Who do you want to form the next Government?

surrey_commuter

TGOTB wrote:

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Some UKIP poster

So what was the rationale behind wanting to abolish postal voting? I genuinely don't understand the rationale for this. Do UKIP also want to abolish internet shopping, paying bills by direct debit, and other modern innovations that allow people to make more efficient use of their time?

I believe it is about voter fraud

elbowloh

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Actually, no I don't.

surrey_commuter

We live in a democracy and people should vote for who they want. Every MP is as worthy as every other no matter their party as they represent the view of people who wanted them there. Our voting system isn't ideal but we have to play by the rules that are in place.[/quote]

This is not true - some MPs represent as few as 22,000 people and some as many as 110,000

bigmat

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Interesting to see the contrast between this poll and DDD's voter poll. It sort of confirms what I had thought (even without my inherent confirmation bias in play).

Voting between the major two is split fairly evenly. But there is a relatively strong and clear preference for maintaining the status quo.

The trouble is, you can't vote for the status quo.

And both the Cons and the LDs seem to have lost core support over the last 5 years, presumably because they have not not been enough Con-like or LD-like. Yet they aren't acquiring any voters to replace that lost support, despite the overall preference for maintaining the status quo.

Net result: Labour sneak in, supported by the SNP and funded by forests of Magic Money Trees.

(Anecdotally: 66 Major and Minor are both at London fee paying schools. As one might expect, some of their friends have very very loaded parents. Such friends are already passing around what I assume are dinner table conversations from home about leaving school and moving abroad in Labour win. Capital flight in real time).

I don't really understand why somebody on a £10 million income would be that bothered about paying the mansion tax (which will be eminently affordable for them). Clearly cuts have to be made and taxes have to be increased and I can't see a rational argument against taking a bit more from those who have a lot more. I'm not exactly being Marxist here, it just makes sense doesn't it? (whether the mansion tax is the best way to go about this or not is a different issue). I can only assume that your kids' friends' parents (this is really good "evidence" isn't it!) are selfish c***s.

Re the wider conclusions to be drawn from this thread, that most people want to maintain the status quo, I imagine most people posting here are employed, doing reasonably well for themselves, probably fit a certain demographic. Not sure to what extent any conclusions can be applied to the wider public (although I suspect any voters who are still "floating" are more likely to stick with the devil they know at this stage so there will probably be a significant swing back to the Tories come election day).

tangled_metal

Why post a UKIP poster on here? Do you think it will convince me to vote that way if I haven't decided yet? It's just annoying image in a pointless post.

Are there any on here who have not decided where their vote is going? I'd be surprised if deep down you didn't have a clue.

BTW when was the last day to arrange postal votes? I am just curious because I got asked if it was too late to sort it this weekend and I was sure it was too late.

UndercoverElephant

Before every election/referendum there's always people who claim they'll leave if X get in. Shame they rarely do:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 38526.html

As this could win the election for Labour.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

I don't really understand why somebody on a £10 million income would be that bothered about paying the mansion tax (which will be eminently affordable for them). Clearly cuts have to be made and taxes have to be increased and I can't see a rational argument against taking a bit more from those who have a lot more. I'm not exactly being Marxist here, it just makes sense doesn't it? (whether the mansion tax is the best way to go about this or not is a different issue). I can only assume that your kids' friends' parents (this is really good "evidence" isn't it!) are selfish c***s.

Hmm.

At what point does a well off person cease to be a "selfish cunt"? Must they selflessly pony up 60% of their money? 70%? Or as much as they have, excluding only an amount that permits them to live in the style of an "average" citizen?

DonDaddyD

The only UKIP policy I like is the income tax one. Oh and abolishing inheritance tax.

Raising the threshold to £13,000. 20% on taxable up to £43,500. 30% up to £55,000 and 40% thereafter. For the same reasons I thought stamp duty needed reform - the leap from £250,000 to £255,000 was too steep. The leap from 20% to 40% seems too harsh. I also don't think any Government should seek to take half or more of a person's earnings in tax - it's like you are penalizing them for being rich.

That said Labour, I can't decide whether Labour's abolishing stamp duty for properties up to £300,000 is a good thing. On one hand I missed out, damn. On the other if I sell my house it's going on the market for £300,000 minimum I know first time buyers can afford that because they don't have to pay stamp duty. That may cause further property price increases.

We bought a 4 bed in The Weald for £250,000 just before Osborne's stamp duty reform (it didn't affect us, but I have notice that property values have fallen across the south - if you check Zoopla). We stated not a penny more due to stamp duty increase.

The more the election campaign goes on, the more Labour raises my eyebrow.

timothyw

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't really understand why somebody on a £10 million income would be that bothered about paying the mansion tax (which will be eminently affordable for them). Clearly cuts have to be made and taxes have to be increased and I can't see a rational argument against taking a bit more from those who have a lot more. I'm not exactly being Marxist here, it just makes sense doesn't it? (whether the mansion tax is the best way to go about this or not is a different issue). I can only assume that your kids' friends' parents (this is really good "evidence" isn't it!) are selfish c***s.

Hmm.

At what point does a well off person cease to be a "selfish ****"? Must they selflessly pony up 60% of their money? 70%? Or as much as they have, excluding only an amount that permits them to live in the style of an "average" citizen?

Well, lets check some of the figures.

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Right, so UK debt is growing at a rate of £5k a second despite five years of Conlib 'austerity' and an apparent recovery.

Just maybe it's time to raise tax burden on the richest, instead of squeezing the middle again or raising VAT again (which hits the poorest hardest, and appears to be on the radar if the conservatives are re-elected).

BigMat made no reference to 60% or 70% - only that more should be paid by the richest, and the mansion tax is one way to get this out of them. If you don't think it is fair that the very rich should have to pay a share of the assets they already own, then I would kindly refer you to the existence of the Duke of Westminster, what with his £10billion property fortune, on which he currently pays essentially no tax. In fact, many of the landed gentry pay negative tax rates as they receive eu subsidy on the farmland they own.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to say how great it is that alleged wealth creators can dodge tax with non-dom status?

bigmat

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't really understand why somebody on a £10 million income would be that bothered about paying the mansion tax (which will be eminently affordable for them). Clearly cuts have to be made and taxes have to be increased and I can't see a rational argument against taking a bit more from those who have a lot more. I'm not exactly being Marxist here, it just makes sense doesn't it? (whether the mansion tax is the best way to go about this or not is a different issue). I can only assume that your kids' friends' parents (this is really good "evidence" isn't it!) are selfish c***s.

Hmm.

At what point does a well off person cease to be a "selfish ****"? Must they selflessly pony up 60% of their money? 70%? Or as much as they have, excluding only an amount that permits them to live in the style of an "average" citizen?

I'm not saying there are no limits to what someone should be taxed, but based on the amount the people we're discussing earn (your figures not mine) then the amount that they would pay in mansion tax would be a relatively tiny proportion of their income. We need to increase tax revenue. Do we:

a) take more from those who can comfortably afford it; or
b) take more from everyone, including those who can't even afford to feed themselves.

If you are earning £10 million quid and you vote "b" then I think my description is pretty fair.

The Rookie

I'm just concerned that we will have another Labour party promising to not spend more than we can afford that will go ahead and do it anyway like the last bunch who made a mountainous hash of it, who worked at the treasury, ooh that will be Ed Balls wouldn't it.

Labour made much of Plan A not working, and yet it is, we are the strongest growing developed economy right now.

How much is the mansion tax meant to bring in? Ed Mllilband has already committed it to reducing the national debt AND the NHS while Ed Balls has committed it to the NHS ANDthe Police ....so it's going to be spread pretty thin!

The more you put up taxes the more you give an incentive to the better off to find ways not to pay as France has found out so disastrously with overall revenues decreasing.

tangled_metal

Perhaps better to get the overall percentage of what the super rich actually earn (or to put it another way the money that comes in to their and their family's benefit) up to a percentage closer to what it is claimed the higher tax rate is.

What I mean is there is this "evidence" of the rich paying less than the poorer parts of society in tax (prior to the raising of the tax free allowance - under lib/con government BTW). You hear stories of them paying 5% of earnings through various legal means. Perhaps, if true, then get this percentage up through reform of tax laws. Some may flee but I am sure there will be a way to re-write tax laws to prevent all but the most "vanilla" of tax avoidance (legal tax evasion is one way of describing avoidance).

There are stories like the top guy in a well known retailer having a massive dividend paid to his wife (a Monte Carlo tax exile) so as to excape paying tax on it. Not sure if true but just one of those stories you hear.

I do not know how but I am not paid a lot to sort this out. Top tax personnel do get paid well and know the system as well as anyone. My view is that I do not believe in easy get outs for anyone from the rich to the poor and th politicians. It is easy to climb on the banker or super rich hating bandwagon by saying you will tax them with a special tax just for them. The hard yards come from actually getting everyone to pay a fair percentage of moneys in as tax. Closing loopholes by re-writing tax regime is a really difficult thing to do but the real issue here. Tinker around the edges to appeal to your demographic is a cheap cop out for Labour. One that plays well with traditional heartland for them and also some swing voters.

All this comes down to is giving the best presentation to voters to win more than the others. Simple really. Play to your perceived strengths and hope they are the ones in the public's mind right now as most important. PR, spin, politics. Call it what you will we all gert shafted in some way.

bigmat

The Rookie wrote:

I'm just concerned that we will have another Labour party promising to not spend more than we can afford that will go ahead and do it anyway like the last bunch who made a mountainous hash of it, who worked at the treasury, ooh that will be Ed Balls wouldn't it.

Labour made much of Plan A not working, and yet it is, we are the strongest growing developed economy right now.

How much is the mansion tax meant to bring in? Ed Mllilband has already committed it to reducing the national debt AND the NHS while Ed Balls has committed it to the NHS ANDthe Police ....so it's going to be spread pretty thin!

The more you put up taxes the more you give an incentive to the better off to find ways not to pay as France has found out so disastrously with overall revenues decreasing.

I really dislike these promises that a new tax is going to pay for the NHS, the police, whatever. Populist nonsense. It should just be thrown in with general tax revenue and used where it is needed. I'm not convinced by the mansion tax generally, seems more ideological than practical and once the various caveats that would be required to make it fair come into play it probably won't generate a huge amount of income anyway.

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done. They should have saved a bit more in the good times, but had generations worth of underfunding of public services to contend with (they could have made better use of the money, of course). They also had little choice but to increase employment in the public sector to prop up industrial wastelands in the north. People say the Tories have put us back on the right track, but they haven't actually done anywhere as much as they probably should have done to cut the deficit. Both parties agreed that cuts were needed before the last election but the issue seems to be how, where and at what speed. The Tories appear to be using the whole mess as a means to push through various ideological policies.

elbowloh

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps better to get the overall percentage of what the super rich actually earn (or to put it another way the money that comes in to their and their family's benefit) up to a percentage closer to what it is claimed the higher tax rate is.

What I mean is there is this "evidence" of the rich paying less than the poorer parts of society in tax (prior to the raising of the tax free allowance - under lib/con government BTW). You hear stories of them paying 5% of earnings through various legal means. Perhaps, if true, then get this percentage up through reform of tax laws. Some may flee but I am sure there will be a way to re-write tax laws to prevent all but the most "vanilla" of tax avoidance (legal tax evasion is one way of describing avoidance).

There are stories like the top guy in a well known retailer having a massive dividend paid to his wife (a Monte Carlo tax exile) so as to excape paying tax on it. Not sure if true but just one of those stories you hear.

I believe it's actually because everything is in the Monte Carlo tax exile wife's name, nothing is in his name.

elbowloh

BigMat wrote:

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done.

Indeed, the recession would have happened who ever was in power in the UK. It was the sub-prime mortgage racket in the US that kicked it off, after that dominoes fell the world over.

As mentioned before, the Tories were all for looser regulatory controls for the City before the recession.

BigMat wrote:

People say the Tories have put us back on the right track, but they haven't actually done anywhere as much as they probably should have done to cut the deficit.

They certainly haven't met their own targets for cutting the deficit (or anywhere near) that they outlined when they came to power.

tangled_metal

I believe that each party just messes up in their own way. Hindsight is easy for people but at the time each party plays the game in the way that will help them out the most.

It is a game I think, full of professional players with no real need to worry about their future. No matter what happens they will have an out to go to if they lose a general election and a nice golden FU to go with it. Once that gets close to being spent you go into some high paid job somewhere (unions, business, think tanks, academia, lobby groups as advisers to hire, etc.). For the rare few who had a profession (seems to have a few GPs in Westminster I think) you go back into your old profession if you must.

I don't know if these professional politicos are a good or bad thing or how to get rid if they are. It is certainly more of a self perpetuating class of society. NOTA or RON is needed I think.

UndercoverElephant

elbowloh wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done.

Indeed, the recession would have happened who ever was in power in the UK. It was the sub-prime mortgage racket in the US that kicked it off, after that dominoes fell the world over.

As mentioned before, the Tories were all for loser regulatory controls for the City before the recession.

BigMat wrote:

People say the Tories have put us back on the right track, but they haven't actually done anywhere as much as they probably should have done to cut the deficit.

They certainly haven't met their own targets for cutting the deficit (or anywhere near) that they outlined when they came to power.

Well, no. I seem to recall that government spending now is higher than it was when the Tories came to power. It's really only the improving global economic climate that's kept the figures quite so rosy.

The Rookie

BigMat wrote:

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done. They should have saved a bit more in the good times

That in a nutshell, the recession would have happened whatever, and history clearly shows that the longer you go without one the nastier it is when it arrives, simply put the previous government had put nothing aside for a rainy day, so when it pi55ed it down they couldn't afford an umbrella.

Those governments that tried to sped their way out of the recession are now reaping the result, as soon as they stopped spending the recession kicked in again and they had even less room to manoeuvre than they did before they blew all the billions trying to fix the unfixable, this government realised what would happen and did the right thing (though ironically Labour planned to cut pretty much as hard, pretty much as fast despite all their bleating - though personally I doubt if they would have held their nerve).

bigmat

The Rookie wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done. They should have saved a bit more in the good times

That in a nutshell, the recession would have happened whatever, and history clearly shows that the longer you go without one the nastier it is when it arrives, simply put the previous government had put nothing aside for a rainy day, so when it pi55ed it down they couldn't afford an umbrella.

Those governments that tried to sped their way out of the recession are now reaping the result, as soon as they stopped spending the recession kicked in again and they had even less room to manoeuvre than they did before they blew all the billions trying to fix the unfixable, this government realised what would happen and did the right thing (though ironically Labour planned to cut pretty much as hard, pretty much as fast despite all their bleating - though personally I doubt if they would have held their nerve).

The irony - had Labour done what they said they'd do, they probably would have done more to tackle the deficit than the current government have actually done. But you don't believe they would have done it - who knows, maybe you're right. Hardly the slam-dunk argument the right wing press have managed to get so many to believe though is it?

il_principe

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women.
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspxx)

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

That's what the parties are going to do - basically tell 1/4 of the electorate they're the reason the NHS is creaking. "You, put the fork down. You're costing us millions"

You need a much more nuanced, less binary debate to get be able to sell that argument to an electorate, and the UK, with FPTP and gutter press is not the place to do that.

jzed

Sure I read that exercise would do nothing to curb the obesity problem. Removing sugar from diet was key.

Probably explains why no matter how much cycling I do I can't shed any weight. Need to cut out the sugar.....

As for forming the next Government - the Greeks will probably pull Labours strings - sorry I meant the SNP.

The Rookie

BigMat wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Annoying people still hark on about Labour destroying the economy when they really didn't do much that the opposition wouldn't also have done. They should have saved a bit more in the good times

That in a nutshell, the recession would have happened whatever, and history clearly shows that the longer you go without one the nastier it is when it arrives, simply put the previous government had put nothing aside for a rainy day, so when it pi55ed it down they couldn't afford an umbrella.

Those governments that tried to sped their way out of the recession are now reaping the result, as soon as they stopped spending the recession kicked in again and they had even less room to manoeuvre than they did before they blew all the billions trying to fix the unfixable, this government realised what would happen and did the right thing (though ironically Labour planned to cut pretty much as hard, pretty much as fast despite all their bleating - though personally I doubt if they would have held their nerve).

The irony - had Labour done what they said they'd do, they probably would have done more to tackle the deficit than the current government have actually done. But you don't believe they would have done it - who knows, maybe you're right. Hardly the slam-dunk argument the right wing press have managed to get so many to believe though is it?

No, Labour planned similar sized total cuts but slower, the reason the deficit hasn't come down as fast as was predicted (by external agencies like the IMF as well) was due to the rest of the world economy not being in the predicted state, so our trade with it is not at the level predicted, there is nothing a UK gov't can do to fix that!

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women.
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspxx)

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

You have a point - and I think the money spent on sports in schools should be more - but more sports in school will not, in the short or long term, resolve £8 billion worth of service delivery and health related cost pressures that the NHS faces.

The £9billion cost of obesity to the NHS is accounted for - yes we could do more to reduce this cost - but the NHS needs £8billion extra to deal with other issues. How does increased sports in school funding address our aging population and associated rising costs? Or broken bones, mental health servicse and long term conditions that people develop irrespective of how fit/healthy they are? New buildings, technology?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the way we think about health, maintaining health and interlinking health services with other services in this country is too fragmented, but obesity is one cost related thing that the NHS has to face.

CYCLESPORT1

Conservative/LD coalition 42% Get em off !

elbowloh

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women.
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspxx)

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

You have a point - and I think the money spent on sports in schools should be more - but more sports in school will not, in the short or long term, resolve £8 billion worth of service delivery and health related cost pressures that the NHS faces.

The £9billion cost of obesity to the NHS is accounted for - yes we could do more to reduce this cost - but the NHS needs £8billion extra to deal with other issues. How does increased sports in school funding address our aging population and associated rising costs? Or broken bones, mental health servicse and long term conditions that people develop irrespective of how fit/healthy they are? New buildings, technology?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the way we think about health, maintaining health and interlinking health services with other services in this country is too fragmented, but obesity is one cost related thing that the NHS has to face.

We could also do more to prevent the long-term diseases and A&E visits related to alcohol consumption.
Just more to promote healthier lifestyles in general to take the pressure off the NHS.

tgotb

elbowloh wrote:

We could also do more to prevent the long-term diseases and A&E visits related to alcohol consumption.
Just more to promote healthier lifestyles in general to take the pressure off the NHS.

Whilst this is clearly a very good thing to be doing, the payback period is pretty long. Invest loads of money in one parliament, and the benefits start to appear several parliaments down the line, when the incumbent party (which could well be your opposition) will inevitably take credit for the NHS cost savings.

Unfortunately, although our current political system discourages politicians from playing the long game, no-one has yet come up with anything better.

DonDaddyD

elbowloh wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women.
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspxx)

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

You have a point - and I think the money spent on sports in schools should be more - but more sports in school will not, in the short or long term, resolve £8 billion worth of service delivery and health related cost pressures that the NHS faces.

The £9billion cost of obesity to the NHS is accounted for - yes we could do more to reduce this cost - but the NHS needs £8billion extra to deal with other issues. How does increased sports in school funding address our aging population and associated rising costs? Or broken bones, mental health servicse and long term conditions that people develop irrespective of how fit/healthy they are? New buildings, technology?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the way we think about health, maintaining health and interlinking health services with other services in this country is too fragmented, but obesity is one cost related thing that the NHS has to face.

We could also do more to prevent the long-term diseases and A&E visits related to alcohol consumption.
Just more to promote healthier lifestyles in general to take the pressure off the NHS.

This is something that should be done, and arguably done better. However, there's a lot we could do more of and do better.

The reality is the NHS requires investment to modernize its operating model and services and is, at the same time, being underfunded to deliver it's current services. 5 years ago I explained how and why this would happen; I stated that the Tories haven't really ring fenced healthcare spending because they changed how contracts are awarded, paid and who can bid for them. Truth is some of that money just isn't reaching NHS services.

It really boils down to this, do you:
1. Spend £10,000 on a new car which is fuel efficient and less likely to breakdown over ten years and has little running costs

or

2. Spend £5,000 on a secondhand car and spend through the nose repairing it to keep it running. Despite the running costs being incredibly high as well.

The NHS unfortunately is number 2 and until a Government has the a solution or the balls to say here is a large £**billion injection to modernize the NHS, anything else is tweaking the edges.

If the NHS had one large cash injection to modernize it's operating model, build energy efficient buildings and redesign service delivery it would probably require less money.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

What gets my goat is all this talk of saving the NHS, yet no one talks about addressing the symptoms. So the Tories promise £8billion for the NHS and £150 million for sport in schools. To put that in perspective, obesity is estimated to cost the NHS £9 Billion a year.

Here's the NHS' own data on obesity:

There has been a marked increase in obesity rates over the past eight years – in 1993 13% of men and 16% of women were obese – in 2011 this rose to 24% for men and 26% for women.
For children attending reception class (aged 4-5 years) during 2011-12, 9.5% were obese.

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspxx)

Yet everyone is queuing up to throw yet more money at the NHS. Madness.

You have a point - and I think the money spent on sports in schools should be more - but more sports in school will not, in the short or long term, resolve £8 billion worth of service delivery and health related cost pressures that the NHS faces.

The £9billion cost of obesity to the NHS is accounted for - yes we could do more to reduce this cost - but the NHS needs £8billion extra to deal with other issues. How does increased sports in school funding address our aging population and associated rising costs? Or broken bones, mental health services and long term conditions that people develop irrespective of how fit/healthy they are? New buildings, technology?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the way we think about health, maintaining health and interlinking health services with other services in this country is too fragmented, but obesity is one cost related thing that the NHS has to face.[/quote

I'm not for a minute suggesting that investing in school sport will avert the obesity crisis or help to mend broken bones. I'm merely using the disparity between £150 million and £8 billion to demonstrate lunacy of NHS spending. Successive Govs have done little to tackle the issue of personal health/behaviour - smoking, drinking, diet etc, and yet continue to throw money at the NHS. It's an unsustainable model especially when combined with an ageing population.

We need a Gov with the courage to force a change in public behaviour - or even move us to a Dutch style system. £9 Billion a year thrown away because people can't/won't eat properly & exercise. IMHO half the problem is the NHS being free. People think (perhaps subconsciously) f*ck it, I'll do what I want because the NHS will pick up the pieces.

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

I'm not for a minute suggesting that investing in school sport will avert the obesity crisis or help to mend broken bones. I'm merely using the disparity between £150 million and £8 billion to demonstrate lunacy of NHS spending. Successive Govs have done little to tackle the issue of personal health/behaviour - smoking, drinking, diet etc, and yet continue to throw money at the NHS. It's an unsustainable model especially when combined with an ageing population.

The two, school sports and NHS funding are not directly comparable. It doesn't demonstrate the disparity because the size, scale and distribution of NHS funding is far beyond the size of the school network in this country.

Example: A school has anywhere between 300 - 1500 pupils. Some NHS Trust provide services to more than 1500 people a day. A single NHS Foundation Trust has a turnover of about £300million - and the one I'm thinking of provides community services to East London and parts of Essex. The Acute Trust's is where the real money is spent and its not all staff that this money goes on. There are services, building costs, medicines, medical technology, computers etc. Multiply that by the number of individual NHS services (Primary Care, Secondary Care, Community Services, Mental Health Services, Rehab Services, Local public health, specialised services, offender healthcare, armed forces, immunisation, research - add the regulatory bodies, training and development) and multiply to cover the entire country - because the NHS provides services to the entire population and not just school kids (a infinitely smaller demoraphic). This is why I struggle with the comparison. You cannot compare school funding needs to NHS funding needs.

I also have to disagree with the notion that the Government and health services are not doing enough to change peoples health related behaviour. The cycling revolution shows no sign of stopping. More people are taking up sport, running etc in their pass time. More gyms around than ever. Pubs are closing up and down the place. Less smokers.

Cigarettes: forced to carry smoking kills and smoking damaged lungs, hidden in Supermarkets, banning TV adverts, ban on smoking in indoor public places, high taxation, quit smoking teams.

Drinking and diet: Loads of healthy eating information, more rigid rules around kids TV adverts, school dinners have changed, quality of food in hospitals has increased. Mental health services and attitudes have changed dramatically.

People are more aware of things like cancer and checking more than ever. Far more healthier babies being born - less deformities, less fetal-alcohol syndrome. Less kids with filings and dental problems.

When you talk to a 50 - 60 year old about health awareness when they were 30 (and what the Country was like - stressed pregnant women encouraged to smoke - hamlet cigar adverts on TV etc) compared to us, who are in our 30s, and what we know it say then it is completely inaccurate to say "Successive Govs have done little to tackle the issue of personal health/behaviour - smoking, drinking, diet etc"

People think (perhaps subconsciously) f*ck it, I'll do what I want because the NHS will pick up the pieces.

9 years in the industry, I've met a range of people with small injuries to long term conditions. I've never met anyone who has used that rationale.