Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! 

Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals.

But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.

He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible...
[/quote:]

That seems to be a matter of opinion. 

[Viral_Jim]

I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! 

Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals.

But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.

He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible...
[/quote:]

That seems to be a matter of opinion. 

Indeed, and if you look at the opinion of the man who had the responsibility for delivering article 50, his view is that it can be reversed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-09/britons-can-still-reverse-brexit-article-50-architect-says

Whether its achievable politically, is an entirely different matter.

[Varche]

Billion a week for the nhs, increase in tax on diesel, new affordable housing project.

[Rods2]

We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.

The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.

Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't.

Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention. What goes back to the begining of human existence are hunter-gathers, farmers and skilled craftsmen followed by merchants, hawkers, storage and distribution. The food growing, storage, processing and distribution system is central to all of our lives which we need to work every day or we starve. So on your scale of worth, farmers, drivers, shelf stackers and shop assistants should be by far the highest paid people in society.

The reality is for a society to work how we want it to work most people in the wealth productive side of the economy are required along with many in the non-productive side. It then comes down to skill, added value, supply, demand and free markets to decide worth. Planned economies don't work as it requires all-seeing, knowing leaders to make vital decisions and they can't and don't exist. Bottom-up capitalist societies work much more efficiently with a much better allocation of capital than top-down planned socialist ones with their 5-year tractor plans along with the manufacture of 5million, size 12, left shoes where the person in charge has only one leg with a size 12 foot, so doesn't see the need for pairs or any other size!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Don’t forget the new age techies, who sit playing with keyboards all day, shifting numbers back and forth. At the end of the day, the number that they started with has grown...lots.....so their net worth has increased. Nice ‘work’, if you can get it.

Thanks

But assuming you're referring to traders, rather than people who actually keep stuff running, they are just as worried as anyone else about their futures because, sooner or later, computers are going to flat-out replace them (it's already started happening at some firms, in fact).

It has indeed, and those who are left don't tend to earn the money they used to. Its a dying industry.

[STEMO]

We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.

The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.

Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't.

Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention. What goes back to the begining of human existence are hunter-gathers, farmers and skilled craftsmen followed by merchants, hawkers, storage and distribution. The food growing, storage, processing and distribution system is central to all of our lives which we need to work every day or we starve. So on your scale of worth, farmers, drivers, shelf stackers and shop assistants should be by far the highest paid people in society.

The reality is for a society to work how we want it to work most people in the wealth productive side of the economy are required along with many in the non-productive side. It then comes down to skill, added value, supply, demand and free markets to decide worth. Planned economies don't work as it requires all-seeing, knowing leaders to make vital decisions and they can't and don't exist. Bottom-up capitalist societies work much more efficiently with a much better allocation of capital than top-down planned socialist ones with their 5-year tractor plans along with the manufacture of 5million, size 12, left shoes where the person in charge has only one leg with a size 12 foot, so doesn't see the need for pairs or any other size!

God, you talk some shite. Lengthy shite, too.

[Lizzie Zoom]

We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.

The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.

Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't.

Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention.

Well no, not quite.  We know physicians were at work in ancient Egypt around 3,000 BC, and one of the first "doctors", Hippocrates (as in the oath), considered to be the father of modern medicine, was advancing his and other doctors skills from around 460 to 370 BC.

Throughout the ages since that time doctors have advanced the skills at an increasing rate, with both the 19th and 20th century seeing the most rapid progress.

The important point to remember though, throughout those early ages, access to treatment depended on your wealth, your power, and importance to the state, such as those in the military. If you did not meet that criteria you simply struggled to get well, maybe sought help from herbal remedies (mistaken for witchcraft from the 15th to 18th centuries), or just died anyway.

It was only from the 18th century that doctors officially gave "voluntary" or as we would recognise today, "charity" treatment.  This was helped by the creation of hospitals like the London Infirmay, from 1748 the London Hospital (now the Royal London Hospital) that was built to specifically give medical treatment at low, or sometimes no cost, to the poor of the East End and hospitals like these grew in number as the industrial revolution made it an economic sense to provide such care.

However, it was not until the creation of the NHS in Britain in 1948 that treatment was given "free to all at the point of entry's".  At last the hard working people of industry had the type of treatment previously reserved for the ruling classes and their servants; people prepared to fight and die for them. No longer did the poor need to suffer and die, even though there had been doctors around for centuries who could have treated them.

Pay the doctors and nurses as much as we can afford, as if and when you or a loved one are writhing in pain, you will regret that you did not when that staff do not exist in the number we need.

As for who is worth what?  That is the big socialist argument is it not? Every WORKING person is contributing an essential element to our society. The non-working mothers of young children at home are equally contributing.  It was / is the wealthy and powerful ruling classes who degraded the importance of the individual in terms of pounds, shilling and pence; their ability to give maximum working output or ability to fight on the battlefield.  True Socialists will always believe that no one should gain on the back of others and we should all share in the profits of pooled labour.  I personally do not believe "every one is equal" in such a black and white way, but the massive inaqualites that still exist out there are wrong. Work hard and you should be fully rewarded in relation to the profits generated, not at the minimum wage.

So, lift all the pay caps on public workers to get the best, in quantity, that the public need, before we all suffer further from the shortages and shortfalls seen to date. To pay for this taxes MUST be raised.  Failure to take this action now will result in a "no doctors" situation, relatively speaking

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
You say "pay them as much as we can afford" ,but taking into account the sheer numbers involved, we are already paying out more than we can afford.
So, we need more wealth generators to produce the money, which means among other things a competitive tax regime and an atmosphere where wealth creation is welcomed and admired. The opposite direction of travel to where we are headed currently.
The politics of envy is now being embraced by a new generation as if they were the first ones to think of it.

[Viral_Jim]

I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.

Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work 



*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them

[LC0112G]

Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work 

*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them

Retire @55 is a poor choice of stick to beat the baby boomers with. To do so they have to have saved enough to fund their own retirement from 55 to 67 because they don't get any state pension from the government till they're 67. The government then gets it's tax take from their private pension earlier than if they waited till 60/65/67. And it also frees up a job for someone else (presumably younger).

And until 2010 it was Retire @ 50 anyway.

[Viral_Jim]

In no way a stick, and not meant to be. If you can do it, good luck to you. I'm aiming for late 50's myself, although that's 25yrs away. But, it is a useful statistic to put some actual numbers around our aging population.

You have more people who are retired, so not earning and those people will be retired longer (on average) than those who went before them and those that will come after.

Nor am I saying we should allow those old people to go in cared for. But the fact remains that they are there, there are now of them and we need more people than ever before to look after them. So this "sack x% of the public sector leaches" idea doesn't work when the country has (shockingly) moved on a bit in the last 20yrs.

[Varche]

Hence 1 billion a week for the nhs. A lot of it will go on care in keeping the old from bed blocking in hospitals. It wont happen as each government kicks the can down the road.

[ronnyd]

I may be retired (and loving it ) but i still pay tax on my pensions so therefor still contribute to the countries economy. Also, as i buy stuff, am also paying VAT.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I may be retired (and loving it ) but i still pay tax on my pensions so therefor still contribute to the countries economy. Also, as i buy stuff, am also paying VAT.

+1

.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid.  I also still work in "a capacity" for the police.  I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.

Yes, I am a proud member of the baby boomers generation, but although I never like counter-factual history, just think that without the two World Wars our population would be so much greater than today.  Mind you, and this is why I don't like CF History, Great Britain would still, in theory, be a very rich country.............but there again the commoner would not be valued as much as today given the ruling classes would not have lost their then great power over them and not value them still..............and women may not have the vote to change our society for the better as that would not have had a chance to show during the wars how important they were......and so CFH goes on, and on and on....... !!!
 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.

Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work 



*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them

Good point, Jimmy.

The implementation of TB's cull for everyone over 65 may be the solution. Just think of the money that could be saved in pensions and healthcare.

Nah....just kidding. .....or am I.