Question Time

[ks.234]

I don't think it's question of people buying into "the Tory narrative that the public supplies government with money".

I suspect most people wouldn't regard it as a peculiarly Tory narrative but rather a self-evident truth and description of the classic economic model that generation of us, left, right, and centre, have been brought up on.

Whether there are viable alternative economic models which would actually make a difference is another matter and remains to be seen.

Yes, I would recognise some of that, apart from the “self evident” bit which is an assumption based on a narrative and not a self evident truth. A self evident truth is that a government such as ours that creates it’s own currency, cannot, as a matter of logic, run out of the thing it creates.

But it is the last paragraph that bothers me most. It seems to be an assumption that there is no alternative. We used to have an alternative. It was an alternative that enabled the NHS in the first place. It might just be worth another look?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The other day, Sunak set out his five key objectives. One of those was to stop the migrants in the boats. I suspect the plan is to make the UK so shit that any self-respecting migrant will go somewhere else.

 

[mandryka]

Last night was interesting. There's often comment about the 'packing' of the audience with plants etc. It certainly seemed so last night, but for once it worked to the advantage of the broader electorate and very much to the disadvantage of the Tory drone..whoever he was.. put up to try to defend the indefensible. The audience seemed to be all NHS workers, mostly very articulate and all scoring heavily against the Tory apologists.
This a.m the first thing I see is BBC News switching to cover Starmer speaking in NI and presenting himself as PM in waiting.
Even Fiona seemed to finally grasp that the Tories are completely screwed at the next election.
I was strongly reminded of a comment someone made to me years ago..to the effect that once the mainstream media show signs of shifting allegiance, or these days, diminishing deference, to the sitting Govt...then their number is up.

Thanks for pointing it out, I just watched it. One interesting thing was Tim Stanley - Daily Telegraph writer - agreeing with Wes Streeting -- Labour MP, about the role of privatisation in the future NHS, and justifying it with KS's least favourite type of argument.

 

[MikeMA]

Yes, I would recognise some of that, apart from the “self evident” bit which is an assumption based on a narrative and not a self evident truth. A self evident truth is that a government such as ours that creates it’s own currency, cannot, as a matter of logic, run out of the thing it creates.

But it is the last paragraph that bothers me most. It seems to be an assumption that there is no alternative. We used to have an alternative. It was an alternative that enabled the NHS in the first place. It might just be worth another look?

I don't understand your last paragraph. At the time the NHS was set up it was funded by a mixture of taxation - general and hypothecated(NI) - and government borrowing, the same as now.

 

[Rockmeister]

That's how it came across to me too.

The alternative (private) would cost the public a hell of a lot more.

I was imagining that the cost would be huge, and that 'we' would pay somehow or other. The NHS is not, AFAIK, a private organisation.

 

[Finnegan]

Thanks for pointing it out, I just watched it. One interesting thing was Tim Stanley - Daily Telegraph writer - agreeing with Wes Streeting -- Labour MP, about the role of privatisation in the future NHS, and justifying it with KS's least favourite type of argument.

What would be the point of a Starmer government?

 

[Brian]

What would be the point of a Starmer government?

Replacing the tory govt with a better govt. Why do you ask? Do you not know what the tories have been doing here in the UK?

 

[Mullardman]

Thanks for pointing it out, I just watched it. One interesting thing was Tim Stanley - Daily Telegraph writer - agreeing with Wes Streeting -- Labour MP, about the role of privatisation in the future NHS, and justifying it with KS's least favourite type of argument.

I was dozing a bit so may have missed that..and I'm not quite sure of the point you're making...

 

[mandryka]

I was dozing a bit so may have missed that..and I'm not quite sure of the point you're making...

Just that there's some sort if alignment of ideas starting to manifest itself between the right press and Labour.

 

[ks.234]

I don't understand your last paragraph. At the time the NHS was set up it was funded by a mixture of taxation - general and hypothecated(NI) - and government borrowing, the same as now.

Yes, but on a broader level to say there is a continuum between the social contract and Thatcherism is not sustainable. Yes some Keynesians who try to argue that Keynes was a monetarist, but the differences in terms of full employment and government spending are stark. The NHS was set up on government spending, or to use Bevan’s phrase, ‘stuffing their mouths with gold’. So there is a fundamental difference between funding coming from (mostly) spending and from only taxation.

 

[ks.234]

I was imagining that the cost would be huge, and that 'we' would pay somehow or other. The NHS is not, AFAIK, a private organisation.

The word ‘imagining’ is key there.

 

[Rockmeister]

The word ‘imagining’ is key there.

'Some big numbers have been thrown into the ring. £2 billion a year to even start to fix the elective waiting list that threatens to swell to 13 million or even 15 million patients by the end of 2025; perhaps a further £6.6 billion needed from October onwards to deal with ongoing Covid admissions to hospitals and the infection prevention and control measures that will need to continue for some time after the last Covid patient has been discharged.'
That takes uo about 140 Billion for the upcoming year, and that's only a patch. To ensue future operational security It might be 150 Billion P.A.
That sounds quite a lot to me.?

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing about here ? You don't feel the NHS is in trouble?

 

[ks.234]

'Some big numbers have been thrown into the ring. £2 billion a year to even start to fix the elective waiting list that threatens to swell to 13 million or even 15 million patients by the end of 2025; perhaps a further £6.6 billion needed from October onwards to deal with ongoing Covid admissions to hospitals and the infection prevention and control measures that will need to continue for some time after the last Covid patient has been discharged.'
That takes uo about 140 Billion for the upcoming year, and that's only a patch. To ensue future operational security It might be 150 Billion P.A.
That sounds quite a lot to me.?

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing about here ? You don't feel the NHS is in trouble?

I thought I made it very clear. Yes, there is a cost. It is the right wing assumption that the cost has to be born by the taxpayer that I question. Our government creates money, it does not depend on tax to fund anything.

 

[Rockmeister]

I thought I made it very clear. Yes, there is a cost. It is the right wing assumption that the cost has to be born by the taxpayer that I question. Our government creates money, it does not depend on tax to fund anything.

Not clear.
And wrong. How can you assume 'right wing' from a post asking for the tory party to go?
It's very odd.
Point IS that the current government would like the taxpayer to pay the cost, and i don't want that to happen.
Now be helpful and explain to me how that 150 billion will be funded by any other government please.

 

[Finnegan]

Replacing the tory govt with a better govt. Why do you ask? Do you not know what the tories have been doing here in the UK?

If that better government is headed by an insipid figure who bans his own MP’s from visiting picket lines, refuses to endorse striking workers, thinks it more important to address the CBI, fails to abolish Tory anti-trade union laws, drapes himself in the Union flag and insists on the national anthem being sung at conference, decries immigration in the context of a vicious onslaught on refugees, and whose chancellor will pursue a right-wing economic policy, then I struggle to see the point.

 

[ks.234]

Not clear.
And wrong. How can you assume 'right wing' from a post asking for the tory party to go?
It's very odd.
Point IS that the current government would like the taxpayer to pay the cost, and i don't want that to happen.
Now be helpful and explain to me how that 150 billion will be funded by any other government please.

If you recognise that the current government would like the taxpayer to pay, but that is not an economic necessity, we might start to get somewhere.

To answer your question, the Green party would fund spending from raising taxation for the rich. This is still built on a wrong assumption that tax funds spending, but it is better than putting the burden on general taxation for everyone

 

[Brian]

If that better government is headed by an insipid figure who bans his own MP’s from visiting picket lines, refuses to endorse striking workers, thinks it more important to address the CBI, fails to abolish Tory anti-trade union laws, drapes himself in the Union flag and insists on the national anthem being sung at conference, decries immigration in the context of a vicious onslaught on refugees, and whose chancellor will pursue a right-wing economic policy, then I struggle to see the point.

Yes, I know you struggle to see the point.

 

[Finnegan]

Yes, I know you struggle to see the point.

That’s a clever riposte. Sarcasm however, is a poor substitute for engagement with the argument.

 

[Seanm]

Just that there's some sort if alignment of ideas starting to manifest itself between the right press and Labour.

Yes, across the policy board: Labour are aiming to govern with the support of the press barons and a few dozen pundits (and corporate donors of course). Westminster village thinking in its purest form. I think they're in for a bit of a shock, but good luck to them.

 

[Rockmeister]

If you recognise that the current government would like the taxpayer to pay, but that is not an economic necessity, we might start to get somewhere.

To answer your question, the Green party would fund spending from raising taxation for the rich. This is still built on a wrong assumption that tax funds spending, but it is better than putting the burden on general taxation for everyone

I knew that, I vote green. But the point is, knowing that, will 'the rich' vote green, and even if they don't, will the green party even get 6 seat? 10?
Nope.