Care is knackered as well. Understaffed and underfunded.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Care is knackered as well. Understaffed and underfunded.
I haven't looked into it, just know that it exists, but wannabe science to say do what's best for the world sounds about right. Still, putting money on mosquito nets does sound more effective than putting it on, say, breast cancer awareness.Originally Posted by mugbull
I understand why health care is much more expensive now than it was on the sixties (because it is way better), but why is education much more expensive nowadays? There has not been any improvement in teaching since, probably ever.
Because there's money to be made.
Isn't it all public over there? Who is making the money?
We spend the same as/more than comparable countries on education, so it might be down to how it gets spent rather than how much is available.
For all the bleating about social care, didn't May basically fall on that very issue at the last election by trying to propose something vaguely sane, only to have Combrade Corbz and all lining up saying how terrible it was people would have to sell their homes to pay for it rather than pass them on to their children?
The Tories are obviously fighting the campaign this time they should have last time (perhaps the reality is they shouldn't have had that election), but whether that's a good idea remains to be seen. It feels like they're clinging on already without any major gaffes.
If you want nice things you have to tax the fuck out of the poor and the middle classes. It's what they do in progressive Europe, where in Germany the investment banker pays the same rate of income tax as the factory worker (if a recent BBC article is to be believed - 47% all round). Middle incomes and consumption (VAT) are the low hanging fruit. Tax evasion and making BIG BUSINESS pay is a red herring.
Being a public institution adds about 75 layers of red tape. It also means any work that needs doing or supplies that need ordering all have to comple from a small crop of approved traders. Surprisingly, said traders take advantage of their captive market and triple their prices.
If that is indeed true (and should be easy to measure) then asking for more money for the schools does not seem like a good solution, at all. Said traders will just soak it up.
The 'Dementia Tax' was a good idea, and would effectively be replicated anyway if the pinkos reduced the inheritance tax threshold or brought in some sort of sinister 'gift tax'. This is all - not surprisingly - Tony Blair's fault.
CEOs of Multi Academy Trusts.
Add in growing class sizes, chucking money away recruiting teachers who don't stay in teaching and cutting government spending in education, etc.
Since academisation was brought in (which is being enforced more and more) a lot of schools are actually run by for-profit academy chains...
EDIT: as mo says
I am 100% sure you would save money overall if you improved social care. Acute hospital admissions cost a fucking fortune.
Will giving them more money solve any issues then?
EDIT: them being the for-profit academy chains
I'm sure that's right, but no fucker is going to vote for it if the argument involves even a scintilla of nuance.
Probably not, but the Tories were the ones who academised all the schools despite massive opposition from the schools/teachers/heads/everyone else but themselves so I don't have much confidence in them doing anything to improve the situation going forward (especially given they continue to cut budgets).
Last edited by randomlegend; 30-11-2019 at 02:13 PM.
Also if the government tried re-directing existing resources idiots would start bealing about x thousand nurses being sacked.
I often wonder if Universal Credit and PIP has actually saved the government money.
Well you can't do it that way round can you, because the social care infrastructure won't go into place overnight no matter what money you throw at it.
But if you invest there, the burden on the NHS falls and you can stop doing things like employeeing 100s of new non-trainee junior doctors from abroad every November or employing bank nurses on higher hourly wages (who can barely do anything because they "aren't signed off for that in this hospital") than consultants to cover desperately overstretched A and Es.
Honestly I bet if you removed all the admissions which could be avoided by better social care and accessible GPs, you could run the hospital I work at without any bank/locum staff which would save a fortune.
But it seems impossible to do anything that 'long'-term.
Last edited by randomlegend; 30-11-2019 at 02:14 PM.
You can't build an entire economy around owning a house and then nick it off them when they get Alzheimers.
Yes, you can. They can't remember.
It's not really nicking it though, is it?
I mean, if you have half a million in the bank do you get to keep that whilst the state funds your old age care? I realise old age care and social care may not be the same thing.
I mean that's literally the point of something called a National Health Service right? If your argument is 'To service your health, sell us your house'. You don't believe in the NHS. It's pretty clear. It's the ultimate proof you don't believe in it and want to privatise their care.
To be fair, it's probably not that straightforward to draw a line between what constitutes social care and what constitutes healthcare for frail, elderly people. Nobody is suggesting they pay for their hospital admissions for example.
People who thinks electoral politics is about nuance is as dumb as Lewis on the page prior. People don't give a shit. They hear 'Grandma health bad? We'll take her house'.
Isn't that how it works at the moment? As I understand it, Care Homes and such are means-tested, and the price you pay is dependent on your savings, assets etc.
Yes. It's not the Government telling Lewis to get out his Nans house though is it. Like I say, nuance doesn't matter.
If this stuff is to be paid for then people either need to pay more tax or use their own assets, and if that means selling your house then so be it. It's why I never got main the argument against the 'mansion tax' being that some old people might have to move. And? If you can't afford to maintain your property (taxes and all), then you have to get a cheaper one. It's not a million miles away from the agreeable logic of the 'bedroom tax'.
Yeah they should probably move to the commune and pay more tax.
The Bedroom Tax was fucking dumb because there was no way for these people to move into places without one so it was just taxing people for existing. It makes sense in a country with loads of 1 bedroom flats being built but not in the UK.
Well if they didn't ration housebuilding.
Yeah, how has the lot you throw in behind been on that?
Absolutely shit.
How long will Labour have to be out of power; for whatever the Tories have ballsed up this week to be not Labours fault.
Labour would absolutely piss this election (or the last one) if they had a unifying, charismatic leader. Ed Miliband platform (or even more left of that) with Blair charisma, say.
People know what things are like at the moment but they won't go for change unless the opposition is wholly convincing. Opposition never wins elections for the sake of it, just look at Kinnock. Corbyn is complete poison to around 60% of the electorate and the only way he can be PM would be at the head of an unwieldy coalition which would compromise a lot of his platform.
We won't be 'unifying' anything until some sort of [electoral] consensus emerges around it being too big a pain in the arse to re-join the European Union, so I'm not sure how some cut-out New Labour tosser would offer anything useful in the current environment.
They wouldn't, but they would get voted in for non-Brexit reasons if they had the Labour apparatus behind them.
Isn't this just why Boris Johnson is winning nine years into unpopular/crap Conservative[-led] government?
This Andrew Neil dodging really has reached pathetic levels.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...neil-interview
A grown man shouldn't squirm that much.
Indeed. I don't even care whether he appears or not, just man the fuck up when you're asked about it.
Severely dissapointed no-ones posted the Ken Livingstone getting his foot stuck in a tube door video.
"Mr. Livingstone, you know better than this!"
Wonderful. Also, Labour's finally put their leaflet through the door. It includes an open letter from the Miners Association. You can imagine how steeped in 80s vitriol that is.
I thought that Ian Lavery thing about stolen pensions was a spoof.
It's pretty sad that literally all they have to say in the north these days is harking back to the events of 40 years ago. If the Tories sent round three day week leaflets, Twitter would be ablaze.
Maybe it's because some of those areas still haven't recovered from that.
I keep dipping into the Durham Mining Museum website and seeing just how many pits the North East had. And the sheer manpower required to run them.
The sixties chucked more miners out of work than the eighties. It was dead.
Aye, their figures say as much. The ones I remember hanging on for dear life are the ones like Easington.
These shit Conservative Party memes are some of the best political content of all time. They're probably the sole reason Dominic Grieve appeared to have aged twenty years on the telly earlier.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote