Urgent warning!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick. How many times do we have to go round this track? Is it ten now?

It is an established fact that Labour were not grossly profligate before the Great Recession of 2008. Yes public spending went up under Labour from 1997-2008, but so did the economic performance of the country. By 2008, Labour were spending just about the same as a proportion of GDP as John Major was in 1997. In 2008, the amount we were spending as a proportion of GDP had only been lower in 13 of the previous 40 years. 9 of those 13 years were under Labour.

If you REALLY want to discuss this like an adult, you need to establish an accept simple facts like that. Those are true and easy to verify.

AFTER 2008, we had the worst global economic calamity for 75 years. What happens in situations like that in civilised countries is that Govt spending automatically goes up, because more people are in need of welfare assistance. That is what happened in the UK in 2008-10. Even then, by 2010, Govt spending as a proportion of a GDP was no higher than it was under Thatcher at the depth of the 1980-81 recession. That's another fact for you.

Now, you don't HAVE to increase Govt spending in the teeth of a vicious recession. There are plenty of examples of countries that didn't. You like to crow about Estonia and Latvia. They refused to increase Govt spending in response to the 08-10 recession. The result was that they had 25% unemployment, and a tenth of their brightest and best young people emigrated.

That's the choice in simple terms Mick. You can have a balanced approach to weighing the risks between spending and debt. Or you can start from the premise that debt and Govt spending are fundamentally bad, and that anything that reduces them is good. Even if that means bestial poverty, accepting higher mortality rates in hospitals and celebrating the fact that more deaths means fewer pensions.

[IC1967]

There is a balance to be struck you f***ing cretin. As ever with you, it's black-white, yes-no, 1-0.

You are utterly incapable of dealing with nuanced issues where there are balanced to be struck. You are like a 7 year old. Utterly certain in the correctness of his own opinions. Utterly oblivious to the balanced that adults have to strike.

Of course there is a balance to be struck. At last I'm getting somewhere with you. I have struck the balance at spending being more than double what it was when Labour came to power. More than reasonable. Where do you strike the balance?

I'll ask again in the vain hope of a reply. This time I'd appreciate it if you'd stop banging on about GDP ratios. Labour borrowed during the so called good times instead of paying down the debt. This left us badly exposed when the financial crisis hit. They didn't regulate the banks properly and didn't let the bad ones go bust. They bailed them out. They have to take the bulk of the blame for the mess we find ourselves in.

Enough of the history lesson. Given the financial woes we find ourselves in how much should we be spending on the NHS? Its a simple question.

[jonrover]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

[IC1967]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh Mick, for crying out f***ing loud. Groundhog Day again and again and a-f***ing-gain.

We dealt with this precisely 1 year ago. Remember?

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=242805.msg387828#msg387828

You were utterly incapable last year of reading what was put in front of you. You ignored what I wrote and instead invented your own version of what you wanted me to have written, and argued against that.

I doubt that anything inside your skull will have changed for the better since then, so with that link which re-states everything about this topic, I'm out. There are enough hours in a lifetime to argue the same topic interminably with a person who has a cretinous insistence of ignoring evidence and deciding that his own opinions trump everything else. That is the approach of the clinically insane.

[jonrover]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

[IC1967]

Oh Mick, for crying out f***ing loud. Groundhog Day again and again and a-f***ing-gain.

We dealt with this precisely 1 year ago. Remember?

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=242805.msg387828#msg387828

You were utterly incapable last year of reading what was put in front of you. You ignored what I wrote and instead invented your own version of what you wanted me to have written, and argued against that.

I doubt that anything inside your skull will have changed for the better since then, so with that link which re-states everything about this topic, I'm out. There are enough hours in a lifetime to argue the same topic interminably with a person who has a cretinous insistence of ignoring evidence and deciding that his own opinions trump everything else. That is the approach of the clinically insane.

Avoiding the issue yet again. So I'll ask again. Where do you draw the line with spending on the NHS?

[IC1967]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

Starting something and then totally abusing it are 2 completely different things.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

It's well established that there is a direct correlation between the amount a country spends on health care, and the health of its population (except for the dysfunctional system in the USA, where private health companies rip people off and the health outcomes are appalling).

With that as a factual basis, I'd like to see us spending a similar amount on health care as a proportion of GDP as most other civilised countries. As it is, we spend 1-2% less than France, Canada,  Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, all of which have better health care outcomes than we do.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=as

So, I'd argue that we should spend an extra 1-2% of GDP on health care. That would be roughly an extra £15-25bn per year. And the result would be a marked reduction in lives cut short by cancer, heart disease, stroke and lives made unbearable by musculoskeletal problems. We would be a healthier, happier and more productive country.

I'd happily pay the extra 2% income tax for that outcome. I'd sign up for it tomorrow.

[Dagenham Rover]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

C'mon Mick you don't avoid questions ....answer it which party started flogging anything state owned (i.e. belonging to you and me) off

[IC1967]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

C'mon Mick you don't avoid questions ....answer it which party started flogging anything state owned (i.e. belonging to you and me) off

The Tories.

[IC1967]

Mick

It's well established that there is a direct correlation between the amount a country spends on health care, and the health of its population (except for the dysfunctional system in the USA, where private health companies rip people off and the health outcomes are appalling).

With that as a factual basis, I'd like to see us spending a similar amount on health care as a proportion of GDP as most other civilised countries. As it is, we spend 1-2% less than France, Canada,  Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, all of which have better health care outcomes than we do.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=as

So, I'd argue that we should spend an extra 1-2% of GDP on health care. That would be roughly an extra £15-25bn per year. And the result would be a marked reduction in lives cut short by cancer, heart disease, stroke and lives made unbearable by musculoskeletal problems. We would be a healthier, happier and more productive country.

I'd happily pay the extra 2% income tax for that outcome. I'd sign up for it tomorrow.

That was hard work but at least we've now got some kind of rambling answer. So let's get this straight. You'd quite happily add another £25 billion to the NHS budget. That would mean we'd have increased the NHS budget by 257% since Labour came to power. Unbelievable. At least you're not wanting to borrow the money for a change.

Oh, hang on a minute. Where are you going to find the money to pay for all those extra pensions?

So no answer to the pensions question then. Another point worth making is that you'd put up income tax by 2p to pay for this increase. What you forget is that we'd still be borrowing £100 billion for everything else. So this tax rise would in reality mean that people would have less to spend in the economy therefore creating less demand and therefore shrinking the economy. This would mean there would be even less money to plough into public spending.

So there would in all likelihood be even less to spend on the NHS after your 2p tax hike than if you'd left things as they were. You've proved conclusively that lefties have no understanding of economics.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

GO ask yourself how Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands cope. Do some research. Then come back and have a discussion. I'm through with filling in your aborted education for you.

[IC1967]

Mick

GO ask yourself how Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands cope. Do some research. Then come back and have a discussion. I'm through with filling in your aborted education for you.

Each country does things differently. For example in Sweden GP visits are charged at around £12 per visit. A similar fee is levied on hospital outpatient visits.  Dentistry is private, and is only partially funded by the state.

You are trying to compare apples with oranges. The bottom line is that you shouldn't fund healthcare with a simplistic calculation of percentage of GDP. It should be based on what the country can afford and how long you think old people should live.

I've got news for you. It's not about how much you spend. It's about how well you use the money that is spent. Funding has trebled but the NHS isn't 3 times as good as it was when Labour came to power to use one of your simplistic analogies.

[jonrover]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

Starting something and then totally abusing it are 2 completely different things.

Hypocrite.

[IC1967]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

Starting something and then totally abusing it are 2 completely different things.

Hypocrite.

Excuse me. Are you mistaking me for someone that thought it was a good idea for the Tories to start the whole PFI fiasco off? I was never in favour of it. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour weren't in favour of it when the Tories first came up with the idea. I do know this though. Labour spent money like a drunken sailor on PFI and the Tories in comparison did not. Now get an abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about the matter.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Ever thought they had to borrow to repair the crumbling infrastructure Thatcher left? My school had as many buckets catching leaking roof water than it did staff. Crappy damp and freezing porter cabins in the middle school text books between 3 in high school.

What you have to answer is why did they say in their 1997 manifesto that they would be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They proved how economically illiterate they were by building new schools using PFI. This was a licence for the private sector to print money which we will still be paying for many more years. Anyway, I'm all for more spending on education. It is vital to our future. It was the out of control spending on other areas that has caused most of our current financial woes.

Remind me again which party/PM started Private Finance Initiatives? 

Starting something and then totally abusing it are 2 completely different things.

Hypocrite.

Excuse me. Are you mistaking me for someone that thought it was a good idea for the Tories to start the whole PFI fiasco off? I was never in favour of it. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour weren't in favour of it when the Tories first came up with the idea. I do know this though. Labour spent money like a drunken sailor on PFI and the Tories in comparison did not. Now get an abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about the matter.

The current Tories have. They just called it a different name to make fools like you think they weren't.

[IC1967]

The current Tories have not used PFI to anything like what Labour did. You are wrong yet again. I don't know why you just don't give up. You're always getting things wrong and I don't think you've ever had the decency to make an abject apology. Get on with it man and we'll say no more about another one of your many mistakes.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Of course they haven't used PFI. Like I said, they called it something else to deceive fools like you.

[IC1967]

Of course they haven't used PFI. Like I said, they called it something else to deceive fools like you.

Being a bit pedantic aren't we? No surprises there. Of course the Tories amended the original PFI but it is broadly the same scheme but with a slightly different name. The question is why did they have to amend it? Because Labour had gone mad with it costing the taxpayer a fortune. Here's an excerpt from the following link. 'The committee said paying off a PFI debt of £1bn could cost taxpayers the same as paying off a direct government debt of £1.7bn'. What a bunch of economically illiterate clowns Labour were. They loved PFI so much that they weren't bothered about the billions wasted as it didn't show up on the public debt accounts. Include PFI and the already horrific overspending Labour indulged in gets even worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15731755

[wilts rover]

Yeh, but where can I get guitar lessons in DN3 or a Black Sabbath covers band, thats what I want to know....

[BobG]

Oh God. I thought this ignoramus had f**ked off.

It's absolutely staggering that he must think anyone believes this garbage. He must, mustn't he else why would he write such tripe?

Mick: there's plenty of stones ouside. Go find one eh?

BobG