Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 11190122)

That part has been adopted by the Tories.

The pound has collapsed, mainly due to QE (started by Labour, continued by Tories). Budget deficit has been greatly higher each year of the ConDem government. The QE approach has not only failed, it's also given more money to banks (those who caused the problems in the first place) and taken away from people (who are in a continuing cost of living crisis that is getting worse and worse).

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11190109)

We might have been unlucky (the bad experiences that influence my view of the NHS include my husband and father's as well as my own). But, I think probably not.

To give the example of my husband: he consulted his UK GP several times about minor skin infections which would not clear up. He was prescribed creams which were useless, and on one occasions antibiotics which were inappropriate and which caused an allergic reaction. In Canada, his GP wanted to know why my husband kept getting these infections, and ordered a blood screen which picked up a serious underlying disease.

The difference between the two GPs could just be one of competence, but I think there is also a different culture. GPs in the UK act as gatekeepers to resources and are more reluctant to order tests.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 11190122)

That part has been adopted by the Tories.

The pound has collapsed, mainly due to QE (started by Labour, continued by Tories). Budget deficit has been greatly higher each year of the ConDem government. The QE approach has not only failed, it's also given more money to banks (those who caused the problems in the first place) and taken away from people (who are in a continuing cost of living crisis that is getting worse and worse).

Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11190175)

- against which currency/ies? It's at traditional exchange rates against the USD... although admittedly it did have a 2-year high/blip back in 2006-2008 (ish).

Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11190175)

- against which currency/ies? It's at traditional exchange rates against the USD... although admittedly it did have a 2-year high/blip back in 2006-2008 (ish).

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11190052)

You're being too harsh on Brown and somewhat too soft on the current coalition. The reality is more nuanced in that the deficit went up to the level it did almost completely because of the financial crisis, with the bailing out of the banks (which you're strangely silent about) being a major contributor.



An ill thought out privatization that Brown inherited from the prior Conservative government!

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11190260)

Why would anyone include the bank bailouts? They are not generally counted in the deficit.
If they were, the deficit under Brown would have been over 100 percent. But that would not have helped understanding, would it?

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11190260)

And how on earth was the forced nationalisation (and theft from the shareholders) of Network Rail by Stephen Byers a Conservative policy? They had been out of office for five years when Railtrack went under.

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11190300)

It is the technology that gives me hope. When I read that they are printing replacement bones, well.....

Much medicine is pretty routine, and could be performed by an intelligent machine. The knowledge based nursing that has spread across the UK is likely be be eminently replaceable. The softer skills probably cannot. So the nursing/caring,the bedside manner will probably be more highly prized. As for doctors -
It will be at the margin that judgment will be required.

The downside of course is that if Moores law continues, it is difficult to see a human occupation that could not be replaced. Perhaps florists will become more valuable than lawyers.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11190288)

"Since 2008, when the British economy slowed sharply and fell into recession, the national debt has risen dramatically, mainly caused by increased spending on welfare benefits, bank bailouts, and a significant drop in receipts from stamp duty and income tax."

"As a result of the 2007–2010 financial crisis and the late-2000s global recession government spending increased to a historically high level of 48 per cent of GDP in 2009–10, partly as a result of the cost of a series of bank bailouts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._national_debt



Huh? Did you even read what I wrote?

Originally Posted by dunroving (Post 11190309)

Lawyers are one of those professions who seem to spend half their energy making a case for themselves being "valuable". A bit like university professors. We could lose a good 50% of both and not be any worse off as a society, IMO.

I personally value the following:

Police
Fire service
Nurses
Bin men

Far more than the following:

Lawyers
Politicians
Estate agents
Bankers

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11190332)

The bank bailouts totalled about a thousand billion sterling (or US trillion) and the UK economy was between 1.2 trillion and 1.4 trillion. Are you saying therefore thatthey comprised over 100 percent of the UK debt?

Originally Posted by bigglesworth (Post 11190332)

You said "An ill thought out privatization that Brown inherited from the prior Conservative government!" Sorry - your meaning was far from clear. The status of National Rail as a Public Interest Company or some such, and its corporate status was NOT under discussion, nor was it my point, but rather the effect on debt. Which is the subject under discussion?

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11190793)

I'm saying that bank bailout costs were a significant contributor towards the large increase in the national debt to GDP ratio in 2008 onwards.

But the numbers say the opposite

Your implication was that that the effect of the Railtrack/National Rail debacle on debt could be laid at the foot of the Labour government. Which carefully ignores that that mess was created by the initial flawed privatization of Railtrack in the early '90's. I don't recall a Labour government being in power at that point. Or perhaps you would have preferred a situation where Railtrack " had no idea how many more 'Hatfields' were waiting to happen" to continue.

that is an entirely subjective judgement. The Labour Government took a deliberate decision NOT to renationalise the Railways, but to so hem them in with regulation that the effect was the same. This has been a matter of record for over ten years.

I'm actually a big fan of rail service privatization, but quite why the Major government felt the need to privatize track as well is unclear. After all, we have hardly any privatized roads.