advertisement


Budget 2023

No detail whatsoever in the alternative Labour plan on R4 this morning? Just blaming the mess with no answers . Not a way to win over the public

Hunt left plenty of landmines in that lot. I would be surprised if any opposition put out much detail without knowing what they would be looking at come the actual election date. But obviously expect plenty then.

But if the public are daft enough to vote again for Tories and somehow expect different results, that's on them.
 
Nothing on health and equality

"UK is now the second most economically unequal country in Europe after Bulgaria."

"While life expectancy has increased in absolute terms, similar countries have experienced larger increases, they wrote. In the 1950s, the UK had one of the longest life expectancies in the world, ranking seventh globally behind countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but in 2021 the UK was ranked 29th."

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ing-at-slower-rate-to-comparable-g7-countries

Well, there sort of was something on inequality - just compare the giveaways to the richest pensioners with the increased surveillance and sanctioning for people on benefits.

There was just nothing on reducing inequality, because they don’t want to do that.

One does not help the poor, one punishes them until they stop choosing to be poor.
 
Hunt left plenty of landmines in that lot. I would be surprised if any opposition put out much detail without knowing what they would be looking at come the actual election date. But obviously expect plenty then.

But if the public are daft enough to vote again for Tories and somehow expect different results, that's on them.

It's already on them as they keep doing it.
 
But if the public are daft enough to vote again for Tories and somehow expect different results, that's on them.
I'm sorry but I don't think the general public will accept that there are no Labour positions on anything. The only single response to the budget was scrap the lifetime allowance - which is an easy vote winner because it talks about people with £1m pension.
It will be interesting to see whether that policy does bring/keep more doctors in work. If it does - Labour will have a problem
 
I'm sorry but I don't think the general public will accept that there are no Labour positions on anything. The only single response to the budget was scrap the lifetime allowance - which is an easy vote winner because it talks about people with £1m pension.
It will be interesting to see whether that policy does bring/keep more doctors in work. If it does - Labour will have a problem

Not really, it's unlikley to make much difference and in terms of the overall rundown of the NHS over 13 years - it's a snowflake in an avalanche. You'd have to be pretty determined to vote Tory on this record.
 
So let's vote tory to access their "Modern Slavery System".
Maggie broke (most of) the Unions, Cameron gave us "I Daniel Blake" and retirement at 68, Hunt gives us 1.1m vacancies yet will force 2.7m into work. It's all very well having a position but this is both evil and cloud cuckoo at the same time.
 
The have been two serious mistakes in Government over the years, Thatcher (the destruction of manufacturing) and Austerity (which compounded the structural problems). These are the overwhelming reasons for the long term decline and why taxes are so high for so little public spending. There aren't any quick fixes but Labour needs to be serious about reducing inequility and improving health. Raising public sector pay inline with inflation was as easy step that could have been in the budget yesterday but for political choice.
 
Nothing on health and equality

"UK is now the second most economically unequal country in Europe after Bulgaria."

"While life expectancy has increased in absolute terms, similar countries have experienced larger increases, they wrote. In the 1950s, the UK had one of the longest life expectancies in the world, ranking seventh globally behind countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but in 2021 the UK was ranked 29th."

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ing-at-slower-rate-to-comparable-g7-countries
Yes, if we want a happier, healthier population, and a more stable economy, the focus has to be on closing the wealth gap.

It we want to see what caused the wealth gap to start to widen, and why it has continued to wider, we need to look at when it started.

It started in 1979.
 
Well, there sort of was something on inequality - just compare the giveaways to the richest pensioners with the increased surveillance and sanctioning for people on benefits.

There was just nothing on reducing inequality, because they don’t want to do that.

One does not help the poor, one punishes them until they stop choosing to be poor.

Big problem recently was the dismal annuity rates, when i retired best quote was around 3% so i'd need to have £1.5m in a fund to equal a nurses' pension (c£45k at the time).

My wife retired at 55 with a substantially higher NHS pension.
 
Requested by the NHS, and from all accounts welcomed.
With wages 30% lower than they should be I'm sure this will be a consoling thought to most staff.
An irrelevance for most.
Are we still seeing a rise in foodbanks for staff?
 
With wages 30% lower than they should be I'm sure this will be a consoling thought to most staff.
An irrelevance for most.
Are we still seeing a rise in foodbanks for staff?

I think the argument is about doctor retention and doctors leaving the profession. Judging by some of the post-budget news interviews, some doctors (but not all) would have stayed for a few more years if their pensions had been more generous. The NHS has welcomed the change.
 
I think the argument is about doctor retention and doctors leaving the profession. Judging by some of the post-budget news interviews, some doctors (but not all) would have stayed for a few more years if their pensions had been more generous. The NHS has welcomed the change.

Surprised they couldn't do something about retention and recruitment of other staff, maybe write off student loans, pay overtime correctly, raise starting salaries?
 
Surprised they couldn't do something about retention and recruitment of other staff, maybe write off student loans, pay overtime correctly, raise starting salaries?

BMA also in favour.

Anyway, the press are reporting that a 5% increase for the less well-paid is being discussed. I would say that is a bit of a win for the government. The unions can do better.
 
Big problem recently was the dismal annuity rates, when i retired best quote was around 3% so i'd need to have £1.5m in a fund to equal a nurses' pension (c£45k at the time).

My wife retired at 55 with a substantially higher NHS pension.

It would be interesting to know how many public sector workers have pension benefits which would require the equivalent of say a £1M pot. My hunch is it’s a hell of a lot more than in the private sector.
 
It would be interesting to know how many public sector workers have pension benefits which would require the equivalent of say a £1M pot. My hunch is it’s a hell of a lot more than in the private sector.

Inclined to agree.

Though I see that largely as an indication of how poorly workers are served by defined contribution pensions - how many people on £35k will have the means to stash away the £1m they'd need for a similar income in retirement?

I certainly don't resent public sector workers with DB schemes.
 
It would be interesting to know how many public sector workers have pension benefits which would require the equivalent of say a £1M pot. My hunch is it’s a hell of a lot more than in the private sector.

Whatever the number is it will include a very substantial number of Tory MPs and Tory party donors, which fully explains the policy.
 


advertisement


Back
Top