Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > SOCIAL > CHAT BOARD
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Boris Johnson
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Boris Johnson
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2930313233 110>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2021 at 4:06pm
Some more insight from Bjoris’ old foe Cummings this week

He knows that in his study every day are people who have been leaking to destroy him since 2019, he saw the Shipman story last Sunday (leaked by his own inner team to undermine him), he knows things are sliding towards some crisis, he’s shocked by what his political team has told him about the strength of the Chancellor’s support in the Commons, but he doesn’t know what to do. 

He fears a network of subversives, spads and officials, inside his perimeter will keep blowing things up. He’s right. He knows he had a chance to deal with this last year and decided not to act — instead he decided to listen to his girlfriend’s crackpot theories. 

In September he’ll try to ‘reset’. This will probably (>75%) blow up. He’s in a no-win situation with the disaster he’s created with No11. He’s prone to panic.

Betting man says Sunak is axed before next election because Boris can’t handle anyone being more popular than him. (Shipman story = Boris threatening to move Sunak)
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
RR1972 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 17375 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RR1972 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2021 at 4:18pm
Sunak or javid would both be far more capeable and do a better job than boris. Would they be As popular at the ballot box? Kier would much rather debate boris than those two i suspect
Back to Top
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2021 at 4:41pm
I suspect Sunak would have approval ratings beyond Obama’s. 

I’d suspect Javid wouldn’t because he looks like an egg, whereas the girls call Sunak Dishy Rishi
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
Jones2004 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 29 September 2019
Location: North Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 1438 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jones2004 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2021 at 8:22pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh
Inflation has tended to be 2-3% for the last decade, so significantly higher than the 1.4%. But that’s without considering that the population is getting older, and therefore for the NHS to provide the same service to every person they need for the budhet increase to be MORE than the rate of inflation, not less as it’s been for the last decade. 
When people say our health service is free at the point of service what they neglect to mention is how many people pay for routine operations (e.g. hips and knees) because of the extraordinarily long waiting lists. The truth is we already have a part private health service and that’s only going to get worse unless the Tories provide more money for the NHS / WG (which I suspect they won’t).
Back to Top
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 1:40am
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Isn’t health spending devolved?
The truth is we already have a part private health service and that’s only going to get worse unless the Tories provide more money for the NHS / WG (which I suspect they won’t).

Why can’t the WAG spend more on the NHS in Wales? Why couldn’t they give the NHS the funding they think it needs - e.g. what’s preventing them promising a 5-10% budget increase year on year?
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 16703 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 8:07am
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh

If you had read the quote carefully, you would have seen THIS:

"Between 2009-2019 the NHS budgets rose on average just 1.4% per year, compared to 3.7% average rises since the NHS was established."

In other words, on average the NHS funding was being cut by (3.7-1.4) = 2.3% per annum in real terms.

As for other countries - well, in the UK most of us pay for dentistry and opticians (for example) - to varying degrees, so it's not entirely a 'free' service, though it can be for the lowest paid and children (I think). 

Wikipedia provides a useful list of countries where health care is provided wholly or -usually - mainly through taxation:


The USA is fairly unusual in following capitalist principles to the bitter end - if you can't pay, you die (basically).

Think your logic is somewhat flawed Aber. A rise of 1.4% is still a rise just as 3.7% is a rise just not as much. Now if inflation is running at 2% for that period then it is fair to say that it is a cut in real terms whereas if inflation is running at 1% it is not a reduction in real terms. There is no real relationship between 3.7% & 1.4% it just means that spending has not risen by as much - it has still risen though. 
Back to Top
greypower1 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 04 December 2010
Location: Pwll
Status: Offline
Points: 3923 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote greypower1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 10:40am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Isn’t health spending devolved?
The truth is we already have a part private health service and that’s only going to get worse unless the Tories provide more money for the NHS / WG (which I suspect they won’t).

Why can’t the WAG spend more on the NHS in Wales? Why couldn’t they give the NHS the funding they think it needs - e.g. what’s preventing them promising a 5-10% budget increase year on year?

Great in principle, but where would that extra money come from.  Wales is underfunded currently with no will in Westminster to review the Barnett formula.  We have the sickest and poorest population of the UK and this is not reflected in our funding.  If WAG were to try and raise extra through taxation the population would become even more poor and sicker.
Keep the faith
Back to Top
Dai Guevara View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 12 August 2020
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 1187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dai Guevara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 11:24am
Maybe if we hadn't wasted billions following "the exceptional" USA by the coat-tails and attacking/invading Iraq/ Afghanistan, Syria, Libya while building aircraft carriers (which are only good for pulverising far away underdeveloped countries), then maybe the NHS could be better financed, as well as having fewer traumatic military injuries to young men to deal with. `
Back to Top
bills burr View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04 August 2021
Location: llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 79 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bills burr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 12:06pm
Our soldiers were totally under-equipped in syria and iraq too and when they come home injured there are no military hospitals to treat our wounded soldiers either.......Oh but philip schofield and carol wonderman give them a gold star on a patronising tv awards show every year, so that makes everything alright 
B BURR
Back to Top
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by Dai Guevara Dai Guevara wrote:

Maybe if we hadn't wasted billions following "the exceptional" USA by the coat-tails and attacking/invading Iraq/ Afghanistan, Syria, Libya while building aircraft carriers (which are only good for pulverising far away underdeveloped countries), then maybe the NHS could be better financed, as well as having fewer traumatic military injuries to young men to deal with. `

So scrap the armed forces budget to pay for NHS?

It’s a reasonable proposition. England’s dept for health had budget of about £212bn last year and U.K. armed forces around £46bn so it would constitute a 25% increase. 

People could easily make the trade off for 25% more money on NHS and no military 
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18071 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 2:06pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Isn’t health spending devolved?
The truth is we already have a part private health service and that’s only going to get worse unless the Tories provide more money for the NHS / WG (which I suspect they won’t).

Why can’t the WAG spend more on the NHS in Wales? Why couldn’t they give the NHS the funding they think it needs - e.g. what’s preventing them promising a 5-10% budget increase year on year?

Easy answer to that - the Barnett formula, which fixes spending in the devolved administrations to that set for England by Westminster. The formula, as it exists, favours Scotland and does Wales no favours at all:

The Barnett formula is said to have "no legal standing or democratic justification",[3] and, being merely a convention, could be changed at will by the Treasury. In recent years, Barnett himself has called it a "terrible mistake".[4] In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that "the Barnett Formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom's devolved administrations... A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced."[5]

Following the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the Barnett formula came to widespread attention amid concerns that in a last-minute government bid to sway voters against independence, Scotland had been promised continued high public spending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula


Basically, the formula favours Scotland at the expense of Wales and some English regions. If we were to move to a formula based on population growth (since it was introduced) and needs (based on relative poverty and age of the population), Wales would do much better. But it would cost the Treasury more, so they don't want to change it.


Since the Welsh budget is essentially fixed in England, the Senedd can't do much about it unless they were to take the extremely unpopular route of increasing taxes within Wales to pay for it, The `Tories would be delighted!


In truth, the whole of the UK should be spending more on the NHS, but the Tories prefer to allow more and more US private firms to gain a foothold and cream off as much cash as possible for the minimum amount of work.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 2:11pm
Interesting so the proportion of WA government spending is pegged to that of England, unless WAG raise more revenue through higher taxation (which might work for 1-2 years but probably then produce lower tax yields)

And this isn’t true in Scotland because some guy called Barnett decided they deserve more money than Cymru or Northumbria? 
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18071 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh

If you had read the quote carefully, you would have seen THIS:

"Between 2009-2019 the NHS budgets rose on average just 1.4% per year, compared to 3.7% average rises since the NHS was established."

In other words, on average the NHS funding was being cut by (3.7-1.4) = 2.3% per annum in real terms.

As for other countries - well, in the UK most of us pay for dentistry and opticians (for example) - to varying degrees, so it's not entirely a 'free' service, though it can be for the lowest paid and children (I think). 

Wikipedia provides a useful list of countries where health care is provided wholly or -usually - mainly through taxation:


The USA is fairly unusual in following capitalist principles to the bitter end - if you can't pay, you die (basically).

Think your logic is somewhat flawed Aber. A rise of 1.4% is still a rise just as 3.7% is a rise just not as much. Now if inflation is running at 2% for that period then it is fair to say that it is a cut in real terms whereas if inflation is running at 1% it is not a reduction in real terms. There is no real relationship between 3.7% & 1.4% it just means that spending has not risen by as much - it has still risen though. 

I'm sorry, but if your costs (wages and supplies) rise by 3.7% and your income rises by only 1.4%, then that is a 'real terms cut' in anyone's book.

That also ignores the fact that as the population gets older, the demands on the NHS increase year by year.

If you are proposing that the level of health care offered to the older members of the population should be reduced, then please say so clearly.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 16703 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh

If you had read the quote carefully, you would have seen THIS:

"Between 2009-2019 the NHS budgets rose on average just 1.4% per year, compared to 3.7% average rises since the NHS was established."

In other words, on average the NHS funding was being cut by (3.7-1.4) = 2.3% per annum in real terms.

As for other countries - well, in the UK most of us pay for dentistry and opticians (for example) - to varying degrees, so it's not entirely a 'free' service, though it can be for the lowest paid and children (I think). 

Wikipedia provides a useful list of countries where health care is provided wholly or -usually - mainly through taxation:


The USA is fairly unusual in following capitalist principles to the bitter end - if you can't pay, you die (basically).

Think your logic is somewhat flawed Aber. A rise of 1.4% is still a rise just as 3.7% is a rise just not as much. Now if inflation is running at 2% for that period then it is fair to say that it is a cut in real terms whereas if inflation is running at 1% it is not a reduction in real terms. There is no real relationship between 3.7% & 1.4% it just means that spending has not risen by as much - it has still risen though. 

I'm sorry, but if your costs (wages and supplies) rise by 3.7% and your income rises by only 1.4%, then that is a 'real terms cut' in anyone's book.

That also ignores the fact that as the population gets older, the demands on the NHS increase year by year.

If you are proposing that the level of health care offered to the older members of the population should be reduced, then please say so clearly.

Again Aber I think you are comparing apples & pears. Your initial statement was that NHS increase in  funding had dropped from 3.7% to 1.4%. I merely pointed out that 1.4% is still an increase. Now you suggest that the 3.7% is an increase in costs not income - which is it.? Your last paragraph is also total nonsense. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of the amount spent on the NHS merely discussing the figures which you quoted. To suggest that somehow my comments mean that I believe in a reduction of NHS spend on older people is frankly nonsense & I would love to hear your justification/s.
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18071 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh

If you had read the quote carefully, you would have seen THIS:

"Between 2009-2019 the NHS budgets rose on average just 1.4% per year, compared to 3.7% average rises since the NHS was established."

In other words, on average the NHS funding was being cut by (3.7-1.4) = 2.3% per annum in real terms.

As for other countries - well, in the UK most of us pay for dentistry and opticians (for example) - to varying degrees, so it's not entirely a 'free' service, though it can be for the lowest paid and children (I think). 

Wikipedia provides a useful list of countries where health care is provided wholly or -usually - mainly through taxation:


The USA is fairly unusual in following capitalist principles to the bitter end - if you can't pay, you die (basically).

Think your logic is somewhat flawed Aber. A rise of 1.4% is still a rise just as 3.7% is a rise just not as much. Now if inflation is running at 2% for that period then it is fair to say that it is a cut in real terms whereas if inflation is running at 1% it is not a reduction in real terms. There is no real relationship between 3.7% & 1.4% it just means that spending has not risen by as much - it has still risen though. 

I'm sorry, but if your costs (wages and supplies) rise by 3.7% and your income rises by only 1.4%, then that is a 'real terms cut' in anyone's book.

That also ignores the fact that as the population gets older, the demands on the NHS increase year by year.

If you are proposing that the level of health care offered to the older members of the population should be reduced, then please say so clearly.

Again Aber I think you are comparing apples & pears. Your initial statement was that NHS increase in  funding had dropped from 3.7% to 1.4%. I merely pointed out that 1.4% is still an increase. Now you suggest that the 3.7% is an increase in costs not income - which is it.? Your last paragraph is also total nonsense. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of the amount spent on the NHS merely discussing the figures which you quoted. To suggest that somehow my comments mean that I believe in a reduction of NHS spend on older people is frankly nonsense & I would love to hear your justification/s.

I apologise - I misread that - you are correct. (Too many people refuse absolutely to admit when they have made a mistake, naming no names...)

It is still the case that funding for the NHS has lagged well behind the increase needed to account for the increasing needs of an ageing population - people cost the NHS far more in their final years than they do when young and healthy. 

It would take longer than I have ATM to dig out more recent figures, but probably the most authoritative body which monitors NHS funding compared to needs is the Kings Fund, which noted around 2015 that compared to the growing demands, the NHS would be underfunded bu between £30 billion and £8 billion by 2020... with an underfunding of £8 billion being the 'best case scenario'!


It was (I think) realised by 2018 that this funding settlement was inadequate, so a new deal was put together, though still less in terms of annual increase than previously. COVID has since muddied the waters still further - I think that COVID spending can not be counted as 'increased NHS spending' as it was not planned for, and much of that money went to the private sector:



Edited by aber-fan - 13 August 2021 at 3:23pm
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 16703 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Out of curio Do many other nations have a free to use nhs type system? Or is it all insurance and fee paying? The article says funding increased by over 1.4 per cent what is the current rateof inflation? Is it really as high as 1.4 per cent? I have also read health tourism in the uk costs over £300 million per annum what steps are the nhs taking to reduce that costs? Isn’t health spending devolved? What percentage increase has the wa been spending on health care? I personally don’t trust the torys with the nhs but i’m not the stats on that website are very accurate tbh

If you had read the quote carefully, you would have seen THIS:

"Between 2009-2019 the NHS budgets rose on average just 1.4% per year, compared to 3.7% average rises since the NHS was established."

In other words, on average the NHS funding was being cut by (3.7-1.4) = 2.3% per annum in real terms.

As for other countries - well, in the UK most of us pay for dentistry and opticians (for example) - to varying degrees, so it's not entirely a 'free' service, though it can be for the lowest paid and children (I think). 

Wikipedia provides a useful list of countries where health care is provided wholly or -usually - mainly through taxation:


The USA is fairly unusual in following capitalist principles to the bitter end - if you can't pay, you die (basically).

Think your logic is somewhat flawed Aber. A rise of 1.4% is still a rise just as 3.7% is a rise just not as much. Now if inflation is running at 2% for that period then it is fair to say that it is a cut in real terms whereas if inflation is running at 1% it is not a reduction in real terms. There is no real relationship between 3.7% & 1.4% it just means that spending has not risen by as much - it has still risen though. 

I'm sorry, but if your costs (wages and supplies) rise by 3.7% and your income rises by only 1.4%, then that is a 'real terms cut' in anyone's book.

That also ignores the fact that as the population gets older, the demands on the NHS increase year by year.

If you are proposing that the level of health care offered to the older members of the population should be reduced, then please say so clearly.

Again Aber I think you are comparing apples & pears. Your initial statement was that NHS increase in  funding had dropped from 3.7% to 1.4%. I merely pointed out that 1.4% is still an increase. Now you suggest that the 3.7% is an increase in costs not income - which is it.? Your last paragraph is also total nonsense. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of the amount spent on the NHS merely discussing the figures which you quoted. To suggest that somehow my comments mean that I believe in a reduction of NHS spend on older people is frankly nonsense & I would love to hear your justification/s.

I apologise - I misread that - you are correct. (Too many people refuse absolutely to admit when they have made a mistake, naming no names...)

It is still the case that funding for the NHS has lagged well behind the increase needed to account for the increasing needs of an ageing population - people cost the NHS far more in their final years than they do when young and healthy. 

It would take longer than I have ATM to dig out more recent figures, but probably the most authoritative body which monitors NHS funding compared to needs is the Kings Fund, which noted around 2015 that compared to the growing demands, the NHS would be underfunded bu between £30 billion and £8 billion by 2020... with an underfunding of £8 billion being the 'best case scenario'!


It was (I think) realised by 2018 that this funding settlement was inadequate, so a new deal was put together, though still less in terms of annual increase than previously. COVID has since muddied the waters still further - I think that COVID spending can not be counted as 'increased NHS spending' as it was not planned for, and much of that money went to the private sector:


Thank you Aber. I totally agree with you about the funding issues facing the NHS. Dai Geuvara wants us to scrap our armed forces, which I think may be a little extreme, for me scrap HS2 would be a good start and invest more in the NHS and clean energy solutions. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2930313233 110>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.