|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 9, 2024 18:30:35 GMT
I don't like Blair myself.....from what I know , I tend to agree with him about Id " cards" . I can see the advantages and disadvantages but on balance I'm in favour.They may be open to abuse , as everything is, but they have advantages.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 9, 2024 18:40:52 GMT
The period you mention was the cause of the financial crisis being so devastating in 2008. Instead of prudent management, Blair and Brown let bank lending rip and personal debt get out of control, which resulted in the impact of banks crashing being so much worse for the UK. www.statista.com/statistics/1073541/total-value-of-household-debt-in-the-united-kingdom/They did not want to curb borrowing because they wanted to keep a false boom going so as to win the next GE. It is a regrettable fact that every Labour government since WW2 has left power with the economy in a worse state than they inherited. Hopefully Starmer can do better. Even if you are correct on this point which I don't agree you are, it doesn't alter the fact your earlier statement was incorrect UK Household Debt to GDP was no different to Canada at the time of Financial Crash and yet Canada suffered very little from the Financial Crash certainly no Bank Failures www.imf.org/external/datamapper/HH_LS@GDD/CAN/GBR/USA/DEU/ITA/FRA/JPN/VNMThe primary cause of the 2008 Financial Crash was a fragmented US Banking system poorly Regulated especially for sub-prime lending. In UK it was the contagion of exposure to US Banks and light touch Regulation and being urged by Osborne to become even lighter. No Banks needed to be bailed out because of UK Household Debt. A case could be made that the length of Recession in UK was longer due to high levels of household debt because belttightening occurred it led to lower consumption on the Demand Side. But to suggest it was the cause of the Financial Crisis being so devastating is preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 9, 2024 18:50:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2024 19:24:30 GMT
Do the authors have any conflicts of interest?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 9, 2024 20:37:03 GMT
Definitely a few people on here.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 9, 2024 21:02:47 GMT
The period you mention was the cause of the financial crisis being so devastating in 2008. Instead of prudent management, Blair and Brown let bank lending rip and personal debt get out of control, which resulted in the impact of banks crashing being so much worse for the UK. www.statista.com/statistics/1073541/total-value-of-household-debt-in-the-united-kingdom/They did not want to curb borrowing because they wanted to keep a false boom going so as to win the next GE. It is a regrettable fact that every Labour government since WW2 has left power with the economy in a worse state than they inherited. Hopefully Starmer can do better. You know the tories were incredibly critical of blair and brown for not completely deregulating the banks? Had the tories been in charge, we would have suffered far more from the crash. As always, it was the lib dems on the right side of history with Vince Cable calling for more regulation on banks due to a crash approaching. He was absolutely correct. For every bad decision made by a Labour government in history, all of them put together haven’t damaged the economy half as much as the last 14 years. There has never been so much extraction of wealth from the poor and middle to the richest as we have seen in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 9, 2024 21:12:48 GMT
I can say this words as well, I don’t disagree. So how’s that happening under Streeting, what’s the plan behind the rhetoric? Positive talks with the junior doctors today is a great start. Let’s see how it goes. Hopefully we end up with a healthier population and a much better functioning Health service. To get back to anything close to how the last labour government left it would be almost a miracle. Amen to that. My gut feeling is they’ll want to be seen to act tough with the Junior doctors to make a statement but we shall see……
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 9, 2024 21:39:40 GMT
Do the authors have any conflicts of interest? What do you think? If yes, which parts of the presentation do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 9, 2024 22:23:55 GMT
Do the authors have any conflicts of interest? To aid your deliberations in answering my questions you may wish to review and extract of the Stevens Lecture Mathew Taylor CEO of NHS Confederation gave to RSM last year The full lecture is linked below and gives voice to the previous visual illustrative link I posted Alternatively we can continue to do the same things over and over as a wise man once said with predictable results Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation and one of the UK’s most influential health leaders, visited the Royal Society of Medicine on Monday 15 May 2023 to give the annual Stevens Lecture, an RSM flagship public engagement event founded in 1970 by philanthropist and inventor Edwin Stevens.
Mr Taylor used his speech to propose that the occasion of the NHS’s 75th birthday should be used to develop a more ambitious national social contract for healthcare, something he believes to be ‘more practical and more achievable than it might sound’.
But to achieve this for the nation, he said, will require us to make a more profound commitment and to rise to two sets of challenges. “Firstly, the need to re-set relationships: between the public and our own health; between the centre and the NHS; and between all organisations involved in health and care. And secondly, the urgent demand for investment – not just the amount, but also where we invest.”
In his wide-ranging speech, Mr Taylor went on to discuss health disparities and the need for us to understand and acknowledge more fully the economic consequences of poor public health, together with the importance of empowering and enabling patients and communities to manage and improve their health and wellbeing.
He went on to discuss the state of primary care, giving examples of ‘fantastic’ practice led by ‘inspirational’ GPs and primary care managers. “Standing out in this work is a commitment, on the one hand, to improve population health and reduce health inequalities and, on the other, to work with partners in the health service and beyond and with community organisations”, he said. According to Mr Taylor, the most inspiring primary care leaders see themselves as ‘street-level entrepreneurs knitting together networks, services and bits of funding, focused always on working with others to improve the health and wellbeing of communities’.
Proceeding to tackle the ‘complicated and contested’ debate about the resources of the NHS, Mr Taylor told the audience that, undeniably, ‘to meet rising demands and expectations and to make the most of advances in medicine we need better, more sustained, and more equitable funding for health and social care’.
He went on to describe research commissioned by the NHS Confederation showing that for every £1 invested per head on the NHS, £4 is returned to the wider economy, pointing out the £43 billion cost to the UK economy of loss of earnings caused by long-term sickness.
Reiterating the need for investing proportionately more money into primary, public health, prevention and community-based services, Mr Taylor said that most health leaders – including those who run acute trusts – recognise the need to shift resources ‘if we are ever to get off the hamster wheel of trying to meet ever more demand for hospital-based care’.
Ending his speech, Mr Taylor said: “Despite all the challenges we face I believe the best days of the NHS still lie ahead. Sufficiently funded, properly supported, devolved, preventative, empowering – our health service can be ready to grasp the opportunities offered by science and technology for a transformation in health outcomes. It is a future worth fighting for.”
To read Mr Taylor’s speech in full visit the NHS Confederation website
We're continuing the discussion on the future of the NHS on 20 June. Be part of the debate and join us at Operation NHS: Envisaging a brighter future for healthcarewww.nhsconfed.org/news/matthew-taylors-speech-rsms-stevens-lecture-2023
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 9, 2024 22:33:10 GMT
Starmageddon is here...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 10, 2024 0:08:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 10, 2024 9:10:45 GMT
The period you mention was the cause of the financial crisis being so devastating in 2008. Instead of prudent management, Blair and Brown let bank lending rip and personal debt get out of control, which resulted in the impact of banks crashing being so much worse for the UK. www.statista.com/statistics/1073541/total-value-of-household-debt-in-the-united-kingdom/They did not want to curb borrowing because they wanted to keep a false boom going so as to win the next GE. It is a regrettable fact that every Labour government since WW2 has left power with the economy in a worse state than they inherited. Hopefully Starmer can do better. You know the tories were incredibly critical of blair and brown for not completely deregulating the banks? Had the tories been in charge, we would have suffered far more from the crash. As always, it was the lib dems on the right side of history with Vince Cable calling for more regulation on banks due to a crash approaching. He was absolutely correct. For every bad decision made by a Labour government in history, all of them put together haven’t damaged the economy half as much as the last 14 years. There has never been so much extraction of wealth from the poor and middle to the richest as we have seen in recent years. I am well aware of the Tories. I was an active member of the Liberal Party during the 70s and 80s working against Thatcherism and the loony Labour Party. If you want to bring history into it, it is the Liberal Party that brought in most of the social change for the better during most of the 20th century. Inequality improved for most of the 20th century till the Labour Party took power in the 60s and we got nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation. Inequaloty got worse after joining the EEC, which at the time I was hugely in favour of. The Labour Party still claim credit for introducing the NHS which was devised by a Liberal. But I got wise to what the EU was about, and the Liberal Party and left. I realised Benn, Castle etc. and the Labour left were right about European membership. I now have a healthy contempt for all politicians and believe they should be strictly controlled and each one answerable to the electorate of their constituency. I agree that the poor have had a rough deal from the Tories, but also believe that was the EU world we lived in. See graph for the richest country in Europe: www.dw.com/en/germany-what-poverty-looks-like-in-a-rich-country/a-63393501
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 9:51:08 GMT
Definitely a few people on here. The number of people I've heard or spoken to who've expressed feelings of optimism, relief, hope, progress, even some who didn't vote Labour. I think that is the general feeling across the country (apart from those dyed-in-the-wool right-wingers who want Labour to fail regardless of what it means for the country as a whole). Not heard anyone claim to be aroused though, that's a new one
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 10, 2024 9:55:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 9:57:15 GMT
You know the tories were incredibly critical of blair and brown for not completely deregulating the banks? Had the tories been in charge, we would have suffered far more from the crash. As always, it was the lib dems on the right side of history with Vince Cable calling for more regulation on banks due to a crash approaching. He was absolutely correct. For every bad decision made by a Labour government in history, all of them put together haven’t damaged the economy half as much as the last 14 years. There has never been so much extraction of wealth from the poor and middle to the richest as we have seen in recent years. I am well aware of the Tories. I was an active member of the Liberal Party during the 70s and 80s working against Thatcherism and the loony Labour Party. If you want to bring history into it, it is the Liberal Party that brought in most of the social change for the better during most of the 20th century. Inequality improved for most of the 20th century till the Labour Party took power in the 60s and we got nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation. Inequaloty got worse after joining the EEC, which at the time I was hugely in favour of. The Labour Party still claim credit for introducing the NHS which was devised by a Liberal. But I got wise to what the EU was about, and the Liberal Party and left. I realised Benn, Castle etc. and the Labour left were right about European membership. I now have a healthy contempt for all politicians and believe they should be strictly controlled and each one answerable to the electorate of their constituency. I agree that the poor have had a rough deal from the Tories, but also believe that was the EU world we lived in. See graph for the richest country in Europe: www.dw.com/en/germany-what-poverty-looks-like-in-a-rich-country/a-63393501Can you provide the evidence for inequality improving then getting worse. That'd be interesting to see. Inequality may well have got worse since the 60s and after joining the EEC, but I'd be interested to see how free market monetarist capitalism (from the late 70s onwards) has contributed. Labour did introduce the NHS while in power. It may well have been devised by a Liberal. Well done him. And well done Labour for enabling it and for not being ideologically opposed simply because it came from a Liberal. The UK did better economically than almost all other countries as a result of its membership of the EU. The fact that that didn't necessarily translate into societal benefits is the fault of our own governments rather than the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 9:58:56 GMT
I do love it when people get arrested on "counter-terrorism offences", which is basically everyone who isn't a terrorist. Wasn't aware I was committing an offence in that respect
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 10, 2024 10:12:39 GMT
I do love it when people get arrested on "counter-terrorism offences", which is basically everyone who isn't a terrorist. Wasn't aware I was committing an offence in that respect Implying guilt by association because they're both muslim. Wasn't it ashworth who recently made racist comments about people from Bangladesh too. Is he a former tory or Labour MP again? Sounds like something Lee Anderson would say to Sadiq Khan. Suppose it aligns with findings of the forde report.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 10, 2024 11:56:12 GMT
I do love it when people get arrested on "counter-terrorism offences", which is basically everyone who isn't a terrorist. Wasn't aware I was committing an offence in that respect Implying guilt by association because they're both muslim. Wasn't it ashworth who recently made racist comments about people from Bangladesh too. Is he a former tory or Labour MP again? Sounds like something Lee Anderson would say to Sadiq Khan. Suppose it aligns with findings of the forde report. I see that piece of shit Ashworth has a cushy number lined up already, working for a shady thinktank. Must have been a rigorous interview process.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 10, 2024 11:58:08 GMT
I do love it when people get arrested on "counter-terrorism offences", which is basically everyone who isn't a terrorist. Wasn't aware I was committing an offence in that respect Implying guilt by association because they're both muslim. Wasn't it ashworth who recently made racist comments about people from Bangladesh too. Is he a former tory or Labour MP again? Sounds like something Lee Anderson would say to Sadiq Khan. Suppose it aligns with findings of the forde report. With posts like this I always like to substitute Muslims for Jews, read things back and then wonder just how much of an explosive story it would be in the MSM. Hierarchy of racism indeed........
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 10, 2024 12:02:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 10, 2024 12:50:25 GMT
I am well aware of the Tories. I was an active member of the Liberal Party during the 70s and 80s working against Thatcherism and the loony Labour Party. If you want to bring history into it, it is the Liberal Party that brought in most of the social change for the better during most of the 20th century. Inequality improved for most of the 20th century till the Labour Party took power in the 60s and we got nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation. Inequaloty got worse after joining the EEC, which at the time I was hugely in favour of. The Labour Party still claim credit for introducing the NHS which was devised by a Liberal. But I got wise to what the EU was about, and the Liberal Party and left. I realised Benn, Castle etc. and the Labour left were right about European membership. I now have a healthy contempt for all politicians and believe they should be strictly controlled and each one answerable to the electorate of their constituency. I agree that the poor have had a rough deal from the Tories, but also believe that was the EU world we lived in. See graph for the richest country in Europe: www.dw.com/en/germany-what-poverty-looks-like-in-a-rich-country/a-63393501Can you provide the evidence for inequality improving then getting worse. That'd be interesting to see. Inequality may well have got worse since the 60s and after joining the EEC, but I'd be interested to see how free market monetarist capitalism (from the late 70s onwards) has contributed. Labour did introduce the NHS while in power. It may well have been devised by a Liberal. Well done him. And well done Labour for enabling it and for not being ideologically opposed simply because it came from a Liberal. The UK did better economically than almost all other countries as a result of its membership of the EU. The fact that that didn't necessarily translate into societal benefits is the fault of our own governments rather than the EU. "When the twentieth century is viewed as a whole, no clear trend in income inequality emerges. Inequality was high and rising during the first three decades and peaked during the Depression. It fell sharply during World War II and remained at the lower level in the 1950s and 1960s. From the 1970s through the mid-1990s inequality steadily increased to levels not seen since World War II, though well below those during the first three decades."www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp116698.pdfIf you look at Figure 1 on the next link you get one guess when the UK joined the EEC: ifs.org.uk/articles/income-and-wealth-inequality-explained-5-chartsThere's more: equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed/#:~:text=Levels%20of%20inequality%20changed%20dramatically,dramatically%20from%201979%20to%201991. The UK did better economically than almost all other countries as a result of during and despite its membership of the EU. I agree it is down to to our own government at the end of the day, but the UK grew faster economically in the 50s and 60s before joining the EEC. It will now grow faster having left the EU in the long term, but obviously it will take time to undo the damage of 47 years of EU membership. It is easier for any government to grow the economy faster if we are not having to put money into the EU every year and released from all the trading constraints the EU imposes with the rest of the world. It is easier to redistribute wealth more equitably if the cake is getting bigger each year. Blair inherited a sound economy and was able to spend more on NHS and services, but he fouled up by allowing borrowing to get out of control resulting in Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, and other bank failures. The warning signs were clear but Blair and Brown ignored them. www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/brown-ignored-2004-warning-on-bank-cash-crisis-6936463.html
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 10, 2024 21:35:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Jul 10, 2024 21:39:18 GMT
Hell of a donkey impression though.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 10, 2024 22:42:33 GMT
I love how he’s been in the job less than a week and just done shit.
Like having an actual adult in charge.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 10, 2024 22:55:06 GMT
I love how he’s been in the job less than a week and just done shit. Like having an actual adult in charge. You mean like releasing 40,000 criminals, including violent criminals and nonces, onto the streets and rubber-stamping 100,000 boat randomers?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 10, 2024 22:59:33 GMT
I love how he’s been in the job less than a week and just done shit. Like having an actual adult in charge. You mean like releasing 40,000 criminals, including violent criminals and nonces, onto the streets and rubber-stamping 100,000 boat randomers? Hahahaha of course he has 🤦♂️🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 11, 2024 5:54:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 11, 2024 6:07:17 GMT
Come on then Sir Kier, announce a bank holiday this coming Monday😀
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Jul 11, 2024 6:58:30 GMT
I love how he’s been in the job less than a week and just done shit. Like having an actual adult in charge. You mean like releasing 40,000 criminals, including violent criminals and nonces, onto the streets and rubber-stamping 100,000 boat randomers? The prison system has been failing for years under the tories as someone who works in the system something has to change with prisons and probation. The answer is not building more prisons
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jul 11, 2024 7:26:50 GMT
You mean like releasing 40,000 criminals, including violent criminals and nonces, onto the streets and rubber-stamping 100,000 boat randomers? The prison system has been failing for years under the tories as someone who works in the system something has to change with prisons and probation. The answer is not building more prisons The Dutch seem to be taking a different approach, looks like it's working - theconversation.com/british-jails-are-at-a-breaking-point-heres-how-the-dutch-halved-their-prison-population-234218Stopping this ridiculous pursuit of drug prohibition would be a start, it helps virtually nobody, encourages the formation of gangs and cartels attracted by the huge profits and doesn't affect the supply of illegal drugs in any meaningful way whilst occupying a disproportionate amount of police time. Just my opinion 🙂
|
|