UK General Election 2015

[arbboy]

I stumbled across this analysis of public spending, just had a quick look, its an interesting read

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf

That summary is very interesting.  Kind of dispels the myths that tories always cut spending on benefits for the poor

 'Despite large increases in the generosity of
benefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security
spending has grown less quickly than it did under the Conservatives'.

pretty much confirms labour's gross over spend though during their time in power and how poorly the money was spent in general.

'If the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited
in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it
delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less. Alternatively, it could have improved the quality and
quantity of public services by a further 16% for the same cost.'

 

[Doobs]

Well that's the picture I had before looking at the figures.  But the figures say that annual spending went up 52% in real terms between 84 and 97.   Is that really underspending? 

NHS spending had been increasing in real terms since it started.  There isn't anything very political about it.  If you have a group of people who are living longer they are going to need more healthcare.  The NHS has just become a victim of the improvements in healthcare in the Western World.  There really isn't much difference whoever is in power, one of life's certainties is that NHS spending will increase in real terms in the next 5 years whoever is in charge.

On top of that there is never ending pressure to offer every single slightly improved drug or slightly improved operation whatever the cost. 

Regardless of this we get to read how the Tories are destroying the NHS, and it will be better under Labour, UKIP or the SNP.

[arbboy]

Well that's the picture I had before looking at the figures.  But the figures say that annual spending went up 52% in real terms between 84 and 97.   Is that really underspending? 

NHS spending had been increasing in real terms since it started.  There isn't anything very political about it.  If you have a group of people who are living longer they are going to need more healthcare.  The NHS has just become a victim of the improvements in healthcare in the Western World.  There really isn't much difference whoever is in power, one of life's certainties is that NHS spending will increase in real terms in the next 5 years whoever is in charge.

On top of that there is never ending pressure to offer every single slightly improved drug or slightly improved operation whatever the cost. 

Regardless of this we get to read how the Tories are destroying the NHS, and it will be better under Labour, UKIP or the SNP.

I think this is the point where Labour might be more credible if they would actually admit there would be a point where they would curtail spending on the NHS.  The way they talk sometimes they would literally remortgage the whole economy to ensure NHS spending would be higher than under the tories.

[vegaslover]

Well that's the picture I had before looking at the figures.  But the figures say that annual spending went up 52% in real terms between 84 and 97.   Is that really underspending? 

Hard to say looking at figures which can be manipulated any way you want them to look.

Under Tory's waiting lists for operations were ridiculously long i.e. years. Labour spent a shitload of money reducing those wait lists. Once again these are rising under Tory leadership.

I'm probably biased as I currently work in then NHS but my wages are lower than they were 5 years ago, excluding inflation.

This NHS real increase budget is political spin in a lot of areas and not my each. The Service/Trust I work for has had successive budget cuts, excluding efficiency savings, for the past few years. Staff on the wards of the Trust I work for have been reduced by about 30% and will fall further

[arbboy]

The best way for the average joe in the street to improve the NHS long term would be to live a healthier lifestyle in general and reduce the strain on the service long term with problems that could easily be avoiding by better self responsibility.  Amazing how nothing is ever said about that just about pumping more cash into it.

[DungBeetle]

Well that's the picture I had before looking at the figures.  But the figures say that annual spending went up 52% in real terms between 84 and 97.   Is that really underspending? 

Hard to say looking at figures which can be manipulated any way you want them to look.

Under Tory's waiting lists for operations were ridiculously long i.e. years. Labour spent a shitload of money reducing those wait lists. Once again these are rising under Tory leadership.

I'm probably biased as I currently work in then NHS but my wages are lower than they were 5 years ago, excluding inflation.

This NHS real increase budget is political spin in a lot of areas and not my each. The Service/Trust I work for has had successive budget cuts, excluding efficiency savings, for the past few years. Staff on the wards of the Trust I work for have been reduced by about 30% and will fall further

I appreciate figures can be manipulated (as can waiting lists!) but I just used that link that Doubleup provided and rebased the healthcare spending up to 2014 levels to remove inflation.  Unless the figures change what is classified as healthcare spending it's probably reasonable data and is comparing apples with apples.

From the quick calculations I did 2010 to 2015 I agree that the NHS spending in current terms seems to have come down (slightly).

[DungBeetle]

The best way for the average joe in the street to improve the NHS long term would be to live a healthier lifestyle in general and reduce the strain on the service long term with problems that could easily be avoiding by better self responsibility.  Amazing how nothing is ever said about that just about pumping more cash into it.

A grim conversation but is this really true?   Rank the below in terms of cost to Government:

- a smoker who pays duty and the NHS treat him while he is dying from cancer at 60
- a smoker who pays duty and drops dead from heart failure/stroke at 60
- a very fit person who live to 100 and has to be cared for in a home for the last 20 years of their life

I have no idea of the answer, but I suspect the fitness bods cost Government more even if they aren't a direct strain on the NHS.

[TightEnd]

mori came out with a poll today, only one poll but interesting

Ukip falls below 10%, Lib Dems at 25-year low

"The Ipsos MORI survey for the Evening Standard hands Labour a two-point lead over the Tories, on shares of 36% and 34% respectively.

Ukip has dropped two points to 9%, the Greens are on 7%, and the Liberal Democrats on 6% - their lowest share in a Ipsos MORI poll for 25 years.

The Lib Dems have also fallen behind the combined share of regional parties Plaid Cymru and the SNP who have 7% of the national vote between them.

There was more bad news for Nick Clegg’s party earlier today, when a study by the boss of YouGov estimated that the Tories could take 11 seats from the Lib Dem heartland in the southwest of England.

Peter Kellner found that Lib Dem support had slumped from 35% in 2010 to just 16% in January, putting the party in fourth place across the region.

According to The Times, Mr Kellner believes the party could lose all its seats bar Bath, Yeovil and Thornbury and Tate, with the Conservatives making gains in seats including St Ives and Taunton Deane. A Lib Dem spokesperson told the paper that “these kinds of broad polls don’t tell us a great deal about our support in the constituencies that matter most”.


good chart

Click to see full-size image.

[arbboy]

The best way for the average joe in the street to improve the NHS long term would be to live a healthier lifestyle in general and reduce the strain on the service long term with problems that could easily be avoiding by better self responsibility.  Amazing how nothing is ever said about that just about pumping more cash into it.

A grim conversation but is this really true?   Rank the below in terms of cost to Government:

- a smoker who pays duty and the NHS treat him while he is dying from cancer at 60
- a smoker who pays duty and drops dead from heart failure/stroke at 60
- a very fit person who live to 100 and has to be cared for in a home for the last 20 years of their life

I have no idea of the answer, but I suspect the fitness bods cost Government more even if they aren't a direct strain on the NHS.

I was thinking away from smoking actually as that is one health issue which recent governments really have got a handle on.  Fair play to the labour govt for banning it in public.   Over eating/drinking and lack of exercise is going to be a much bigger killer in the next 40 years than smoking.

[Doobs]

The best way for the average joe in the street to improve the NHS long term would be to live a healthier lifestyle in general and reduce the strain on the service long term with problems that could easily be avoiding by better self responsibility.  Amazing how nothing is ever said about that just about pumping more cash into it.

A grim conversation but is this really true?   Rank the below in terms of cost to Government:

- a smoker who pays duty and the NHS treat him while he is dying from cancer at 60
- a smoker who pays duty and drops dead from heart failure/stroke at 60
- a very fit person who live to 100 and has to be cared for in a home for the last 20 years of their life

I have no idea of the answer, but I suspect the fitness bods cost Government more even if they aren't a direct strain on the NHS.

Think this is really easy.  20 years in a home is going to cost a million or so.  Long cancer man is going to have to hang around a long time to go that far.  Long cancer is pretty hard to survive from what I have seen.

[kinboshi]

I stumbled across this analysis of public spending, just had a quick look, its an interesting read

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf

That summary is very interesting.  Kind of dispels the myths that tories always cut spending on benefits for the poor

 'Despite large increases in the generosity of
benefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security
spending has grown less quickly than it did under the Conservatives'.

pretty much confirms labour's gross over spend though during their time in power and how poorly the money was spent in general.

'If the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited
in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it
delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less. Alternatively, it could have improved the quality and
quantity of public services by a further 16% for the same cost.'

 

Remember that the IFS isn't an unbiased organisation.

[TightEnd]

Remember that the IFS isn't an unbiased organisation.

not disagreeing with you as such but when i look at

http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/

i read

" The Institute for Fiscal Studies was founded in 1969. Established as an independent research institute, IFS was launched with the principal aim of better informing public debate on economics in order to promote the development of effective fiscal policy. Through the establishment of rigorous independent research, for example the IFS Green Budget and Post Budget analysis, IFS successfully opened up debate about public policy to a wider audience and influenced policy decision making.

Today, IFS is Britain’s leading independent microeconomic research institute. " etc etc

why is it biased?

i know all think tanks etc will left lean or right lean, nothing wrong with that, but thats not exactly bias, is it?

[arbboy]

Remember that the IFS isn't an unbiased organisation.

not disagreeing with you as such but when i look at

http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/

i read

" The Institute for Fiscal Studies was founded in 1969. Established as an independent research institute, IFS was launched with the principal aim of better informing public debate on economics in order to promote the development of effective fiscal policy. Through the establishment of rigorous independent research, for example the IFS Green Budget and Post Budget analysis, IFS successfully opened up debate about public policy to a wider audience and influenced policy decision making.

Today, IFS is Britain’s leading independent microeconomic research institute. " etc etc

why is it biased?

i know all think tanks etc will left lean or right lean, nothing wrong with that, but thats not exactly bias, is it?

I just assumed they were totally indepenent.  The summary certainly read like they were.  It seemed like a decent snap shot of the labour govt's spending patterns.

[AndrewT]

The best way for the average joe in the street to improve the NHS long term would be to live a healthier lifestyle in general and reduce the strain on the service long term with problems that could easily be avoiding by better self responsibility.  Amazing how nothing is ever said about that just about pumping more cash into it.

A grim conversation but is this really true?   Rank the below in terms of cost to Government:

- a smoker who pays duty and the NHS treat him while he is dying from cancer at 60
- a smoker who pays duty and drops dead from heart failure/stroke at 60
- a very fit person who live to 100 and has to be cared for in a home for the last 20 years of their life

I have no idea of the answer, but I suspect the fitness bods cost Government more even if they aren't a direct strain on the NHS.

I was thinking away from smoking actually as that is one health issue which recent governments really have got a handle on.  Fair play to the labour govt for banning it in public.   Over eating/drinking and lack of exercise is going to be a much bigger killer in the next 40 years than smoking.

Yes - in this country smoking is much reduced in the young so smoking related problems will ebb away over time.

Another consideration is that (and I admit I'm supposing here) not only are fat/unhealthy people more likely to need medical intervention through their lives (particularly with diabetes) but they're also more likely to earn less during their lives and thus pay less income tax.

In fact, a bit of googling reveals this - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economics-obesity

[DungBeetle]

True.  But they die younger and this saves money on looking after them when they are old and the State pension.

Swings and roundabouts.

If we all live to 100 then we're going to end up in Logan's Run territory.