The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

Corbyn is desperate to stop banging on about Europe. Why? All out Brexit opposition, his inner circle’s concluded, only leads to a culture war they can’t win, undermining Lab’s core electoral strategy: populist economics based on class interest.

says

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-still-half-hearted-about-europe/

[TightEnd]

This government – this hopeless government, I should say – is kept alive by only one thing: the impossibility of the opposition, says Alex Massie.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-dreadful-state-of-british-politics/

[TightEnd]

This is quite a quote from a Labour MP: “Having spent a lifetime trying to get a Labour government into power, I’m now in the incredible position of doing everything I can to stop Corbyn becoming our next prime minister."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-conference-party-members-nec-brexit-a8552416.html

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

[DungBeetle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

[Pokerpops]

This is quite a quote from a Labour MP: “Having spent a lifetime trying to get a Labour government into power, I’m now in the incredible position of doing everything I can to stop Corbyn becoming our next prime minister."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-conference-party-members-nec-brexit-a8552416.html

This is a pretty incredible quote from the article...

I am told that Tony Blair wants to lead a new centre party, despite his apparent denials. But even his admirers are divided over whether he should. Some ask: what would be the point of what would inevitably be dubbed a “Blairite” party without the man himself? If he were guiding another leader from the wings, why not lead it himself? 

[DungBeetle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

The article is about the debt that has been taken on by the very poor,“45% of the poorest 20%” in distressed debt. I just looked it up, this is people who are actually defaulting on their debts. 

It’s a different discussion but...Is the housing market in good shape then?

Thankfully on these subjects we’re talking about things that can be measured, which always helps.

[DungBeetle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

The article is about the debt that has been taken on by the very poor,“45% of the poorest 20%” in distressed debt. I just looked it up, this is people who are actually defaulting on their debts. 

It’s a different discussion but...Is the housing market in good shape then?

Thankfully on these subjects we’re talking about things that can be measured, which always helps.

Well the article uses figures for total household debt and then goes on to make a point about the poorest.  I’m sure the poorest are indeed more likely to default but that would happen irrespective of government policy if banks are lending?  I don’t think total personal debt is necessarily a guide to levels of government spending.  I imagine personal debt was rocketing along in 2005 when Brown was spending heavily and then the personal debt to GDP figure would have ballooned the minute the crisis hit.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

The article is about the debt that has been taken on by the very poor,“45% of the poorest 20%” in distressed debt. I just looked it up, this is people who are actually defaulting on their debts. 

It’s a different discussion but...Is the housing market in good shape then?

Thankfully on these subjects we’re talking about things that can be measured, which always helps.

Well the article uses figures for total household debt and then goes on to make a point about the poorest.  I’m sure the poorest are indeed more likely to default but that would happen irrespective of government policy if banks are lending?  I don’t think total personal debt is necessarily a guide to levels of government spending.  I imagine personal debt was rocketing along in 2005 when Brown was spending heavily and then the personal debt to GDP figure would have ballooned the minute the crisis hit.

No one is saying it’s a guide to government spending. We know there have been massive cuts, the government declare them and it’s literally what austerity is. The premise it that the poorest in society know have to borrow to survive. Seems strange to introduce a guess about what was happening in 2005. It must be publicly available information.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

The article is about the debt that has been taken on by the very poor,“45% of the poorest 20%” in distressed debt. I just looked it up, this is people who are actually defaulting on their debts. 

It’s a different discussion but...Is the housing market in good shape then?

Thankfully on these subjects we’re talking about things that can be measured, which always helps.

Well the article uses figures for total household debt and then goes on to make a point about the poorest.  I’m sure the poorest are indeed more likely to default but that would happen irrespective of government policy if banks are lending?  I don’t think total personal debt is necessarily a guide to levels of government spending.  I imagine personal debt was rocketing along in 2005 when Brown was spending heavily and then the personal debt to GDP figure would have ballooned the minute the crisis hit.

No one is saying it’s a guide to government spending. We know there have been massive cuts, the government declare them and it’s literally what austerity is. The premise it that the poorest in society know have to borrow to survive. Seems strange to introduce a guess about what was happening in 2005. It must be publicly available information.

It’s in The Guardian but straight from the ONS and it’s quite shocking:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/26/household-debt-in-uk-worse-than-at-any-time-on-record

[DungBeetle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.

Might’ve have nailed it, if it wasn’t for the fact that all austerity has done is move the debt to a much less suitable place. I know there’s an inherent bias in the NS, there is almost everywhere though and nothing here is in serious dispute.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/04/lower-government-borrowing-doesn-t-prove-austerity-has-been-success#amp

Household debt includes mortgages which are the biggest ticket items.  If housing market activity picks up that has no relevance to austerity.

I’m not clear on how whether it’s relevant to austerity can be dependent on the state of the housing market? Just a flaw in my understanding, certainly not an attempt to be argumentative.

I guess my point is if we use household debt increases as an indicator for reduced government spending policies it might fall down because while I agree people will use Wonga and overdrafts more if wages are stagnating the figure of household debt is skewed by mortgage activity (ie presumably increased mortgage activity is a sign of confidence rather than downturns)

The article is about the debt that has been taken on by the very poor,“45% of the poorest 20%” in distressed debt. I just looked it up, this is people who are actually defaulting on their debts. 

It’s a different discussion but...Is the housing market in good shape then?

Thankfully on these subjects we’re talking about things that can be measured, which always helps.

Well the article uses figures for total household debt and then goes on to make a point about the poorest.  I’m sure the poorest are indeed more likely to default but that would happen irrespective of government policy if banks are lending?  I don’t think total personal debt is necessarily a guide to levels of government spending.  I imagine personal debt was rocketing along in 2005 when Brown was spending heavily and then the personal debt to GDP figure would have ballooned the minute the crisis hit.

No one is saying it’s a guide to government spending. We know there have been massive cuts, the government declare them and it’s literally what austerity is. The premise it that the poorest in society know have to borrow to survive. Seems strange to introduce a guess about what was happening in 2005. It must be publicly available information.

It’s in The Guardian but straight from the ONS and it’s quite shocking:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/26/household-debt-in-uk-worse-than-at-any-time-on-record

Define “household debt”. The household debt to GDP figure soared all through the 2000s, plummeted after 2010 to 2014 and has risen slightly since then?  No idea how to do a link but it’s on trading eco mics site.

[MANTIS01]

Anyone still think it wasn't the Russians?

[kukushkin88]

Household debt is just exactly as it sounds, combine all debts of every member of a household. There seem to be two approved comparisons, as a  percentage of GDP and as a percentage of income. It seems percentage of income is the one which will reveal if there’s a problem in the poorest sections of society.

I think you meant this one, it’s % of GDP:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/households-debt-to-gdp

The Guardian article is interesting, I recommend reading it.