O/T Boris moved to intensive care

[rolymiller]

[QUOTE=caytonmiller;39472529]

Sorry. Only read your number 1 reply. I guess it says more about your personality than Boris. Time for me to jog on

Thats a shame because you have missed the bit where I have been very complimentary towards the govt. So much so that I think some posters on here will think I'm going a bit soft!

Sorry if I can't slavishly agree with everything they say and do....the issue now is how we move on aint it. We can have the inquest afterwards,

[rolymiller]

Back to Boris,I don`t wish him or anyone else any ill will during this crisis....apart from maybe Trump,but the fact he is not well doesn`t stop him being a pillock,and not the messiah some think he is.
Get well soon fella.

Well put Towner...

Trump? . He will be ok! Its only human to human contact that's the problem!

[Townerslovechild]

Well put Towner...

Trump? . He will be ok! Its only human to human contact that's the problem!

Good point,the lizards better watch out.

[flourbasher]

Tony Blair,s finest hour was the peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
This has led to a huge change in the outlook of the new generations over there

[animallittle3]

The spending on the NHS has more than doubled since year 2000. And most are saying the NHS is still not fit for purpose. I guess we need a magic wand as supply and demand are miles apart

Mostly down to people living longer and the increase in population due to immigration I'd imagine .

Although I wouldn't shy away from the argument that the NHS does carry far too much middle management and its procurement could be improved .

It's easy for both sides of the political divide to point to its failings and make their respective cases for further funding v privatisation .

There's no question however in my mind the Tories are playing the long game and prior to this pandemic were deliberately cutting it back and introducing back door privatisation hopefully leading to full privatisation in the future , mind you New Labour did too .

Tory ideology of the past 40 years tells you that and healthcare is possibly the most lucrative state owned service of the lot .

Labour need to get hold of those costs rather more robustly than they have , especially in to a 2nd or 3rd term of government if that should ever occur again , they'd get a free pass the first term after a sustained period of Tory Governments .

[mygiddypant]

Looks to me that the steep incline in NHS budget was during the Labour years

Indeed it was exile. The following is taken from a Nuffield Trust report published in 2018, ie., pre-coronavirus. The NT is an independent think tank and is highly respected (unless, of course, you wear blue tinted specs);
"Since the historic peak of 7.6% in 2009/10, spending has been falling as a percentage of GDP. On current projections and NHS spending plans, between 2009/10 and 2020/21 spending will have fallen by around 0.5 percentage points of GDP – to 7.1%.

After 11 years of NHS spending falling as a share of GDP, what would it take to reverse this trend?

Just getting back to spending of 7.6% of GDP over the next three years would require a real increase in funding of £15.1 billion – £11.4 billion more than current plans – and equivalent to an average annual real increase of 3.3%, rather than the 0.8% currently planned."

In 1996/7 the percentage of GDP spent on the NHS was 4.67. In 2009/10 the percentage was 7.59.

[LincsMiller]

Indeed it was exile. The following is taken from a Nuffield Trust report published in 2018, ie., pre-coronavirus. The NT is an independent think tank and is highly respected (unless, of course, you wear blue tinted specs);
"Since the historic peak of 7.6% in 2009/10, spending has been falling as a percentage of GDP. On current projections and NHS spending plans, between 2009/10 and 2020/21 spending will have fallen by around 0.5 percentage points of GDP – to 7.1%.

After 11 years of NHS spending falling as a share of GDP, what would it take to reverse this trend?

Just getting back to spending of 7.6% of GDP over the next three years would require a real increase in funding of £15.1 billion – £11.4 billion more than current plans – and equivalent to an average annual real increase of 3.3%, rather than the 0.8% currently planned."

In 1996/7 the percentage of GDP spent on the NHS was 4.67. In 2009/10 the percentage was 7.59.

Can you that over me again Giddy?

[KerrAvon]

Perhaps the Blair government got it's priorities right - spending money on a public service that people value and rely upon as opposed to splurging it on nationalising the utilities and upon daft vote buying projects like free internet..? Just saying.

[Brin]

Perhaps the Blair government got it's priorities right - spending money on a public service that people value and rely upon as opposed to splurging it on nationalising the utilities and upon daft vote buying projects like free internet..? Just saying.

Kerr, good points. Nice to see you posting again.

[John2]

Perhaps the Blair government got it's priorities right - spending money on a public service that people value and rely upon as opposed to splurging it on nationalising the utilities and upon daft vote buying projects like free internet..? Just saying.

There are actually very good technical and commercial reasons for nationalising the Internet.

The big cost of networking is putting the cables in place. Once they're there the actual costs of operation are negligible compared to what we pay.

The market is "free" in that any company can offer to put a very similar connection on the cable Openreach happens to have connected to your house.

What that means is we have a hyper competitive oligopoly of companies who spend huge sums in advertising and customer acquisition costs, so we all basically just pay a massive overhead on what is these days an essential public utility.

That said, it moves so fast that we'll probably replace fixed line internet with 5g and 6g by the time it would be rolled out anyway, but its still a good idea.