Get the Tories Out!

[Justin Passing]

The NHS backed out of comprehensive dentistry and something else - eyes I think, a long time ago.

Times change, people live a multiple of what they did, post retirement. Life expectancy for a man since 1945 has gone something like 64 to 80.
Like immigration, the rules need to be changed a bit.

Hugely overwhelmingly it's inpationets who fall over or with "ambulatory" issues: https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/high-cost-high-need-patients.

If you're basically well enough you should have to PAY for travelodge-style accommodation, with obs being done (free) twice a day, while you're getting better. Various of your benefits should help pay for it because you don't need the food/heating etc at home. At the moment there's a 6 week (iirc) holdoff - why?

 

[Deleted member 18243]

It's basically a giant tumour that's steadily consuming all of the UK's money.

Very good!

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

As you are a man of massive and obvious ignorance, perhaps you are unaware that UK has an ageing population, and a great many people around and over retirement age

Perhaps you are also unaware that older people need more care, more often, for longer

Our aging population needs more healthcare, and our government wants the NHS to be unable to provide it.

It does not have any slack in reserve to cope with the extra and inevitable demands of a hard winter or a virulent flu, never mind a serious and widespread epidemic.

I'll put it more bluntly, as the penny clearly hasn't dropped... there isn't any money. Whatever the rights and wrongs, nobody can possibly give the NHS all the money it needs to do everything it's currently attempting to do. At least not without shutting down pretty much every other public service.

If Starmer says he's going to lob £x Billion extra at the NHS then the currency and country will collapse the moment he gets elected, we've already seen the reaction we got from the world's investors when Truss rocked the boat, the reaction to a massive increase in public spending will make this look like a small taster. This is where we are - we're massively in debt as a nation, are running out of options and those we need to borrow from just to function can and will call the shots.

The 70s labour governments got booted out for taxing too much, then 80s/90s tories got booted out for cutting too much, but the Blair/Brown years and beyond (including the current tories) have all been dependent on ever-increasing national debt. This enabled them to achieve the impossible - massive public spending with low taxes. Popularity all round, but it was all a deception. Nobody wants to lend us any more, or at least they want to charge us much more for it, so the party's over and we've got one hell of a hangover from it.

The only logical solution is that the NHS needs to reallocate the money it already gets (or less), into whatever those in charge decide are the priorities. I'm sure there's lots of management fat that could be trimmed, but it would also have to involve cuts in service. It needs to prioritise, and stop providing some of the services it currently does. This would undoubtedly be a tough decision, and you can bet that the likes of the BBC would be lining up ill people with sad faces, which is why no politician has ever tackled it, but what's the alternative?

How the heck can spending £7000 per household on healthcare per year possibly be sustainable?

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I think you're taking the term 'Conservatism' at an odd tangent: yes, it can mean to conserve, but Conservatism isn't intended to reflect that ideal in the same way the Green Party would use it,

Yes it is, actually. It's all about conserving what is good and what is necessary. We have lived in a left-wing climate for so long that the true meaning of the word "conservative" has been forgotten, and the word now, to most people, only means greedy, venal, overfed, corrupt etc. The current tories have not conserved the country's wealth, treasure or heritage; they have given it all away. Most people live their lives and behave in a conservative way. Business owners manage their companies in conservative ways.

For starters, and in conjunction with the unions: Statutory holiday pay, employment rights as enshrined in the 1975 Employment Act (which the Tories have undercut) and a guaranteed minimum wage. So which policies are we still suffering from today, then? Name 4 if you can.

If you want to name radical political actions which have really damaged the UK in the longer term you should have named Margaret Thatcher (a Tory), or Duncan Sandys (1957 White Paper on Defence - another Tory)

That's old stuff and I'm not knocking it, but I am talking about Blairism. I have written extensively on the damage Blair has done to the country...do an advanced search on "Tony Blair Andy 11".

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You must have been to "how to be a politician" school with all your needless repetition. Just the sort of thing that has me reaching for the mute button on the telly when they start making intelligence-insulting speeches like your posts.

Labour are continually promising the impossible, the Tories just cut budgets without wanting to make any unpopular decisions so leave public services stretched paper-thin. What's actually needed are tough choices about what the state does and doesn't pay for. And the only way out of the current mess is for the state to spend less money on a lot less, including the vast scope of NHS treatments that are offered. Do fewer things well instead of trying to do everything badly.

If the NHS was returned to treating only serious illnesses and injuries as originally intended then its budget could be controlled and it would actually achieve what it set out to do using less money.

Does anyone seriously think the NHS can just continue infinitely expanding and treating absolutely everything?

Or even just tax people and business properly.

apparently we are still 1 of the wealthiest countries in the world. So where is all that wealth ? Hidden and untaxed, but you just want to blame taxpayers for wanting services.

open your eyes and your mind a bit

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Our apparent wealth is largely imaginary. We once had vast industries that made stuff and exported it. In case you haven't noticed, most of it has gone and we import almost everything. We've got pretend-rich by flogging houses to each other at escalating prices, then borrowing money against these daft valuations.

Also the government has been borrowing massive amounts of money every year and paying it to the businesses and people that provide public services. This money doesn't sit in their bank accounts - most of them spend it, dispersing it among the businesses they spend it at. In other words, giving the economy a thick frothy topping that it would never have had without all that borrowing.

Everyone's living lavish lifestyles that almost all of us are not actually entitled to. Even if we're not directly borrowing personally, we're probably getting money from others who are.

We're a poor country that has got away with pretending otherwise for a few decades. It looks like reality will be forced upon us very soon, it's suddenly getting much more expensive to borrow.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Our apparent wealth is largely imaginary. We once had vast industries that made stuff and exported it. In case you haven't noticed, most of it has gone and we import almost everything. We've got pretend-rich by flogging houses to each other at escalating prices, then borrowing money against these daft valuations.

Also the government has been borrowing massive amounts of money every year and paying it to the businesses and people that provide public services. This money doesn't sit in their bank accounts - most of them spend it, dispersing it among the businesses they spend it at. In other words, giving the economy a thick frothy topping that it would never have had without all that borrowing.

Everyone's living lavish lifestyles that almost all of us are not actually entitled to. Even if we're not directly borrowing personally, we're probably getting money from others who are.

We're a poor country that has got away with pretending otherwise for a few decades. It looks like reality will be forced upon us very soon, it's suddenly getting much more expensive to borrow.

Ever heard of tax havens, tax specialists, tax avoidance ?

Ever looked at how much (little) tax some major multi nationals companies pay

Ever seen any ordinary worker listed in the Panama papers or similar ?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Tax dodgers get away with it because they have the money to pay people who ensure that they get away with it. Obviously an average earner isn't going to pay someone £100k to avoid £1k of tax, it only makes sense if you're loaded so have big savings to make.

I'm sure more could be achieved than at present, I suspect that the current lot actually encourage it and deliberately turn a blind eye. But you'd probably find that the day that the new anti-tax-dodging laws come into effect, all their UK money would have mysteriously vanished to some other part of the world. It might get some good headlines and feel like justice was being done, but it probably wouldn't achieve much.

Perhaps siding with and allowing tax dodgers to hide their money here is even profitable? It may be better to have a tiny slice of a big amount instead of a massive chunk of nothing. This sort of thing may be just good for the country rather than corrupt or dodgy, but no country wants to admit that they're a tax or political haven for dodgy money, even if they do actually encourage it.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Tax dodgers get away with it because they have the money to pay people who ensure that they get away with it. Obviously an average earner isn't going to pay someone £100k to avoid £1k of tax, it only makes sense if you're loaded so have big savings to make.

I'm sure more could be achieved than at present, I suspect that the current lot actually encourage it and deliberately turn a blind eye. But you'd probably find that the day that the new anti-tax-dodging laws come into effect, all their UK money would have mysteriously vanished to some other part of the world. It might get some good headlines and feel like justice was being done, but it probably wouldn't achieve much.

Perhaps siding with and allowing tax dodgers to hide their money here is even profitable? It may be better to have a tiny slice of a big amount instead of a massive chunk of nothing. This sort of thing may be just good for the country rather than corrupt or dodgy, but no country wants to admit that they're a tax or political haven for dodgy money, even if they do actually encourage it.

and of course we can ignore all that hidden wealth and cut back on services too.

austerity again anyone ?

a tiny slice of a big amount instead of a proper chunk of a massive amount? Not sure that is in the countries best interest, but it is in the interest of a few, who keep telling you to expect less.

if any company can afford to pay tax they won't run away from the profit source. But if they did, another business or more than 1 will take their place.

you are just accepting what is going on, and not accepting challenging it. Which is what you said you wanted, originally.

you are falling for slogans but can't or won't see it. Nobody else can make you, you have to work it out for yourself. Or dont, it's easier.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Austerity hardly happened, it was nothing. This next time we probably won't have a choice, the cuts will be huge and the PM and colour of the ruling party will be irrelevant. We don't have any money, nobody wants to keep lending us more, there's nothing left to spend whatever your preferences. A few extra taxes aren't going to solve a problem of this sort of scale.

Multinationals are experts at shifting their profits. One small example that illustrates how it's done... A well known international coffee shop chain charges £3 a cup for mostly frothy milk and water, so obviously makes vast profits, in the UK, from UK customers. All companies offset their costs against their turnover and pay corporation tax on the remaining profit. But their costs include a £2 per cup licensing fee for the use of the company logo printed on the cup, payable to a separate company that's registered in a tax haven. So almost all of the money paid by the UK customers directly exits the country via this licensing fee, as a result they pay almost no tax, as their UK operation is making almost no profit after paying these licensing fees.

This is a very simple example of what happens. Another example is a car maker. It manufactures a component in country A and assembles the car in country B. It can adjust the price of that component between 1p and pretty much the value of the car if it likes, in order to shift the profit from selling that car to or from country A or B as it prefers, depending on the tax rates in these countries.

It's all good saying we're going to crack down on this that or the other, but if they whack one mole it will just pop up elsewhere. Labour appear to be experts in failing to understand the law of unintended consequences. They fail to understand that if you tax the rich they'll just leave or find a way of not paying, in the same way they don't seem able to understand that if you pay people to sit at home all day instead of working then more of them might just do that. They're well-meaning but don't seem to understand that actions have consequences.

 

[JohnD]

I'll put it more bluntly, as the penny clearly hasn't dropped... there isn't any money.

I'm glad you said that, as it is nonsense.

After WW2, Britain was pretty well bankrupt.

The nation needed to be rebuilt, and improved, and most of the electorate knew it.

Do you seriously think UK was richer in 1948 than in 2022?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Austerity hardly happened, it was nothing. This next time we probably won't have a choice, the cuts will be huge and the PM and colour of the ruling party will be irrelevant. We don't have any money, nobody wants to keep lending us more, there's nothing left to spend whatever your preferences. A few extra taxes aren't going to solve a problem of this sort of scale.

Multinationals are experts at shifting their profits. One small example that illustrates how it's done... A well known international coffee shop chain charges £3 a cup for mostly frothy milk and water, so obviously makes vast profits, in the UK, from UK customers. All companies offset their costs against their turnover and pay corporation tax on the remaining profit. But their costs include a £2 per cup licensing fee for the use of the company logo printed on the cup, payable to a separate company that's registered in a tax haven. So almost all of the money paid by the UK customers directly exits the country via this licensing fee, as a result they pay almost no tax, as their UK operation is making almost no profit after paying these licensing fees.

This is a very simple example of what happens. Another example is a car maker. It manufactures a component in country A and assembles the car in country B. It can adjust the price of that component between 1p and pretty much the value of the car if it likes, in order to shift the profit from selling that car to or from country A or B as it prefers, depending on the tax rates in these countries.

It's all good saying we're going to crack down on this that or the other, but if they whack one mole it will just pop up elsewhere. Labour appear to be experts in failing to understand the law of unintended consequences. They fail to understand that if you tax the rich they'll just leave or find a way of not paying, in the same way they don't seem able to understand that if you pay people to sit at home all day instead of working then more of them might just do that. They're well-meaning but don't seem to understand that actions have consequences.

Put simply. Labour haven't been in power for 12 years or so?

This government is the 1 you should be talking abut. How's their monetary policies going ?

Stop blaming others

 

[Deleted member 174758]

Austerity hardly happened, it was nothing.

It's clear to see you don't live in the north, where it certainly did. Ignorance must be bliss

We don't have any money, nobody wants to keep lending us more, there's nothing left to spend whatever your preferences.

So Kamakazee and Truss really did stuff up, then

A few extra taxes aren't going to solve a problem of this sort of scale.

A well known international coffee shop chain charges £3 a cup for mostly frothy milk and water, so obviously makes vast profits, in the UK, from UK customers

If you are talking about Starbucks then say so. Companies shifting profits that way can be caught by a turnover tax. So if they want to stay in the UK they would either have to live with it, or pull out and leave the market to two major rivals. Which do you think they would do?

It's all good saying we're going to crack down on this that or the other, but if they whack one mole it will just pop up elsewhere

Which is why HMRC need to be more proactive

.Labour appear to be experts in failing to understand the law of unintended consequences. They fail to understand that if you tax the rich they'll just leave or find a way of not paying, in the same way they don't seem able to understand that if you pay people to sit at home all day instead of working then more of them might just do that.

Now all you are doing is justifying the current Tory position because you are just another right winger. Many richer countries do indeed tax high earners more and close down offshore money manipulation. It works for them, so why not here?

They're well-meaning but don't seem to understand that actions have consequences.

******

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

So Kamakazee and Truss really did stuff up, then

Do you seriously believe that everything was fine, the evil Truss and sidekick mucked everything up and now it's fine again? You must have been listening to Tory TV or something. Rubbish, all they did was to make a few minor changes that tipped the balance. We're still heading towards the conclusion that they gave us a brief taste of.

Which is why HMRC need to be more proactive

Just more sound-bite stuff. The examples I gave are tiny illustrations of the simple end of the scale. These companies don't publish accounts stating "Tax Dodged: £x billion", it's all hidden behind opaque layers of subsidiaries and associated companies, apparently receiving payments for goods and services. No doubt they'll have squadrons of accountants and lawyers ready to argue the legality and justification of every step. You'd probably need to spend more on forensic accountancy and legal battles than you'd ever raise.

If you are talking about Starbucks then say so. Companies shifting profits that way can be caught by a turnover tax.

There already is one, it's called VAT and Starbucks already pay lots of it, that the state already fritters away.

Socialism all sounds fine until they run out of someone else's money and come for yours. The scale of the overspending on public services is so utterly massive that it definitely can't be covered just by more tax for "them". If this level of spending continues after the borrowing frenzy is forced to stop then everyone will soon discover that they are in fact "the rich", not just someone else.

because you are just another right winger

Sigh... if you lose an argument then lob in some silly meaningless insult. Honestly I don't know what left or right wing actually means. The idea that you can divide all ideas around every aspect of life neatly into left or right is utter nonsense. Together with, of course, the insinuation that "right" also equals Trump, Maggie-Maggie-Maggie and Hitler. If this is logical then everyone who votes labour is a commie who should live in China or Russia. But of course it isn't, it's utter nonsense.

For the record, I would have voted for Corbyn as he seemed like a sensible bloke who wanted to nationalise the money-grabbing monopoly utilities that should never have been privatised in the first place. The problem that stopped me voting for him was that he surrounded himself with dangerous halfwits. Some of us aren't ruled by dogma or tribalism, we pick the best of a bad bunch each time based entirely on merits and accept that we don't agree with lots of aspects of the party that we are voting for. You seem to find it hard to understand that many people don't wave the flag of any party - they exist to serve us, not the other way round.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Do you seriously believe that everything was fine, the evil Truss and sidekick mucked everything up and now it's fine again? You must have been listening to Tory TV or something. Rubbish, all they did was to make a few minor changes that tipped the balance. We're still heading towards the conclusion that they gave us a brief taste of.


Just more sound-bite stuff. The examples I gave are tiny illustrations of the simple end of the scale. These companies don't publish accounts stating "Tax Dodged: £x billion", it's all hidden behind opaque layers of subsidiaries and associated companies, apparently receiving payments for goods and services. No doubt they'll have squadrons of accountants and lawyers ready to argue the legality and justification of every step. You'd probably need to spend more on forensic accountancy and legal battles than you'd ever raise.


There already is one, it's called VAT and Starbucks already pay lots of it, that the state already fritters away.

Socialism all sounds fine until they run out of everyone else's money and come for yours. The scale of the overspending on public services is so utterly massive that it definitely can't be covered just by more tax for "them". If this level of spending continues after the borrowing frenzy is forced to stop then everyone will soon discover that they are in fact "the rich", not just someone else.


Sigh... if you lose an argument then lob in some silly meaningless insult. Honestly I don't know what left or right wing actually means. The idea that you can divide all ideas around every aspect of life neatly into left or right is utter nonsense. Together with, of course, the insinuation that "right" also equals Trump, Maggie-Maggie-Maggie and Hitler. If this is logical then everyone who votes labour is a commie who should live in China or Russia. But of course it isn't, it's utter nonsense.

For the record, I would have voted for Corbyn as he seemed like a sensible bloke who wanted to nationalise the money-grabbing monopoly utilities that should never have been privatised in the first place. The problem that stopped me voting for him was that he surrounded himself with dangerous halfwits. Some of us aren't ruled by dogma or tribalism, we pick the best of a bad bunch each time based entirely on merits and accept that we don't agree with lots of aspects of the party that we are voting for. You seem to find it hard to understand that many people don't wave the flag of any party - they exist to serve us, not the other way round.

Great. Until you say you will vote for Reform, even before you know what each party will have as their major and minor policies.

Who is blinkered ?I

I think you are as right wing as they come. And yes right and left still exist, though some try to pretend they are not relevant terms. Don't get right and left mixed up with extremes. That's like saying their is only black and white, no different shades.