General ELection 2017

Do you have difficulty sustaining your election?

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Strawman @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:12 pm

Apparently Arlene Foster is to spend 50% of the £1 billion on burning all copies of Jurassic Park.
User avatar
Strawman
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: insignificant next to the power of the force

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by thekungfury @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:18 pm

Shambolic, but it does make me smile that that billion will be paid by everyone. i.e. Labour voters too.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 35237
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Clown Ice Skater #4 @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:40 pm

Strawman wrote:Apparently Arlene Foster is to spend 50% of the £1 billion on burning all copies of Jurassic Park.


Laugh!
User avatar
Clown Ice Skater #4
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Melos Station

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Turntable @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:14 pm

CJ+ wrote:
desertweasel wrote:So it looks like the DUP deal is done, only cost the taxpayers 1.5 billion that we didn't have yesterday but magically do today.
And just in time for marching season, fancy that

"There is no magic money tree*" - The Tories

*Of course there fcuking is. All that QE came from somewhere. That's because countries with their own currencies and central banks are almost completely unlike J. Random Fcukhead and their credit card.


Whilst your point is still valid, there is a big difference between spending an extra billion and committing to 50 billion p.a. of extra spending with no way of funding it.
User avatar
Turntable
 
Posts: 31551
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 pm
Highscores: 7

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Käsemeister @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:42 pm

And it's 500mpa. A billion over two years.
User avatar
Käsemeister
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation.

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:57 pm

Käsemeister wrote:And it's 500mpa. A billion over two years.


Ah that's alright then!
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Käsemeister @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:05 pm

Alright, maybe not, but as TT says it's not equivalent to 50bnpa.
User avatar
Käsemeister
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation.

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:12 pm

Käsemeister wrote:Alright, maybe not, but as TT says it's not equivalent to 50bnpa.


True but it's amazing how they find this money when they need to for political expediency, but when it's actually necessary, there's no money!
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Greg66 @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:30 pm

Perhaps worth remembering that "they" have also been finding extra money for the NHS every year.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:31 pm

Greg66 wrote:Perhaps worth remembering that "they" have also been finding extra money for the NHS every year.


Except they haven't.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Hooli @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:51 pm

thekungfury wrote:Shambolic, but it does make me smile that that billion will be paid by everyone. i.e. Labour voters too.


Labour voters work?
Hooli
Turtle Rubber
 
Posts: 19568
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: The 1950s

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Greg66 @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:52 pm

Looks to me like those numbers just keep getting bigger.

Image
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Strawman @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:01 pm

But the population has grown over the same period and crucially got older as well, in all metrics the NHS is performing worse, especially unfilled vacancies, uncertainty over will only Brexit will make that worse.
Image

More details here

https://fullfact.org/health/is-nhs-in-crisis/
User avatar
Strawman
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: insignificant next to the power of the force

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:16 pm

Greg66 wrote:Looks to me like those numbers just keep getting bigger.

Image


Yes because demand increases yearly but the rate of increase should be 4% to keep up, whereas it's 1%.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Greg66 @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:31 pm

The point, gents, was whether "they" were finding extra money for the NHS each year (in the context of throwing some money at the nutterduppers in NI).

The answer to that is "yes".

You might want to qualify that with "... but they need to find even more", but a "yes, but" is still a yes, and it isn't a no.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Greg66 wrote:The point, gents, was whether "they" were finding extra money for the NHS each year (in the context of throwing some money at the nutterduppers in NI).

The answer to that is "yes".

You might want to qualify that with "... but they need to find even more", but a "yes, but" is still a yes, and it isn't a no.


No it isn't. That's the commitment of basic spending that all governments have committed to, in fact they are spending a whole lot less than they should be.

You can try to justify this money paid to a bunch of lunatics anyway you like, but this example doesn't equate at all.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Greg66 @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:47 pm

Doctor Congo wrote:
Greg66 wrote:You might want to qualify that with "... but they need to find even more", but a "yes, but" is still a yes,


No it isn't..... in fact they are spending a whole lot less than they should be.


I'm just going to leave those bullet points there.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:53 pm

Greg66 wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Greg66 wrote:You might want to qualify that with "... but they need to find even more", but a "yes, but" is still a yes,


No it isn't..... in fact they are spending a whole lot less than they should be.


I'm just going to leave those bullet points there.


Except that's got nothing to do with the DUP. Nice try though.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by tanglerat @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:54 pm

10 DUP MPs. One independent MP who is also Unionist. 7 Shinner MPs.

How much of that £Bazillion do you think is going to find its way into constituencies that returned a "SinnFein/IRA" MP?

Answers on a postcard....
User avatar
tanglerat
Ruler of the Queen's Navee
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:49 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by desertweasel @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:22 pm

tanglerat wrote:10 DUP MPs. One independent MP who is also Unionist. 7 Shinner MPs.

How much of that £Bazillion do you think is going to find its way into constituencies that returned a "SinnFein/IRA" MP?

Answers on a postcard....


This is why I cannot see any resolution to the Stomont assembly, the DUP would much rather that the money was spent by Westminster where they now have real influence, than risk the Nats might get their hands on any of it by reconvening in NI. The Tories of course will have to go along its it, impartiality be dammed.
desertweasel
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Dirk @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:36 pm

Doctor Congo wrote:
Yes because demand increases yearly but the rate of increase should be 4% to keep up, whereas it's 1%.

And you think 4% growth in expenditure every year is sustainable? To "keep up".
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 30459
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:04 pm

Dirk wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Yes because demand increases yearly but the rate of increase should be 4% to keep up, whereas it's 1%.

And you think 4% growth in expenditure every year is sustainable? To "keep up".


Why don't you ask the King's Fund, or any other health think tank. Or better still don't because I know you think you know best.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Dirk @ Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm

Doctor Congo wrote:
Dirk wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Yes because demand increases yearly but the rate of increase should be 4% to keep up, whereas it's 1%.

And you think 4% growth in expenditure every year is sustainable? To "keep up".


Why don't you ask the King's Fund, or any other health think tank. Or better still don't because I know you think you know best.

4% real growth year on year is definitely not sustainable when growth is less than that (which it is on average in every mature economy)
I don't need to ask the King's fund, that is a matter of simple mathematical fact.

I would be amazed if the King's fund thought otherwise. Do point me at any evidence that they have succumbed to Corbynesque levels of economic incompetence
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 30459
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:04 am

Dirk wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Dirk wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Yes because demand increases yearly but the rate of increase should be 4% to keep up, whereas it's 1%.

And you think 4% growth in expenditure every year is sustainable? To "keep up".


Why don't you ask the King's Fund, or any other health think tank. Or better still don't because I know you think you know best.

4% real growth year on year is definitely not sustainable when growth is less than that (which it is on average in every mature economy)
I don't need to ask the King's fund, that is a matter of simple mathematical fact.

I would be amazed if the King's fund thought otherwise. Do point me at any evidence that they have succumbed to Corbynesque levels of economic incompetence


Of course, how predictable. Has it ever occurred to you that other people might know more about a subject than you?

Sorry to shatter your belief system but our current levels of funding are way below what is required to maintain a sustainable service and are way below what other similar economies pay for healthcare. Your opinion about what is sustainable is frankly irrelevant.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Dirk @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:07 am

Doctor Congo wrote:
Sorry to shatter your belief system but our current levels of funding are way below what is required to maintain a sustainable service and are way below what other similar economies pay for healthcare. Your opinion about what is sustainable is frankly irrelevant.

Interesting. You believe that i can't comment on health because I am not qualified, but this is a simple matter of maths and economics. Do you have degrees in those?

You said that health spending wasn't increasing in real terms. Greg demonstrated it was.
You've said that it needs to grow by 4% every year to keep up. That is mathematically not sustainable - fact.


You acceuse me of being a Tory bore, you have become a single issue parrot:
General Election coming: We need to spend more on NHS
BREXIT: We need to spend more on NHS
Tories have done a deal with the DUP: We need to spend more on NHS
Pretty Boy: We need to spend more on NHS
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 30459
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:31 am

Dirk wrote:
Doctor Congo wrote:
Sorry to shatter your belief system but our current levels of funding are way below what is required to maintain a sustainable service and are way below what other similar economies pay for healthcare. Your opinion about what is sustainable is frankly irrelevant.

Interesting. You believe that i can't comment on health because I am not qualified, but this is a simple matter of maths and economics. Do you have degrees in those?

You said that health spending wasn't increasing in real terms. Greg demonstrated it was.
You've said that it needs to grow by 4% every year to keep up. That is mathematically not sustainable - fact.


You acceuse me of being a Tory bore, you have become a single issue parrot:
General Election coming: We need to spend more on NHS
BREXIT: We need to spend more on NHS
Tories have done a deal with the DUP: We need to spend more on NHS
Pretty Boy: We need to spend more on NHS


Like Greg you didn't read the article he posted or the subsequent one by Strawms. Your facts are pulled straight out of your arse because if you had read the articles you'd see that 4% is the rate of growth that has the NHS has maintained for the majority of its existence. Fact. So it is sustainable, fact. Other economies maintain higher spending than us, fact.

You are a Tory bore, fact.

And fwiw if you read this thread you'll see I never mentioned NHS spending in relation to the DUP, that was Greg. And wtf is pretty boy? Dare I ask?
Last edited by Doctor Congo on Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Strawman @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:34 am

Dirk wrote:You said that health spending wasn't increasing in real terms. Greg demonstrated it was.
You've said that it needs to grow by 4% every year to keep up. That is mathematically not sustainable - fact.

After eight years of austerity the NHS is in crisis, many different commentator have said this, 4% of funding increase, above the rate of inflation but not by much, would ease that crisis.

Austerity is not always the answer, the tories have had eight years of cutting public services; the NHS, Police etc. while providing reductions in corporation tax in order to 'boost the economy' the UK has the lowest GDP growth rate in the EU (apart from Greece) so it doesn't seem to have worked. Now they are embarking on an insane policy of Brexit which is going to cost upwards of £100 billion, for no economic benefit, and are willing to bribe their way to doing it all to satisfy a small faction in their own party.
User avatar
Strawman
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: insignificant next to the power of the force

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Doctor Congo @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:42 am

Strawman wrote:
Dirk wrote:You said that health spending wasn't increasing in real terms. Greg demonstrated it was.
You've said that it needs to grow by 4% every year to keep up. That is mathematically not sustainable - fact.

After eight years of austerity the NHS is in crisis, many different commentator have said this, 4% of funding increase, above the rate of inflation but not by much, would ease that crisis.

Austerity is not always the answer, the tories have had eight years of cutting public services; the NHS, Police etc. while providing reductions in corporation tax in order to 'boost the economy' the UK has the lowest GDP growth rate in the EU (apart from Greece) so it doesn't seem to have worked. Now they are embarking on an insane policy of Brexit which is going to cost upwards of £100 billion, for no economic benefit, and are willing to bribe their way to doing it all to satisfy a small faction in their own party.


Indeed and getting back to the actual issue the deal with the DUP is a particularly grubby bribe to stay in power. It'll be interesting to look back in 10 years and see how much has been sacrificed to satisfy a section of the Conservatives.
User avatar
Doctor Congo
 
Posts: 6483
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by desertweasel @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:52 am

Doctor Congo wrote:
Indeed and getting back to the actual issue the deal with the DUP is a particularly grubby bribe to stay in power. It'll be interesting to look back in 10 years and see how much has been sacrificed to satisfy a section of the Conservatives.


Let's hope it isn't peace
desertweasel
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: General ELection 2017

Post by Turntable @ Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:23 am

Doctor Congo wrote:
Käsemeister wrote:Alright, maybe not, but as TT says it's not equivalent to 50bnpa.


True but it's amazing how they find this money when they need to for political expediency, but when it's actually necessary, there's no money!


I am not defending them in any way whatsoever- Tm is an utter embarrassment.
My point is simply that there is no comparison between a billion pounds and several hundred billion pounds when the subject is affordability.
TO clarify - I fcuking hate all of them at the moment.
User avatar
Turntable
 
Posts: 31551
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 pm
Highscores: 7

PreviousNext

Return to Political Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

yt
  Enable youtube titles