winds most people up is clearly being told they have to accept illegal immigration because of a tangle of international laws that would never have been adopted in the first place if people had realised the consequences. That's the biggest single reason the left is so resented: For repeatedly appearing to put the rest of the world's problems first and doggedly defending the status quo as unalterable.

Keir Starmer gets that, which is why he's holding back on international issues and focusing on a domestic agenda.

I don’t feel it’s a left v right thing. It’s more about an understanding of what is law and what isn’t. Most socialist or communist countries which would be to the far left of the political spectrum would be considered nationalist in their ideals such as Russia or China. 
 

illegal immigration does not exist. It’s a fictional line created by the media. International law which the UK was a main contributor too with Churchill after the Second World War, states that any person has the right to seek refuge in a country to avoid persecution. The aim of which is to try and avoid another genocide. More correct terms for what I believe you are talking about would be undocumented migrants or asylum seeker. Estimates are there are less than 1’000’000 undocumented migrants in the uk. So As a % of population it’s it’s low single digits. Certainly not enough to have any meaningful impact on government finances on a major level, for sure large sums of money but small by large scale economic figures. Throwing away money on vanity projects like HS2 is far more damaging to the tax payer than what the cost of sorting these people out should be. 
 

Please Note sorting these people out doesn’t mean all of them should have a right to stay here. I feel if they were being sent to a respectable country rather than Rwanda it would be much less of an issue. Obviously everyone remembers the terrible genocide that happened there not that long ago I certainly wouldn’t like to be told to move there. 
 

Another point would be that when the conservative government realised they would be struggling at the next election they made the political decision to shut the asylum application office in Calais forcing people to have to try to enter the country to seek asylum. Hence why you never heard about the small boats thing until about 18-24 months ago. When people had a safe route to seek refuge and documentation to come here from the continent they did. Only the withdrawal of that as a political ploy has lead to the boats so many people are rabidly against. 
 

We as a country have been able to control immigration since the EU withdrawal was finalised and immigration figures are still on the rise. All measurable metrics however show that economic migrants such as ones with visas or previously from the EU provide a net gain to the economy. 8% of the NHS staff are from EU countries while only 5% of the population are. They will now need replacing as they as slowly lost from service. This is part of the contributing factors to increase in migration figures with Drs, Dentists and nurses coming from poorer countries. 
 

I feel Starmer is simply keeping his cards close to his chest and trying not to mess up winning the next election. I’m not really sure many people would know what he stands for at the moment. I know I can’t name any of his policy pledges for next years election. For my mind they are all as bad as each other now on any side. 
 

I hope that maybe provided some more nuance to this debate. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,030]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

I’m not overly thrilled about train drivers earning £60k a year either, and I’m not a Tory MP and don’t own a £10 million house.

Not all drivers earn that. Drivers wages are dependent on so many variants such as age, experience, years of service with a particular train operating company, whether they are passenger or freight drivers, whether they are mainline drivers, whether they are qualified high speed drivers etc. There is also an element of supply and demand, experienced high speed, mainline drivers are in short supply and it is them that earn the highest wages,  and it is those wages that get bandied around. The company that operates high speed, mainline trains out of Kings Cross were paying managers (a lot of them are former drivers) £500 per day to drive during strike days............

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

59 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

By definition most of us are working men or women, including me, you and Tory MPs, but the question is whether train drivers warrant a salary double that of nurses, teachers, junior doctors etc.

Let me put it to you like this. a teacher has a bad lesson no one dies, A nurse or dr has a bad diagnosis maybe one person dies as a result. If a train driver has a bad day at work you’ll have hundreds of dead people. Yes they may be less qualified than a dr but they also have a lot more proportional responsibility while they do their day to day job. In my view the greater the inherent risk and the larger the responsibility the greater the pay should be as compensation for the burden of that risk. 
 

I also find it strange that people take the option that others a paid too much rather than the lower ones not being paid enough. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by By Hook or Ian crook