1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

There’s no more money, Hammond tells cabinet

Discussion in 'Education news' started by ridleyrumpus, Jun 19, 2018.

  1. ridleyrumpus

    ridleyrumpus Established commenter

    PeterQuint likes this.
  2. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    When the BREXIT dividend kicks in there will be pots of money

    (I'm being sarcastic)
     
  3. phlogiston

    phlogiston Star commenter

    There's not been any money since about 2008, and every penny spent on education will have to be prised from his grudging fingers.
    On the other hand the new Mayor of Cambridgeshire has pots of money that he seems to want to spend on a motorway to Wisbech and a Cambridge metro. It doesn't make sense to me,
     
    PeterQuint likes this.
  4. Lalex123

    Lalex123 Occasional commenter

    It amazes me that people continue to vote Tory when they’ve left our public services in such a mess, and sold off the rest to incapable private companies who have run them into the ground.

    If all types of tax have risen in the past 10 years because of austerity, how is there no money? I know we’re paying back our national debt but at what cost? Some people’s lives are being permanently ruined by all the changes to welfare, some people are even losing their lives.
     
  5. -Maximilian-

    -Maximilian- New commenter

    Still waiting on the next pay rise deal. I have little hope of anything much greater than 1% and expect to be poorer (again next year). It’s wonderful knowing that you are working for less in real terms as each year goes by.
     
  6. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    IMO 3 factors have made the NHS an unservicable monster:

    1) Advancements in (very expensive) technology (ongoing)
    2) Advancements in (very expensive) pharmaceuticals (ongoing)
    3) Old and / or sick people living much longer thanks to, but also requiring more access to, the above ... plus care costs

    To attempt to even "maintain" a standard of care in the above framework is simply going to cost more and more and more under the status quo. Without radical change, the NHS will keep this country on its knees for many years to come.
     
  7. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that we spend less on our health system as a % of GDP than many other similarly industrialised countries.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. binaryhex

    binaryhex Lead commenter

    "It amazes me that people continue to vote Tory when they’ve left our public services in such a mess"

    I agree with you, but the thought of Red 'head in the clouds' Jezza, the loddazmoney 'throw a sicky when the interview doesn't go right' Diana Abbot and 'Jobs for life, jobs for the boys' McCluskey running the economy is not something I'm willing to contemplate or vote for.
     
  9. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    How does comparing our spending to that of other countries highlight a problem with the argument that the costs in this country are rising above the funding level in this country?

    Context free statistics. The above graph includes privately paid for healthcare which is why the US is so high and the UK is so low. In public spending, these countries are all within a range of a couple of percentage points and the UK isn't the lowest. More useful representation of the 2015 stats:

    [​IMG]
    Are you making an argument for patients paying for more private treatment to take some strain off the NHS funding?
     
  10. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    The issues you brought up about ageing populations and expensive new technology are equally valid in other countries too. My point is that we spend relatively little on our health system as a % of GDP compared to most other similarly industrialised countries.
    1% of the UK's GDP is around £20 billion.
    Personally no, but some would argue yes. My point was not about public vs private, but that part of the issue of healthcare in the UK is that we spend less as a nation on healthcare than most other similarly industrialised countries.
     
  11. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    I see where you're coming from, I just don't see how it highlights a "problem with this argument" as you stated; it actually seems to support the notion that we need to change the status quo if we are to meet the rising costs :confused:
     
  12. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    Personally, I would be looking to increase our public spending on Healthcare to similar levels as the Japan to Denmark group on your chart. That would mean increasing spending by about 2% of GDP, or £40 billion.

    The resistance to change coming from the British people is the suspicion that it would just be a disguised way of privatising it wholesale, leading to a US style health system.
     
    drvs likes this.
  13. Mrsmumbles

    Mrsmumbles Star commenter

    To be fair, I think Abbot was having so e sort of diabetic meltdown and was working when she had been advised not to. Remind you of any other group?! (Rare for politicians. I know)
     
    Catgirl1964 and MarieAnn18 like this.
  14. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Established commenter

    The technology and pharma costs could be reduced if we spent more researching in our own universities rather than relying on big companies to do the the initial investment. The trouble is governments are not interested in long term gains
     
  15. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Are you saying that you don't begrudge the NHS funding because it is essential to maintain our health and welfare services but you want a pay rise?

    It's all well and good if that is the case but done forget that if such a pay rise were to occur say under the opposition party your tax bill (aggregate not just income) would rocket thus quite possibly cancelling out your pay rise.

    I suspect that the pay rises agreed way back under the Blaire Government were to head off the stagnation a change in Government would bring, a bit like filling the House of Lords with Labour peers while you can, it wasn't by any means the norm so we shouldn't really be surprised should we?
     
  16. ridleyrumpus

    ridleyrumpus Established commenter

    IMHO this is partly due to our two party system. Half the time is spent making sure that any new initiative is REALLY hard for the other party to undo when they get into power.

    With a proportional representation based system decisions have to be more consensual and hence much less likely to be reversed later. Hence long term plans are much more worthwhile making.
     
    Stiltskin likes this.
  17. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    Where would that investment come from if not profit-making Big Pharma? The government with its national deficit and debt? Let's add that to the tax payer's bill too.

    Flippant comment as ideologically I agree with you. Reality is different.
     
    Stiltskin likes this.
  18. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Established commenter

    According to some economists (freakanomics I think I read it in) it's the best time to borrow money and invest. Of course it would be political suicide in the short term, but on the long term the country would benefit.

    I agree though reality is different and I doubt we will ever see a forward thinking government that would put long term benefit ahead of short term gain. It's not the default way we're wired (hence the bad habits people have)
     
    drvs likes this.
  19. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    5 year terms. Bonkers.
     
    border_walker and Stiltskin like this.
  20. Shedman

    Shedman Star commenter

    Does anybody else get the feeling that Teresa May's announcement on health service funding came as news to the rest of the cabinet including the chancellor and that nobody had been consulted over the funding. Paying 'a little bit more' as TM says means a nasty tax hike for those still struggling after years of austerity.
     
    ridleyrumpus and Lalex123 like this.

Share This Page