Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The reshuffle has left TMay weaker but has it hastened her dep

245

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    May will continue as she is effectively PM for Brexit, once that has been negotiated then she becomes redundant and it is a matter of when she goes and not if. She will not lead the Tories into the next general election.

    However as no alternative leader polls significantly better than she does and some poll worse there is no electoral reason for a change soon from a Tory perspective either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    I keep on telling everyone, being a privately educated person means you're in a persecuted minority

    Tories support private education so why should they care about whether a Cabinet Minister is state or privately educated?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 10
    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    McVey was a Leaver which would boost her with the membership
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463
    Idiotic question on social care reorg by Jezza
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371
    UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth in November.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

    Despite Brexit....Because of Brexit...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371
    TOPPING said:

    Idiotic question on social care reorg by Jezza

    Did the question not come from Mauren of Margate?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
  • Corbyn is hopeless
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
    Yeah - I wonder if he would have been better off accepting.
    My hope was he might replace Boris...
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229
    Scott_P said:
    Nice to have all the comments below on Adams vindicated so speedily.
  • Oh dear Theresa
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    Camilla Cavendish in Sunday Times (and ex policy chief) suggested voluntary/public half-way convalescent homes attached to hospitals.
  • Social care to councils was what the Tories have been doing to so many things - transferring the responsibility to someone else, but keeping the cash needed to provide the service.

    If its taken back off councils it will be a relief as they don't have the cash to cope with this new statutory liability. However most will want to keep the extra 2% on council tax as it will partially off-set the reduction in their government grant to £0
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn is hopeless and yet is PM?
  • stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
    Yeah - I wonder if he would have been better off accepting.
    My hope was he might replace Boris...
    A case of brave minister, brave.

    Maybe he genuinely believes he can do this? Maybe he believes if he does he will be in pole position for No.10? High risk, high reward...
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    FF43 said:

    I would say, barring health or other unplanned issues or a desire to step down, Mrs May is safe until at least 2020 when the "transition" deal is supposed to complete.

    For the detail of the "three buckets" approach to the Brexit deal, supposedly getting the interest of the UK government, read section 4, EU-UK Regulatory partnership here. The UK would start this scheme in full alignment with the other EU members with current payments and Freedom of Movement, Customs Union etc. Moving forward it would commit to continuing certain parts of the EU acquis; it would disengage in a managed it.

    The through the EU.

    Will it happen? Once you realise Brexit is entirely a rhetorical exercise with unwelcome real consequences, things slip into place. The important negotiation is to get the EU to agree to pretend the UK is a free agent. The UK government can also claim the UK third party deals are better than the original EU ones they simulate, even though they will be more limited, because these are UK deals and those are EU ones.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/trade-after-brexit

    The three buckets approach is the manner in which the civil service plan to betray Brexit and lock us into EU regulation forever. The reality is that for the middle 'bucket' we will never end up diverging at all, so in reality we will simply end up accepting EU regulation in return for basically nothing more than a basic trade agreement. The whole point of this approach is to allow the Government to pretend that we have gained control when in reality we still follow EU regulations in all material areas.

    Those who voted Leave and actually meant it need to get wise to this ploy as fast as possible or we will end up with EU membership by the back door.

    Yep, we are heading towards a Brexit that is rich in symbolism, but in practical terms changes very little. As FF43 says: "The important negotiation is to get the EU to agree to pretend the UK is a free agent." That's what the next year will be all about - face-saving. Most people will be fine with what we end up with. Whether it will all be worth the effort is another matter. But we are where we are.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.
  • rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
    Yeah - I wonder if he would have been better off accepting.
    My hope was he might replace Boris...
    A case of brave minister, brave.

    Maybe he genuinely believes he can do this? Maybe he believes if he does he will be in pole position for No.10? High risk, high reward...
    I think Hunt does believe he can succeed in this most difficult of tasks
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    JonathanD said:

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.
    Plus over 50s can pay more National Insurance
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
    Yeah - I wonder if he would have been better off accepting.
    My hope was he might replace Boris...
    A case of brave minister, brave.

    Maybe he genuinely believes he can do this? Maybe he believes if he does he will be in pole position for No.10? High risk, high reward...
    I don’t know that he will be rewarded particularly for this... especially if his proposals involve reducing inheritances/upsetting the core Tory demographics...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    £12 000 a head for dinner with David Cameron in China

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42628861
  • JonathanD said:

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.
    I have no problem with anyone in employment irrespective of age paying NI
  • Great to see Esther sitting next to Boris on front bench
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,716

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
  • Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
  • Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    Statistics are fine. They are spending more money than ever on the NHS. Yet its patently clear that there are deep and serious cuts at the front line, forcing her to apologise for the impact of them. Yet she clings on to the "more money" line even when having to apologise for delivering less money.

    Where is the money disappearing to? All these service contracts and provider organisations don't pay for themselves you know...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've got a feeling Esther McVey is one to keep an eye on for 2020... ;)

    If she can defuse Iain Duncan Smith’s timebomb she’ll be a contender.

    JohnO and myself are hoping the next Tory leadership contest is between Hunt and McVey.
    Given the state of the NHS, Hunt may regret not getting out of Health when he had the chance...
    It's hard not to respect Hunt's decision.
    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader
    Social care is a hospital pass for Hunt.
    Any reforms are likely to be unpopular initially and bear fruit way down the track. Oh and understandably TM is going to be cautious on this issue.

    I’ve backed Hunt heavily for next leader but this reshuffle was a missed opportunity for him to move on, get away from the NHS and get some good press in a new department (ideally a great office of state).
    Yes, but what he was offered was Business sec.
    Yeah - I wonder if he would have been better off accepting.
    My hope was he might replace Boris...
    A case of brave minister, brave.

    Maybe he genuinely believes he can do this? Maybe he believes if he does he will be in pole position for No.10? High risk, high reward...
    I don’t know that he will be rewarded particularly for this... especially if his proposals involve reducing inheritances/upsetting the core Tory demographics...
    One thing is clear from the general election result, requiring the home to be sold to pay for personal social care at home is dead in the water from both a Tory and Labour perspective
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,053
    edited January 10

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    Statistics are fine. They are spending more money than ever on the NHS. Yet its patently clear that there are deep and serious cuts at the front line, forcing her to apologise for the impact of them. Yet she clings on to the "more money" line even when having to apologise for delivering less money.

    Where is the money disappearing to? All these service contracts and provider organisations don't pay for themselves you know...
    Demand is rising, we have cut social care a lot - which has knock on impacts on health services and also we have had steep cuts in NHS as share of national income. Private provision is less efficient in many instances - but I don’t think it’s a major part of the funding shortfall.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994
    edited January 10

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    What about national insurance on pension income ? Many people retire between 55 and before they receive their state pension .Anything above their tax free allowance could be considered.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,053
    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,053

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
    Job done and election lost, unfortunately.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444
    edited January 10
    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.
  • MaxPB said:

    I don't understand why Kwasi isn't getting a look in, he needs a big job, and I'm not just saying that because it's good for my book.

    Too much of a threat to Theresa.

    She can’t have her junior ministers outshining her.
    It'd be nice if 1 or 2 of her seniors ones occasionally did though!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Well, that's a fairly objective comment I must confess.

    Let's try something equally objective

    May isn't any better.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
    Job done and election lost, unfortunately.
    Well yes. Geocrge could and should have done it in 2011 and if May hadn't screwed up last year, we could be doing it now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
    No, return NI to its original purpose to fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions and increase NI for over 50s many of whom will have paid off the mortgage and whose children have left home and will be the focus of demand for the NHS and social care in the future
  • rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    Already hard for many older people to get jobs, plus we don't want more of them retiring and claiming pension straight away!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,653
    stodge said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Well, that's a fairly objective comment I must confess.

    Let's try something equally objective

    May isn't any better.

    And yet, only one of them is PM....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371
    HYUFD said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
    No, return NI to its original purpose to fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions and increase NI for over 50s many of whom will have paid off the mortgage and whose children have left home and will be the focus of demand for the NHS and social care in the future
    There are other advantages to combining them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,264

    And yet, only one of them is PM....

    It's Corbyn, right?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Oh good, I thought it was just me. That private members bill is becoming urgent.
    What, banning cartoonists who are not Matt? +1, if so.
    I’ll propose an amendment to allow Marf as well as Matt. But that’s it.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,262
    TGOHF said:

    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.

    Brookes isn't the the ES cartoonist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    Already hard for many older people to get jobs, plus we don't want more of them retiring and claiming pension straight away!
    Just like a rebalancing of the sectors of the economy, but also we need this to change...Where more and more people go from 40hrs a week to 30,20,10hrs a week, rather than the vast majority going 40->0 overnight.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343

    Great to see Esther sitting next to Boris on front bench

    :+1:
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 870
    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Oh good, I thought it was just me. That private members bill is becoming urgent.
    What, banning cartoonists who are not Matt? +1, if so.
    I’ll propose an amendment to allow Marf as well as Matt. But that’s it.
    And i'll propose an amendment that Virgin Trains can carry whatever cartoonists they like!
  • Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,264

    Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader

    So would the Tories...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    HYUFD said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Just combine employee NI and IC into a single tax, job done.
    No, return NI to its original purpose to fund healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions and increase NI for over 50s many of whom will have paid off the mortgage and whose children have left home and will be the focus of demand for the NHS and social care in the future
    There are other advantages to combining them.
    Not when it comes at the expense of restoring NI to first principles
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,653
    Scott_P said:

    And yet, only one of them is PM....

    It's Corbyn, right?
    By Christmas 2017!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994
    edited January 10

    Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
    I thought you were making your observations on this week's PMQs ?
  • Scott_P said:

    Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader

    So would the Tories...
    TM is the Brexit leader and it is not at all certain anyone else could do better. Post Brexit is a whole different ball game
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    It is truly absurd that we still have the cut off for NI at 65. It isn't even the retirement age any more. I agree the best way would be to integrate NI into IT. That would also catch those who pay themselves through dividends rather than taking salaries or live off investment income. There would be some grumbling but the advantages are manifest and our services need the money.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 653

    Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
    The evidence suggests otherwise, assuming sensible means not left wing. Labour voters weren't inspired to come out in far bigger numbers than they have for sometime because they really wanted David Miliband or Yvette Cooper to takeover the party.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,653

    Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
    Shush! How dare “the most partisan Conservative poster” directly quote SouthamObserver?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 10

    Scott_P said:

    Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader

    So would the Tories...
    TM is the Brexit leader and it is not at all certain anyone else could do better. Post Brexit is a whole different ball game
    Actually polling in the last year showed only Khan would do better for Labour than Corbyn and only Davis would do better for the Tories than May, other alternatives like Cooper, Umunna, Hammond and Rudd and Boris would all do relatively worse than the incumbents
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/951077219014791168

    But all travellers would be given a complimentary copy of the morning star?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,070
    As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?
    Did he not die 10 years ago? I wasn't planning to ban historical cartoons, just those that think they are topical.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371

    As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.

    Despite brexit....
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,654
    Scott_P said:
    "The complaint from David Davis, in a leaked letter to the Prime Minister, is that the EU is systematically explaining to British companies, from airlines to pharmaceutical firms to mineral water manufacturers, what in practice it would mean to their business if the UK withdraws from the single market in 2019 with no transition and no deal. Licenses to trade will expire and contracts will be terminated, they warn.

    The Brexit Department here said the EU is “attempting to stoke fears about worse-case scenarios”.

    They seem to be unaware that our own regulators, like the Bank of England, are giving similar advice to our firms. And why wouldn’t they?

    Isn’t preparing for a “no deal” exactly what the hardline Brexiteers say we should all be doing?"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    Scott_P said:

    And yet, only one of them is PM....

    It's Corbyn, right?
    I think you will find that the clue is that Corbyn is the one asking the incoherent questions (which never sound like they are actually finished) as opposed to being the one giving the meaningless and irrelevant answers. So, no.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.

    I just love to say I told you so. Because the chance comes around so rarely.
  • I wish.

    DAVID Davis has told the EU that he does not really give a shit about any British business except financial services.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/but-financial-services-are-the-only-thing-we-give-a-shit-about-davis-tells-eu-20180110142109
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?
    Did he not die 10 years ago? I wasn't planning to ban historical cartoons, just those that think they are topical.
    We could get him out of retirement

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,343
    DavidL said:

    It is truly absurd that we still have the cut off for NI at 65. It isn't even the retirement age any more. I agree the best way would be to integrate NI into IT. That would also catch those who pay themselves through dividends rather than taking salaries or live off investment income. There would be some grumbling but the advantages are manifest and our services need the money.

    Another thing that most people don’t know about NI is that there’s an upper limit on the majority of employee payments. 20% and 40% tax brackets are really closer to 31% and 42% when NI is included. Undoubtedly there’s several interesting political effects of this being made more obvious.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,248

    TGOHF said:

    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.

    Brookes isn't the the ES cartoonist.
    Yes. Note to all Osborne haters: Adams is the cartoonist you need to vent your spleen against, as a kind of proxy for George himself. (Brookes is with The Times.)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,371
    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,653
    One notice is dedicated to the implications for mineral water sourced in the UK, which can no longer be automatically marketed in the EU because they are “extracted from the ground of a third country”.

    https://www.ft.com/content/3b60d294-f55f-11e7-8715-e94187b3017e

    Presumably this would also apply in reverse? I wonder what the trade balance in mineral water is?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,056
    DavidL said:

    As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.

    I just love to say I told you so. Because the chance comes around so rarely.
    Are you going to win your bet?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746


    Just like a rebalancing of the sectors of the economy, but also we need this to change...Where more and more people go from 40hrs a week to 30,20,10hrs a week, rather than the vast majority going 40->0 overnight.

    There's a lot to be said for a "gradual" retirement along the lines you suggest and some larger organisations are implementing this "pre retirement" strategy.

    I have a friend who is over pension age and is still employed because, frankly, he likes to work and I wonder how he would cope with retirement. That being said, he gets his pension, free travel (he's in London) and pays no NI and that doesn't sit well with me.

    If you want to work, fine, no one should stop you but this is a Boris-esque notion of having your cake and eating it. If you are in work you should be treated the same - we are still fighting to get equal pay across the genders, we should have equal pay across the ages too.

    As a corollary, another rationale for older people working in London is the cost of living in London. We talk a lot about younger people being priced out of London - older people are trapped in London and forced to continue working to pay for their prison.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229

    TGOHF said:

    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.

    Brookes isn't the the ES cartoonist.
    Yes. Note to all Osborne haters: Adams is the cartoonist you need to vent your spleen against, as a kind of proxy for George himself. (Brookes is with The Times.)
    Awww, can't we hate Georgie in his own right, then?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?
    Did he not die 10 years ago? I wasn't planning to ban historical cartoons, just those that think they are topical.
    We could get him out of retirement

    The Day Today was simply inspired TV and he had a good part in that. But he's still dead. So unless Terry Pratchett type rules apply no amendment is necessary.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,716

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    Statistics are fine. They are spending more money than ever on the NHS. Yet its patently clear that there are deep and serious cuts at the front line, forcing her to apologise for the impact of them. Yet she clings on to the "more money" line even when having to apologise for delivering less money.

    Where is the money disappearing to? All these service contracts and provider organisations don't pay for themselves you know...
    The population is growing and it is ageing. The NHS doesn't just need more money, it needs lots more money (as well as better processes, more integration and cooperation, less bureaucracy administrating internal markets etc).

    We are a rich country spending just 8% of GDP on health. We can afford much more even if it means more taxes. Another way to pay for it is to incentivise companies to pay decent wages to reduce the cost of tax credits.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    stodge said:


    Just like a rebalancing of the sectors of the economy, but also we need this to change...Where more and more people go from 40hrs a week to 30,20,10hrs a week, rather than the vast majority going 40->0 overnight.

    There's a lot to be said for a "gradual" retirement along the lines you suggest and some larger organisations are implementing this "pre retirement" strategy.

    I have a friend who is over pension age and is still employed because, frankly, he likes to work and I wonder how he would cope with retirement. That being said, he gets his pension, free travel (he's in London) and pays no NI and that doesn't sit well with me.

    If you want to work, fine, no one should stop you but this is a Boris-esque notion of having your cake and eating it. If you are in work you should be treated the same - we are still fighting to get equal pay across the genders, we should have equal pay across the ages too.

    As a corollary, another rationale for older people working in London is the cost of living in London. We talk a lot about younger people being priced out of London - older people are trapped in London and forced to continue working to pay for their prison.
    If you live in London and own a property and are over 50 you could quite easily sell up, take early retirement and buy a bigger house in the country
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,956

    Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
    Maybe, but he massively overperformed at GE17 with the establishment and press against him. I think it would be very foolish to underestimate him again.

    Labour will do well in the upcoming council elections within Tories likely to be ejected from London - time will tell as ever as how the clueless and incompetent Tories will do...
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 653
    edited January 10
    Just out of interest with the McVey thing.

    Is the argument that he said this...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11229909/Labour-distances-itself-from-MPs-lynching-remarks.html
    ____________________________________
    He said: “I spoke at a packed public meeting... there was a whole group in the audience that completely kicked off quite critical of the whole concept, because they were arguing ‘Why are sacking her? Why aren’t we lynching the b******?’.”
    ___________________________________

    Or that he said something else?

    Specifically in regards to the lynching part, the stain on the humanity insult is a bit low in my opinion but hardly sackable stuff.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,248
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:

    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.

    Brookes isn't the the ES cartoonist.
    Yes. Note to all Osborne haters: Adams is the cartoonist you need to vent your spleen against, as a kind of proxy for George himself. (Brookes is with The Times.)
    Awww, can't we hate Georgie in his own right, then?
    Fine by me. It's just that poor Mr Adams seems to take all the opprobrium because George doesn't like Theresa.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 10
    murali_s said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    He is hopeless
    Says the most partisan conservative poster on here.
    But he is. Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader
    Maybe, but he massively overperformed at GE17 with the establishment and press against him. I think it would be very foolish to underestimate him again.

    Labour will do well in the upcoming council elections within Tories likely to be ejected from London - time will tell as ever as how the clueless and incompetent Tories will do...
    Given the Tories only hold 9 out of 32 London councils anyway and half of those are rock solid Tory and apart from Barnet (where the big local Jewish vote hates Corbyn) Labour need over 10 gains to win control in each borough Corbyn may underperform in the local elections next year relative to expectations.

    It may be the LDs who do best as they are almost certain to gain Kingston upon Thames from the Tories and possibly Richmond Park and may well pick up a number of Home Counties councils and seats too based on a NIMBY platform opposing local plans.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    The NHS is grossly over centralised and bureaucratic, an absolute giant of an institution with the upsides and downsides that come with that. Social Care, in comparison, is completely fragmented, provided by thousands of private institutions, local authorities, charities and volunteers. The NHS is funded by the State. Social Care draws its money from a huge range of sources, including those who are actually getting the care and is anxiously searching for more sources of funds (hence the ill fated dementia tax).

    There are obvious advantages in the 2 being integrated. It should help people stay in their homes for longer if their care and medical treatment is integrated, it should stop bed blocking in hospitals where adequate care packages for discharge are not available, it should avoid much unnecessary distress. But the task of getting one to work with the other efficiently makes UC look a walk in the park.

    Hunt is indeed a brave man. I think backing him as next leader, though, should take the scale of the task he is taking on into account.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:

    Matt seems to be his own man whilst Brookes appears to take whatever Trumpian nonsense his obsessed editor has scribbled on his croissant napkin and attempt to polish into something striking (but unfunny).

    No wonder they can't charge for the ES.

    Brookes isn't the the ES cartoonist.
    Yes. Note to all Osborne haters: Adams is the cartoonist you need to vent your spleen against, as a kind of proxy for George himself. (Brookes is with The Times.)
    Awww, can't we hate Georgie in his own right, then?
    Fine by me. It's just that poor Mr Adams seems to take all the opprobrium because George doesn't like Theresa.
    Naah, this is the Toby Young "joke" debate all over again. I promise you, Adams at his funniest is as funny as an unexpected letter from an STD clinic, irrespective of who his editor is.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,264

    I do hope that was a joke...

    Apparently not...
This discussion has been closed.