[Archived] When will the next general election be called?

[Baz]

Just now, jim mk2 said:

Social care is a huge issue. People are living longer but with that comes age-related issues such as dementia. Again, the NHS is being forced to take the strain in alot of cases and cannot cope. Austerity cuts by the Tories to social care programmes has made the problem worse. Anyone who has had dealings with private car homes know that the cost is extortionate and standards vary hugely but by and large are low. Many private homes I have visited are disgraceful and ought to be closed. Many people are having to sell their homes and spend money that they hoped to pass on to their children to pay for care. 

The solution is to take social care out of the private sector and bring it under the umbrella of the NHS . Care homes would be purpose-built to a high standard and rolled out nationally to the same standard. The cost would be paid for by a rise in income tax that would be ringfenced for social care only. A measure of a progressive country is how it looks after its infirm, long-term sick and elderly, and everyone shares the cost. It's called socialism, and it is good.  

Care homes are very expensive, but have high costs too. Many are actually going out of business, some resorting to ramping up costs for private clients to help pay for those funded by local government. As most councils have had rate freezes and budget cuts, they cannot to pay more per client than they where nearly a decade ago, but the care homes costs (wages etc) have gone up noticeably.

[Baz]

Chaddy (and anyone else who hasnt watched it) there is an excellent BBC documentary series currently mid-run called Hospital on BBC2 at the moment. I'd recommend you watch it (and as many back episodes as are available on iplayer). It shows in great detail the NHS situation from board level to doctor to patient. It's just covered the winter crisis, and this week is looking at bed-blocking.

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Social care is a huge issue. People are living longer but with that comes age-related issues such as dementia. Again, the NHS is being forced to take the strain in alot of cases and cannot cope. Austerity cuts by the Tories to social care programmes has made the problem worse. Anyone who has had dealings with private car homes know that the cost is extortionate and standards vary hugely but by and large are low. Many private homes I have visited are disgraceful and ought to be closed. Many people are having to sell their homes and spend money that they hoped to pass on to their children to pay for care. 

The solution is to take social care out of the private sector and bring it under the umbrella of the NHS . Care homes would be purpose-built to a high standard and rolled out nationally to the same standard. The cost would be paid for by a rise in income tax that would be ringfenced for social care only. A measure of a progressive country is how it looks after its infirm, long-term sick and elderly, and everyone shares the cost. It's called socialism, and it is good.  

Hospitals are too small, not enough staff, people living longer and people going doctors/hospital when they dont need to. 

I wouldnt put taxes up on normal working people but going after people/companies who avoid taxes through loopoles. 

I would keep Social care in private sectors. They are plenty of good staff looking after the Elderly people in the private, 5 family members work in this sector plus few friends aswell. My missus is looking a lady with MS, my mum is looking elderly people and my Auntie is running an Elderly Home care company. 

Dont want in the public sector

7 hours ago, Baz said:

Chaddy (and anyone else who hasnt watched it) there is an excellent BBC documentary series currently mid-run called Hospital on BBC2 at the moment. I'd recommend you watch it (and as many back episodes as are available on iplayer). It shows in great detail the NHS situation from board level to doctor to patient. It's just covered the winter crisis, and this week is looking at bed-blocking.

I will have a look at it in few weeks. Still weeks behind with my tv shows. Plus busy watching football.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

15 hours ago, Baz said:

Or properly fund social care.

Instead we have seen massive social care cuts imposed by the Tories austerity programs. 

Its not solely a social care issue ..its a systemic issue. Social care are not going provide a service purely because people are chaotic and or can' manage independent living.

The answer lies in a more humane version of the former mental asylums. Long term non voluntary . .but on a large scale

Throwing money on the nhs to assist such people is pointless

[joey_big_nose]

I know there's a lot of anger about public services, but I'd just like to say my wife is having our baby at UCH in London, and the quality of the hospital and staff is truly wonderful. I'm blown away. We really are lucky in the UK. 

I'd happily pay more taxes to see other public services delivered to such a high standard. The demographics are clear - we need to tax the wealthiest more and spend efficiently to improve services in line with demand and expectations .  We need our leaders to face up to that reality and come up with some credible plans to do so.

I find the reticence around investing in public services where appropriate strange  - the UK had shown time and again excellence in delivering exceptional quality and value for money through non-profit public services like the NHS, TFL, universities and the BBC. We just need to leverage the successful models of working elsewhere. The 80s obsession with privatising everything for the sake of it needs to be moderated. There have been successes (opticians and telecoms are obvious ones) but loads of very weak performances (railways and energy stand out). The framework applied to the service needs to be dictated by if the service provision really exists in a true free market (eg. railways are not free market whatever way you look at it, each line is a monopoly) and the level of capital investment required (huge investment sectors like energy are enormously less efficient privately delivered than through central direction. This is because central co-ordination can limit wastage through pooling resource and expertise. A comparison of value for money between the NHS vs the US medical system bears that out as one example).

To use Chaddys example I can't really see how care homes make sense privatised. Surely it makes far more sense to pool resources and expertise like the NHS or TFL rather than have many disparate small business handling individual overheads, staffing etc etc plus having to extract a profit and pay dividends to shareholders on top. 

 

[Norbert Rassragr]

Are there local elections going on in the Blackburn area? I'm off to do my thing in Coventry in a minute. I'm not going to vote Conservative as I might pull a muscle standing like that at the ballot box.

[Vinjay]

1 hour ago, Norbert Rassragr said:

Are there local elections going on in the Blackburn area? I'm off to do my thing in Coventry in a minute. I'm not going to vote Conservative as I might pull a muscle standing like that at the ballot box.

Yes. 

[oldjamfan1]

7 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

I know there's a lot of anger about public services, but I'd just like to say my wife is having our baby at UCH in London, and the quality of the hospital and staff is truly wonderful. I'm blown away. We really are lucky in the UK. 

I'd happily pay more taxes to see other public services delivered to such a high standard. The demographics are clear - we need to tax the wealthiest more and spend efficiently to improve services in line with demand and expectations .  We need our leaders to face up to that reality and come up with some credible plans to do so.

I find the reticence around investing in public services where appropriate strange  - the UK had shown time and again excellence in delivering exceptional quality and value for money through non-profit public services like the NHS, TFL, universities and the BBC. We just need to leverage the successful models of working elsewhere. The 80s obsession with privatising everything for the sake of it needs to be moderated. There have been successes (opticians and telecoms are obvious ones) but loads of very weak performances (railways and energy stand out). The framework applied to the service needs to be dictated by if the service provision really exists in a true free market (eg. railways are not free market whatever way you look at it, each line is a monopoly) and the level of capital investment required (huge investment sectors like energy are enormously less efficient privately delivered than through central direction. This is because central co-ordination can limit wastage through pooling resource and expertise. A comparison of value for money between the NHS vs the US medical system bears that out as one example).

To use Chaddys example I can't really see how care homes make sense privatised. Surely it makes far more sense to pool resources and expertise like the NHS or TFL rather than have many disparate small business handling individual overheads, staffing etc etc plus having to extract a profit and pay dividends to shareholders on top. 

 

Good post. I started paying the so-called Tartan Tax this month and am more than happy to do so if it means improved public services up here.

[Norbert Rassragr]

Hey, you don't have to thank us south of the border for subsidising you all. Oh hang on, the jocks never do.

 

[old darwen blue]

2 hours ago, Norbert Rassragr said:

Hey, you don't have to thank us south of the border for subsidising you all. Oh hang on, the jocks never do.

 

Jock....   heehee

[Mike E]

On 03/05/2018 at 08:38, joey_big_nose said:

I know there's a lot of anger about public services, but I'd just like to say my wife is having our baby at UCH in London, and the quality of the hospital and staff is truly wonderful. I'm blown away. We really are lucky in the UK. 

I'd happily pay more taxes to see other public services delivered to such a high standard. The demographics are clear - we need to tax the wealthiest more and spend efficiently to improve services in line with demand and expectations .  We need our leaders to face up to that reality and come up with some credible plans to do so.

I find the reticence around investing in public services where appropriate strange  - the UK had shown time and again excellence in delivering exceptional quality and value for money through non-profit public services like the NHS, TFL, universities and the BBC. We just need to leverage the successful models of working elsewhere. The 80s obsession with privatising everything for the sake of it needs to be moderated. There have been successes (opticians and telecoms are obvious ones) but loads of very weak performances (railways and energy stand out). The framework applied to the service needs to be dictated by if the service provision really exists in a true free market (eg. railways are not free market whatever way you look at it, each line is a monopoly) and the level of capital investment required (huge investment sectors like energy are enormously less efficient privately delivered than through central direction. This is because central co-ordination can limit wastage through pooling resource and expertise. A comparison of value for money between the NHS vs the US medical system bears that out as one example).

To use Chaddys example I can't really see how care homes make sense privatised. Surely it makes far more sense to pool resources and expertise like the NHS or TFL rather than have many disparate small business handling individual overheads, staffing etc etc plus having to extract a profit and pay dividends to shareholders on top. 

 

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I'm sure I read that taxing everybody 1% more generates more than increasing the top tax band by as much as 5%.

Perhaps a compromise of increase of 1% for lowest and middle tax band, 2% for highest?

I'm no Tory *spits* but I do believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure public services are efficient. That includes learning first aid (easily self-taught) and only using the NHS when absolutely necessary instead of the 'it's free, so I may as well' mentality.

Agree on virtually everything else you say ???

[Baz]

On 04/05/2018 at 19:21, Mike E said:

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I'm sure I read that taxing everybody 1% more generates more than increasing the top tax band by as much as 5%.

Perhaps a compromise of increase of 1% for lowest and middle tax band, 2% for highest?

I'm no Tory *spits* but I do believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure public services are efficient. That includes learning first aid (easily self-taught) and only using the NHS when absolutely necessary instead of the 'it's free, so I may as well' mentality.

Agree on virtually everything else you say ???

There are other ways too, properly enforced tax rules, stop cutting corporation tax, help international community stop big business paying tax wherever and whenever they want. 

[joey_big_nose]

Highly pertinent BBC news article here on how to fund services like the NHS. Good to see them talking about some pretty radical stuff, as we are facing a demographic pressure that requires radical solutions. 

What's interesting is the proposal isn't coming from "Corbynistas" but rather a Tory - Lord Willots.

Its electorally very challenging to tax the older generation (as they are far more likely to vote than younger people), but it is required as the majority of wealth increases are being soaked up by comfortable older people as they own key rising assets like houses and pensions. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

[Al]

8 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Highly pertinent BBC news article here on how to fund services like the NHS. Good to see them talking about some pretty radical stuff, as we are facing a demographic pressure that requires radical solutions. 

What's interesting is the proposal isn't coming from "Corbynistas" but rather a Tory - Lord Willots.

Its electorally very challenging to tax the older generation (as they are far more likely to vote than younger people), but it is required as the majority of wealth increases are being soaked up by comfortable older people as they own key rising assets like houses and pensions. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

It's not going to happen is it! One saves all ones life for retirement so that you can finance a university graduate to have a detached house with a car port for his Mercedes at 25 years old without trying? I don't think so! Best vote loser I have heard for a long time.

[jim mk2]

Wealth taxes are fine in principle but it does seem unfair to potentially force people to sell their homes because they cannot afford to pay an extra annual levy. After all, it's not their fault that house prices have risen to extortionate levels partly because governments have failed to build enough houses for the past 30 years or more.

Instead of wealth taxes, government should look at clamping down seriously on tax evasion instead of just playing at it, and slash the number of ways people can legitimately avoid paying tax. Cameron came to power in 2010 vowing to cut red tape; in 2010 there were 900 ways of avoiding tax - since then that number has risen to more than 1,200. 

 

[joey_big_nose]

28 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Wealth taxes are fine in principle but it does seem unfair to potentially force people to sell their homes because they cannot afford to pay an extra annual levy. After all, it's not their fault that house prices have risen to extortionate levels partly because governments have failed to build enough houses for the past 30 years or more.

Instead of wealth taxes, government should look at clamping down seriously on tax evasion instead of just playing at it, and slash the number of ways people can legitimately avoid paying tax. Cameron came to power in 2010 vowing to cut red tape; in 2010 there were 900 ways of avoiding tax - since then that number has risen to more than 1,200. 

 

While I agree with your sentiment, it does show the seriousness of the challenge ahead of us that the Tories are proposing solutions more radical than sit well with a died the in wool Labour man like yourself. 

On clamping down on tax evasion and avoidance there is certainly a lot of money that can be recovered from that, but not in my understanding enough to cover the forecasted gap. General taxation needs to increase and obviously the expectation is the wealthiest need to pick up the majority of it, and the majority of those wealthy people sit in the older generations.

I don't think Wilotts is proposing a wealth tax, rather changes to income tax to remove tax breaks for pensions, inheritance and restructuring stamp duty. 

[joey_big_nose]

2 hours ago, Al said:

It's not going to happen is it! One saves all ones life for retirement so that you can finance a university graduate to have a detached house with a car port for his Mercedes at 25 years old without trying? I don't think so! Best vote loser I have heard for a long time.

Putting aside the nonsensical exaggeration of the point (graduate, detached house, car port, Mercedes, etc.), I do agree it's a huge task to look to redistribute income and wealth away from older to younger generations. 

But ultimately its viability comes down to how critical a situation it becomes. If it becomes serious enough (ie. the NHS continues to deteriorate, the younger generation are locked out of housing and social mobility, real wages for young people stay stagnant or even fall) then the electorate will vote more radically, and the possibility of a hard left government like Corbyns Labour gaining power increases. 

It's hardly impossible. In history we saw it happen in 1945, 1964 and 1975. The Thatcher consensus is no more a permanent state than Atlees post war consensus was before Thatcher. Corbyn only narrowly lost the last election, and relatively small increases in voter turnout for young people could have a huge effect. 

The Tories - well at least Lord Willott- to their/his credit are trying to get ahead of that very real eventuality. It must scare the bejesus out of them/him. 

[jim mk2]

The difference is Atlee's postwar consensus was exactly that - generally a national crossparty vision of how the country should move forward. Thatcher's policy was never really a consensus because it caused so much tension and division - and still does today.

Corbyn's "hard-left" policies are largely myth and lies perpetrated by the Tory press. He's more like a Scandinavian social democrat. 

 

[joey_big_nose]

19 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The difference is Atlee's postwar consensus was exactly that - generally a national crossparty vision of how the country should move forward. Thatcher's policy was never really a consensus because it caused so much tension and division - and still does today.

Corbyn's "hard-left" policies are largely myth and lies perpetrated by the Tory press. He's more like a Scandinavian social democrat. 

 

Well there must be some level of consensus on Thatchers policies as when Labour came in under Blair with a huge majority they stuck with most of its key tenents (privatisation, free market economics, financial services deregulation, low taxation, disempowerment of unions), but just hugely increased the investment in public services with the proceeds from a booming economy. No government has seriously challenged those Thatcherist tenents yet. 

As for Corbyn, it depends how you characterise hard left. For many like the Tories and their organs (Daily Mail, Express etc.) Scandinavian style social democracy is hard left. For me it seems an eminently sensible and effective political system underpinned by excellent performance statistics, but that sadly is not how others see it. Also to be completely fair Corbyn and Momentum are far more driven by old school unionist and radical socialist politics than the national governments of Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland are. They propose a lot of similar policies to be electable, but one suspects their heart does not lie in creating scandi model over here, but perhaps I am wrong. Love to read anything to correct me on that impression. 

[Mike E]

I think it will (at best) take another generation for someone of Corbyn's ilk to be legitimately electable. However, I must temper that with the seeming lurch to the right we seem to be experiencing from the general public.

The Tories are split by a desire to appeal to both the centre and the right, while Labour are trying to appeal to everybody all at once but it results in a lot of Jay-bet-hedging.

I'm starting to believe that certain 'ministerial' posts should be out of political hands, such as the NHS and Transport and placed into commission/committee ownership.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

19 hours ago, Al said:

It's not going to happen is it! One saves all ones life for retirement so that you can finance a university graduate to have a detached house with a car port for his Mercedes at 25 years old without trying? I don't think so! Best vote loser I have heard for a long time.

When I decided to work on past 65 I was absolutely amazed that I no longer had to pay National Insurance contributions. . That enabled me to work for four days instead of five and hardly notice the difference financially.  Anybody in work should pay National Insurance contributions irrespective of age I would have done so willingly given I was drawing on the system much more than I did as a young bloke.

[RevidgeBlue]

Not sure if this is the right thread but the proposed plan to give a 10k hand out to 25 year olds has to be the craziest idea I 've ever heard.

My better half who is 62 is absolutely spitting feathers about it. She has worked all her life and paid tax and never claimed a penny off the state, expecting to be able to receive her modest state pension when she reached the age of 60. When the time came the goalposts were moved without warning and as things stand she now has to wait until she is 67 (assuming god willing she lives that long to receive a penny)

Then in the next breath despite the fact there is allegedly no money in the pot to pay pensions there are apparently plans afoot to just give out money to youngsters for doing precisely nothing!

Madness.

 

 

[old darwen blue]

I thought Theresa said that unless you are a Northern Irish politician that she didn’t have a money tree?

[Mike E]

6 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure if this is the right thread but the proposed plan to give a 10k hand out to 25 year olds has to be the craziest idea I 've ever heard.

My better half who is 62 is absolutely spitting feathers about it. She has worked all her life and paid tax and never claimed a penny off the state, expecting to be able to receive her modest state pension when she reached the age of 60. When the time came the goalposts were moved without warning and as things stand she now has to wait until she is 67 (assuming god willing she lives that long to receive a penny)

Then in the next breath despite the fact there is allegedly no money in the pot to pay pensions there are apparently plans afoot to just give out money to youngsters for doing precisely nothing!

Madness.

Completely agree. It sounds like one of those ideas from the 'Mind Kampf' episode of The Thick Of It:

'Cardigans for the elderly?'

Yes and Ho!

'Obese Olympics'

Yes and Ho!

'£10k to every 25 year old'

Yes and Ho!

[joey_big_nose]

10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure if this is the right thread but the proposed plan to give a 10k hand out to 25 year olds has to be the craziest idea I 've ever heard.

My better half who is 62 is absolutely spitting feathers about it. She has worked all her life and paid tax and never claimed a penny off the state, expecting to be able to receive her modest state pension when she reached the age of 60. When the time came the goalposts were moved without warning and as things stand she now has to wait until she is 67 (assuming god willing she lives that long to receive a penny)

Then in the next breath despite the fact there is allegedly no money in the pot to pay pensions there are apparently plans afoot to just give out money to youngsters for doing precisely nothing!

Madness.

 

 

To be fair if you compared 10k given to the current generation (limited to spending on education, housing, starting a business) to the money spent on baby boomers for free university education and social housing the grant pales in comparison. 

I agree its unlikely to happen but there is a logic behind it.