Westminstenders: Don't and Keep Living

[RedToothBrush]

Status Recall as of approx 1

Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement (The WA) :
Currently parliamentary session blocked in its current form due to being nodded through (government accept defeat without vote). It can not be represented to the house without changes (which the EU will not allow - unless perhaps it reverts back to May's WA) or a 'substantive change of circumstances' (eg another party says they will support it and there is reason to believe Johnson now has a clear majority).

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill (The WAB):
The withdrawal agreement bill is purely about how the WA will be carried out in UK law. It passed its 2nd reading which is merely a indication of interest of support for the bill. The next stage is where amendments can be made and this is most relevant to the political declaration which accompanies the WA settlement.

This however has hit a road block due to the government recklessly and foolishly trying to push such an important and far reaching bill through in a ridiculous time frame, which no one could possibly give proper scrutiny to.

If Johnson wants a deal in the best int3of the country its an essential part of the process regardless of which side of the fence you sit. Failure to spot problems could leave us shafted by other countries later down the line.

The timetable is now under review and negotiation with Corbyn.

The extension with the EU:
The EU president has signaled he would support an extension. This is in part because issues in London mean it is highly unlikely the EU will be able to ratify a deal by next Thursday even if they have an emergency meeting. It's in their interests to extend in some way.

Going along with the Benn Act is the politically least risky option, though France are making growling noises about it.

Two issues spring up with this. The first is the issue of the UK having no EU Commissioner after 1st Nov and the second is the EU budget runs until 31st Dec 2019.

The Queens Speech:
The government as it stands might struggle to pass the QS especially with the DUP off side. It failing to pass is, in some ways, a good thing for Johnson. The speech was essentially a manifesto and blocking it is a good electioneering strategy. It also puts pressure on the opposition for a Vote of No Confidence.

There are already rumblings following the passing of the 2nd reading of the WAB and the EU signally they are open to an extension that some in Labour (including crucially Corbyn) do think they must agree to a GE in the autumn.

A Vonc is still unlikely to happen until the EU formalise the extension and the EU are unlikely to do this until its clear what Johnson's next move with the WAB is. Johnson meanwhile doesn't want to agree to a longer timetable as that ruins his do or die speech and facilitates an extension. So expect some brinkmanship over timings here. We might not get a formal extension approved until the wire.

The GE:
All Brexit is currently about is manoeuvring to win the next GE. It must be seen in this context.

Polling suggests that an extension without the WA is bad for Johnson and he is likely to lose support to the Brexit Party. There is an ever shrinking likelihood of the WA going through before 31st Oct, if its not impossible already. Thus Johnson needs to see if he can get the WA through very quickly after an extension but before a GE.

This reasonably lines up with Labour's problems. Before the WA goes through a GE looks bad for them with them haemorrhaging support to the LDs and the the Brexit Party.

If they are seen to facilitate the WA passing before an election then there may also be a sense of betrayal amongst their majority remain supporters but it might let them off with the Brexit Party threat particularly in the Midlands.

Meanwhile the SNP have an increasing desire for a GE. They look like they will clean up in Scotland and it might be their last chance now to stop Brexit. Similar logic applies to the LDs.

Thus the chances of a GE shoot up once an extension is granted, but the Cons and Labour have a mutual self interest in getting a deal done ASAP before a GE in many ways.

This of course would probably suit the French and therefore the EU.

Which is why a deal before 15th Nov and by the 15th Dec, isnt unrealistic. A GE might come before Christmas but I think both the Cons and Lab have something of an interest in letting the dust settle and getting new messaging in to head off threats from the LDs and Brexit Party. I'd be more inclined to say a Feb election tbh.

Anyway things may have changed since I started typing this up given how quickly things are moving.

But despite the headlines that Brexit is in pergortory it is now slowly rolling forward and now has some momentum behind it.

we're still waiting on the EU with regards to EXTENSION!

Biggest block to an election now appears to be Labour MPs. Who are, allegedly, worried.

And, apparently, A sizeable chunk of Conservative MPs.

Crazy times.

Also there are home helps: very many people with dementia in the earlier stages are cared for at home, typically by domiciliary carers topped up with support from family members. There's a limit to how much domiciliary care - about 4 visits a day tends to be the maximum that LAs fund, but this model tends to be the starting point and will typically carry on until the person isn't able to manage safely at home any more, at which point a residential placement would be considered.

As someone with two elderly relatives affected by this - the austerity- driven stripped-back social care in their area was totally inadequate for one person with mobility issues and one with dementia.

The idea that 4 visits a day is available to everyone who needs it until they are ready for a home is simply not true. And 4 visits a day is actually insufficient long before those people are considered unsafe at home.

Luckily for my relatives they had the money to pay for private carers, but it was an insight into the harsh reality that OAPs who can’t afford to pay carers face.

You cannot rely on the state for care in old age.

NHS procurement efficiency: one very small example, but I happen to know about it because I am one of the 1-2% of the population who need this particular medication.

In the USA it costs $35.17 to buy 30 x 25mcg liothyronine tablets, $1.17 each (and 1000 tablets cost $0.70 each). In Europe liothyronine is 25p per 20mcg tablet. In the UK liothyronine costs £9 per 20mcg tablet.

I'm always fascinated by MN discussions around taxation. For all the posters who make the case for higher taxation to pay for public services, I sense a penumbra of deep, silent dislike of the idea.

Well yes this is the U.K. We want good public services but we don’t want to pay for them. People get misty-eyed about the good old NHS but don’t want to reach into their pockets to fund it.

Well yes this is the U.K. We want good public services but we don’t want to pay for them.

Again, that's not true/fair.

What is true is a lot of people would rather everyone went without, if it meant the "wrong sort of person" didn't benefit. Which is one of the drivers of Brexit ... that sort of petulant breaking of something so no one can use it.

I'm always fascinated by MN discussions around taxation. For all the posters who make the case for higher taxation to pay for public services, I sense a penumbra of deep, silent dislike of the idea.

This is why means testing child benefit was an error. People need to feel like they are getting something back from the system. By means testing things like this you are (a) adding complexity (and therefore administrative cost); and (b) encouraging people to think “why should I pay more, I don’t get anything back.” It’s cheaper and less divisive to keep such things universal.

I agree with Tatiana on care services for the elderly. I could have written her post myself.

We want public services but we don't want to pay for them, but how much of this is due to the screaming from the right wing press?The same press which managed to turn a significant chunk of the population against the EU when it has nothing to do with the day to day issues which affect them?

"GPs have got better things to do than pander to schools' assumptions that they know more about kids' health than they do. If they mark the absence as non-approved, so what? Only affects the school when Ofsted comes calling, and if you get a call from a EWO you tell them the situation and tell them to sort the school out."

Although I agree totally that GPs should not have to provide these things, it's OFSTED and their attendance rules that is pushing it - and it does affect the school. It can mean all the difference between one grade and another.
If a school is downgraded because they don't have proof they are doing everything they can (and this means a paperwork trail) to ensure full and timely attendance by all the children, many parents will choose to send their children elsewhere. The schools will then start to manage out or discourage applications for the children who affect their rating.

I recently read a SEND article about home education: there's a worrying increase of SEND children who are home educated, not because their parents want it, but because they have been "off-rolled" - managed out of mainstream schools.

Waffling on data protection...

On data I found this a while ago showing differences in how countries protect their citizens data.

www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/

This may be stating the obvious but once outside the EU we can only dump the data protection applying to British citizens. All the richer countries have high data protection. If we are headed to emulate Singapore then we may loosen our own protection more than the US or EU (so we would be orange or yellow on the attached chart).

Im not sure how the US can battle against EU data protection laws when it has an equally high level of protection for its own citizens data?

Companies here will have to be even more willing to comply with the protection of the data of other citizens because we need the trade.

We brought in the Data Protection Act 2018 which dovetails with most of the GDPR. Presumably that choice was made so the UK
can easily do business with EU companies and process their citizens' data.

Any country can set down laws protecting the data of its citizens.
So if any US or UK company wants to do business in say Spain which involves processing Spanish citizens data then that company always have to comply with the GDPR or it can choose to do business elsewhere.

Eg A US company selling goods in Spain with pricing in euros on its website is not in the EU but caters to EU customers, then it has to be GDPR compliant.

The gov can let companies from other places like the US or Russia or China use our data without regulation if that's what Johnson and co want?However we still have to comply with Canadian rules if collecting customer data there, or the GDPR if collecting Dutch customer data etc.

The higher paid in Scotland do pay more taxes (and the lowest paid less although it's minimal ). When the BBC did a vox pox for the news at the time it was implemented, they'd obviously worked really hard to find someone who objected to paying more: the strongest "anti" messages they could find were one person saying "as long as the extra taxation is well spent" and a business owner saying that while he'd prefer to pay fewer taxes, he recognised that if his workers were going to benefit, in the long run that would benefit his business.

When we voted for devolution in 1997, we also voted for the ability to vary income tax by up to 3p in the pound - knowing that it would always have been more , not less

However, the Labour/LibDem coalition let that ability lapse with the HMRC - although to be fair, the way the variation was worded, it would have been highly regressive (iirc, the extra up to 3p had to be added to all tax bands ). Even the 2012 Scotland Act, which increased it to 10p in the £, still required it to be across all tax bands.

It was only in the 2016 Scotland Act that there was sufficient flexibility to be more subtle in how any increases were applied. But, there was a strong probability that any extra revenue brought in would immediately be deducted from the pocket money allowance given to the Scottish Government, so that the Scots would be taxed more but the Scottish Government wouldn't actually have any extra money to spend John Swinney, Scottish Government Finance Secretary at the time, negotiated long and hard with WM to ensure that any extra revenue was ring fenced.

Re medicine costs, did anyone note that one of Labour’s policies is to create publicly owned UK facilities to develop and manufacture drugs, as well as using existing existing mechanisms to force pharma companies to produce generic versions? Thought that was really interesting.

People need to feel like they are getting something back from the system.

Same reason lifting so many people out of paying any income tax isn't a great idea. But, it comes under the "Yay, free money" election tactics. Paying tax makes people feel invested in society.

'Paying Income Taxes Makes Us Happy
It triggers reward areas in our brain & is associated with greater well-being.'

www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201704/paying-income-taxes-makes-us-happy

This is why means testing child benefit was an error. People need to feel like they are getting something back from the system.

I never tire of posting this graphic. If there's a halfway sensible thread on taxes/benefits (usually the latter) which will invariably end up in a slew of anecdata about "someone" a poster knows that is "fiddling benefits", I'll post it and ask contributors to answer the question it asks.

Never had a reply. Apart from one poster a few weeks ago who basically said "yes, but we have to cut benefits because we'll never collect the taxes to pay for them". Which isn't really an answer to the question.

Feel free to forward this onto anyone who gives a shit.

If I can be bothered, I'll also point out the £16 billion in unclaimed benefits which makes the £1.2 billion in benefit fraud seem embarrassing, given the fuss we make over it.

If we have to have governments that insist on social engineering, I'd plump for socialism over capitalism any day. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Health service in UK is way cheaper than elsewhere - primarily because there isn't a private-paid-by-state option and NICE holding prices down.

Some thing are cheaper, notably drugs because of the NHS's exceptionally large purchasing power which dwarfs that of more fragmented European purchasers.

But from what I can work out with a quick google search, an MRI scan is far more expensive on the NHS, at around £130 (Ive just checked the invoice for my knee scan and it was €55 not €68, that's about 50 quid). Much of the cost of imaging will be the variable cost of performing the exam and generating the report, and these will be higher primarily because U.K. wages are higher (in turn this is because housing costs are higher and family benefits lower). There may also be some economies of scale as it's much easier to get an MRI scan in France and I would guess than many more are performed, often in dedicated private imaging centres like the one I went to.

So the idea that the NHS model is always cheaper is false. Cheaper overall because there is more gatekeeping and rationing of care, but not necessarily cheaper per unit of care.

My

@Tanith - the way parents with SEN are treated in the educational system is criminal...... and I mean that very literally. We can afford to send DS privately - but he would have never coped one a state school - as there is no way he would have got any support ....... but the way his lack of support would have come out is in behaviour- so we would have been off-rolled. I have many friends for whom private is not an option and it's so distressing seeing the fight they have for their children to have the most basic of education...... these are bright kids who learn differently- but they are literally denied an education

If I can be bothered, I'll also point out the £16 billion in unclaimed benefits which makes the £1.2 billion in benefit fraud seem embarrassing, given the fuss we make over it.

These figures sound impressive but I have yet to see a serious discussion about how these estimates are made. (I don't doubt that unclaimed benefits are higher than fraud).

The GDPR is in my view a ridiculously onerous EU law (speaking as a strong remainer). If you breach it, even as a tiny 1 person business, you can in theory be fined millions - so they can take your house etc. When we are out of the EU, businesses, even very small ones, who deal with EU customers, will have to pay for a representative in the EU. I've had a look at the companies who are marketing these services, and even if you just do a few thousand pounds worth of business with the EU, and have never had any GDPR enquiries from any of your customers, it will cost over £1,000 a year just to be able to say that you have an EU representative. For which that EU company will do nothing. A killer blow for small businesses.

If we have to have governments that insist on social engineering, I'd plump for socialism over capitalism any day. From each according to their ability to each according to their need Me too.

From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
A good Biblical principle - Acts11:29-30 .
"The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; so this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabus and Saul.

As for GDPR in theory yes you can be fined. In practice the ICO is only interested in the bad guys, not a small business who made a mistake. They'll fine the Googles of the this world, the local digital marketing agency will get a letter telling them to sort themselves out.

Same reason lifting so many people out of paying any income tax isn't a great idea. But, it comes under the "Yay, free money" election tactics. Paying tax makes people feel invested in society.

Personally I think the answer is to change NI not income taxation. If NI more closely matched the real cost of social insurance (health, disability, unemployment etc) and if it were hypothecated, you wouldn't need such high rates of income tax.

In France where I think system is broadly quite a logical one (even though in practice it has many faults that create perverse incentives), you pay social insurance of about 20-25% of your income to provide a defined set of benefits. Most people pay no income tax at all. However, once you start paying income tax you pay that rate on all your income, including unearned income (capital gains etc).

an MRI scan is far more expensive on the NHS

DBs theory is that diagnostics - MRIs and the like - are much cheaper (and commonplace) in the US as it allows doctors to dump the results on the patient and get the patient to make the choice about their treatment. Thus reducing their exposure to a lawsuit for getting a diagnosis wrong.

He has a hard drive with all of his scan and test results for 20+ years.

Meanwhile, in the UK, Specsavers field vision tests can't be exported to an NHS consultant because the software is different. At which point I try to remember what I wanted to be growing up before I wanted to work in computers. Probably an astronaut.

The GDPR is in my view a ridiculously onerous EU law

Is it EU law or is it UK implementation of EU law?

Time and again the UK implements EU laws with extra embellishments and then uses it to whinge about the EU.

These figures sound impressive but I have yet to see a serious discussion about how these estimates are made. (I don't doubt that unclaimed benefits are higher than fraud).

Well as the graphic states, the source is the CAB, so I'd hazard a guess it's a function of how many claimants they start claims for ?

I managed to not claim carers allowance for a year, despite being eligible, so it's pretty widespread.