.

It's genuinely scary when you look at how much they've underfunded it compared to historically. The money is there as well; it's an ideolgical choice not to properly fund it.
Of course it is. There is profit to be made, a lot of profit, enough for the US LLC's and the PM that delivers it.
 
It's not that funding hasnt kept up with inflation Andy, its that it has gone down in absolute and real terms. A huge proportion of the "NHS" funding goes to private companies. This isn't funding the NHS it's funding the private healthcare sector.

That's why I say it isn't fudging numbers, it's lying. It is a straight out lie.
Aye, I know, but they peddle the line that the per capita spend has gone up, but it's where that's going which is the problem. I wouldn't be bothered if they used private companies if they were more efficient with that money, and if it was still free to the user, but the service we're getting is worse (again that's Tories for ya).
 
Aye, I know, but they peddle the line that the per capita spend has gone up, but it's where that's going which is the problem. I wouldn't be bothered if they used private companies if they were more efficient with that money, and if it was still free to the user, but the service we're getting is worse (again that's Tories for ya).
Funding has gone up. It might not have matched inflation but it has increased. The biggest problem is the total funding for NHS & Social care has massively gone down resulting in more peopl needing A&E/GPs etc and more people sat in beds with nowhere to go. Social care is preventative as well as restorative. Pointless having the most efficiently run NHS service in the middle (even if that was the case) of an entirely inefficient/underfunded system.
 
Funding has gone up. It might not have matched inflation but it has increased. The biggest problem is the total funding for NHS & Social care has massively gone down resulting in more peopl needing A&E/GPs etc and more people sat in beds with nowhere to go. Social care is preventative as well as restorative. Pointless having the most efficiently run NHS service in the middle (even if that was the case) of an entirely inefficient/underfunded system.
Nano that isn't true. In absolute terms and in real terms funding has been reduced. The increased funding is going solely to private contractors, not the NHS. Year on year funding has been slashed.
 
According to Richard Murphy ( Tax research uk) nearly 3/4 of UKā€™s national debt has been borrowed by the Tories.
 
According to Richard Murphy ( Tax research uk) nearly 3/4 of UKā€™s national debt has been borrowed by the Tories.
Interestingly, in the 77 years since the end of the Second World War, the UK government has only made a net repayment of debt in 11 of those years. Of those 11 occasions, 7 occurred under Labour governments, despite the fact that they were only in power for 25 of the 77 years in question.

Still, the Tories are the party of sound money and prudent economic management and all thatā€¦
 
Interestingly, in the 77 years since the end of the Second World War, the UK government has only made a net repayment of debt in 11 of those years. Of those 11 occasions, 7 occurred under Labour governments, despite the fact that they were only in power for 25 of the 77 years in question.
.
Still, the Tories are the party of sound money and prudent economic management and all thatā€¦

Yes, he mentioned that. The Tories have only paid down four times in that period. Frightening to think the Tories have held power for that amount of time.
I know Murphyā€™s talked a lot about to whom the money is owed if most of it is actually ā€˜Createdā€™ money, printed under instruction from the government. Can it in that case be technically considered as debt? Or as other people describe itā€¦a con that government insist that ā€˜createdā€™ money is a debt that must be paid back.
 
Yes, he mentioned that. The Tories have only paid down four times in that period. Frightening to think the Tories have held power for that amount of time.
I know Murphyā€™s talked a lot about to whom the money is owed if most of it is actually ā€˜Createdā€™ money, printed under instruction from the government. Can it in that case be technically considered as debt? Or as other people describe itā€¦a con that government insist that ā€˜createdā€™ money is a debt that must be paid back.
This is where it gets complicated BUT the current Chancellor knows he's telling lies when he trots out the household debt argument (unless he's utterly incompetent).

Murphy is a proponent of MMT and goes into a lot of detail in his blogs. Essentially the UK can't go bankrupt owing itself money. There are other bonds and things which foreign invetors own but as long as the UK maintains a good credit rating it can continue to borrow almost indefinitely. The political decisions come with where you put the debt. Infrastructure or personal offshore accounts.
 
Didn't take too long for an anti-Starmer post to crop up on a thread discussing Sunak and Truss... :ROFLMAO:

That woman won't be voting Tory anyway so I'm not sure what the issue is. Some people who loved Corbyn will never like Starmer. So what.
I could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.

She probably won't vote Tory but Starmer is making no headway as Labour leader and needs to go whilst there's still time to bed-in someone with either charisma or an ideology (preferably both).

The fact the latest polls show Starmer coming last in the "who would you prefer as PM" question is hugely damning of the whole Tory-lite project.
 
I think he was just dumbing things down a little (with regards tot the deficit), which I can kind of understand, as most of the public won't understand anyway.

They all fudge the numbers about funding public services, but as we know, there are may ways to lie using statistics, or bending numbers to suit your argument. They're still both Tories, so either way those services are getting cut, in real terms. Or if they keep one funded in line with inflation they'll shout it from the roof top, but then cut another three which they won't talk about.

The guests were terrible.
I'm not sure that treating the public like idiots is better in any way than expecting them to be adults and telling the truth about how state finances work.
 
I could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.

She probably won't vote Tory but Starmer is making no headway as Labour leader and needs to go whilst there's still time to bed-in someone with either charisma or an ideology (preferably both).

The fact the latest polls show Starmer coming last in the "who would you prefer as PM" question is hugely damning of the whole Tory-lite project.

No headway as Labour leader... OK mate.

Screenshot 2022-07-26 at 15.24.31.png

(Source https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/)
 
That woman spoke for the whole of Liverpool did she? She can certainly rant. The anger and frustration is understandable but she didnā€™t allow him to respond or debate with her.
He made no attempt to even engage. There was plenty of opportunity.

She wasn't particularly agressive, just passionate. Something else Starmer lacks.
 
Yes, he mentioned that. The Tories have only paid down four times in that period. Frightening to think the Tories have held power for that amount of time.
I know Murphyā€™s talked a lot about to whom the money is owed if most of it is actually ā€˜Createdā€™ money, printed under instruction from the government. Can it in that case be technically considered as debt? Or as other people describe itā€¦a con that government insist that ā€˜createdā€™ money is a debt that must be paid back.
I think the majority of the debt is traditional, in that it was existing money in the money supply that was borrowed by the government from financial institutions and foreign governments. Depending on whether you're a proponent of MMT or not would determine whether you think that element of the national debt really needs to be repaid.

The Covid-related debt though is different. What happened there was the Bank of England (100% owned by the government) created Ā£412bn of 'new' money, which it then used to purchase existing government debt from financial institutions. The UK government then borrowed Ā£413bn from the same financial institutions, who bought it using the money the BoE had just paid them.

Technically, the national debt did increase by Ā£413bn and this amount is included in the overall debt figure which is published monthly. In reality, however, that amount is almost exactly cancelled out by the amount of debt which is held by the BoE, a wholly owned entity of the UK government.

That's why the arguments, particularly around the Covid debt, stating that we've "maxed out the credit card" or "can't expect our children/grandchildren to pick up the bill" are complete nonsense. Interesting analysis from the New Economics Foundation below:

 
I could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.

She probably won't vote Tory but Starmer is making no headway as Labour leader and needs to go whilst there's still time to bed-in someone with either charisma or an ideology (preferably both).

The fact the latest polls show Starmer coming last in the "who would you prefer as PM" question is hugely damning of the whole Tory-lite project.
Thats nonsense Scrote. Which poll? And by the way even if you were right he isnt doing too bad in the polls that point to who wins the next GE

 
The man, not the party.

View attachment 41971

What @Cardiffdaffs said...

I couldn't care less what Starmer's polling is as long as Labour look set to win the next GE, as they do now. And with Truss coming in I would expect that to grow as the GE comes closer.

All I want, and it would appear much of the country, is to get the Tories out. Bitching about Starmer all the time plays into the hands of the Tories. - in fact you are doing their work for them.

But of course you can criticise him and hold him to account but turning every thread discussing Tories into a Starmer bashing one is a bit OTT. I don't mean you specifically but there are usual suspects with form of this.

Labour aren't getting a new leader this side of the GE so I am not sure what can be done to satisfy the Starmer haters. Probably nothing. The only way to get the Tories out is to vote for Labour and Starmer is here for a while.
 
Back
Top