• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
PJV3 said:
I'm obviously in a minority as i believe the Austerity programme here and in the EU to be making things worse than they need to be. But i was wondering at what point people who support it (reluctantly) would consider it to be not working.

This isn't about Balls and his tax cut. and i don't want to get into a circular argument with commited tories and Liberals as i'm not saying i'm right/you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I think that is largely a matter of people not understanding how bad it could get. What we've got now is kind of austerity-lite (and nothing close to, say, wartime rationing) and nobody thinks it is going to get anywhere near that. BUT it could do, if the debt payments don't work out and so on, if the deficit doesn't come down fast enough to bring the debt down eventually - and it's a long haul - then, yes, we're in for some very stark times indeed.

The ''at what point it isn't working" argument is a tough one, and we're kind of privileged here to have zomgbbqftw around to lob in some stuff about what actually is and isn't working - because we sure as hell don't get it at least in any sort of comprehensible terms from the press, the opposition or even the government, presumably because they all think we are too thick to understand it.

I was brought up in the immediate aftermath of wartime rationing and before the big old consumer boom that followed. Stuff needs to be done, and done all over the place, to get this deficit/debt stuff sorted, and frankly right now it looks too damn slow. Not enough urgency.

So I don't support it 'reluctantly'. I support it wholeheartedly and wish they would do more and faster - even if only so people know they are serious and trim down to match. Right now it seems like too many see it as somebody else's problem.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
phisheep said:
I think that is largely a matter of people not understanding how bad it could get. What we've got now is kind of austerity-lite (and nothing close to, say, wartime rationing) and nobody thinks it is going to get anywhere near that. BUT it could do, if the debt payments don't work out and so on, if the deficit doesn't come down fast enough to bring the debt down eventually - and it's a long haul - then, yes, we're in for some very stark times indeed.

The ''at what point it isn't working" argument is a tough one, and we're kind of privileged here to have zomgbbqftw around to lob in some stuff about what actually is and isn't working - because we sure as hell don't get it at least in any sort of comprehensible terms from the press, the opposition or even the government, presumably because they all think we are too thick to understand it.

I was brought up in the immediate aftermath of wartime rationing and before the big old consumer boom that followed. Stuff needs to be done, and done all over the place, to get this deficit/debt stuff sorted, and frankly right now it looks too damn slow. Not enough urgency.

So I don't support it 'reluctantly'. I support it wholeheartedly and wish they would do more and faster - even if only so people know they are serious and trim down to match. Right now it seems like too many see it as somebody else's problem.
Click to expand...

Well i said i didn't want to get into a circular argument because you're entitled to believe your approach is the right one, i don't and think it's making things harder. But there is no way of knowing so it's pointless really, i was just interested in the waiverers(if there are any) because it seems to be a black and white issue on here.


Interesting report/blog about Cameron having journalists locked away in side rooms when he visits hospitals, and the hostile reception he gets off camera.
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/full-story-of-camerons-visit-to-nhs.html

I've sort of wondered what would happen if i'm on a placement and Cameron or Lansley turned up, seems its okay to ignore them.
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
killer_clank said:
The Labour Party. Wanting a massive program of tax cuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

What in the shit? God, they're totally fucked.
Click to expand...

The VAT cut was totally ineffective last time as far as I'm concerned... this government are haphazard enough with the cuts as it is, ensuring the treasury has even less money is probably not a good idea -- even for, or especially for - Labour's more typical aims.

I'd certainly support bringing the relief threshold forward though.


I only just saw the Lansley heckling video - lol, holy shit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17100456
 
louis89

louis89

Member
Okay, so, health reforms. I'm trying to understand the debate so that I can have an informed opinion of my own. From what I can see, the most controversial part of this is the potential introduction of private sector providers who would tender contracts and provide services, which people are referring to as the privatisation of the NHS. Wikipedia has the following:

"Any willing provider"

Physicians and others employees of the NHS are primarily worried about the bill's intention to amend one of the founding pillars of the NHS to read "any willing provider" rather than the current language guaranteeing a needed service exclusively via the NHS and its direct affiliates and partners. Changing of the language of the NHS tenets to read "any willing provider" takes away that requirement and allows private sector providers to have a potentially major say inside the NHS, potentially introducing private-sector operations and pricing within the NHS and even opening up local NHS operations to the possibility of forced closure because the private industry could out-compete them and corral the NHS services into bankruptcy. The British Medical Association has said that "Forcing commissioners of care to tender contracts to any willing provider, including ... commercial companies, could destabilise local health economies and fragment care for patients. Adding price competition into the mix could also allow large commercial companies to enter the NHS market and chase the most profitable contracts, using their size to undercut on price, which could ultimately damage local services."
Click to expand...
What is the actual problem with this, from the patient's point of view? Private sector providers undercut on price = lower prices for everyone, surely? What are people angry about?
 
D

dalin80

Banned
louis89 said:
What is the actual problem with this, from the patient's point of view? Private sector providers undercut on price = lower prices for everyone, surely? What are people angry about?
Click to expand...


If it stayed like that and was very tightly regulated then maybe, but the introduction of for-profit companies into the NHS is a very dangerous step in the precedent it sets. Many fear this is the first step towards full privatisation and destruction of the NHS in favour of a US 'rip the patient off and run it all with insurance companies' system.

The thought of the NHS slowly and stealthily being broken up and turned into a for-profit company is a little sickening.

For instance look at energy companies, they are supposed to be regulated and the competition was supposed to make sure the consumer got a fair deal, after all they would undercut each other and maintain a lower value, but what actually happened was the companies all kept putting prices up together regardless of the cost of 'buying' energy, its almost like they have some sort of arrangement to stay on the same multi-billion profit a year scheme.

Frankly no thought is as terrifying as the introduction of the US medical system and many fears are that this is the first of many steps towards that, its also not helped that the two twits responsible for it and backing it are bulldozing ahead with the changes despite everyone in the medical industry telling them its a bad move.
 
W

Walshicus

Member
Yeah, the introduction of more for-profit providers into the NHS coupled with numerous documented instances of dodgy procurement etc... it's just immoral.

Health should not be a for-profit enterprise.
 
V

Vaporizer

Banned
louis89 said:
Okay, so, health reforms. I'm trying to understand the debate so that I can have an informed opinion of my own. From what I can see, the most controversial part of this is the potential introduction of private sector providers who would tender contracts and provide services, which people are referring to as the privatisation of the NHS. Wikipedia has the following:


What is the actual problem with this, from the patient's point of view? Private sector providers undercut on price = lower prices for everyone, surely? What are people angry about?
Click to expand...

when it comes to profit making, it's all about shortcuts.

You dont want that stuff in the health sector especially in an organaisation like the NHS where patient care is at the heart of everything.


Tories are on a path to fuck up this great system. After all, their private lobbbies re clamouring for that NHS money
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sir Fragula said:
Yeah, the introduction of more for-profit providers into the NHS coupled with numerous documented instances of dodgy procurement etc... it's just immoral.
Click to expand...

Which is why the provision allowing NHS resources for private healthcare is important - so the NHS ends up a supplier rather than a customer in the market. Best long-term solution.

Health should not be a for-profit enterprise.
Click to expand...

It's way too late for that. Dream on.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
louis89 said:
What is the actual problem with this, from the patient's point of view? Private sector providers undercut on price = lower prices for everyone, surely? What are people angry about?
Click to expand...

uhh, the negative reasons are right there?

""Forcing commissioners of care to tender contracts to any willing provider, including ... commercial companies, could destabilise local health economies and fragment care for patients. Adding price competition into the mix could also allow large commercial companies to enter the NHS market and chase the most profitable contracts, using their size to undercut on price, which could ultimately damage local services.""
 
J

J Tourettes

Banned
Brave new world of healthcare. GP dumps patients as they're not economical.

The Lancet on the health bill.

The Government's continued insistence on its structural changes and its failure to provide an adequate account of why they are necessary confirms concerns that the policy rationale has not been fully disclosed. The Government says that its changes are “vital”.3 But this is only the case if the object is to create a system that permits alternative funding sources for services currently provided free as part of the NHS. These amendments do not affect the heart of the policy behind the Bill, which is to introduce a mixed financing system and to abolish the model of tax-financed universal health care on which the NHS is based.
Click to expand...
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
milanbaros said:
Thanks for the response but you haven't really answered any of my questions or addressed my points about your original post except agreeing QE has lowered gilt yields.

You seem to have changed from saying we had a balanced current account to one massively in deficit to talking about the deficit in goods and services. Also, we have always had a surplus in services except for 1964/5.

You ask me which do I believe to have a sounder economic foundation. I would argue that it is not so clear. How much did manufacturing contract by compared to financial/legal services in the recession? I also believe the services that the UK specialise in are world income elastic whereas goods are probably world income inelastic except for very low incomes. If the world economy is to grow and expand I think financial services would grow at a faster rate.

Edit: I've been reading a lot of the Economic discussion in this thread and rarely post but I felt that zomgwtfbbq was getting away with writing a lot of stuff that is not entirely credible without being called out on it. Working in financial services does certainly not make you an expert in economics. Just above you say that a £60 billion cash injection would raise inflation to 20-30%. I'm sorry but where do you pull these figures from?
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that our services surplus has got bigger while our deficit in goods has got larger. I don't doubt that the country is a net consumer of goods and given our natural resources shortfall there is not really much chance that it will be reversed. All I was saying is that we need to balance our trade better by producing more high value goods.

I agree that providing high level services such as financial and legal is a good way of taking advantage of economic growth in developing nations, but we should also be exporting high value goods to these economies as well through high tech manufacturing. It may not be as sexy or elastic as high value services, but I think that it is required to make sure Britain isn't left wanting in the next 10 years with a devalued currency.

On the 20-30% inflation, it was a guess, but our guys say inflation peaked at 5% this year on just £10bn filtering through to the real economy and debasing the pound causing commodity prices to rise in real terms.
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
"Any Willing Provider" is an issue because we are talking about community services that are currently guaranteed and provided for by local primary care trusts. This bill means that PCTs will no longer directly provide those services, instead they will spend public money contracting and commissioning those services. To the government, its a great idea because it means they can release resources (get rid of people) currently providing the work, and in theory -- contractors / suppliers will compete with one another at contract tender to drive costs down. In practice, it might not work like that, and it might mean lower quality of care. Even in strong competition, contractors will be racing to undercut each other, and as businesses they will still want to turn a profit. A fear is that the more competitive tendering process, open to larger businesses which can rely on other branches or aspects of their business will leave smaller, local providers - who might be able to provide a better service, at least locally - at a disadvantage. And of course there is a general fear that if you chip away at things that the NHS does, its hard to reverse in future, so this could be the start of a gradual erosion with more and more private involvement.

As an existing civil servant this worries me partly because the government (this one and all the ones before it) are terrible at tendering contracts without getting screwed out of money / value as it is. I'm not sure I can trust an over-arching NHS board (which the bill sets up) to oversee such tendering processes either...

In principle, being more flexible and accepting help from external providers is a good thing. There need to be provisions in the bill to ensure it doesn't become a gradual erosion of the NHS though, and ensure that it doesn't just become a brand under which profiteering companies secretly operate at our expense.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
We had some good news today on the deficit. This month we recorded a surplus of £7.8bn bringing our total debt to £989bn.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_257237.pdf

The detail is in the release.

Some excerpts and inferences I can make quickly. One that many people are going to hate, but it is starting to look like the 50p rate is depressing income tax receipts. YoY income and capital gains tax receipts rose by just 0.9% (LIBR in the PSF3 table) compared to overall tax receipts rising by 2.7% (ANBV) and corporation tax rising by a huge 9% (LIBP). This points to more people using a loophole to pay corporation tax at 26% rather than income tax at 50%.

It looks like Mr Laffer was correct, the tighter a government squeeze their fist to hold onto more money the more they lose in tax avoidance measures. The government need close the loophole and make the 50% rate 45% and raise the threshold to £250k. The Treasury are losing 14% from many high income earners and that needs to change, closing the loophole will help next year, but clever tax planning will just find another loophole and it is a battle the government won't win.

IHS have said if current trends continue (even stripping out YoY VAT receipts rises) they expect the deficit to be £116.5bn, our bank says £118bn both of which are below the OBR estimate of £127bn. The government should bank those savings and move forwards with cost savings.

It looks like general government spending has decreased over the year, by £3.9bn in fact. This represents a 1.2% cut in real terms for departmental spending, so the government is cutting spending. The problem is that interest payments and social benefit payments have increased by £5.6bn and £6.2bn respectively. The latter is actually behind what the OBR estimated and the YE figure will definitely undershoot their estimate and the government spending cuts are ahead of schedule, but the real killer is the rise in interest payments which is ahead of OBR estimates (the only area of spending that is).

So basically, the government is cutting spending, and if the strong PMI data carries through to higher employment the DSS bill will come down but we are still going to be killed by higher interest payments which will drag total spending upwards even with that 1.2% cut in general spending.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Wes said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-kbMF1GF2A&hd=1

UTTERLY, UTTERLY FANTASTIC
Click to expand...

dMN11.gif
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
lol I daresay that's one of his best yet! I lost it at the bits about Boris being urinated on and Dave / Ed deciding to end their own lives


Does anyone else think Cameron's proposed speech about people being "snobbish" towards businesses is a bit ill advised? I would get 'talking-up' the economy, or saying we should support burgeoning business, but his speech is basically an attack on people who feel businesses are ultimately self-serving and profiteering... which they are. There's nothing wrong with that, and I can see why he feels capitalism is a motor for social progress, but the language and approach he is choosing here just seems so out of touch with the public mood. The very use of the word snobbish is... well... insulting and quite funny really.

Snob: one who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire or seek association with people regarded as social superiors. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.​

I'll say no more, Dave. Maybe he should keep such lectures to himself.

It sounds like he's trying his own version of the US Republican 'elitism' argument... basically, you had elites labelling those acknowledging the plight of the plebs as elitist. Very similar argument imo.
 
M

Meadows

Banned
You can take the MP out of Scotland, but you can't take the Scotland out of the MP

A bi-election will be interesting though, we'll see how well the SNP are doing in the parliamentary stakes
 
M

Meadows

Banned
Watching Coppers on 4oD, I can't help but think that there is too much spending on Nottingham's police force.

They have an amazingly kitted out armed response unit, with more than 10 well trained officers, all of whom respond to anything that even resembles an incident where a gun is involved (e.g. a car that has no insurance and a brother of the person who owns the car did time for possession of a firearm) with flashing lights and two fully loaded, huge SMGs pointed at the people inside.

The police admitted that in the unit's history that no bullets had ever been fired at anyone. This could be pointed to as a sign of success, but if in 10+ years the force has NEVER been used, I can't help but think that it could be cut back. Plus the amount of paperwork/risk assessment that goes into using guns in the police is bloody ridiculous. The police don't need guns, police officers VERY VERY rarely get shot in the line of duty (3 in the last 15 years). This isn't LA, it's Nottingham, which does have a gun problem, but one that won't be solved by the police brandishing flash SMGs every 5 minutes.

There was also an episode that followed the dog squad, and there were shitloads of people on duty, none of them doing anything. After 3 hours of the dog squad questioning people on the street who looked shifty (?) or weren't riding their bikes with a light on they finally got a call about someone walking down a street with a wheelie bin, 3 rapid response vehicles raced to the scene with blue lights flashing, it took them half an hour to find them, and when they did all they could do was let them on their way because it isn't an offence to push a fucking wheelie bin around.

What a waste of fucking money, put them in places where they're needed for God's sake!

Could someone in Nottingham give me some perspective on this?
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm nowhere near Nottingham, but I did do some consultancy with the Nottingham force some years ago. One thing that particularly impressed me (and is in sharp contrast to some other forces that accumulate back-office number-crunchers like they are going out of fashion) was the way they related every purchase and every item of expenditure back to the equivalent costs of front-line policing.

So, for example, even an IT procurement would be measured not in tens of thousands of pounds, but in police-officer equivalents. This made them most extraordinarily wary of internal spend that might compromise their on-street presence. I guess one consequence of that might be that any slack they are carrying is going to be visible on the street rather than buried at headquarters, but I'd rather prefer it to be that way round (compared to, say Avon & Somerset).
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
Meadows said:
Watching Coppers on 4oD, [snip]
Click to expand...

I've been watching it too, it's definitely one of the best shows on TV at the moment. You do get the sense that some staff spend a lot of time shooting shit or not doing anything, but I also feel sorry for them having to put up with what they do... especially at weekends and around nightclubs/pubs etc. People are so fucking stupid. In the last couple of episodes I've got the sense that they're also really let down by society and the justice system.

That poor guy who does nothing but drink (after injecting into his neck and having a stroke) for example... I got the real sense that he enjoyed getting arrested, as he got on with them all and was generally good natured with them. It didn't surprise me that he didn't feel like he had much to live for and was just going in and out of prison repeatedly for breaking his ASBO... a bed and prison food beats sleeping in a skip (which he was known for doing)... it was just heartbreaking really. The police would obviously like to see him get help, but they're powerless for cases like that really. The story about that same guy somehow getting a girl and shagging her on the cricket ground was funny though. His life ain't all bad I guess!

The funniest moment in the last few weeks was when they had that junkie in the interview room and they were going through his backpack... they pulled out a hammer with a bungie cord wrapped around it, a torch, a screwdriver and a crowbar - and when they asked him what each thing was for he answered with their functional uses (ie. hitting things, seeing in the dark, wrenching things open)... then they pull out a balaclava! Quality. When they put it to him he has all that gear for committing burglary he says yeah it would be, but he hasn't had to go out "grafting" lately... unbelievable! Grafting!
 
M

Meadows

Banned
I think the worst episode was the one where they followed the recruits in Scotland. That grumpy old cunt wasted so much fucking police money by arresting people who insulted him. Just tell them to fuck off and grow some thicker skin, guess what, people on drugs/drunk don't respect you, it's not personal, they're drunk and probably have a lot of problems, I don't want you to waste precious tax-payer money by arresting the fucker because he called you a dickhead.

My favourite officer was the very, very serious female officer with short-hair in Nottingham. Serious salt of the Earth syndrome, and she had some really interesting things to say when it came to respecting the police (i.e. why should they respect me?) which was especially refreshing after most of the male officers go along the lines of "I'm an old style copper really" and then reel off a load of stereotypical bullshit about respect and moral bankruptcy.
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
Amen... arresting people for "words" is around about the most stupid waste of time and money I can imagine. Inconvenience aggressors by putting them in a van or something to calm down if you must, and if they're violent, absolutely - take them in, but a little verbal is nothing.

They're the worst kind of police, the ones who let their ego effect the decisions. There've been a couple of cute female officers on it who've been quite good and rational... one of them was saying how she's often bricking it but puts out that confident fascade and watching her work I was like, shit... good work! Maybe I should go on uniformdating
 
M

Meadows

Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
Maybe I should go on uniformdating
Click to expand...

dat NHS roleplaying

Me: "Nurse, I've got a...problem...*whips out cock*"
Nurse: "Ohhh yeah.....I can refer that for you baby, it'll take 6-8 weeks to see a specialist, ooh yeah"

This is how my head works

Looking on the front page there are some absolute stunners working in the prison service. Methinks an Abu Ghraib themed SM session is in order.

edit: I've spent too much time posting on the same threads as SmokyDave
 
M

Meadows

Banned
killer_clank said:
The Labour party really are fucking terrible. In my local council they voted together with the tories to cut council tax by 1%, saving everyone about £12 in a year. £12. It's such an absolute joke, I wonder how many services will have to be cut to fund it? They hate the SNP so much they bring themselves to this utter guff.

They ain't getting any of my preferences in May.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17155339
Click to expand...

Local council stuff has barely anything to do with party politics. Yes Labour are shite, but I don't think this is a reason to not like them on a UK/Scottish scale.

In my local council the Greens and the Tories usually work together, party politics are relatively unimportant when all is said and done.
 
K

killer_clank

Member
Meadows said:
Local council stuff has barely anything to do with party politics. Yes Labour are shite, but I don't think this is a reason to not like them on a UK/Scottish scale.

In my local council the Greens and the Tories usually work together, party politics are relatively unimportant when all is said and done.
Click to expand...

I know local politics is like this, but it's one of the worst examples of populism I can think of, even worse at a time when local services everywhere are being cut hugely. It's the tokenistic attitude of it that annoys me the most, I wouldn't agree with a bigger decrease at all but at least you could then argue you're helping relieve family budgets or something, instead of a measly £12.
 
O

Omikaru

Member
Meadows said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17145225

This weird social conservatism stuff from the Tories is really starting to grate me. All of this talk of "family" values and things being "fair", "right" or "just" is doing my fucking nut in.
Click to expand...

This always happens with the Tories. That and blatant corruption.

Then again, you can't really trust any of the big parties. They all have their shady schemes, like cash for honours with Labour, or the LibDems not returning that donation from the fraudster, or all the shit with Chris Rennard.
 
M

Meadows

Banned
Omikaru said:
This always happens with the Tories. That and blatant corruption.

Then again, you can't really trust any of the big parties. They all have their shady schemes, like cash for honours with Labour, or the LibDems not returning that donation from the fraudster, or all the shit with Chris Rennard.
Click to expand...

I think we need to reform party funding, but I would say some are better than others, at least the LDs have never been in News Corp's pockets.

Also, we don't have Super-PACs which are about the worst thing ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tell me about your favourite game ever.
2 3
119
4K
ReyBrujo replied
[VGC] Keighley weighs in on debate over Dave the Diver qualifying for Best Indie Game
Opinion News 2
86
6K
calistan replied
Shameless Bragging Thread. Tell me about your greatest gaming achievement.
2 3
146
3K
StreetsofBeige replied
Long live Tango Gameworks! 'Appreciation Thread'
2
63
5K
Hudo replied
Prozac made me go nuts (triggered a manic episode) and the resulting explosions ruined my relationship
0
1
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom