Boris Johnson |
Post Reply | Page <1 2930313233 110> |
Author | ||||||
dyniol53
Veteran Joined: 08 April 2018 Location: Llundain Status: Offline Points: 1949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
Sponsored Links | ||||||
RR1972
Veteran Joined: 27 April 2009 Status: Offline Points: 18267 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
dyniol53
Veteran Joined: 08 April 2018 Location: Llundain Status: Offline Points: 1949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
Jones2004
Veteran Joined: 29 September 2019 Location: North Wales Status: Offline Points: 1439 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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).
|
||||||
dyniol53
Veteran Joined: 08 April 2018 Location: Llundain Status: Offline Points: 1949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
GPR - Rochester
Veteran Joined: 01 December 2014 Location: Rhydcymerau Status: Online Points: 18781 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
greypower1
Veteran Joined: 04 December 2010 Location: Pwll Status: Offline Points: 4205 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
Dai Guevara
Veteran Joined: 12 August 2020 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 1486 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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. `
|
||||||
bills burr
Newbie Joined: 04 August 2021 Location: llanelli Status: Offline Points: 79 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
dyniol53
Veteran Joined: 08 April 2018 Location: Llundain Status: Offline Points: 1949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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)
|
||||||
dyniol53
Veteran Joined: 08 April 2018 Location: Llundain Status: Offline Points: 1949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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)
|
||||||
GPR - Rochester
Veteran Joined: 01 December 2014 Location: Rhydcymerau Status: Online Points: 18781 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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)
|
||||||
GPR - Rochester
Veteran Joined: 01 December 2014 Location: Rhydcymerau Status: Online Points: 18781 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 2930313233 110> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |