|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But you're not comparing like with like; in the mid-1990s we were struggling to emerge from a recession so you would expect there to be a significant deficit and an increase in level of gvt debt proportionate to GDP. You don't expect that in a boom, still less gvt debt breaching the 40% mark - now that's what I call 'humungous'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... before the recession ie: in the boom times, government debt already exceeded 40% of GDP.
I looked at an analysis that places today's public debt in historical perspective (by a lecturer in history); Chart 3 here appears to shows that the UK's debt in 2005, in the boom times, was broadly comparable to that of other industrialised nations - and even the 2010 position may not justify the current 'panic' headlines.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... Now, fiscal wisdom would say that one should in an ideal world be looking to accumulate a surplus in good economic times
When was the last time that a UK government achieved a surplus, rather than public debt? Charts 1 and 2 of the same paper cause me to wonder if any UK government has achieved this for a long time. I could be wrong - but you seem to want to hold a Labour government to a standard that no modern Conservative government (as far as I can tell) has achieved.
The conclusions of the paper that I linked to are worth a look:
"Four dangerous myths have gained a pernicious hold on public policy debate in the last few months. These are, firstly, that British public debt is at an unprecedented and unsustainable level. As we have seen, debt has been higher than its 2009 levels at many points during modern British history. The real 'lesson' we should take from British history is that public sector debt is now at levels that should elicit concern, but not panic. The second myth that must be challenged is that governments must slash spending, right away. Recent history repeatedly shows that the combination of background inflation, resurgent growth, tax rises and the establishment of a sound plateau for public spending are much more likely to be effective over the medium term. A third myth is the idea that the public finances are 'out of control', and particularly that the money borrowed has been wasted. On the contrary, there have undoubtedly been real and sustained improvements in public services, gains that should not now be thrown away with over-hasty cuts. Reducing the rate of public spending increases will, however, still be important over the next few years. But the fourth set of misconceptions, which leads politicians to feel the need to display an exaggerated 'toughness', are likely to frustrate rather than facilitate such efforts[...]."
An atmosphere of panic seems to be developing - and a feeling that 'something must be done, and this is something, therefore this must be done'. We've had similar panics before and the results were not encouraging. In the future, perhaps historians of the 21st century will see the coalition's deep cuts as an economic [url= http://'http://blogs.ft.com/ft-dot-comment/2010/03/09/barking-mad-government-takes-on-dog-owners/]dangerous dogs'[/url] measure?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But you're not comparing like with like; in the mid-1990s we were struggling to emerge from a recession so you would expect there to be a significant deficit and an increase in level of gvt debt proportionate to GDP. You don't expect that in a boom, still less gvt debt breaching the 40% mark - now that's what I call 'humungous'.
Why don't you expect in a boom? The EU target is 60% - that's considered, apparently, ok. This suggests to me (not being an economist) that national finance follow different patterns from what would be considered "normal" in private business.
There will always be, in complex modern societies where there is a general consensus that some element of wealth sharing goes on (either through welfare or healthcare or even through state educaiton) - this means that there will always be a national debt and a deficit because, like the NHS, a government will always be at odds with normal financial practice because there is a wider societal and communitarian point to its activities.
Now, there may well be an argument that government's ought to find mechanisms where they can better benefit from the boom times - although given that governments have very little real control over the whims of the unelected swarm mentality that is "the market", so it's a little churlsih to expect them to be able to do so - the table cited isn't it.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But you're not comparing like with like; in the mid-1990s we were struggling to emerge from a recession so you would expect there to be a significant deficit and an increase in level of gvt debt proportionate to GDP. You don't expect that in a boom, still less gvt debt breaching the 40% mark - now that's what I call 'humungous'.
Matt, I seem to recall that you have a young family, and, I guess, unless you are very fortunate, a mortgage. Could I ask you to consider what proportion of your yearly income you owe to your lender? I'll bet a pound to a penny it's more than 68%. OK, 8% above the recommended Maastricht limit is not, strictly speaking, desirable, but neither is it disasterous. To paint the current economic situation as if it were a threat to the country on a par with WWII is just nonsense.
An, of course, you don't rectify fiscal deficits by cutting, or even by taxing (though the latter would, IMO, be preferable). These are mere tinkering around the edges. You remedy them by growing the economy.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think we (myself included) are in danger of conflating two discrete terms here: surplus/deficit and debt. The former is akin to a profit and loss account and relates to income -v- expenditure in a given fiscal year. The latter relates to the nation's balance sheet and is a measure of how much we owe overall. Thus, if there is a budget surplus, debt will go down, if there is a deficit, it will go up.
Now, Brown, back when he was cast in the role of Prudence some ten years ago, managed to achieve a surplus and thus reduce the government debt. But he then changed roles to Mr Big Spender after 2001 and, during the economic good times, consistently ran up deficits year on year, thus increasing the national debt until, even before the credit cruch hit in 2007, it had breached 40% which, by his own 'Golden Rule' (never mind about what the EU are now saying since such rules have had to be ripped up since the banking crisis), was an acknowledged Bad Thing™.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Shipmate
# 15431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - the government has to resign and someone else be given the chance to form a government.
True.
quote:
So my question is whether it makes any sense whatsoever for tens of universities all to have first year courses in Inorganic Chemistry, Nuclear Physics or Microeconomics or 19th century English Literature, all separately examined and marked to differing standards.
I actually like the fact that universities teach to different standards. I like the fact that more able students are able to go to places like Oxford and Cambridge, and have more expected from them.
Maybe your suggestion would work well for subjects where students are undergoing professional training - Law, for example.
--------------------
was phil2357
Posts: 76 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phil2357:
AIUI, Cameron would need 55% of Commons support to dissolve Parliament. Nothing to do with confidence motions. If a simple majority vote against the government on a confidence motion then a general election has to be called.
To have a general election, Parliament must be dissolved. Under current procedures this is achieved by a request from the PM for the Queen to issue a Royal Proclamation, or when 5 years have elapsed since the start of the current Parliament. The Prime Minister is not required to consult the House of Commons. By convention, the Prime Minister of any government losing a confidence vote would request that Parliament be dissolved - this last happened in 1979.
A 2007 Green Paper proposed that the House of Commons would have to approve any request for dissolution, but this never got beyond the consulation stage. So it looks like this 55% proposal is continuing the theme of Commons approval but making it harder to achieve. The opposition + Lib Dems could not get the required 358 votes to kick out the Tories without the help of rebels on the Conservative side.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Thanks MB for clarifying the difference between the stock of debt and the flow adding to the stock of the deficit, a vital distinction. The issue is whether the course chosen by the government will be enough to ensure that the debt will stabilise or continue to creep upwards. The problem with quoting the deficit figures is that they ignore lots of items, such as PFI and unfunded public sector pensions, the cost of which are a drain on the future income of the government as much as any other form of spending. It's these hidden debts that are frightening the horses; this article suggesting they add 85% to the debt, i.e. raising it from 40 to 125% of GDP.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
But anyway, why would it mean less money for unis even if you charge the same? They pay for only two years, but each year you get have the same number of students in, so the throughput is faster. Surely you would have just as many students at any one time, all paying the same as they do now?
Say intakes are 1,000 per year, and fees are £3,000 per year. That means that with three-year programmes you have 3,000 students at the university in any one year (1,000 in their first year, 1,000 in their second year, 1,000 in their third year*), total fee income for the year £9,000,000.
Assuming the same intakes and fees, with two year programmes you only have 2,000 students at the university in any one year (1,000 in their first year, 1,000 in their second year*)and your total fee income for the year is £6,000,000.
Thus in the example above you lose £3,000,000 per year through changing to two-year programmes.
*= for these purposes, I'm assuming none of them drop out, default on their fees, have to resit a year, etc.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think we (myself included) are in danger of conflating two discrete terms here: surplus/deficit and debt.
That's helpful, thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Now, Brown, back when he was cast in the role of Prudence some ten years ago, managed to achieve a surplus and thus reduce the government debt. But he then changed roles to Mr Big Spender after 2001 and, during the economic good times, consistently ran up deficits year on year ...
So you're arguing that Mr Brown should be blamed for his borrowing which made it more difficult for us to deal with the credit crunch and the recession.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies seem to suggest (p. 1) that Labour's shift from surplus to borrowing during economic good times 'remarkably similar' choices by the last Conservative Government:
"Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red."
Also, the IFS seem to tell a different story about the period after 2001:
"By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector."
Both the Conservatives and Labour have a history of borrowing during economic good times. This seems to suggest that a Conservative government, like Labour, would have borrowed during the good times of the 2000s. Unless you believe that the Conservatives would have prevented the credit crunch, our position now may not have been as different under them as the doomsayers seem to imply.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
An atmosphere of panic seems to be developing - and a feeling that 'something must be done, and this is something, therefore this must be done'. We've had similar panics before and the results were not encouraging. In the future, perhaps historians of the 21st century will see the coalition's deep cuts as an economic [url= http://'http://blogs.ft.com/ft-dot-comment/2010/03/09/barking-mad-government-takes-on-dog-owners/]dangerous dogs'[/url] measure?
The problem is that the size of the debt we have is because we have had an unprecedented growth in the public sector. In some parts of Britain we have almost Stalinist levels of a command and control economy. We might be able to afford this in good times (though the deficit we have built up during the past decade suggests we can't) but we certainly can't afford it in hard times.
More importantly, there should be no panic. Our current straitened times provide a perfect opportunity for the rebalancing of the economy. Creating the conditions for a flourishing private sector is the priority before substantial cuts to the public sector over the course of the Parliament. For Conservatives this is a fantastic opportunity rather than a panicky reaction to the circumstances. A decent Conservative Government would cut the public sector even during a boom period.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
quote:
Originally posted by phil2357:
AIUI, Cameron would need 55% of Commons support to dissolve Parliament. Nothing to do with confidence motions. If a simple majority vote against the government on a confidence motion then a general election has to be called.
To have a general election, Parliament must be dissolved. Under current procedures this is achieved by a request from the PM for the Queen to issue a Royal Proclamation, or when 5 years have elapsed since the start of the current Parliament. The Prime Minister is not required to consult the House of Commons. By convention, the Prime Minister of any government losing a confidence vote would request that Parliament be dissolved - this last happened in 1979.
A 2007 Green Paper proposed that the House of Commons would have to approve any request for dissolution, but this never got beyond the consulation stage. So it looks like this 55% proposal is continuing the theme of Commons approval but making it harder to achieve. The opposition + Lib Dems could not get the required 358 votes to kick out the Tories without the help of rebels on the Conservative side.
It also means, importantly, that the Conservatives can't pull the plug unilaterally.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Yes Alwyn, I think we have to agree that both parties have an unfortunate propensity to overspend during periods of economic growth. What's important is that this time the lesson is learnt, and that there should be a significant commitment to resisting it this time round. Which means that everyone's pet idea for more government expenditure, however worthy, needs to be resisted unless they can prove it will save money in the long term. Let's seek the repentance, not persecution of the sinner...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally quoted by Alwyn:
On the contrary, there have undoubtedly been real and sustained improvements in public services,
There have? Where?
Education still seems to be about the same as when I was at school.
Hospitals are still desperately underfunded.
The transport network is operating at or near capacity, and the creaks are getting louder.
Except weekend evenings outside city-centre pubs, you hardly ever see a police officer any more.
Seriously, where have these "undoubted" "real and sustained improvements" been made?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
So if the No Confidence vote remains at 50% +1, it seems to me that the new 5% rule does two things:
1. In the absence of a No Confidence vote, the whole coalition (or at least Tories plus 51 Lib Dems) must vote for an early election. That sounds Good.
2. In the event of a No Confidence vote, which would mean a third pof the Lib Dems or a big chunk of Tories have lost confidence in the coalition, the government could still face a vote for dissolution. but could still defeat it if they managed 292; this would force it into having to fight every vote going forward individually - potentially allowing space for consensus building, but also potentially be a repeat of the end of the Major government, limping on propposed up by whoever they could do a deal with. This latter point is the disagreeable one, it seems (though, frankly, I'm of the view that if we're headed towards AV/PR and fixed parliaments, the executive could be allowed to carry on with the job in certain circumstances, even in a minority, but I think that's a miority view in itself - government is by the executive, after all, not the entire legislature, and other constitutions require a 60% rebellion in the legislature to topple the executive).
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think this could be the beginning of a drift towards separation of powers in our constitution...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
A 2007 Green Paper proposed that the House of Commons would have to approve any request for dissolution, but this never got beyond the consulation stage. So it looks like this 55% proposal is continuing the theme of Commons approval but making it harder to achieve. The opposition + Lib Dems could not get the required 358 votes to kick out the Tories without the help of rebels on the Conservative side.
But anyone can, if they wish, put down a motion of no confidence in the government which need only be won by one vote, which then gives someone else a chance to form a new government.
I personally don't think there's a sinister plot here. But someone does need to think through what happens if the government loses a vote of no confidence, there is too much chaos for anyone to form a government but 55% of MPs do not vote for a dissolution of Parliament.
ETA: cross posted with dyfrig who explained it better.
[ 14. May 2010, 11:02: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I personally don't think there's a sinister plot here. But someone does need to think through what happens if the government loses a vote of no confidence, there is too much chaos for anyone to form a government but 55% of MPs do not vote for a dissolution of Parliament.
ETA: cross posted with dyfrig who explained it better.
It does seem a convenient co-incidence though that the highest percentage of non-Tory votes comes to 53%. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Dyfrig sums up the potential dilemma well. I forgot about the Major government that lost its majority but continued in power.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Interestingly, Scotland requires a 2/3rds majority for dissolution (hence being able to cope with a minority government) and, whilst weighted for obvious reasons t oesnure some semblence of cross-community consensus, so does Northern Ireland. Wales doesn't seem to have any powers at all to call elections out of synch, and of course the Executive committee of a local authority cannot call an election simply because it loses its majority in Council*. The possibility of minority governance does appear to be tolerated at pretty much every level of UK government.
* only an issue where the Council elected in total every four years.
However, I have moved slightly from the wild-eyed naivete of my previous post - I think the Tories are building in a fail safe mechanism based on current numbers, not just out of altruism. It works like this:
To approve the coalition, Clegg needed the backing of 75% of his 57 MPs - so 15 cold scupper it.
On the basis that the Speaker and Sinn Fein won't vote, a No Conf vote needs 324 to win - on current numbers (and assuming the Tories win Thirsk), this means 16 Lib Dems have to cross the floor. So in the event of a No Conf, the coalition is already over, but Cameron doesn't have to call an election.
Now, it may be that Cameron is an honourable person who acknowledges that his Royal mandate was given him on the basis that he could gather a coalition around him, and would quit anyway. In grown up, consensus politics land, this should be the proper outcome.
But it could also mean:
1. Cameron stays on, minority government continues.
2. Cameron quits but Tories refuse to lay dissolution bill or block an oppposition bill - feck knows what happens then.
3. Tories lay dissolution bill, but the opposition blocks it, forcing the Tories to compromise on the legislative agenda for the rest of the term - quite an attractive route for an opposition that isn't confident of getting a working majority, but wants to start looking like a party that can delivery before the next fixed election.
Ladies and gentlemen, please fasten yhour seatbelts.
[ 14. May 2010, 12:07: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Interestingly, Scotland requires a 2/3rds majority for dissolution (hence being able to cope with a jinority government) and, whilst weighted for obvious reasons t oesnure some semblence of cross-community consensus, so does Northern Ireland. Wales doesn't seem to have any powers at all to call elections out of synch, and of course the Executive committee of a local authority cannot call an election simply because it loses its majority in Council*. The possibility of minority governance does appear to be tolerated at pretty much every level of UK government.
* only an issue where the Council elected in total every four years.
It seems to me that AMs, MSPs and local councillors can handle this alleged dilemma. Perhaps the reality is some traditionalist Tories don't want to understand, Labour is making capital of it (as they are entitled to do) but I am surprised that otherwise knowledgeable political commentators are getting the issues confused, as I am sure that a successful motion of no confidence tabled by the opposion forces the PM to ask for a dissolution.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think we (myself included) are in danger of conflating two discrete terms here: surplus/deficit and debt. The former is akin to a profit and loss account and relates to income -v- expenditure in a given fiscal year. The latter relates to the nation's balance sheet and is a measure of how much we owe overall. Thus, if there is a budget surplus, debt will go down, if there is a deficit, it will go up.
Now, Brown, back when he was cast in the role of Prudence some ten years ago, managed to achieve a surplus and thus reduce the government debt. But he then changed roles to Mr Big Spender after 2001 and, during the economic good times, consistently ran up deficits year on year, thus increasing the national debt until, even before the credit cruch hit in 2007, it had breached 40% which, by his own 'Golden Rule' (never mind about what the EU are now saying since such rules have had to be ripped up since the banking crisis), was an acknowledged Bad Thing™.
Sorry Matt, I wasn't confusing the two - part of the reason for my determination in my posts. Government debt is a complex issue and I don't think you'll find any economist who thinks we should run at zero debt for lots of reasons.
The 'Golden Rule' was about borrowing to invest. Which is undeniably a sensible rule. History will judge to what extent this was acheived.
Part of my annoyance is that there has been no post-war government who didn't run deficits of some description since WWII - this idea that Brown is somehow different from all the others and a Conservative government would not have had a similar structural deficit does not fit with historical experince. Tory governments simply have not done this. Which comes back to my earlier point that the idea that the economic situation is all Brown's fault is not substainable.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally quoted by Alwyn:
On the contrary, there have undoubtedly been real and sustained improvements in public services,
There have? Where?
Education still seems to be about the same as when I was at school.
Hospitals are still desperately underfunded.
The transport network is operating at or near capacity, and the creaks are getting louder.
Except weekend evenings outside city-centre pubs, you hardly ever see a police officer any more.
Seriously, where have these "undoubted" "real and sustained improvements" been made?
Really, Try
Crime: The British Crime Survey
NHS: The King's Fund
It's just not true to say there haven't been improvements.
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I'm not surprised at the degree of confusion about this dissolution / no-confidence / minority government thing: thanks to the likes of Hennesy and Bogdangor, we are not a constitutionally literate people, and all this "jiggery-pokery" is new territory for most of us.
However, some clarification might be in order.
Firstly, as some people have already pointed out, there is a big difference between dissolving the House of Commons and passing a vote of no-confidence in the Government. One results in new elections. The other in the resignation of the Government or, until now, new elections. Fixed term Parliaments mean that the Government cannot just call an election when it wants to in the interests of party advantage (a good thing) and removes much of the uncertainty (will he, won't he) surrounding the Prime Minister's power to dissolve at the time of his choosing. But it does more than that. Crucially, it breaks the automatic link between a vote of no-confidence and a dissolution. In other words, an ordinary majority might pass a vote of no-confidence in the Government, and then the Government would no longer have a choice between resignation and dissolution; instead, it would have to resign. It would then be up to the parties to form a new Government within the existing House of Commons which could be (at least) tolerated by the majority. Only if such an alternative Government were impossible to form, would the parties then agree to pass a resolution (by a 55% vote) to dissolve. That is actually a big step forward for parliamentary, as opposed to Prime Ministerial government, since it removes one of the most potent threats which the PM can wield over backbenchers.
In part, the need for this stems from the nature of the coalition agreement: a coalition with a man who has a sole and arbitrary power to dissolve the House of Commons at will would be a very dangerous prospect for the LibDems. However, it also, and more deeply, stems from the ambiguity surrounding the role and function of the Queen in our (non-existent, or invisible) constitution. Some argue that the Queen has a right to refuse dissolution, and could legitimately do so if, following a vote of no-confidence, an alternative Government could be formed without a general election. The President of Ireland is explicitly granted this sort of discretion, and Ireland is able to combine the roles of non-political figurehead and "impartial arbiter" in the hands of the President.
quote:
- Constitution of Ireland (Irish terms translated into English).
1° The Chamber of Deputies shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
2° The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to
dissolve the Chamber of Deputies on the advice of a Prime Minister who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Chamber of Deputies.
In the UK, where nothing is ever explicit, the dual role of the Queen seems to have slowly atrophied. The desire to "keep the Queen out of politics", which was so clearly manifested during the coalition negotiations, means that her power to refuse a dissolution (at least in public) is now, at best, highly contentious and possibly non-existent. A 55% majority rule is a good way of protecting the House of Commons, and the future of coalition government, from the rash acts of the Prime Minister, without brining the Queen into it. That should please but liberals and conservatives!
That said, I do think the proposal as currently articulated (the detailed plans may be different) have a regrettable omission: they would allow a minority to logjam the political system indefinitely if, following a vote of no-confidence, it were not possible either to form an alternative Government in the existing House of Commons or to muster the majority necessary for a dissolution. It could open the door to opportunist obstruction. The way around this would be to introduce a time-limit clause, so that if, following a vote of no-confidence, an alternative Government has not been appointed within, say, 30 days, then the Speaker would be able to request (i.e. order) an extraordinary dissolution.
The Scotland Act allows an extraordinary dissolution in two circumstances:
quote:
(a) {If} the Parliament resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament, or
(b) {If} any period during which the Parliament is required under section 46 to nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister ends without such a nomination being made.
It's a good system. They should try it.
Finally, there has been a lot of nonsense written on certain blogs about how this would be "unconstitutional". Nonsense. Perhaps the only advantage of not having a proper constitution is that this sort of change cannot be unconstitutional. Also, a vote of the House of Commons calling for a dissolution (and no such vote has been passed since the 1650s, I'm sure) by an ordinary majority would not, as some are suggesting, be a "sovereign" decision of Parliament: Parliamentary Sovereignty (to which I am in any case opposed, but that's irrelevant right now) applies only to an ACT of Parliament, not to every resolution passed by the Commons.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Really, Try
Crime: The British Crime Survey
NHS: The King's Fund
It's just not true to say there haven't been improvements.
The first link says plenty about the BCS, but nothing about crime itself. Besides which, a decrease in crime (if that was what you meant) cannot be laid at any government's door, as it simply means less people are committing crimes. Governments can affect crime reporting and the rate of successful prosecutions, but not the rate at which people actually decide to break the law.
The second link makes a big thing of health trust accountability to parliament being a major improvement. May I respectfully suggest that, as a measure of actual healthcare improvement, that is bullshit. Wooo, they increased red tape! I don't care how accountable my health trust is, I care only that they do a good job of fixing what's wrong with me. It also makes a big thing of the reduction in smoking, which isn't exactly a healthcare issue either. Given that healthcare expenditure has doubled since 1997 (fact taken from the link itself), I'd expect to see some far more tangible improvements.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
[QUOTE] this means that there will always be a national debt and a deficit because, like the NHS, a government will always be at odds with normal financial practice because there is a wider societal and communitarian point to its activities.
That is a very dubious 'always'
Labour following the previous conservative Government spanding plans managed to have a surplus at the turn of the century. It was in about 2001 that Brown decided to throw Keynes away and spend in the boom or did Brown really believe he had ended 'boom and bust'?
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The first link says plenty about the BCS, but nothing about crime itself. Besides which, a decrease in crime (if that was what you meant) cannot be laid at any government's door, as it simply means less people are committing crimes. Governments can affect crime reporting and the rate of successful prosecutions, but not the rate at which people actually decide to break the law.
Really? So rehabilitation, deterrance, effective policing have nothing to do with government policy? Oh dear, that's the worst argument I've heard for a long time.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The second link makes a big thing of health trust accountability to parliament being a major improvement. May I respectfully suggest that, as a measure of actual healthcare improvement, that is bullshit. Wooo, they increased red tape! I don't care how accountable my health trust is, I care only that they do a good job of fixing what's wrong with me. It also makes a big thing of the reduction in smoking, which isn't exactly a healthcare issue either. Given that healthcare expenditure has doubled since 1997 (fact taken from the link itself), I'd expect to see some far more tangible improvements.
Accountability is actually vital. No one would dispute that if this is overly bureacratic then it becomes cumbersome and problematic however that completely misses the point, let me quote the summary;
quote:
There is no doubt that there has been considerable progress in the last 13 years. The NHS is now high performing in several respects and is delivering more care to more people more quickly.
A number of important achievements are highlighted, including major reductions in waiting times and rates of health care associated infections and progress in reducing smoking rates. There has been a concerted effort to implement national standards of care for major diseases across the NHS which has contributed to the continued falls in deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Since when has reduction in people smoking not been a healthcare issue. It falls into the same healthcare bracket as clean water, decent cheap food availability* and encouraging exercise i.e. preventative healthcare rather than curative. I believe that prevention is normally cheaper than curative.
Jengie
*Doesn't mean all food needs to be cheap and available just that there should be enough range that is so as to have a healthy diet.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
That is a very dubious 'always'
Labour following the previous conservative Government spanding plans managed to have a surplus at the turn of the century.
Fair comment as for deficit.
It was in about 2001 that Brown decided to throw Keynes away and spend in the boom or did Brown really believe he had ended 'boom and bust'?
Maybe he did.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Really? So rehabilitation, deterrance, effective policing have nothing to do with government policy? Oh dear, that's the worst argument I've heard for a long time.
Reoffending rates have increased steadily since 2006. link. No credit to the government here.
As for deterrence, punishments have got so lax now as to hardly offer any deterrence at all. How many burglars see jail time?
Effective policing can improve detection and prosecution rates, but doesn't do much for the rate of crimes committed unless there's actually a policeman around just as the crime is about to be committed. And with the amount of police time that's now spent at a desk rather than on the beat, that likelihood has decreased.
quote:
Accountability is actually vital. No one would dispute that if this is overly bureacratic then it becomes cumbersome and problematic however that completely misses the point,
"Accountability" is just a buzzword for more targets and league tables that help no-one and take vital resources away from front line care and into desk jobs.
quote:
let me quote the summary;
quote:
There is no doubt that there has been considerable progress in the last 13 years. The NHS is now high performing in several respects and is delivering more care to more people more quickly.
A number of important achievements are highlighted, including major reductions in waiting times and rates of health care associated infections and progress in reducing smoking rates. There has been a concerted effort to implement national standards of care for major diseases across the NHS which has contributed to the continued falls in deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Waiting time reductions are good, if they're being achieved by actually seeing patients sooner. If they're being achieved by an accountant's trick like not putting troublesome patients on lists in the first place, or by seeing them briefly then leaving them to wait (off the record) for weeks, it's less so.
Healthcare associated infections being reduced is great, but how much does it actually cost to get everyone to wash their freakin' hands on a regular basis?
And again, reducing smoking rates isn't a healthcare issue.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Since when has reduction in people smoking not been a healthcare issue.
I'd define improvements in healthcare as stuff like more hospitals, more beds, more nurses, more doctors, more physios. Instead we have these nebulous "improvements" being touted around (with the associated increase in administration and bureacracy, of course) while actual front-line provision is falling. Wards are closing. Beds are being lost. And you want me to be happy because the government puts up a few posters about not smoking?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd define improvements in healthcare as stuff like ... more nurses, more doctors ...
In 1996, the NHS had 515,000 doctors and 319,000 nurses.
In 2006, the NHS had 675,000 doctors and 398,000 nurses. (NHS Information Centre)
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for deterrence, punishments have got so lax now as to hardly offer any deterrence at all. How many burglars see jail time?
Effective policing can improve detection and prosecution rates, but doesn't do much for the rate of crimes committed unless there's actually a policeman around just as the crime is about to be committed. And with the amount of police time that's now spent at a desk rather than on the beat, that likelihood has decreased.
The last government introduced more legislation on crime than any other government, ever, and all of it pusing the balance more in favour of the prosecution and less in favour of the criminal. To get an ASBO, you don't even have to have committed a crime - it's all done through a civil process. We are not soft on crime in this country, and never have been compared to the rest of Europe.
As for 'a policeman around just as the crime is about to be committed' that's what intelligence led policing is all about, and why it's successful. You won't see a policeman walking your peaceful street - he'll be where the action is taking place. Yes, there's paperwork - would you prefer people to be convicted without a proper record of evidence? There will never be enough policemen to stand one on every street corner, and frankly I don't care if I never see one again, so long as the crime rate keeps falling.
[ 14. May 2010, 14:18: Message edited by: Moth ]
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd define improvements in healthcare as stuff like more hospitals, more beds, more nurses, more doctors, more physios. Instead we have these nebulous "improvements" being touted around (with the associated increase in administration and bureacracy, of course) while actual front-line provision is falling. Wards are closing. Beds are being lost. And you want me to be happy because the government puts up a few posters about not smoking?
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Number of Nurses in England in 1999 - 261,340 (Whole-time equivelent): 2009 - 336,007
Number of doctors 1999 - 88,693: 2009 132,683
(managers and senior managers 23,378 / 42, 509
The perceptages are also quite revealing;
Nurses in 1999 made up 30% of all NHS staff and 29% in 2009. Doctors 10% in 1999 and 11% in 2009 and managers have masssive increased from 3% to 4%.
Now it is true that the total number of NHS beds has reduced since 1997. However that is part of a much longer-term trend. There are a lot fewer hospital beds because we don't need as many. Hospital stays are now much shorter than they used to be. Historically patients undergoing a mastectomy would go home after 7 days. The median is now 3 days (1 in some hospitals). Similarly after major bowel surgery we used to keep patients starved for days and slowly build them up. Now most patients beginning eating within 24 hours of surgery and often go home within 2-3 days.
So which part of the past 13 years are you objecting to?
The biggest hospital building program in the NHS's history?
The increase in nursing staff?
The increase in doctors?
The increase in physios?
The improvement in health outcomes by (virtually) every measure?
The only bit of your rant that's true is the reduction in bed numbers but that's not really relevant.
Oh and public health measures like stopping people smoking are astoundingly cost-effective.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd define improvements in healthcare as stuff like ... more nurses, more doctors ...
In 1996, the NHS had 515,000 doctors and 319,000 nurses.
In 2006, the NHS had 675,000 doctors and 398,000 nurses. (NHS Information Centre)
Alwyn those figures aren't quite right - you were reading the wrong row!
See my previous post!
(Same source)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd define improvements in healthcare as stuff like ... more nurses, more doctors ...
In 1996, the NHS had 515,000 doctors and 319,000 nurses.
In 2006, the NHS had 675,000 doctors and 398,000 nurses. (NHS Information Centre)
Wow, that would really have been something. A doctor on every street corner anyway, even if no policeman. But in fact the figures for doctors were 87,000 rising to 126,000.
I'd be interested in seeing how NHS doctors' salaries have risen over that time frame too if anyone has the stats. The common assertion is that the NHS now showers gold on doctors, and that this is where most of the huge extra investment has gone. I've no idea if that's true (though my GP does seem to have a new car every time I see him).
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
But in fact the figures for doctors were 87,000 rising to 126,000.
Indeed! My bad. Clearly I didn't know what I was talking about. Thank you for posting the accurate figure.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'd be interested in seeing how NHS doctors' salaries have risen over that time frame too if anyone has the stats. The common assertion is that the NHS now showers gold on doctors, and that this is where most of the huge extra investment has gone. I've no idea if that's true (though my GP does seem to have a new car every time I see him).
Doctor's pay
Doctor's pay is quite complex because the out-of-hours pay is on-top of a basic salary. Those figures are based on a significant out-of-hours workload including night shifts.
If you want the figures for pre-1997, I'll have to dig around a bit.
I would never complain about my salary - I earn more than enough to live on but consider this, if I take out your appendix, in effect I get paid £8 (Before tax). (My basic salary is just over £16/hour and a straight-forward appendicectomy takes 25-30 minutes). I don't feel showered with gold. Especially as I'll be paying off my student loans for a least another 5 years.
Similarly nursing pay has been increased significantly but it's far from a King's ransom. Nursing Pay Rates 2010 A 'Band 4' is a qualified nurse (1-3 are healthcare assistance or anxially nurses). Most staff nurses on a ward would be either Band 4 or 5.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
The joker in the claims about falling crime figures is the continuing increase in (occupied) prison places; if
a) Crime is falling
b) The courts are not punishing harshly enough
then c) Rising prison population is not the expected outcome... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
I'm a bloodsucking lawyer so I'm not about to complain about the salary earned by doctors. But that page only tells me what doctors tend to earn on average recently (as from April 2009). I was interested to know how much that has increased (in proportionate terms rather than absolute cash terms) over the period when the NHS got a large infusion of treasure. As I say, the common perception is that far too much of the increased investment has gone either to employ tens of thousand sof extra bureaucrats, or to enable every doctor to have his own yacht. I've absolutely no idea how close to the mark that sort of criticism really is.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Waiting time reductions are good, if they're being achieved by actually seeing patients sooner. If they're being achieved by an accountant's trick like not putting troublesome patients on lists in the first place, or by seeing them briefly then leaving them to wait (off the record) for weeks, it's less so.
I can only speak as an ordinary user of the NHS.
In the (bad) old days, my doctor might decide a non-urgent x-ray was advisable. I'd go home, and after perhaps a month I'd get a letter from the hospital, making an appointment in a month's time or so. If I was lucky, and it wasn't cancelled and postponed, I'd go along to the hospital, where with various waits I'd spend half a day.
Now, when the same happens, my doctor will give me a slip of paper with a phone number on it. I'll ring up and ask for an appointment. "Can you come in next Monday at 10?" which I accept. When I arrive, I'll be seen usually within ten minutes.
The NHS as far as I'm concerned has improved out of all recognition in the last few years.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'm a bloodsucking lawyer so I'm not about to complain about the salary earned by doctors. But that page only tells me what doctors tend to earn on average recently (as from April 2009). I was interested to know how much that has increased (in proportionate terms rather than absolute cash terms) over the period when the NHS got a large infusion of treasure. As I say, the common perception is that far too much of the increased investment has gone either to employ tens of thousand sof extra bureaucrats, or to enable every doctor to have his own yacht. I've absolutely no idea how close to the mark that sort of criticism really is.
Try this: King's Fund
The graph near the bottom is the change in pay in real terms. Everyone in the health service has had a real increase in pay. Managers less than the rest of us and consultants the most.
I hadn't realised how much of an increase there has been in consultant pay.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
My wife is a physiotherapist in a big-city hospital. I am regaled daily with tales of how they don't have enough beds, how short-staffed they are, and how they are pressured to discharge patients before they're ready to be discharged so that targets can be kept to.
Frankly, I want to know where all those extra staff you mention are, coz despite the need they ain't round here.
quote:
Now it is true that the total number of NHS beds has reduced since 1997. However that is part of a much longer-term trend. There are a lot fewer hospital beds because we don't need as many. Hospital stays are now much shorter than they used to be.
Which ties in with what I'm told about there being pressure to discharge patients before they're ready.
quote:
So which part of the past 13 years are you objecting to?
The biggest hospital building program in the NHS's history?
Are they new hospitals, or replacements for existing ones? I mean, we've got a completely new hospital nearly finished round here, but it's replacing two previously existing ones...
quote:
The increase in nursing staff?
The increase in doctors?
The increase in physios?
Well, like I said they ain't round here. My wife had to wait two years to get a job after graduating, because they were only hiring on a "one out, one in" basis.
quote:
The improvement in health outcomes by (virtually) every measure?
Measures such as? And to what extent are they the result of government policy as opposed to the general increase in standard of living and advances made by medical science?
quote:
The only bit of your rant that's true is the reduction in bed numbers but that's not really relevant.
It is if you're one of the people that needs one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
My wife is a physiotherapist in a big-city hospital. I am regaled daily with tales of how they don't have enough beds, how short-staffed they are, and how they are pressured to discharge patients before they're ready to be discharged so that targets can be kept to.
Frankly, I want to know where all those extra staff you mention are, coz despite the need they ain't round here.
quote:
Now it is true that the total number of NHS beds has reduced since 1997. However that is part of a much longer-term trend. There are a lot fewer hospital beds because we don't need as many. Hospital stays are now much shorter than they used to be.
Which ties in with what I'm told about there being pressure to discharge patients before they're ready.
quote:
So which part of the past 13 years are you objecting to?
The biggest hospital building program in the NHS's history?
Are they new hospitals, or replacements for existing ones? I mean, we've got a completely new hospital nearly finished round here, but it's replacing two previously existing ones...
quote:
The increase in nursing staff?
The increase in doctors?
The increase in physios?
Well, like I said they ain't round here. My wife had to wait two years to get a job after graduating, because they were only hiring on a "one out, one in" basis.
quote:
The improvement in health outcomes by (virtually) every measure?
Measures such as? And to what extent are they the result of government policy as opposed to the general increase in standard of living and advances made by medical science?
quote:
The only bit of your rant that's true is the reduction in bed numbers but that's not really relevant.
It is if you're one of the people that needs one.
I'm sorry but you defined improvements as 'more doctors, more nurses and more physios'
The figures clearly show that this has occured.
If you're trying to tell me that more needs to be done, I wouldn't disagree, but that's not what you said.
Number of beds needed is a complicated question - falling numbers is not necessarily a problem - we do genuinely need less beds than we had 20 years ago, I would personally argue that we don't have enough - but the simple trend of falling numbers doesn't in itself prove anything.
In terms of healthcare outcomes, try this: National Audit Office Report on NHS England
No one ever said the NHS was perfect. It's just your claim that it hasn't improved is ridiculous.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Now it is true that the total number of NHS beds has reduced since 1997. However that is part of a much longer-term trend. There are a lot fewer hospital beds because we don't need as many. Hospital stays are now much shorter than they used to be.
Which ties in with what I'm told about there being pressure to discharge patients before they're ready.
Now, see, this is where your general cynical air becomes rather tiresome. It fails to engage with the point that ways of treatment have actually changed reducing the actual overall need for beds.
This does not deny that some targets do create a hideous statistical feedback loop (my old GP wouldn't let you make an appointment more than 48 hours in advance, because the target was that no-one should wait more than 48 hours - you have to admire the chutzpah, at least), but to fail to grasp that the measure of the success of a health service cannot be boiled down to one statistic and divorce health care form wider policies is ludicrous.
In reality, a government should be aiming to have very few beds in use because other policies - on smoking drinking, eating, etc - create a culture in which people take a little more care of themselves and don't need to go to hospital as much. Developing a TB vaccine was a much better way of dealing with the cost of TB clinics than making more bes available in them.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Try this: King's Fund
The graph near the bottom is the change in pay in real terms. Everyone in the health service has had a real increase in pay. Managers less than the rest of us and consultants the most.
I hadn't realised how much of an increase there has been in consultant pay.
Thanks. I can see how critics of the (outgoing) government can argue that a lot of investment money has gone into lining pockets rather than refurbishing wards. Surely under no administration, but least of all under a Labour one, would it seem right that (for example):
all the medical staff who were the most highly paid in the first place should be gifted real terms increases of >180% (against an average for the NHS of around 20%) or that
the number of very senior managers should increase by 82% and the number of non-senior admin people (but who nevertheless could be earning anything up to £97,000) should increase by 61%.
I hasten to say that I'm not disputing the increased investment in the NHS hasn't also resulted in more doctors and nurses than there used to be, to improvements in the quality of NHS premises and so forth. But even looking at these very basic statistics it's clear that a lot of the additional investment has been spent less prudently than many tax payers would have hoped for.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
Thanks. I can see how critics of the (outgoing) government can argue that a lot of investment money has gone into lining pockets rather than refurbishing wards. Surely under no administration, but least of all under a Labour one, would it seem right that (for example):
all the medical staff who were the most highly paid in the first place should be gifted real terms increases of >180% (against an average for the NHS of around 20%) or that
the number of very senior managers should increase by 82% and the number of non-senior admin people (but who nevertheless could be earning anything up to £97,000) should increase by 61%.
Maybe. The issue of management in the NHS is a complicated one. Firstly the number of managers has increased from ~3% of all NHS staff to ~4%. Which, I am told (I don't know) is still very low for a large, complex organisation.
A good manager earns their salary in the sense that good management will produce productivity (how-the-hell you actually measure that in healthcare is a different question).
The Consultant's salary is an interesting one - I need to look at the data properly. It may be the case that the massive increase is due to the fact that consultants now do more 'sessions' for the NHS and thus it's not really comparing like-with-like. I'll need to look into it.
Of course, as you said, that's off-the-point a little - the idea that there has been no improvement is ludicrous.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
I'll have another go ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) . Marvin the Martian said that improvements in health care could be shown by (among other things) more front line staff. Does that test for improvement also apply to teachers and police officers?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Education still seems to be about the same as when I was at school.
This graph appears to suggest that the number of teachers fell under the last Conservative Government and rose under Labour. They say "There were 12,000 more teachers in schools in the UK in 2004/05 than there were in 1997/98. This followed a fall between 1981/82 and 1997/98 from 493,000 to 429,000."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hospitals are still desperately underfunded..
It seems that the NHS has more nurses and doctors, even though I got the numbers wrong before.
Are hospitals underfunded? Of course they could use more funds and there are problems. Funding does appear to have risen. For example, in England from 1997/98 to 2007/08, real-terms expenditure on the NHS rose by 82%. A graph on p. 4 (of this document) seems to show that NHS spending (in England, as a percentage of GDP) fell at times under the Conservatives but rose under Labour.
You also mentioned transport and the police. I won't deny that there are real problems with transport. Apparently "the number of police officers reached an all-time high of 142,151 in 2009 - 15,337 higher than a decade ago".
Is there waste and do some public sector workers have too much paperwork? Almost certainly. However, we have more teachers, more doctors and nurses and more police officers than we did before. So there does seem to be some evidence of improvements from public spending since 1997, doesn't there?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally quoted by Alwyn:
On the contrary, there have undoubtedly been real and sustained improvements in public services,
There have? Where?
Education still seems to be about the same as when I was at school.....Seriously, where have these "undoubted" "real and sustained improvements" been made?
In the employment of teaching assistants and giving teachers preparation time in primary schools and guaranteed free periods in secondary schools under the 'rarely cover' scheme.
This has meant that teachers can get on with teaching and learning activities instead of spending hours photocopying, putting up wall displays and so on.
It also means that most class sizes are effectively halved because there are two adults in every class so that pupils with special needs get close attention and the other teacher is freed up to help the others ion the class.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A lot of leo's bile suggests that he's been out in the spring sunshine for too long. I don't really understand his thing about IVF, though. Is his complaint that the Conservative party isn't funding it for certain people?
I've never really thought that people have the right to a child and certainly don't have a right for the state to help them have a child. A lot of people may well disagree with that view but I don't see how a belief that the state shouldn't pay for IVF is 'Christian' or 'un-Christian'.
I was not saying that IVF was a human rights issue.
I cited IVF and human rights as two separate issues.
Today's Daily Telegraph backs me up - my original statement that Cameron isn't interested in human rights was not about IVF or gays in Lithuania.
Thanks to Ken Clarke, whom I have always liked, even when he savaged education, Cameron's lack of concern for human rights won't become law.
'A Conservative pledge to rip up the Human Rights Act has been kicked into the long grass after Kenneth Clarke, the new Justice Secretary, signalled it was not a priority. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7721590/Coalition-government-Conservatives-drop-plans-to-scr ap-European-Human-Rights-Act.html
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Part of the problem in evaluating claims re the NHS is the confusion of units of measurement:- increase in funding
- increase in funding "in real terms"
- increase in absolute numbers of staff group
- increase in percentage of staff group
- ratio of staff group to population
- increase in wages absolute
- increase in wages in percentage terms
- increase in wages above inflation
It is worth being cautious about statements about the number of NHS managers, certainly when Unison makes statements of that kind - they mean all staff on a Band 7 salary or above, regardless of their actual role. However, not all staff on that pay grade are managers many thousands of them are clinicians.
Consultant salaries, and GP partner salaries are the ones where it seemed to go wrong. Basically, I think, like most other healthcare workers doctors should be salaried. With overtime, unsocial hours and on-call pay as appropriate.
I do not think doctors should be paid for carrying out specific parts of their role - eg physical health review for each patient with a mental health problem once a year. Or meeting a target for performance. CPNs don't get an extra payment because they meet a target that 90% of patients should have a careplan updated within the previous 12mths - they are just expected to do it because it is part of their job. GP partner and consultant pay jumped because targeted pay was included - this was a mistake and it should be corrected when the contracts are renegotiated.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Of course, as you said, that's off-the-point a little - the idea that there has been no improvement is ludicrous.
AFZ
If I gave that impression I'm sorry - I didn't mean to imply that the NHS headcount and and salary statistics are entirely off the point. Whilst I would agree that there have been improvements in the NHS in the last decade or so that's not the same as accepting that the improvements have come at a sensible cost or have been wisely created, or that the improvements can be sustained.
The exact extent of the NHS's funding bonanza is hard to pin down exactly despite the vast quantity of statistics available (and previously there has been a lot of underinvestment of course). But candidly if you threw an increase in funding of (say) inflation+80% at absolutely any business or organisation it would perform better. The questions are:
could the same improvements have been achieved without such vast expense?
could more improvements have been expected for that sort of cost?
and given that such largesse isn't going to be sustainable will the improvements that have been made be lost when the river of taxpayers' gold runs dry?
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
