Starmer the non charmer

[Bogginsthe3rd]

Now is the time to set out his vision for the UK, to inspire the UK towards harmony and productivity with a huge majority, which he will never have again. Instead there is a speech , presumably delayed by the riots, which continues to heap blame on the Tories. It was dour, depressing and offered no motivation to the public. There may be huge holes in the public finances and tough tax rises may be necessary, but he also needs to set out a grander plan for economic and societal prosperity. Why can he not do more ?

Ah I see you haven't read my posts. Thats fine, but not much point you commenting.

Still 52/48% in favour of me. This is the decisive victory my opinion needed.

I think this is where it started

and many who dislike having a Labour PM, dislikes Starmer or feel we do not have a true Labour Party in power call him a traitor

Haha.

I won't moan if I am one of the 48%. I just want competence in government and not the drama and disgrace of the Johnson/Truss years.

I doubt if we'll get one. Likewise defence of the two tier comments.

@Whammyammy - 80k people a year die of smoking related diseases & over 500k hospital admissions are attributed to the habit.

@Buddenbruchs - the economy was growing, unemployment was falling and the pound was strong.

If we start banning stuff on their cost to the NHS then we will probably be banning in pretty short order :

Fizzy dirnks.
Fast food, including burgers chips and curry.
Crisps
Chocolate
Barbequeues.
Alcohol
Vapes
Pizza
Sweets
Easter and Cadburys creme eggs

@GasPanic - smoking is slightly different though isn't it? We have to eat.

@GasPanic well, let's be honest - if alcohol were newly discovered today it would be a class A drug.

Most of the rest of your list are not in the same class as cigarettes and alcohol if used in moderation.

I don't agree with banning things and I'm on the fence about the outdoor smoking ban - I really hate the smell of vapes though, more so than I do the smell of cigarettes outdoors.

Yes but we don't have to eat crap.

Let's ban all that stuff. And ice cream as well.

They are all bad for peoples health and they all cost the NHS money.

We can all go back to eating potatoes and lettuce and a 5km run every morning.

People don't use them in moderation though. That's why we have an obesity epidemic.

And obesity costs the NHS 3x as much as smoking per year.

@GasPanic 🙄

@luckylavender I really must find some time today to Google the research because, and I may be misremembering, I vaguely remember seeing something about how smoking saves the economy more than it costs.

Even if that's not the case, as I said yesterday it's definitely true that smoking is not as harmful for health than private renting. It was even published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal).

So whether the concem is about health or the economy, any genuine concern would prioritise providing more social housing over restricting smoking.

@Againname - we should do both

Nope

The two things that should be banned (or rather tackled) are:

Insufficient social housing
Poverty

Poverty, bad or insecure housing, and stress. All three go hand in hand with ill health and stress, and the three are interrelated.

Ending the false economy approach would save the NHS, improve health including reducing obesity, and reduce cost to the economy:

Well-funded and effective public services including:

Social services
Mental health services (and the NHS in general)
Non punitive benefits system and decent pension
Improved child maintenance system
More social housing
Probation services and the criminal justice system
Policing
Youth services including clubs and mentoring
Sports, libraries, parks, playgrounds
Job, education, and training opportunities

People will say it costs money but it saves money longer term, and good health and a more happy and cohesive society and community is priceless.

I can agree with that.

What I can't agree with is the banning of one particular thing while there are plenty of other things that could also be banned or taxed in the name of saving the NHS money to me.

Smokers cost the NHS money, but there is also a lot of tax revenue from them.

Fast food should at the very least be taxed in the same way.

This whole policy just seems about politics. We can attack smokers because there aren't that many of them and justify it with "saving the NHS". We can't attack fast food even though it causes equal damage because more people like it and it would cause uproar.

Banning stuff is fine until the government starts banning stuff I like in the name of "saving the NHS".

Once they start banning one thing where does it actually stop ?

1st they came for the smokers ....

And then they came for Esther McVey, because she was nuts.

Four day weeks and outdoor smoking bans. Concentrating on the big stuff. Those that smoke and eat themselves into oblivion are actually cost saving on the whole. They die young and therefore require no care as they age. Not sure if this takes into account reduced productivity over their shortened lifetime though. More equal societies are healthier societies. They need to be focusing on POVERTY.

I suppose the argument could be, smoking is bad and kills you, end of. Drinking in moderation or the odd Macdonald's doesn't do any harm.

It might sound cold but you're right. I think the research I vaguely remember reading (about smoking saving more money than it costs) included this - people likely to die younger so saving on pensions and health and social care.

Poverty does the same. Kills people younger.
However unlike smoking (or junk food VAT) poverty doesn't bring in tax revenue. It's also obviously a much crueler way to kill people. At least whatever preferred vice (smoking, junk food, dangerous sport, or whatever) is a choice.

I was saying half jokingly on a couple of Elderly Bashing threads about a month ago, that given the attitudes of some on those threads, me and DH are thinking of taking up smoking, upping our booze intake, and binging on junk food when we hit 50 or 60, so we'll die young of massive heart attacks instead of being "burdens on society". I thought of that again when I saw a more recent thread. I didn't post on it as been busy but noticed the awful title - something along the lines of "old people should be murdered aka 'euthanised' to save care costs". Appalling sentiment.

Really though if the concern was about either health or economy or both, the priority would be increasing (asap) provision of social housing and tackling poverty, rather than restricting smoking.

Bad housing and poverty are by far the bigger killers, and much more costly for the NHS and the wider economy.

I lived then. No it wasn’t. Most of the north was de industrialised due to Thatchers policies, many of which have influenced how the country is nowadays. Might have been quids in in London but not in Barnsley or Middlesbrough.

Do you think all the anti-Tory threads over the last few years were written by Labour Party HQ?

Honestly, as a Labour voter I’m getting irritated at these comments. Why on earth should people not criticise the current government or leader? I may not agree with the comments, but just because they are raising the issue does not mean they are some kind of bot.

It's completely true. Weird dismissal of any labour criticism. All the way through I've said I appreciated Starmer's realism but also suggested a failing in longer term vision and communication.

@Buddenbruchs - I lived then too. The economy was much stronger than now.