Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

[Esseesse]

AJS- said:

We have had significant growth since then too though, so government spending as a proportion of GDP hasn't changed all that much. In fact it's stayed within a fairly tight range (35-45%) since WW2.

Look pre-1910...



Will public spending ever be low again?

[Europa1]

Halb said:

johnfm said:

What would I do? Admit that free things will always suffer shortage and overuse.

First thing I'd do would be to end this 'free at the point of delivery' folly.

You pay before you're admitted to A&E or whatever?

Yes, by moving to an insurance based system. The reality is that free at the point of delivery is not economically feasible long term.

[Halb]

Esseesse said:

Look pre-1910...



Will public spending ever be low again?

Thinking what life was mostly like pre-1910 for the majority of Britons, I doubt it.

Europa1 said:

Yes, by moving to an insurance based system. The reality is that free at the point of delivery is not economically feasible long term.

What system out there, NZ, France, etc? Would be a good one to emulate?

[dcb]

Halb said:

What system out there, NZ, France, etc? Would be a good one to emulate?

Have a look here.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/health_systems.php

The NHS, with its "free at the point of delivery" idea is such
a great way to do it that *no* other country does it the Brit way.

Most countries run health on an insurance based system, like
the Brits used to have before the NHS was invented.

[Welshbeef]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So breaking that down /what has changed?

Average life has increased (by how much? Would be good to calculate what that would be)
State pension has increased dramatically in value is £4K to £7.5k a massive increase


Possibly one thing we were not spending enough previously on energy is building for the future new nuclear stations so now having catchup
Possibly vast underspend previously on rail infra and now on the up?
I guess these two things are still small beer though?

[Ridgemont]

Welshbeef said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So breaking that down /what has changed?

Average life has increased (by how much? Would be good to calculate what that would be)
State pension has increased dramatically in value is £4K to £7.5k a massive increase


Possibly one thing we were not spending enough previously on energy is building for the future new nuclear stations so now having catchup
Possibly vast underspend previously on rail infra and now on the up?
I guess these two things are still small beer though?

Some interesting facts on http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-... for insight as to the bloat in the numbers: it's largely to do with staff counts, and salary increases.

In 2014 the NHS employed 150,273 doctors, 377,191 qualified nursing staff, 155,960 qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff and 37,078 managers.
There were 32,467 additional doctors employed in the NHS in 2014 compared to 2004. The number has increased by an annual average of 2.5 per cent over that time.
There were 18,432 more NHS nurses in 2014 compared to ten years earlier. The number has increased by an annual average of 0.5 per cent over that period.
There were 5,729 more GPs and 1,688 more practice nurses employed by GPs in 2014 than ten years earlier.
There were 12,432 more qualified allied health professionals in 2014 compared to 2004. However the number of qualified healthcare scientists has declined for each of the past five years, with the number in 2014 874 below that of 2004.
50.6 per cent of NHS employees are professionally qualified clinical staff. A further 26.0 per cent provide support to clinical staff in roles such as nursing assistant practitioners, nursing assistant/auxiliaries and healthcare assistants.
An NHS Partners Network survey shows that more than 69,000 individuals are involved in providing front-line services to NHS patients among their membership. Approximately two-thirds are clinicians.
Since 2004 the number of professionally qualified clinical staff within the NHS has risen by 12.7 per cent. This rise includes an increase in doctors of 27.6 per cent; a rise in the number of nurses of 5.1 per cent; and 8.1 per cent more qualified ambulance staff.
Medical school intake rose from 3,749 in 1997/98 to 6,262 in 2012/13 - a rise of 67.0 per cent.

You then match that in with the 12% pay increases that Alan Milburn put in place, and the GMS 2004 agreement which introduced the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee which significantly increased the costs of GMS services and led to edifying news stories: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/362157/The-family...

Population/Age related costs also add in some additionals, but the NHS' single largest cost is remuneration. Many on the left argue the above was a corrective to the under investment of the nineties under the tories, but at the end of the day, on most metrics (mortality in preventable diseases and poor diagnosis of cancer etc) the NHS not only performs poorly in international comparisons, it also has seen *no* meaningful change in the last 15 years. The only thing you might be able to argue is that the government, to use Bevan's phrase, has stuffed the mouths of key groups in the NHS (GPs, Nurses College etc) with gold in order to avoid poor publicity. There isn't a great deal to show for it otherwise.

Edited by Ridgemont on Friday 13th November 11:33

[Welshbeef]

I really think we do need to agree a £/person for the NHS that we as a country want to spends . year on year this will increase by x% but then we have an assessment of UK total population too so if that goes up there is an additional increase for this too.

This is clearly too logical for politicians and it's totally black and white.


How we decide what the rate should start at is the challenge - we would have to use the current spend and population then move from there.



Problem with it as its such a vast % of the budget it stops Govts politicising the NHS instead sorry tax credits go to pay for NHS OR income tax rates go up / starting point of income tax decreases

[MarshPhantom]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How many people do you know that have no debt?

[Ayahuasca]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Dear gods who is this Paris Lees eejit?

FFS!

Grow up.

If you are so caring (and I really rather doubt you are) how about caring for our people?

I was prepared to forgive her daft ideas (the EU has stopped the UK and France going to war, etc) because she was quite fanciable, then I read on here that she used to be a MAN and I felt a bit sick and had to turn it off.

[legzr1]

Halb said:

Esseesse said:

Look pre-1910...



Will public spending ever be low again?

Thinking what life was mostly like pre-1910 for the majority of Britons, I doubt it.

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

[Welshbeef]

Ayahuasca said:

I was prepared to forgive her daft ideas (the EU has stopped the UK and France going to war, etc) because she was quite fanciable, then I read on here that she used to be a MAN and I felt a bit sick and had to turn it off.

I didn't want to admit that either previously but me too until of course I read it was a man

[andymadmak]

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

Really? Name one...

[irocfan]

Welshbeef said:

Ayahuasca said:

I was prepared to forgive her daft ideas (the EU has stopped the UK and France going to war, etc) because she was quite fanciable, then I read on here that she used to be a MAN and I felt a bit sick and had to turn it off.

I didn't want to admit that either previously but me too until of course I read it was a man

I'll get in here before the usual idiots do.... "you transphobic neanderthals!! You should be ashamed of yourselves!"

[TankRizzo]

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

I know, that Nicola Sturgeon, eh.

[hidetheelephants]

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

If that meant people and the state living within their means, shiftless doleites being invited to live in the poor house or get a job, large scale public and private works that provide for the next 50 years not just the next 5, and a burgeoning and politically active middle class then I'd say bring it on.

[AJS-]

Esseesse
I would love for it to be that low again but it would require a level of collective maturity which is hard to envisage under representative democracy, as it would require nearly everyone, rich and poor, public and private sector, as well as an entire demographic who work directly for the state or are almost entirely dependent on benefits to decide to take a hit in the short term.

Tonker
Completely agree with the sentiment but I still think that it's the proportion of GDP as a whole rather than the absolute level of government spending which is more important.

[MarshPhantom]

andymadmak said:

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

Really? Name one...

Iain Duncan Smith

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How many people do you know that have no debt?

It's not so much no debt - a typical extreme question ('no debt') with a desired but irrelevant answer - it's how much debt, how widespread it is, whether it's manageable and the direction of travel. The total outstanding non-mortgage debt grew by £20bn (9%) in 2014 to reach £240bn in the fastest rate of growth for a decade, over 9 million people in serious debt with half of all UK adults living on a financial knife-edge and the merely average UK household owing close to £10,000 in personal loans, credit cards and overdrafts by the end of 2016, according to sources such as ONS, PwC and the Money Advice Service.

MarshPhantom said:

andymadmak said:

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

Really? Name one...

Iain Duncan Smith

When did he say that? I'd have thought it would be widely quoted in the media. Unless you just thought of a name, but that wouldn't happen, surely.

A more correct answer is Natalie Bennett and her ilk, but she wants us to head back to localised medieval lifestyles not just Victoriam.

[Derek Smith]

hidetheelephants said:

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

If that meant people and the state living within their means, shiftless doleites being invited to live in the poor house or get a job, large scale public and private works that provide for the next 50 years not just the next 5, and a burgeoning and politically active middle class then I'd say bring it on.

That's just what we need: rickets, mass unemployment to keep wages down, vermin infested housing, state sponsored child abuse, persecution just because of different ideas, a low life expectancy and high infant mortality, no education for the masses, children being taken to workhouses, not asked. Kids ages six working in laundries, up chimneys, in factories, down mines. No voting rights for the vast majority.

Bring it on, I assume for everyone but you and yours?

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

hidetheelephants said:

legzr1 said:

You know, there are some people in power who seem hell bent on a return to a Victorian way of life.

If that meant people and the state living within their means, shiftless doleites being invited to live in the poor house or get a job, large scale public and private works that provide for the next 50 years not just the next 5, and a burgeoning and politically active middle class then I'd say bring it on.

That's just what we need: rickets, mass unemployment to keep wages down, vermin infested housing, state sponsored child abuse, persecution just because of different ideas, a low life expectancy and high infant mortality, no education for the masses, children being taken to workhouses, not asked. Kids ages six working in laundries, up chimneys, in factories, down mines. No voting rights for the vast majority.

Bring it on, I assume for everyone but you and yours?

Violins fade, curtains close, tears are wiped away.

Meanwhile the legacy of Labour's "free rounds of drinks for all comrades" failure after failure continues to be laid at the door of people offering the hangover cure, because rumour has it from SJW Central it tastes bad.