Rachel from accounts has crashed the economy

[Almn0etd]

So borrowing costs are now even higher than when Liz Truss was around.

The economy is well and truly cooked and in a far worse shape now that Rachel accounts is in charge.

Why isn’t this dominating the news cycle? Because it’s Labour.

The Tories were atrocious. Labour are an indescribable disaster for this country, surpassing the lowest of the low bars. Cue Labour apologists who don’t mind being made poorer and having the country destroyed, as long it’s Labour doing it to them.

That’s a pretty weak argument, because had they remained in power they’d have had come up with a solution to what was, after all, only a between 1% or so gap in funding. It was the incoming governments decision to double that to 2%, which is still not really of a quantum to warrant the label ‘black hole’. It’s convenient for the incoming government to frame it as such, and the level of financial and economic illiteracy in this country makes it easy to keep repeating it. But that doesn’t make it true.

I don’t like the idea of Streeting’s league tables. Hospitals and medical teams dealing with complex cases can look bad on paper and it is difficult to design rankings that are both accurate at a meaningful level and easy for the public to understand.

I am also hopeful about much of the other work Streeting has proposed, though more is needed. I have long thought wondered whether ‘free at the point of use’ is leading to problems and wondered whether a modest payment would help. People tell me the admin would be too costly.

Thank you @poetryandwine for your kind words. DH has a 20 year history of cardiac issues, and his life has been saved several times by paramedics. The NHS has been there in all our emergencies for which I am more grateful than I have the words. But he's an active busy old bastard, so five days out of intensive care he wants to know what's happening in HIS business again.

Is this what we can look forward to for next four years, a constant barrrage from that rich prick online , the Telegraph and Times and every paper except the Guardian and 1000's of trolls on every social media site telling us again and again why Starmer is marked with 666 and the antichrist ?

Its so fucking boring....

Free at point of use is clearly an issue, because when something’s free it’s not really valued. I’m hopefully that Starmers description of his vision of getting healthcare becoming as easy as booking a holiday, is accurate. And, that like booking a holiday, one can then chose to pay more for a more exotic destination, better seat, priority check-in and a lounge for regular patients ;)

I’m worried about the league table approach as well. Past experience of targets and league tables under the last Labour government is a rapid fiddling of the figures by hospitals because of the very reasons you mention. I’m keen to see the details, of how they plan on doing this. At the moment it’s moved from pledge, to mission, to foundation to milestone with no flesh on the bones at all, which is a concern.

That’s brilliant, @Papyrophile Your DH sounds a guy with fighting spirit. Like mine

We also owe the NHS more than I can express, but I am very sad that others with aggressive cancers haven’t been getting the same care recently.

How much of an issue do you think ‘free at the point of use’ is for most British, @Tryingtokeepgoing ? Obviously people will say they pay tax for just this purpose, but the maintenance of the NHS for which we are taxed could be decoupled from its use, for which we could in theory pay a modest fee.

PS There must be a provision for those who really cannot afford a fee

I think we have been lucky @poetryandwine . Fortunate to live where we do, in an area with a can do culture.

"It’s convenient for the incoming government to frame it as such, and the level of financial and economic illiteracy in this country makes it easy to keep repeating it. But that doesn’t make it true"

Also a week argument. Because sound financial management should not rely on dishonesty and deceit masquerading as economic competency. But then the lack of integrity means that done posters can say they would have been honest and competent if re elected and fixed it afterwards. That doesn't make it true and since they lost the confidence of the electorate, never mind the markets, it is both untrue and irrelevant.

Well here in France most things do attract a small fee - last time I went it was €30. If you are on a low income you pay less / get that back. More interestingly (for me) hospital visit treatments, while not (in my late husbands experience), attracting a fee do result in one being given a ‘bill’ on after the appointment / when you leave, so you can see the ‘cost’ of your treatment. You don’t need to pay it - it’s covered by the state run insurance scheme, or in his case by the EHIC scheme. But it means people are aware of the cost of the treatment. Which I think is a good thing.

The problem in the UK is that successive governments have reinforced to the British public that the NHS is the best way or running healthcare in the world, and is sacrosanct. Overlay that with a level of entitlement that is peculiar, in my experience, to the British that the state should pay for everything healthcare related. So I think changing the free at point of use, while probably the right thing to do, is challenging. It would certainly be less challenging for a Labour government, and even less for one with a majority the size of the current one. But I fear their appetite for reforming the NHS, which has already been diluted, is not big enough to tackle this.

You can chose that interpretation if it makes you feel better. At a business or personal level, if I had a 1% overspend looking likely I wouldn’t be that concerned, certainly wouldn’t be calling the bank manager or my financial advisor and would tackle it at the appropriate time. I’m not sure why you feel the need to question posters integrity, but it is somewhat typical of the left when questioned to resort to attacks rather than debate the facts. A less charitable person than me might say that’s because debate requires a deeper understanding of the facts than ideology requires ;)

Assuming of course that you meant ‘weak argument’. If you did indeed mean “week argument” then I’ll await a ‘U’ turn next week :)

Yanbu. Before the election they said they would grow the economy and raise tax income that way, to fund investment.

Instead they've just raised taxes, crashed the economy and caused the UK to head towards recession. Incompetence at best, lies at worst.

A lot of people miss Sunak. He might not have been the most charismatic but was such a safe pair of hands.

They were promising tax cuts on top of the unfunded NI cuts they’d already enacted. And they’d have had to fund public sector pay rises too, they couldn’t keep kicking the can down the road. They were lying through their teeth.

Sunak was a terrible Prime Minister. What a short memory you have

"A lot of people miss Sunak."

There's a lot more that don't!!

I agree, I think Wes Streeting is showing signs of being prepared to take decisions that won't be immediately popular but will hopefully lead to improvements. Unusual in current politicians!

I think they’d have been as likely to stick to their promises as this Government has, to be fair!

And I don’t think it’s written in stone that they would have funded public sector pay rises at the level the Government chosen too either. So one can either take the view that both parties were lying through their teeth, or both parties were just doing what politicians do. Which is say whatever they like to try and win the election, and then make it up as they go along.

And as it now appears as though Reeves is going to make large cuts to disability benefits, and in particular PIP, to try and close the gap in public funding she has created there’s a certain irony in that. Because it was a Sunak initiative originally and would, presumably, have been used to part fund the 1% gap in public spending ‘identified’ by Labour. Although given the size of the benefits bill it might also fund some of Labours other spending plans as well :)

"business or personal level, if I had a 1% overspend looking likely I wouldn’t be that concerned "

Ironic that someone who preaches financial illiteracy compares a country's budget to a business or personal finance.

A 1% difference in this case would be because the dishonesty would be less likely to come to light before the election...

And I don’t think it’s written in stone that they would have funded public sector pay rises at the level the Government chosen too either.

They wouldn’t. So the strikes would have continued and public services would have continued to worsen. Their promised tax cuts wouldn’t have materialised without borrowing.

But the pay rises haven’t stopped the strikes, just paused them. The doctors, teachers, train drivers, nurses have all indicated further strike action is on its way if their next set of demands aren’t met. And yes, I agree, the promised tax cuts wouldn’t have materialised. It was a typical pre election bribe. Much as the growth won’t materialise after the Reeves budget, and we will all be worse off despite Starmer saying we would have more money in our pockets.

I expect the Tory plan of cutting disability benefits, which would have been hard for them to implement, will be pushed though by this government by dint of their majority and that cash will then be poured into appeasing the unions as well.. Meanwhile, the bigger issues of economic growth and NHS reform get diluted and kicked down the road :(

"Meanwhile, the bigger issues of economic growth"

"Come off it. All the Tory leaders talked about unleashing economic growth". The country hamstrung itself on that front via Brexit but people prefers to blame that on politicians instead of admit it was "the will of the people"

The strikes have stopped, who’s on strike now? Nobody. NHS reform is already happening with the five year plan published in a couple of months. I’d have a lot more respect for people who disagree with me if they stuck to facts. I’m really tired of having hypothesis and twisted half truth thrown at me. A few factual arguments would be great.

At a fundamental level the principle of using income to fund operating expenses and borrowing, where necessary / sensible, to fund capital projects is the same for individuals, businesses or the government. And minor adjustments to operating expenditure are expected in all as well. As indeed are changes to capital expenditure, borrowing and investment. So you’ll need to explain the irony to me..I must have missed it.

As for pre-election dishonestly, 6 months in it’s not looking great for the government, let’s be honest…