Could somebody confirm whether the government’s austerity programme has only slowed down the rate of increase of expenditure over income, rather than put us in a position whereby income exceeds expenditure? I was of the impression that the deficit continues to increase, just not by as much as before.
That must be a record long post. I got sprained down roller finger syndrome trying to find the end of it!
In October last year the Government announced that it was going to recruit 3-5,000 new customs officers. Whatever your Brexit colours more HMRC staff are obviously going to be needed to police new arrangements not only with the EU but with all the other countries we will trade with. Since October last year HMRC headcount has fallen by nearly 3,000. Me too. Austerity, and the level of austerity, is a policy choice. As one of the worlds most globalised economies the global crash of 2008 hit us harder than most. Although it’s popular to slag off Gordon Brown, his fiscal and monetary response to the crash was seen as a model and copied by many countries. Many less copied the austerity imposed by the coalition and then the subsequent Tory governments, as they recognised that government spending contributes to the economy, and turning off the tap has a huge ripple effect, beyond the direct beneficiaries of the spending. All other developed countries are now experiencing much higher economic growth than us, without the extreme austerity policies. Despite the masochism that our government has imposed on us (does that make it sadism?) to marginally impact a line on the budget sheet, our international credit rating has fallen, and the anecdotal and statistical impact on individuals and families has been negative and huge, as Kiwi’s post shows. An illustration of the perverse impact of austerity. In October last year the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ruled that anybody who needed a cataract operation should get one as soon as possible (bet you thought that was the case anyway) rather than wait until eyesight had deteriorated beyond a certain point (near blindness) because not only is the operation very clinically effective (it nearly always works) it’s very cost effective - it saves the NHS money as the blinder you are the more likely you are to have accidents that need treating, broken bones, burns etc. Also of course if you have difficulty seeing you may have difficulty working, and therefore the tax take drops and benefits spend rises. Of the 175 local health groups 117 have not implemented this mandatory ruling because they cannot afford to. However, the government has never hidden its spending intentions and we voted them in, so the electorate is accountable. What successive governments, and especially George Osborne, have done is be mendacious about the impact, promising us that the end is just around the corner and everyone would be richer. At the end of the Great War a fund was set up to help reduce the national debt, which had risen from £650m in 1913 to £7bn in 1918. Such was the difference in the way people felt about their country and debt in those days that many people made donations to it, including small offerings from ex servicemen and relatively huge amounts from the rich (especially the Scottish rich, who were apparently offended by the notion of debt). The fund was never cashed in and now stands at £400m. Our government is asking for permission to use this money to spend on interest payments on the current debt - not to reduce the debt. For balance, a fund set up in the twenties or thirties by a rich couple in honour of their daughter who was killed in an attempt to fly over the Atlantic for a similar purpose was cashed in by Denis Healey to put in the pot for the IMF in the seventies, all £5m of it.
Nicely put I see Baroness Shami Chakrabati, who's never been elected to any political office, is telling us in relation to abortion in Northern Ireland, that the enforcement of Human Rights, as devised and stipulated by establishment-elite lawyers like herself and Cherie Booth, are more important than democracy itself. It beggar's belief. Meanwhile, the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are working with the Europhile ex-president in Italy to force an EU supporting puppet leader on the Italian electorate. It won't work. Italians will eventually force through an exit from the Euro imo, because they recognise the Euro has acted in favour of one dominant country, Germany, at the expense of their own economy.
NHS guilty of 'ridiculous waste of resources' and could improve care without spending a penny more, top medic says 310 please log in to view this image Prof Keith Willett, medical director for acute care, urged people to do more to prevent beds being blocked by patients who should have been discharged please log in to view this image Laura Donnelly, Health Editor 28 May 2018 • 9:30pm The NHS is guilty of a “ridiculous waste of resources” - and could improve care without spending a penny more, its most senior doctor says. Prof Keith Willett, medical director for acute care, urged staff to stop “fuming” when the system “grinds to a halt” and instead do more to prevent beds being blocked by patients who should have been discharged. He said too many surgeons were left unable to operate - sometimes on a daily basis - because of a failure to tackle bedblocking, with beds filled by those unable to discharged for want of help at home. Writing for The Telegraph, the senior surgeon said that too often, the system had stopped functioning even before the first patient arrives for surgery.... not subscribing i cant see any more does he say how much could be spent elsewhere treating patients
I can't see any more, either, Kiwi, but there's an obvious (to me) reason for his views being the way they are. Care in the community, once you're out of hospital, isn't something the NHS does. It's Social Services, managed and paid for by the local councils. These councils are operating on far less money than they used to, in part because central government has reduced the money they get from central funds. Services have been cut. So, someone in hospital who could leave is being kept in because they don't have access to the care they need when they go home - often not medical care, but domestic support. The council can't provide it, so they stay in hospital and remain an NHS problem. The answer would be to restore the funding the council needs so these people can go home and free up the beds. Hard to understand what NHS staff can do about that.
An American's report on the effects of Tory austerity............ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/world/europe/uk-austerity-poverty.html Sorry Kiwi, you have to click on the link to read it.
This is a very clear, very helpful summary from legal viewpoint on exactly what happened, and why. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
Oh do come on stroller What's your point There is absolutely nothing new to read here Seen it all before
see post 18217 you commented on it see post 18218 did you see post 18235 copy and paste might take longer but at least you might read it
Sorry, Kiwi. No I didn't read that post because I'm afraid I tend to ignore the stuff you post on this thread. My bad.
