NPR

Never trust conservatism optimism.
I remember when they said that our entire industrial base was actually crowding out high tech, high skilled and high paid jobs.
That if we get rid of it all, these high paid, high skilled "clean" jobs would come flooding in.

35 years later and only 19% of the jobs we lost have been replaced, and with low wage, low paid zero hour contract crap.


Why do we listen to these c'nts?

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:58 pm Never trust conservatism optimism.
I remember when they said that our entire industrial base was actually crowding out high tech, high skilled and high paid jobs.
That if we get rid of it all, these high paid, high skilled "clean" jobs would come flooding in.

35 years later and only 19% of the jobs we lost have been replaced, and with low wage, low paid zero hour contract crap.


Why do we listen to these c'nts?

Because you still manage to have a class system in the 21st century !

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:49 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:54 pm You clearly have comprehension issues, those are two separate statements, there is no commitment to spend the 350M a week on the NHS.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:46 pm In OS's defence, the side of the bus doesn't explicitly say that specific amount should go to the NHS.

However, putting the two statements together like that is deliberate and intended to imply that the same amount being sent to the EU will be put into the NHS. It's a conscious misrepresentation.

the "let's" is lower case L, so it's a continuation of the sentence. That's not a mistake an Eton educated journo makes by accident.

Anyone with a basic understanding of grammar and comprehension knows that!

Well, yes. On the side of that bus, but clearly not with much of their other promo material, there is no explicity declaration to spend that money, though it's clearly designed to all but state that so as to get people on board.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:44 pm Well, yes. On the side of that bus, but clearly not with much of their other promo material, there is no explicity declaration to spend that money, though it's clearly designed to all but state that so as to get people on board.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:45 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:44 pm Well, yes. On the side of that bus, but clearly not with much of their other promo material, there is no explicity declaration to spend that money, though it's clearly designed to all but state that so as to get people on board.

Are you completely misreading everything I type? I said only the bus wasn't explicit, that other material was. That seems to be material other than the side of the bus to me.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:52 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:45 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:44 pm Well, yes. On the side of that bus, but clearly not with much of their other promo material, there is no explicity declaration to spend that money, though it's clearly designed to all but state that so as to get people on board.

Are you completely misreading everything I type? I said only the bus wasn't explicit, that other material was. That seems to be material other than the side of the bus to me.

I've read your bolded sentence a few times now and I honestly can't work out what you're trying to say tbh. Not surprising it's confusing people!

Fair enough, too many negatives clashing perhaps.

What I thought I'd said was that the side of the bus seems deliberately non explicit about allocating the specific sum of £350m to the NHS while doing its best to suggest that's what would happen. Clearly there's no such ambiguity in other Brexit materials around the £350m.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:23 pm Fair enough, too many negatives clashing perhaps.

What I thought I'd said was that the side of the bus seems deliberately non explicit about allocating the specific sum of £350m to the NHS while doing its best to suggest that's what would happen. Clearly there's no such ambiguity in other Brexit materials around the £350m.

Wrong login, Mr Gove

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:24 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:54 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:05 am

You clearly have comprehension issues, those are two separate statements, there is no commitment to spend the 350M a week on the NHS.

Ha ha ha ha ... someone take his spade away before the hole gets too deep!

Dont blame me if you have read more into it than is there. There is no commitment to spend the whole 350M (not that 350M was the nett figure anyway)

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:54 pm there is no commitment to spend the 350M a week on the NHS.

ORLY?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -manifesto

Boris Johnson has suggested Theresa May promised to give the NHS an extra £350m a week at the launch of the Conservative party manifesto, when neither she nor the document made any such promise.

They can give them the 350M that was going to the EU and not give them the 350M a week they were already getting from Govt.

Openside wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:12 pm They can give them the 350M that was going to the EU and not give them the 350M a week they were already getting from Govt.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:55 pm 20210212_165419.jpg

Currently the extra monies to the NHS is multiples of the 350 million, even when covid spending is over its way more than 350.

So the NHS is better off by more than 350 million a week. It’s great watching IH confirm this though.

give the NHS an extra £350m a week

Of course they also knew the pandemic was imminent so any COVID spending was clearly implied in the £350pw too

and if they'd spend the £350pw extra on the NHS as you say, then why did they put so much effort into denying it?

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:36 am

give the NHS an extra £350m a week

Of course they also knew the pandemic was imminent so any COVID spending was clearly implied in the £350pw too

and if they'd spend the £350pw extra on the NHS as you say, then why did they put so much effort into denying it?

Thanks for helping to clarify the spending , as an actual FACT the NHS received more than 350 mill per week in 2020 before any emergency spending for then pandemic (see the budgets for details). These spending plans had nothing Tom do with predictions of a pandemic and only madness would suggest such.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:15 am Thanks for helping to clarify the spending

That was Boris' lyin'

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:18 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:15 am Thanks for helping to clarify the spending

That was Boris' lyin'

No, that the 350 million a week post brexit was already in place and in fact a larger figure is being spent.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:26 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:18 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:15 am Thanks for helping to clarify the spending

That was Boris' lyin'

No, that the 350 million a week post brexit was already in place and in fact a larger figure is being spent.

"already in place" so they were going to spend it anyway? So it was all just a big....lie?

Why is that one line going down with the larger figure, including the extra £18b Brexshit dividend in it?

Spending in the NHS in cash terms goes up every year, this is called inflation. The Gov usually forget this when claiming they are increasing spending on the NHS, which in cash terms is true but most sensible commentators look at the real increase in spending allowing for inflation. Secondly the funding required by the NHS will also be determined by changes in demand, which are mostly in turn driven by demographics of the population. So again sensible commentators will look and see what the change in demand is and, even allowing for the annual efficiency savings requirement the NHS has to make, if the increase in real term funding is sufficient to cover this. Given the increasing age profile of our population in the UK we need increasing amounts of funding to stand still. Sadly even allowing for the increase in Gov funding this is not sufficient to allow the NHS to maintain current levels of service. Perhaps killing off lots of elderly with a shit awful covid19 response will rebalance the books?

The NHS spend as a % of GDP is more a measure of affordability or the relative importance given to the NHS by successive Govs and international comparisons with similar countries is always useful, even allowing for different ways countries deliver healthcare. Most detailed analyses, i.e. Commonwealth Fund, show that the UK is down the bottom end of the table in comparison to similar countries for % of GDP funding on healthcare. We were about ave following a big increase in spending by Blair Gov but the last 11 years has seen has slip badly in the league table towards the bottom. Any promised increase in spending over the next few years doesn't reverse this.

However all this is largely irrelevant. Did the Gov promise that the £350m per week EU spend go the NHS, as written on the bus and their pro leave publicity? Was it implied this would be in addition to any other funding promised? Irrefutably yes to both! They are just squirming now as the true cost of Brexit is crystallising and the £350m is just a figment of their imagination, as it always was.

“The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

You forgot the demographics - look at average NHS spend per capita in real terms over the last 10 years.

The money grab from the cap ex budget to the day to day operating of the NHS these last 10 years has been dramatic. We're now left with a less efficient and productive NHS than would have been the case, I don't want to say should because I'm not going to ignored the credit crunch issue, but the idea we've increased the spend on the NHS is offensively stupid, we've cut funding and we've delayed investment so just to get back to where we could have been will now be a lengthened and more expensive process.

The £350 million a week claim was a stupid lie, and given Brexit has impacted negatively on the economy even if you met the terms you'd have to be cutting elsewhere or borrowing more so it'd still have worked out badly. The only slight interest here is the UK has a better practice of GDP analysis than most countries, so the lack of investment into the NHS is reflected in a lower GDP figure than we might have seen because the UK does take account of productivity in places such as schools and hospitals, which is to say not just the wages of those involved but some sense of their value to the economy. That's not a long standing thing, but is on the side of best practice, it might be a widely known thing but if not it's worth a mention

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

Stop trying to deflect, The fact of the matter is that the statement was in itself a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, that is undeniable and completely par for the course with this government.

ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:00 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

Stop trying to deflect, The fact of the matter is that the statement was in itself a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, that is undeniable and completely par for the course with this government.

Deflection and deliberate attempts to mislead is what bimbo finds attractive about them.

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:35 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

You forgot the demographics - look at average NHS spend per capita in real terms over the last 10 years.

I didn’t forget that at all. By any measure the budgets have been higher.

ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:00 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

Stop trying to deflect, The fact of the matter is that the statement was in itself a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, that is undeniable and completely par for the course with this government.

It’s not a deflection , it’s a fact and the spending has increased by more than the claimed figure. It wasn’t misleading in that case.

but the idea we've increased the spend on the NHS is offensively stupid, we've cut funding and we've delayed investment so just to get back to where we could have been will now be a lengthened and more expensive process.

It’s neither offensive nor stupid.

Cash, real, vs GDP, vs population the budget for the NHS is higher than the wonderful summit of Blair’s government 2005.

1 bln pounds currently every 2 days.

Even before the pandemic nearly 35% of government spending was planned to be on health by 2025.


Lying about the money to cover up the ineptitude is offensive though.

May not telling the whole story on NHS funding

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... hs-funding

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:15 pm

but the idea we've increased the spend on the NHS is offensively stupid, we've cut funding and we've delayed investment so just to get back to where we could have been will now be a lengthened and more expensive process.

It’s neither offensive nor stupid.

Cash, real, vs GDP, vs population the budget for the NHS is higher than the wonderful summit of Blair’s government 2005.

1 bln pounds currently every 2 days.

Even before the pandemic nearly 35% of government spending was planned to be on health by 2025.


Lying about the money to cover up the ineptitude is offensive though.

That is sadly offensively stupid

Health spending as a share of GDP remains at lowest level in a decade
30 July 2019
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... gIK0vD_BwE

Austerity
During the period of austerity that followed the 2008 economic crash, the Department of Health and Social Care budget continued to grow but at a slower pace than in previous years. Budgets rose by 1.4 per cent each year on average (adjusting for inflation) in the 10 years between 2009/10 to 2018/19, compared to the 3.7 per cent average rises since the NHS was established.

NHS five-year funding deal
In July 2018, the Prime Minister announced a new five-year funding deal that would see NHS funding rise by £33.9 billion in cash terms (ie, not adjusted for inflation) by 2023/24 compared to 2018/19, a rate of increase that is closer to, but still lower than, the long-term average.

This long-term funding deal only applies to services within the scope of NHS England’s mandate, and excludes important areas of the Department of Health and Social Care budget such as capital investment, public health and the education and training of NHS staff.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... gKILfD_BwE

Brexshit in a nutshell.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/20/euro ... index.html

Wasn't Bimbo telling us that 99% of goods imported into Europe were not inspected and were friction free to all intents and purposes?

For companies who built their businesses on unfettered access to that market, these barriers -- put up virtually overnight and with little warning -- have had big consequences. And while it could be argued that these companies had years to prepare for Brexit, the post-Brexit trade deal was only agreed on December 24 and came into force on January 1.

Under these circumstances, you'd expect a government to be doing everything in its power to help struggling businesses. However, critics fear that the Johnson administration has buried its head in the sand: The Prime Minister has called the difficulties no more than "teething problems."

"Only some of the issues we are seeing at present could be legitimately described as 'teething problems,'" says Adam Marshall, director of the British Chambers of Commerce. "Yes, some firms are facing adjustment ... But others are seeing their entire business model up-ended, and their ability to trade successfully undermined."

Mathew Parris' comment in the Times today states that Brexiteers are now pointing to the fact that there hasn't been an economic falling off the edge of a cliff catastrophe as some sort of "Told you so".

That is how low the bar is being set, as he says,

It is almost possible to feel sorry for the apostles of a new post-EU world. They have shrunk from glad proclaimers to a kind of tetchy defensiveness about their project: from “it’s going to be even better than we dreamt” (circa 2016) to “it’s nothing like as bad as you say” (circa 2021).

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:55 pm

Nailed it.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:10 pm

ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:00 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:07 pm “The wrong 350 million”

Clowns .



By the way dpedin, we have funded in any real term measure (not just cash terms ) higher than Blair’s 2005 budget every year since 2010,, that’s a simple fact.

And of course perversely as GDP has plummeted our NHS spend is now as a % of that figure massively improved.

Currently the NHS has more than 1bln pounds every 3 days to spend.

Dig deep.

Stop trying to deflect, The fact of the matter is that the statement was in itself a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, that is undeniable and completely par for the course with this government.

It’s not a deflection , it’s a fact and the spending has increased by more than the claimed figure. It wasn’t misleading in that case.

As usual Bimbot avoids actually answering the question about the posters being deliberately misleading and counters with some vague statement about the budget going up anyway so in theory its not wrong.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:45 pm Brexshit in a nutshell.

Seems like a pretty sensible use of the wall to create two seats for people to chat on. If you tried to use that frame as a swing it would fall overland hurt people.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:55 pm

says the expat....