|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Oct 30, 2024 21:27:15 GMT
I'm starting to worry about your mental health. Looks likely Donald Duck will win next week, I hope that won't send you over the edge! Says the bloke who watches Tommy Robinson videos all day . Do me a favour ! ššš He has only made two to my knowledge and I have watched each once, so another false statement. I don't think I have seen a single statement by you that is true, including the "over and out"  Fake, Fake, Fake! |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 30, 2024 21:57:09 GMT
Says the bloke who watches Tommy Robinson videos all day . Do me a favour ! ššš He has only made two to my knowledge and I have watched each once, so another false statement. I don't think I have seen a single statement by you that is true, including the "over and out" Fake, Fake, Fake! Yes mate youāre right . Iāll leave things and I honestly wish you well . |
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Oct 31, 2024 9:05:58 GMT
He has only made two to my knowledge and I have watched each once, so another false statement. I don't think I have seen a single statement by you that is true, including the "over and out" Fake, Fake, Fake! Yes mate youāre right . Iāll leave things and I honestly wish you well . I wish you well too! |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 31, 2024 11:14:03 GMT
They seem sanguine at the moment. The NI increase was pretty high, otherwise no real surprises, which is probably why these things get leaked ahead, stops the jitters in the market. So not a Liz Truss meltdown? Itās almost like Super doesnāt know what heās talking about š The rate is still at a similar (very high) level to the Truss non-budget. It's either a crisis or it's not... ...and given Reeves has just announced plans that will (more likely than not) require large a large amount of (now) higher cost borrowing, whilst the markets might not be in turmoil the economy is under more pressure than ever to provide growth to pay it back.... |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 31, 2024 11:19:40 GMT
It does seem employer NI is carrying a lot of the revenue raising. Usually it's called a tax on jobs by whoever is in Opposition. Add to that the threshold changes and minimum wage increases, employers will be disappointed. Somebody's got to pay more tax if we are to restore investment and confidence. There cannot be a situation where everyone is a winner. Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 31, 2024 11:56:49 GMT
Somebody's got to pay more tax if we are to restore investment and confidence. There cannot be a situation where everyone is a winner. Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Yeah , why do we even pay tax ? They should just abolish it. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 31, 2024 13:29:09 GMT
Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Yeah , why do we even pay tax ? They should just abolish it. ....aww....are you confused by a pretty simple premise...? |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 31, 2024 13:45:04 GMT
Yeah , why do we even pay tax ? They should just abolish it. ....aww....are you confused by a pretty simple premise...? Yeah š |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 31, 2024 13:49:09 GMT
Somebody's got to pay more tax if we are to restore investment and confidence. There cannot be a situation where everyone is a winner. Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Such as? Everything has a knock on effect. In the end, it's about choices and Labour tends to be higher tax, higher spend than the Conservatives. If it was that straight forward, the Conservatives would have done it years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 31, 2024 13:49:47 GMT
Yeah , why do we even pay tax ? They should just abolish it. ....aww....are you confused by a pretty simple premise...? Rhetorical question, presumably. š |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Oct 31, 2024 15:24:16 GMT
Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Such as? Everything has a knock on effect. In the end, it's about choices and Labour tends to be higher tax, higher spend than the Conservatives. If it was that straight forward, the Conservatives would have done it years ago. The reality is also that thereās loads of inefficiencies in government, like any business has. To fix those would take 10+ years and in reality, we have to sort it out now. Tax increases are far quicker |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Oct 31, 2024 16:05:20 GMT
Such as? Everything has a knock on effect. In the end, it's about choices and Labour tends to be higher tax, higher spend than the Conservatives. If it was that straight forward, the Conservatives would have done it years ago. The reality is also that thereās loads of inefficiencies in government, like any business has. To fix those would take 10+ years and in reality, we have to sort it out now. Tax increases are far quicker The problem is you can pump as much you like into the NHS ,but it has a finite resource so it's not all about the funding,needs to be more efficient, effective and productive. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Oct 31, 2024 16:23:35 GMT
The reality is also that thereās loads of inefficiencies in government, like any business has. To fix those would take 10+ years and in reality, we have to sort it out now. Tax increases are far quicker The problem is you can pump as much you like into the NHS ,but it has a finite resource so it's not all about the funding,needs to be more efficient, effective and productive. Thatās true, but I was more responding to superās point about reform than funding being better. The question is who in the NHS leads something productivity? NHS leaders? The gov? Both? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 31, 2024 16:51:06 GMT
The problem is you can pump as much you like into the NHS ,but it has a finite resource so it's not all about the funding,needs to be more efficient, effective and productive. Thatās true, but I was more responding to superās point about reform than funding being better. The question is who in the NHS leads something productivity? NHS leaders? The gov? Both? The NHS is probably too big for that, maybe roll out to Trusts and then do best practice? That as you say will take time. As far as the public goes, you could probably take A&E waiting times, elective surgery, GP appointments and access to Dentists as the big areas as far as the public see it. Go somewhere to improving these and the public will see a tangible gain. Productivity and efficiencies will just be one way of achieving that. I had to take my son to A&E for an NG tube to be refitted after it came out. I was seen within 30 minutes and in a bay. It then took three nurses and a doctor to sort out the protocols and I had to retell the story each time, then off to Xray to check the siting. Then some medicine so waiting for the pharmacist, then authorised for discharge. Our actual time being treated was half the time we were there, and that was pretty good going. In for 4 hours could have been in and out inside 2. Not sure what could have sped up the process, though, except more staff. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 31, 2024 20:03:17 GMT
Somebody's got to pay more tax if we are to restore investment and confidence. There cannot be a situation where everyone is a winner. Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Every government says they are going to cut waste and trim inefficiency but it seems to be beyond all of them. So the Tories cut the easy bits, like social workers and state care homes by starving councils of money, and freezing public sector pay whilst certain private fat cats do just fine, thank you. I don't think we'll ever chop inefficiencies out of the public sector, but I'd rather inefficiencies than hacking public services to the bone. Still, if you think you can succeed where generations of governments have failed, you should stand for office. I might vote for you! But I don't think yatton will ā¹ļø. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Oct 31, 2024 21:00:04 GMT
The problem is you can pump as much you like into the NHS ,but it has a finite resource so it's not all about the funding,needs to be more efficient, effective and productive. Thatās true, but I was more responding to superās point about reform than funding being better. The question is who in the NHS leads something productivity? NHS leaders? The gov? Both? It's a good question,my take is this is a cultural issue,just because it's not your money doesn't mean you shouldn't make every pound spent as productive as possible, talking to my friends in the NHS it doesn't seem to be a driver of spending decisions. Personally,I would like to see increased productivity targets linked to the pay of all senior leaders in NHS Trusts,in my experience tends to focus the mind and spending decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 31, 2024 23:15:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2024 8:59:49 GMT
Why do we need more tax revenue? Why not cut spending? I could list billions in savings the government could easily make but chooses not to... Every government says they are going to cut waste and trim inefficiency but it seems to be beyond all of them. So the Tories cut the easy bits, like social workers and state care homes by starving councils of money, and freezing public sector pay whilst certain private fat cats do just fine, thank you. I don't think we'll ever chop inefficiencies out of the public sector, but I'd rather inefficiencies than hacking public services to the bone. Still, if you think you can succeed where generations of governments have failed, you should stand for office. I might vote for you! But I don't think yatton will ā¹ļø. It's beyond the politicians because they choose to let the civil service/public sector get away with it. Cummings had a plan to sort it out and Johnson had the parliamentary majority to get it done, but Covid got in the way and the opposite happened - more public sector jobs, more inefficiency and more waste. But even in normal times the right can't cut too hard or reform too deep as instead of agreeing to reform you just get strikes and stand-offs... Labour will never reform and make efficiencies - they were welcomed as heroes by Whitehall when they won in July and immediately paid back their union donors via public sector pay-rises without any of the reforms the Conservatives had been negotiating. As an anecdote to reinforce this - and train drivers are not quite the same as civil servants or NHS staff but I will bet there are lots of similarities - Andy Burnham (Lab Mayor of Greater Manchester) was in a meetig talking about his attempts to modernise Northern Rail. The Conservative negotiations were drilling down into updating working practices - and all of those reforms were ditched by Labour who just gave the drivers the pay increase with no efficiencies in return... ...the outdated working practices? The two examples were replacement of fax machines (they *still* use faxes to pass on critical information to drivers and other staff as the unions have not agreed to switch to anything more modern) and lunch break rules - say a driver is on a 60 minute break and a manager chooses to talk to them (about anything) during that break, the driver can restart the break for the full duration from the end of that conversation. Both are great examples of why the UK can't ever get anything done.... |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2024 9:02:40 GMT
Such as? Everything has a knock on effect. In the end, it's about choices and Labour tends to be higher tax, higher spend than the Conservatives. If it was that straight forward, the Conservatives would have done it years ago. The reality is also that thereās loads of inefficiencies in government, like any business has. To fix those would take 10+ years and in reality, we have to sort it out now. Tax increases are far quicker Ten years of non-reform means ten years of higher and higher taxes. Ten years of higher and higher taxes means lower and lower growth. Ten years of lower and lower growth means the economy is screwed... |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 1, 2024 10:00:08 GMT
The reality is also that thereās loads of inefficiencies in government, like any business has. To fix those would take 10+ years and in reality, we have to sort it out now. Tax increases are far quicker Ten years of non-reform means ten years of higher and higher taxes. Ten years of higher and higher taxes means lower and lower growth. Ten years of lower and lower growth means the economy is screwed... Well thatās just not true at all. Thereās hundreds of other variables that youāve deliberately ignored. What do you think we should do then? Go back to Trussā proven low tax economy and completely destroy the economy in a matter of hours? |
|
