REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[visage]

Yup.

 

[nimrod]

I think the danger is that a high percentage of people would think that taxes are being raised to pay for people on benefits, which would obviously be a vote loser. A lot of people don't realise that they get a good deal for the tax they pay.

Also, if taxes were raised it probably wouldn't go to the area where people want it to, i.e. NHS.

agree, though my point was more that there never was an intention to raise taxes. id say quite the opposite - if you look at the attached article (posted before) it gives you the idea where the centre right are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25574096

In his interview Dr Fox also said the Conservatives should avoid attacking UKIP leaders and voters and instead seek to win them back with the promise of a "totemic" tax cut, a pledge to loosen Britain's ties with the European Union and tighter immigration rules.

note his opposite view to nhs funding in comparison to standing under a banner saying let's give £350m pw to the nhs. and no mention of infrastructure funding or services delivery.

 

[Johnny75]

I don't think that's true Nimrod, I'm centre right and don't agree with Liam Fox at all. I would say he's right wing not even close to the centre (that article is 3 years old too). I would also say that he is very much in the minority if he thinks the health service should not be protected and if that was a Tory pledge in their next manifesto they would almost certainly lose the election.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I'm of the opinion that the NHS shouldn't have a budget as such and any charges throughout the year should be wiped off at year end. Obviously, it would need very tight controls to make sure nothing fraudulent is happening.

 

[Lord Knows]

Current health expenditure in the UK was 9.78 per cent of GDP in 2015. This compares to 16.91 per cent in the USA, 11.08 per cent in Germany, 11.01 per cent in France, 10.76 per cent in the Netherlands, 10.59 per cent in Denmark, 10.16 per cent in Canada, 9.05 per cent in Italy and 9.00 per cent in Spain.

Current expenditure per capita (using the purchasing power parity) for the UK was $4,015 in 2015. This can be compared to $9,451 in the USA, $5,343 in the Netherlands, $5,267 in Germany, $4,943 in Denmark, $4,614 in Canada, $4,415 in France, $3,272 in Italy and $3,153 in Spain.

The UK had 2.8 physicians per 1,000 people in 2015, compared to 4.1 in Germany (2014), 3.9 in Italy (2014), 3.8 in Spain (2014), 3.5 in Australia (2014), 3.4 in France, 3.0 in New Zealand and 2.6 in Canada (2014).


The UK had 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people in 2014, compared to 8.2 in Germany, 6.2 in France, 3.0 in Spain, 2.8 in New Zealand and 2.7 in Denmark.

 

[Johnny75]

I'm of the opinion that the NHS shouldn't have a budget as such and any charges throughout the year should be wiped off at year end. Obviously, it would need very tight controls to make sure nothing fraudulent is happening.

I agree with yuo, it should be without budget and based on need. However do you trust a government to get that right?

Current health expenditure in the UK was 9.78 per cent of GDP in 2015. This compares to 16.91 per cent in the USA, 11.08 per cent in Germany, 11.01 per cent in France, 10.76 per cent in the Netherlands, 10.59 per cent in Denmark, 10.16 per cent in Canada, 9.05 per cent in Italy and 9.00 per cent in Spain.

Current expenditure per capita (using the purchasing power parity) for the UK was $4,015 in 2015. This can be compared to $9,451 in the USA, $5,343 in the Netherlands, $5,267 in Germany, $4,943 in Denmark, $4,614 in Canada, $4,415 in France, $3,272 in Italy and $3,153 in Spain.

The UK had 2.8 physicians per 1,000 people in 2015, compared to 4.1 in Germany (2014), 3.9 in Italy (2014), 3.8 in Spain (2014), 3.5 in Australia (2014), 3.4 in France, 3.0 in New Zealand and 2.6 in Canada (2014).


The UK had 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people in 2014, compared to 8.2 in Germany, 6.2 in France, 3.0 in Spain, 2.8 in New Zealand and 2.7 in Denmark.

I presume you're going to provide context to those stats otherwise they are just stats and utterly useless.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Terrible idea. The whole point of universal services is that they're universal. Typically people between 20 and 40 use the NHS less than others - so it would be good for them to opt out of funding it. But then there wouldnt be enough money for treating everyone else.

Can I opt out of paying for the fire service if I rent my home? After all if it burns down its not my problem, I'll just move elsewhere. But then I probably wouldnt be able to get contents insurance....

What would happen to the numbers of homeless ex forces when the army has to slash its numbers because everyone opts out of paying for them?

Nice swerve of the word additional vis we are talking increases in tax to give additional funds and in the very same post I outlined that if that method was used to deliver the foreign aid budget there would be no foreign aid.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

actually it was cyber's point in post #4957 about the "spineless lack of tax increases" that I was responding to, and in a similar vein to your comments. he seemed to be suggesting it was down to politicians being nervous about championing tax increases. like you, I see it as an absolute intent to reduce taxes and services accordingly. he seems to be taking his recent discovery as left leaning to heart, despite having outed himself as centre right only a couple of months back.

If I keep going I will meet Stalin soon! See social democrat. Then youll get it!

 

[nimrod]

If I keep going I will meet Stalin soon! See social democrat. Then youll get it!

you only actually need to want british infrastructure, or even a proportion of it, to be owned by Britain to be accused of being a Leninist on here

 

[Johnny75]

you only actually need to want british infrastructure, or even a proportion of it, to be owned by Britain to be accused of being a Leninist on here

Lefties attacking lefties? Don't think I've ever seen that on here....

 

[nimrod]

I don't think that's true Nimrod, I'm centre right and don't agree with Liam Fox at all. I would say he's right wing not even close to the centre (that article is 3 years old too). I would also say that he is very much in the minority if he thinks the health service should not be protected and if that was a Tory pledge in their next manifesto they would almost certainly lose the election.

well i wouldn't presume he'd speak for his whole party and of course at the time cameron would claim to be more supportive of the nhs. however i also don't think his longstanding views on the nhs or on tax cuts would change in 3 years. of course he's back in gvt now, with those views. you tend to find the words change when they're in gvt, even when, deep down, the sentiment hasn't.

 

[nimrod]

Lefties attacking lefties? Don't think I've ever seen that on here....

???

 

[Johnny75]

well i wouldn't presume he'd speak for his whole party and of course at the time cameron would claim to be more supportive of the nhs. however i also don't think his longstanding views on the nhs or on tax cuts would change in 3 years. of course he's back in gvt now, with those views. you tend to find the words change when they're in gvt, even when, deep down, the sentiment hasn't.

It was more your assertion that everybody that was centre right is aligned with Liam Fox's thinking of 3 years ago. This isn't true and as you point out even Cameron didn't agree with him (and still doesn't according to his wife).

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Who knows what D-Cam personally believes in, he didn't give us many clues over six years.

One of his biggest errors (that he repeated time and time again) was handing full departmental control to awful people and just letting them get on with it.

 

[Johnny75]

Who knows what D-Cam personally believes in, he didn't give us many clues over six years.

One of his biggest errors (that he repeated time and time again) was handing full departmental control to awful people and just letting them get on with it.

He did say the NHS would be protected and I do think he meant that, however and as you rightly point out he appointed some weapons grade bellends to take care of certain departments and I have no idea why.

Good orator piss poor man manager.

 

[So Long Architect]

To say you're going to protect the NHS and then to appoint Jeremy Hunt as health minister is a shockingly bizarre decision. Almost as bad as when he appointed Fantastic Mr Fox as Minister for Poultry Welfare.

 

[nimrod]

It was more your assertion that everybody that was centre right is aligned with Liam Fox's thinking of 3 years ago. This isn't true and as you point out even Cameron didn't agree with him (and still doesn't according to his wife).

er, no, that wasn't what i was asserting. the point being discussed was about tax raises (as brought up originally by cyber). i was responding to penk's point about tax raises being used to support the nhs and posted the article as much to show they'd be more likely to look for ways to reduce taxes hence the bit i put in bold about a "totemic" tax deduction. you'd actually already agreed the point on tax - ie that there's little point expecting tax increases from them as a standard policy to fund services.

had i wanted to highlight an absolute intention to underfund the nhs i'd hardly have chosen an article in which cameron refuted it.

 

[ProgWolf]

Who knows what D-Cam personally believes in, he didn't give us many clues over six years.

One of his biggest errors (that he repeated time and time again) was handing full departmental control to awful people and just letting them get on with it.

He also fought the Remain campaign on a Lie. It was always implied that we would be stronger in the EU and this was used to imply that we could negotiate changes to the rules surrounding Freedom Of Movement. We now know of course that there was never a possibility of that being on the table, so why did the Remain camp tell us that it would be ?

A report in The Guardian and The Times suggested that a couple of weeks before the Referendum, Cameron had discussed an eleventh hour concession on Freedom of Movement, with Merkel, which would give him something to come back with just before the Referendum. Something that may have just swung it for the Remain camp ? The fact that he came back with nothing, twice, but still said we could negotiate change from within, was a disgrace and complete fabrication. But I don't think anyone has said that Remainers were thick and stupid for believing that we would get concessions if we stayed in, or that they didn't know what they were voting for ? I wonder how many of them felt betrayed and were annoyed about this and how many of them would have voted to Leave, had they known the truth ?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The thing is that even if it's a 1% chance, there is the theoretical chance of reform somewhere down the line if you are still in the club. It is a 0% chance if you are outside it, end of story.

The fact of the matter is that Cameron is not an amazing negotiator and nor does he have the support staff to help him in this respect so we were never likely to end up with anything, May is way worse at any kind of inter-personal interaction so why people think we're going to end up with an amazing deal after we've pissed off the entire continent, I don't know.

To be fair I think it was pretty explicitly stated - if not by Cameron, then by other EU leaders - that the deal he came back with in Feb (?) 2016 was all we were going to get, there was no second go at it, not in the short-to-medium term anyway. Also, there are controls on EU immigration (and certainly what newly arrived immigrants are entitled to from the state) that the UK has long since had at its disposal and chooses not to employ.

 

[So Long Architect]

He also fought the Remain campaign on a Lie. It was always implied that we would be stronger in the EU and this was used to imply that we could negotiate changes to the rules surrounding Freedom Of Movement. We now know of course that there was never a possibility of that being on the table, so why did the Remain camp tell us that it would be ?

A report in The Guardian and The Times suggested that a couple of weeks before the Referendum, Cameron had discussed an eleventh hour concession on Freedom of Movement, with Merkel, which would give him something to come back with just before the Referendum. Something that may have just swung it for the Remain camp ? The fact that he came back with nothing, twice, but still said we could negotiate change from within, was a disgrace and complete fabrication. But I don't think anyone has said that Remainers were thick and stupid for believing that we would get concessions if we stayed in, or that they didn't know what they were voting for ? I wonder how many of them felt betrayed and were annoyed about this and how many of them would have voted to Leave, had they known the truth ?

I think pretty much anyone for whom freedom of movement was a major issue would have voted Leave anyway. I never once heard a Remain voter cite this as a factor (not to say I heard every one of them), and pretty sure no-one at all was relying on D-Cam's negotiation skills to get the vital concessions that would have tipped the balance.