Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:34 pm  

samwire wrote:

unfortunately i do understand what the swedish model is. your bleating, "oh, why don't you compare us with countries like sweden etc" shows you hadn't the first clue how they do things. then the reverse gear kicks in when someone points out that they sell anything off that isn't nailed down. so now you don't want us to compare ourselves with sweden? nice u-turn. you're a true tory.

My "bleating" concerned a comparison with Scandinavian countries on their total welfare provision, not simply healthcare. Provision of things like pensions, sickness payments, maternity/paternity leave, childcare provision etc. But even Swedish healthcare is nothing like the free for all proposed by this bunch. To date, the total healthcare provided by private companies is around 12% and that is only the healthcare that is funded at municipal, not central level.

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:46 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And in an economy that is dependent on the service sector (including retail), hacking back wages (for all but the already well off) is economic illiteracy.

Mind, reading that the idea of pay keeping pace with inflation is "outdated old style leftie thinking" does make me realise we're in the realms of cheap soundbites and easy tribalism.

If you keep increasing wages you end up with an upward spiral of inflation we saw pre-Thatcher - is that the price you think we should pay for our economic illiteracy? Most serious economists - Minty and Mr Fish excluded - see inflation as a very negative economic position not sure why Minty is suggesting a return to the days of Jack Jones & Joe Gormley?

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:52 pm  

This government's reeforms will kill the UK economy. The two most dangerous reforms so far are, in my opinion:

(1) the over-pricing of university education, which is already creating a brain-drain, let alone the future macro-economic effect of the ballooning debt it has created.
(2) The privatisation of the NHS. The effect of which will, over - time, be to increase the aggreagate national cost of healthcare and shift the burden to employers, making UK companies less competitive than they are now (and they're generally pretty dire in that respect now).

What we are witnessing is ineptitude on a catastrophic scale in the name of an outdated ideology. As I said previously, anyone under 35 should seriously consider emigrating (boring old Canada is probably your best bet).

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:56 pm  

Dally wrote:

This government's reeforms will kill the UK economy. The two most dangerous reforms so far are, in my opinion:

(1) the over-pricing of university education, which is already creating a brain-drain, let alone the future macro-economic effect of the ballooning debt it has created.
(2) The privatisation of the NHS. The effect of which will, over - time, be to increase the aggreagate national cost of healthcare and shift the burden to employers, making UK companies less competitive than they are now (and they're generally pretty dire in that respect now).

What we are witnessing is ineptitude on a catastrophic scale in the name of an outdated ideology. As I said previously, anyone under 35 should seriously consider emigrating (boring old Canada is probably your best bet).

Go on then......................................
Give us the name of this outdated ideology, does it have one?

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:58 pm  

Is it in that off-site book?

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:04 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: If you keep increasing wages you end up with an upward spiral of inflation we saw pre-Thatcher - is that the price you think we should pay for our economic illiteracy? Most serious economists - Minty and Mr Fish excluded - see inflation as a very negative economic position not sure why Minty is suggesting a return to the days of Jack Jones & Joe Gormley? First, I wasn't even calling for increased wages, but talking about wages keeping pace with the cost of living. You appear to think that wages should be driven down, leaving people to struggle to pay for the basics – let alone buy the things that keep the economy going. If you try to read some economics you may learn something. This, for instance, explains why the drive for ultra-low inflation is dangerous. Indeed, unemployment was 'the price worth paying' for it – unemployment that directly helped to raise the deficit, as has been explained more than once here and not least by Sally. I've not suggested a "return" to anything – try to engage your comprehension skills rather than what you want to believe someone is saying. The deficit is continuing to rise – this is a direct consequence of the lack of confidence in the economy and levels of unemployment. All that dross about inflation in the 1980s and 1990s saw unemployment rise and, with it, the deficit. These are facts. We have an economy that needs people to have disposable income to spend on services. I'm sure most of us here agree that the economy needs rebalancing, but that does not happen overnight. The latest figures now show that manufacturing output is down. So in the short to medium term, we need to get money into the economy – this service economy. Driving down incomes does not do that. In the end, it will simply see more jobs lost and further increase in the deficit. And since we have had stagnating or falling wages for all but a few for the past 30 years, if it's rising wages that cause inflation, how come the cost of living (inflation) has way outstripped any incomes rises? It isn't the cost of wages driving up housing costs. It isn't the cost of wages driving up utility costs. It isn't the cost of wages driving up food costs.

Sal Paradise wrote: If you keep increasing wages you end up with an upward spiral of inflation we saw pre-Thatcher - is that the price you think we should pay for our economic illiteracy? Most serious economists - Minty and Mr Fish excluded - see inflation as a very negative economic position not sure why Minty is suggesting a return to the days of Jack Jones & Joe Gormley? First, I wasn't even calling for increased wages, but talking about wages keeping pace with the cost of living. You appear to think that wages should be driven down, leaving people to struggle to pay for the basics – let alone buy the things that keep the economy going. If you try to read some economics you may learn something. This, for instance, explains why the drive for ultra-low inflation is dangerous. Indeed, unemployment was 'the price worth paying' for it – unemployment that directly helped to raise the deficit, as has been explained more than once here and not least by Sally. I've not suggested a "return" to anything – try to engage your comprehension skills rather than what you want to believe someone is saying. The deficit is continuing to rise – this is a direct consequence of the lack of confidence in the economy and levels of unemployment. All that dross about inflation in the 1980s and 1990s saw unemployment rise and, with it, the deficit. These are facts. We have an economy that needs people to have disposable income to spend on services. I'm sure most of us here agree that the economy needs rebalancing, but that does not happen overnight. The latest figures now show that manufacturing output is down. So in the short to medium term, we need to get money into the economy – this service economy. Driving down incomes does not do that. In the end, it will simply see more jobs lost and further increase in the deficit. And since we have had stagnating or falling wages for all but a few for the past 30 years, if it's rising wages that cause inflation, how come the cost of living (inflation) has way outstripped any incomes rises? It isn't the cost of wages driving up housing costs. It isn't the cost of wages driving up utility costs. It isn't the cost of wages driving up food costs.

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:17 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you keep increasing wages you end up with an upward spiral of inflation we saw pre-Thatcher - is that the price you think we should pay for our economic illiteracy? Most serious economists - Minty and Mr Fish excluded - see inflation as a very negative economic position not sure why Minty is suggesting a return to the days of Jack Jones & Joe Gormley?

Most serious economists also know that its not wages that is currently causing inflation to rise/be high but rather its increased regulated prices such as energy, fuel and tuition fees. This then hinders economic recovery and growth.

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

This government's reeforms will kill the UK economy...

I've been telling you that since before the election.

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:00 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I solution I would prefer would be no annual award but a bonus based on performance across the whole work force.

Which is all well and good in the short term and its how I currently work, but it has a finite life particularly in a production environment.

[Kosh]

Re: NHS - RIP 1 April 2013 : Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:25 pm  

samwire wrote:

25 million people voted for the 3 main parties in 2010. all on a "cuts" ticket. and no doubt some of those are bleating about how unfair everything is. they had their chance at the polls, but they couldn't be arsed to think for themselves. gutless sheep.

All well and good, but nobody - and I do mean nobody - voted for the policies that are currently being enacted.