| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Strange logic | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 3 2014, 07:11 PM (1,748 Views) | |
| Alberich | Dec 3 2014, 07:11 PM Post #1 |
Alberich
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Watching the news tonight, I was somewhat surprised at the thrust of one of the news items. It appears that a number of hospital trusts are being fined by the government because they are treating too many patients at their A. and E. departments. The government's argument is, apparently, that they want to reduce the numbers being treated at accident and emergency departments to some notional figure last seen some years ago, and if Trusts cannot reduce the numbers being treated, they are being heavily penalised. Accepting that nearly all NHS trusts are short of cash, and accepting that they can hardly start to turn emergency cases away as they arrive, this seems a strange method of trying to reduce the numbers arriving. Hospitals react to a given situation. They themselves are hardly in a position to dictate how many emergencies they will face in any given period, and they cannot curtail the numbers they are expected to treat....at least, not by any method that would be acceptable. It would make more sense if(say) the GPs contracts were revised, so that evenings and weekends had GP cover, than to penalise hospital trusts for doing what would appear to be their unavoidable duty. Or am I missing something? |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Steve K | Dec 7 2014, 12:03 AM Post #41 |
Once and future cynic
|
 You clearly need to go to Specsavers on Monday then You said "In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing." and the graph shows that GDP that years was down on 2009 and that was down on 2008. A total contraction of ~ £400B You said "We are borrowing more and more" but the data shows we are borrowing 6.5% of GDP compared to 11% in Labour's last financial year (2009-2010) You may find this link helpful. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Dec 7 2014, 12:37 AM Post #42 |
|
Senior Member
|
Its significantly lower than it would have been had Labour been in power till 2014. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Dec 7 2014, 08:52 AM Post #43 |
Senior Member
|
How can you state that? You don't know what would have happened, because the incompetents assumed power in 2010. However Alistair Darling has a far superior and sustainable plan than the totally incompetent Giddie Ozzie. The betting therefore is that things would have been better with Labour had they remained in power. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Dec 7 2014, 08:59 AM Post #44 |
|
Senior Member
|
Well this data derived from ONS suggests otherwise: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy Note that there was a dramatic spurt in GDP up to 2010 when the incompetents took over from -2.1 to +0.7, which is fundamentally better than anything the incompetents have achieved since. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 7 2014, 09:00 AM Post #45 |
|
Senior Member
|
What are you on about? There are not enough people who fit your prejudiced perception to influence a council election let alone a general election:- http://www.researchonline.org.uk/sds/search/taxonomy.do;jsessionid=96E42637AAF9BD796BFC92BF5A06B890?action=document&ref=A49899&taxonomy=BEM In search of ‘intergenerational cultures of worklessness’: hunting the Yeti and shooting zombies, IN Critical Social Policy, Vol 34 No 2 May 2014, pp199-220 Looks at intergenerational worklessness. Explains that the concept is based around the idea that workless parents pass on attitudes and behaviours to their children, which instil a culture of ‘welfare dependency’ and that, to date, little research evidence exists to support the idea of cultures of worklessness. Tests the concept of ‘three generations of families where no-one has ever worked’ using evidence from a study of families in Glasgow (Parkhill) and Middlesbrough (East Kelby), two of the most deprived wards in the UK; and investigates whether ‘worklessness’ passed down the generations is a viable explanation for the concentrated worklessness that can be found in some neighbourhoods and families. Explains that the research team could not locate any families where three generations had never worked, and indicates that even two generation workless families account for less than half of 1% of workless households in the UK. Highlights that again, no evidence was found to support the view that long-term worklessness was culturally determined. Indicates that, despite being unable to get a job, respondents remained committed to the value of work and wanted to be employed. Concludes that the argument that worklessness is an inherited trait is not valid. Edited by papasmurf, Dec 7 2014, 09:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 7 2014, 10:13 AM Post #46 |
Honourable Member
|
Failure appears to be implicit in the action being taken by the government. The situation has changed with the closure of the Walk In centres putting more pressure on A&E centres. It seems to me that the government has played a part in creating the situation and now wants to blame and fine the NHS. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Dec 7 2014, 10:13 AM Post #47 |
|
Senior Member
|
Because Labours spending plans were significantly higher. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 7 2014, 10:28 AM Post #48 |
|
Honourable Member
|
Health costs. http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/006_health-care-oecd. Note the average spend to the UK spend, despite the accusations and insinuations of over spending on the NHS. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 7 2014, 10:34 AM Post #49 |
|
Honourable Member
|
And their plans to cut the deficit by half in four years were more realistic than the Tory claim that they would sort the deficit out in five years. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Dec 7 2014, 11:50 AM Post #50 |
|
Senior Member
|
totally agree, in fact the incompetents have totally failed to achieve much at all, except to cause a lot of misery to the poorest in society. Edited by Lewis, Dec 7 2014, 11:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 7 2014, 01:02 PM Post #51 |
Regular Member
|
This poster has got it about spot on It was under the premiership of Gordon Brown when the financial crisis hit the UK, and caused the subsequent recession, but it was also under Gordon Brown when we exited recession, and when we came out of that recession, as we did towards the end of 2009, growth came back, and growth accelerated. Along came David and George, and growth fell back again, economic stagnation, the only word which accurately describes this governments economic policies is : FAILURE |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 7 2014, 01:47 PM Post #52 |
Prudence and Thrift
|
Wrong look at "nominal GDP" that is where you will find the problem. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Dec 7 2014, 08:05 PM Post #53 |
|
Senior Member
|
Yes agreed, about the only word to describe the incompetent Tories. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Dec 7 2014, 11:20 PM Post #54 |
|
Senior Member
|
Or so many of the worried well. There are so many scare stories around, sudden deaths, and mild conditions that can deteriorate quite rapidly, that uncertainty drives people to get reassurance. My GP said that about 60% of their time is spent on reassurance. Reassurance and peace of mind is so very important for our well being and enjoyment of life.. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 08:27 AM Post #55 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
My GP tells me that 66% of his time is spent on matters not relating to medical health and that he suffers a rate of 10% no-shows. He and I do not think such will change unless there is a charge for Appointments. Give people something free of charge and they always abuse it as for them it is not worth much. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 8 2014, 09:09 AM Post #56 |
|
Honourable Member
|
Show the figures. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 8 2014, 09:25 AM Post #57 |
|
Senior Member
|
What happens to people who cannot pay the charge? |
|
|
|
| The Buccaneer | Dec 8 2014, 10:36 AM Post #58 |
Regular Member
|
Cannot, or will not ? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 8 2014, 10:36 AM Post #59 |
|
Senior Member
|
Cannot |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 8 2014, 10:58 AM Post #60 |
Senior Member
|
We could try telling them that they have been very naughty boys or girls and that they shouldn't do it again, I am sure that will do the trick. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Dec 8 2014, 12:11 PM Post #61 |
|
Senior Member
|
Its nothing to do with the Tories, the problem was caused by the previous Government overheating the economy. The GDP figures were wrong by +4.5% because of poor fiscal policy by the Labour government. In other words, the country was running GDP greater than was possible fueled by debt and overborrowing. Even the IMF came to the same conclusion when it recalculated the figures for the UK. 
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 12:37 PM Post #62 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
If they cannot pay and they have a genuine need of the service then the State must pay. The problem we have is that GPs are often confused with social services or the WI. You probably would find that the vast majority of no-shows can afford £10.00 for an Appointment. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 8 2014, 12:44 PM Post #63 |
|
Senior Member
|
I doubt that where I live. |
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 8 2014, 12:54 PM Post #64 |
|
Regular Member
|
To date, I have seen no evidence anywhere that the Uk's GDP figures have been wrong or misscalculated, and as with Eurostat and the US Treasurey, our GDP figure is announced each quarter as a rough estimate, and then double checked and fine tuned by the ONS and sometimes the figure is ajusted slightly. The poster who stated that growth brings down borrowing as a percentage of GDP is correct, and he is also spot on in stating that negative or stagnant growth increases borrowing as a percentage of GDP. I can clearly and vividly remember not only Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown arguing against a sudden and ruthless policy of cuts, but also Vince Cable, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander too, their reasons for opposing immediate and radical cuts was that it would cut off growth, and in other words have the opposite effect to the desired one, they were proved correct. If the stimulus had been withdrawn much slower, and if the original plan was to cure the deficit over 2 Parliaments instead of just 4 years, then growth would not have been strangled, and debt as a percentage of GDP would begin to fall. The other complication in the process is of course Conservative ideology, which just happens to fit in very nicely with the cuts to public spending, the Tories been opposed to public services run by the state, private is always the prefered choice, and if you dont have to pay for librarians or lollypop ladies, you can make tax cuts, especially for those with loadz o money. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Dec 8 2014, 01:02 PM Post #65 |
|
Senior Member
|
But there was only £5bn between the fist years of Tory office and the planned Labour expenditure. A gnats cock in relative spending plans, new incumbents nearly always following previous spending plans for the first year or two. As has been shown by the IMF graph, the UK GDP was 4.5% above what was possible, so a permanent readjustment downwards was always going to happen. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 01:04 PM Post #66 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I do not think that the policy for the rest of the UK should be established on just the social standing of your neighbourhood. How much is a packet of fags these days? Is it ~£7.00. Seems odd to me that fags and the like can have a higher priority than medical advice. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 01:07 PM Post #67 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Up to you, you can have growth from that that creates no increase in real wealth or that based on production, you choose. Oh you have you prefer the Brownian variety that pumps up the wealth destroying Public Sector. Anyway GDP is a silly metric to make such judgements. |
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 8 2014, 01:25 PM Post #68 |
|
Regular Member
|
"wealth destroying public sector" Well theres a nice little catch phrase, and it sounds as though its come from the "Thatcher book of phrases". The public sector is a sector of society, like the so called "third sector" which is intended to serve people, to provide a service to make life better, without the aim of making a profit, its sole intention is public service, and I know that Tory supporters do not like such an ethos, but thats the way it is. Allthough the public sector is not a direct growth generator, in so much as it does not make, sell, or produce anything, it can however contribute to growth and act as a catalyst to igniting growth where there is no growth, through building hospitals or schools for example. Its nice to know that describing doctors, nurses and teachers as "wealth destroyers" is keeping Tory tradition alive and kicking, now go out and kick an unemployed man or a disabled person in the teeth, go on......be a REAL Conservative. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 01:34 PM Post #69 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
You know I was using the term in it's economic sense. The Public Sector by definition does not produce wealth, it destroys such, but it is a luxury service we wish not to deny ourselves. As for that unemployed man he has always been uppermost in my thoughts and that is why I wish that the State became smaller and less wasteful. So my response is predictable; just carry on with your wealth and real job (here real means that from which we can tax earned incomes on exportable products and services) destruction strategy and sustain the debt fuel;led consumption and see where that takes us. What is it with the lefties and their inability to face the fact that the UK needs to export more production and create wealth, are they just disinterested? Are they totally unconcerned about the unbalance in our economy? Is it always to be someone else in the future's problem? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 8 2014, 01:47 PM Post #70 |
|
Senior Member
|
Luxury service? What are you on about RJD? |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 8 2014, 01:53 PM Post #71 |
|
Senior Member
|
Difficult to imagine how you could post anything more juvenile. Didn't you say your come from a medical family? Maybe you should take something to calm you down. |
|
|
|
| Montjoie | Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM Post #72 |
Regular Member
|
That's funny isn't it? Because we all know that a society where police, justice, healthcare, education and army left to be sorted out by private entities work very well
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 8 2014, 05:10 PM Post #73 |
|
Senior Member
|
An interesting reference to 'potential', the measure of which is a study in itself ... but the main one is employment, or unemployment to be precise. Having a large unemployed pool is potential for growth - as is an open door immigration policy. Currently the potential for growth is huge ...... yet growth has been modest. To take advantage of potential the requirement is for 'investment' ........ and that too has been lacking. Now it becomes clearer what the performance failures have been, what next to ask is 'why'? Why has potential been underutilised, why are the banks not lending for employment investments (SMEs), and why does George say his plan is working? |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 8 2014, 05:15 PM Post #74 |
|
Senior Member
|
The public sector exists to facilitate wealth creation and as such is a creator of wealth. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM Post #75 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 8 2014, 07:01 PM Post #76 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Rubbish. Little of what the State provides to oil the wheels of industry and commerce cannot be provided by that sector for itself and that is one of the big complaints wrt to education. By definition Public Sector spending is from a taxation on revenues fundamentally derived from that which we make and sell to others. If we want more of that the not only has the Public Sector got to up it's game it also needs to do so with less finance and cut out the massive waste. It is time we demanded that the Public Sector matched Private Sector productivity growth over the last 20 years and stopped treating if it was incapable of improvement. I have no doubt that if correctly organised and managed we could squeeze out significant gains, but just a few modest percentage points or freezing budgets for 5 years would do the trick. The Public Sector should not be sacrosanct and shielded from such pressures. Why do we tolerate the continued failures of our Teaching Industry? Such could not and would not be tolerated in the Private Sector, heads would role and the customers, namely parents would demand such. |
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 8 2014, 07:04 PM Post #77 |
|
Regular Member
|
Do you seriously class the police, fire service and ambulance servies as a "luxury" ? How about public health inspectors, prison wardens, immigration officers or customs officers, are these all luxuries too. ? The vast majority of British people also class the NHS as been a right, the "right" to health care on demand, when needed, based on need and paid for by taxation, very few people would refer to it as "a luxury", except for those on the right of the Tory party, people like Daniel Hannan for example. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 8 2014, 07:37 PM Post #78 |
|
Senior Member
|
Of course that is true, demonstrably so, since that is very much how the State operated in centuries passed. The burden did fall largely onto industry (and the church) to provide the services industry needed to be able to prosper. And replaced by the State making these provisions simply because the State was better placed to do so, and thereby enhanced productivity ....... but that was then, in a labour intensive business community. What has changed to now allow you to declare the State is not the best placed to provide essential services? Is it this loss of the labour intensive industrial base, has technology changed the criteria that much? Mercenary describes the society you aspire to be a part of. Is the Government supposed to oversee that business always comes first? What of the 'Market' which these days is driven by leisure (non essential) spending as much as by commodities for living? |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 8 2014, 07:41 PM Post #79 |
|
Senior Member
|
Bankers? Aren't they Private Sector, aren't they accountable as you say, aren't they held responsible as say, and made to 'get it right, or get out'? Edited by Affa, Dec 8 2014, 07:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Rich | Dec 8 2014, 07:48 PM Post #80 |
|
Senior Member
|
My wife is a manager at our local surgery and she will bear out your numbers and there is much more that she is not allowed to disclose despite enormous cost to the taxpayer and the genuine patients waiting for an appointment. 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:34 AM Jul 14