UK General Election 2015

[AndrewT]

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

Which, of course, has its benefits.

[doubleup]

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.

Smoking has also been linked to dementia and copd is very expensive to manage.  So the cancer/heart disease comparision is pointless.  (It also ignores the loss of productivity and associated benefits to society lost by the premature death)

[nirvana]

The coalition have been terrible at reducing Government spending and waste I agree.

However the figures do NOT show that the deficit was caused by a collapse in tax revenue.   Gordon Brown ran a deficit between 2002 and 2007 when tax receipts were at a record high.   The deficit obviously increased when the credit crisis happened, but that is absolutely no excuse for running a deficit during a massive boom.   

Where would you cut the spending? - its all there in the link

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2014UKbn_14bc1n#ukgs302

Health, Pensions, Welfare.

We simply don't generate enough tax as a country to justify the largesse in these areas.  The NHS is a bottomless unaccountable pit, and the state pensions are unsustainable unfortunately.

I'd also address public sector pensions.  They would all have their current benefits frozen and be moved to defined benefit schemes effective immediately.

The item of welfare I'd slash would be housing benefit.  If you can't afford to pay for your own accomodation then you won't be living in London

The chances of a party with these policies being voted in are precisely ZERO so nobody needs to worry.

aye because social and geographical mobility are famously at an all time high.

let's just shoot the poor as well.

[TightEnd]

interest rates went negative in sweden today

the government is paying you to borrow

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/business/international/sweden-cuts-interest-rate-and-announces-bond-buying-program.html?_r=0

[MintTrav]

Labour spent money on the health service, as they said they would, and improved it dramatically. They did something similar with schools. Spending money is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes things need to be improved. Of course it depends what you spend it on, how much you have left, and so on, but anyone would think that government spending was a bad thing by reading this thread.

[arbboy]

Labour spent money on the health service, as they said they would, and improved it dramatically. They did something similar with schools. Spending money is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes things need to be improved. Of course it depends what you spend it on, how much you have left, and so on, but anyone would think that government spending was a bad thing by reading this thread.

It is a relative bad thing if it ends up with the country paying the defence budget every year in interest payments when it could have been budgeted better and in a more cost effective manner with less waste for the same products/services as the independent report earlier would suggest.  So you don't only pay over the odds once in the actual purchase cost you then pay again in interest for the bad management further down the line through the financial mis management.

[RickBFA]

Labour spent money on the health service, as they said they would, and improved it dramatically. They did something similar with schools. Spending money is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes things need to be improved. Of course it depends what you spend it on, how much you have left, and so on, but anyone would think that government spending was a bad thing by reading this thread.

I think the problem is to use your phrase "how much you have left" was constantly negative even in economic boom times.

Constantly building more and more debt with no planning for bad times was a dangerous game.

Building the level of public spending by 4.4% in real terms each year wasn't sustainable in the long term.

[Kmac84]

Some interesting stuff posted but there are still some people who live in a bubble. 

I see the poor, the elderly and the fat are being picked on.  Makes a change from the foreigner. 

How much does the professional gambler/poker player cost the economy?

What's needed is a fresh approach, successive governments stick to the same failed policies of yester year. 

[redsimon]

Labour spent money on the health service, as they said they would, and improved it dramatically. They did something similar with schools. Spending money is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes things need to be improved. Of course it depends what you spend it on, how much you have left, and so on, but anyone would think that government spending was a bad thing by reading this thread.

I think the problem is to use your phrase "how much you have left" was constantly negative even in economic boom times.

Constantly building more and more debt with no planning for bad times was a dangerous game.

Building the level of public spending by 4.4% in real terms each year wasn't sustainable in the long term.

How much is the national debt today compared with April 2010?

[arbboy]

Some interesting stuff posted but there are still some people who live in a bubble. 

I see the poor, the elderly and the fat are being picked on.  Makes a change from the foreigner. 

How much does the professional gambler/poker player cost the economy?

What's needed is a fresh approach, successive governments stick to the same failed policies of yester year. 

In what sense Kmac?  Lack of income tax paid?  Cost to NHS from lifestyle? 

[nirvana]

Some interesting stuff posted but there are still some people who live in a bubble. 

I see the poor, the elderly and the fat are being picked on.  Makes a change from the foreigner. 

How much does the professional gambler/poker player cost the economy?

What's needed is a fresh approach, successive governments stick to the same failed policies of yester year. 

Excellent use of yester year

[david3103]

Some interesting stuff posted but there are still some people who live in a bubble. 

I see the poor, the elderly and the fat are being picked on.  Makes a change from the foreigner. 

How much does the professional gambler/poker player cost the economy?

What's needed is a fresh approach, successive governments stick to the same failed policies of yester year. 

Excellent use of yester year

If we ignore the fact that it's only one word.

Got any ideas as to what this fresh approach should be?

[Kmac84]

Some interesting stuff posted but there are still some people who live in a bubble. 

I see the poor, the elderly and the fat are being picked on.  Makes a change from the foreigner. 

How much does the professional gambler/poker player cost the economy?

What's needed is a fresh approach, successive governments stick to the same failed policies of yester year. 

In what sense Kmac?  Lack of income tax paid?  Cost to NHS from lifestyle? 

Both. 

Quite a few poker players gambles are over weight, smokers heavy drinkers and over indulge in in many other excesses.

[MintTrav]

Interesting how some people always target areas like health, social care, housing, benefits. No doubt savings can be made there, but they can also be made in other areas, you know. I'd start by taking an axe to military spending.

[arbboy]

Interesting how some people always target areas like health, social care, housing, benefits. No doubt savings can be made there, but they can also be made in other areas, you know. I'd start by taking an axe to military spending.

I would target spending £47bn a year on debt interest and start having a surplus so we can lend to other countries and earn interest rather than pay it.  That would take a tory government for 20 years though so please stop voting labour!