Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Deleted member 21258]

Do you think they don't do keyhole surgery in Germany?

Why are the Tory government in charge of germany Your post did not provide all the truth, so was only looking to provide facts to show the full picture, ie labour, tories and the coalition have all reduced bed numbers.

I do not believe I was defending or not, the UK governments over the years massive reductions in beds, when comparing to other countries but did highlight reasons why a reduction has happened, but those links gives many reasons.

 

[Foxholer]

The big borrowing from Brown was before and after the financial crash and you cannot deny the way it was reduced after Labour.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

As per the 'About' page of the link....that site is 1 person's view - with no more authority than you or me! If that's the best you can come up with then that's pretty damning!

 

[doublebogey7]

The big borrowing from Brown was before and after the financial crash and you cannot deny the way it was reduced after Labour.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

In 2007 the Shadow Chancellor (Osborne)promised to match the spending of Darling. So the deficit would have been no different had the Tories been in Government at the time of the crash. ://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/09/tories-will-mat.html

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I work in Investments in Canary Wharf by the way.

Where's your info to say my claim is an Urban myth?

I’ve already linked the FT report saying it was the correct decision at the time, all this bad decision etc is stated with hindsight, even your own post, stated “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......” so with 2 sides normally to an argument it also wasn’t “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......”

 

[DanFST]

I’ve already linked the FT report saying it was the correct decision at the time, all this bad decision etc is stated with hindsight, even your own post, stated “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......” so with 2 sides normally to an argument it also wasn’t “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......”

So nothing to support your claim that my post is an "urban myth".

We decided to take the risk selling historically stable assets, diversifying into currency. It was a wrong decision and the ham fisted approach when we sold out further compounded the problem (get it), 2019 had the highest number of gold purchases by central banks according to the WGC.

The other side to the argument is there might have been something more stupid that i'm not knowledgable about, either way it was an TERRIBLE decision with hindsight we can see it even clearer, a bullion is not yesterdays asset.

Clearly you aren't versed on the matter, but don't call out someone who actually understands without substance to back it up.

 

[SocketRocket]

As per the 'About' page of the link....that site is 1 person's view - with no more authority than you or me! If that's the best you can come up with then that's pretty damning!

OK Mr Googleit, You are normally quick enough to lookup the details, if you can find different graphs to show it wrong then go ahead, I am sure I can find others with the same damning data.

How about the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-budget-target-but-deficit-is-at-17-year-low

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So nothing to support your claim that my post is an "urban myth".

We decided to take the risk selling historically stable assets, diversifying into currency. It was a wrong decision and the ham fisted approach when we sold out further compounded the problem (get it), 2019 had the highest number of gold purchases by central banks according to the WGC.

The other side to the argument is there might have been something more stupid that i'm not knowledgable about, either way it was an TERRIBLE decision with hindsight we can see it even clearer, a bullion is not yesterdays asset.

Clearly you aren't versed on the matter, but don't call out someone who actually understands without substance to back it up.

It’s an urban myth if you can only say “arguably” because “arguably” you could be wrong!

Again you are using hindsight to prove your point, at the time Brown, the man responsible, believed it was the correct decision.

Many Countries including Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada and others were selling Gold Reserves at the time.

“What threw Gordon Brown has been the collapse of interest rates over the past 20 years. At the end of the 1990s, the three-month yield on US Treasury securities was around 4 per cent. Had it stayed there, the value would have more than doubled. Remember too that gold had fallen in value during the previous 20 years. So yes, selling gold was a bad financial decision, but at the time it looked a perfectly reasonable one.”

 

[Ethan]

Why are the Tory government in charge of germany Your post did not provide all the truth, so was only looking to provide facts to show the full picture, ie labour, tories and the coalition have all reduced bed numbers.

I do not believe I was defending or not, the UK governments over the years massive reductions in beds, when comparing to other countries but did highlight reasons why a reduction has happened, but those links gives many reasons.

My point, which you obviously missed, was that the underlying health of the NHS was compromised over years previous, so when a crisis hit, the NHS had to take steps to respond that caused problems elsewhere. Other civilised countries which did not rush towards a market system in their national health systems, took a more prudent long term approach and benefitted when the crisis hit.

The point that a keyhole surgery with shorter admissions in hospital in some way supports the need to slash bed numbers misses the point. Whatever reasons are cited, the real reason was to reduce cost for the brave new market system in the NHS.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

My point, which you obviously missed, was that the underlying health of the NHS was compromised over years previous, so when a crisis hit, the NHS had to take steps to respond that caused problems elsewhere. Other civilised countries which did not rush towards a market system in their national health systems, took a more prudent long term approach and benefitted when the crisis hit.

The point that a keyhole surgery with shorter admissions in hospital in some way supports the need to slash bed numbers misses the point. Whatever reasons are cited, the real reason was to reduce cost for the brave new market system in the NHS.

I don't miss the above points and do understand those factors...….I wonder why I previously looked at the reduced bed numbers and other stuff to do with NHS. And keyhole or the other examples I gave are not the main reasons for the drop..... For example the massive drop in mental health beds was a change in policy and are in the community now, rather than in 'beds', for example. Thought I better add I am neither supporting that change in policy or not before you assume I have missed a point

Out of interest, do you accept that it has been ALL UK governments that has reduced bed numbers, rather than just Tory, as the facts show?

That was the only point I was making and appreciate the points you are making. Have a good day, as didn't really have anything to add apart from the fact, that all UK governments have been reducing bed numbers. It is an emotive subject and is certainly not black & white or simple to look at in a forum chat and don't wish to spend ages point scoring, as my thoughts are actually not that far away from yours tbh.

 

[Hacker Khan]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/poli...-the-government-no-matter-what-20200710198323

 

[Foxholer]

OK Mr Googleit, You are normally quick enough to lookup the details, if you can find different graphs to show it wrong then go ahead, I am sure I can find others with the same damning data.

How about the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-budget-target-but-deficit-is-at-17-year-low

Nothing actually wrong with the graph(s) - it's the conclusions drawn from it that I consider 'skewed'!
The massive hike in public borrowing in 2008/9 peaking in 2009/10 was entirely due to the Banking crisis. Subsequent years quite reasonably showed steady reductions. I'm certain there'll be an even bigger hike for the next couple of/few years (or more) depending on how soon the threat from the CV19 pandemic lasts. And, again, there'll be a steady reduction once the threat has abated. And that's precisely why I made the comment about it being 'the Conservatives turn to suffer...' in an earlier post.

 

[Ethan]

I don't miss the above points and do understand those factors...….I wonder why I previously looked at the reduced bed numbers and other stuff to do with NHS. And keyhole or the other examples I gave are not the main reasons for the drop..... For example the massive drop in mental health beds was a change in policy and are in the community now, rather than in 'beds', for example. Thought I better add I am neither supporting that change in policy or not before you assume I have missed a point

Out of interest, do you accept that it has been ALL UK governments that has reduced bed numbers, rather than just Tory, as the facts show?

That was the only point I was making and appreciate the points you are making. Have a good day, as didn't really have anything to add apart from the fact, that all UK governments have been reducing bed numbers. It is an emotive subject and is certainly not black & white or simple to look at in a forum chat and don't wish to spend ages point scoring, as my thoughts are actually not that far away from yours tbh.

I do agree that bed numbers have fallen under all parties, although the clinical impact of this varies with time. The facts (Kings Fund, for example) shows that at the start of bed reductions, under Thatcher and Major, was fairly steep, under Blair was slower, but in recent years it has become dangerous. Pressures on beds often now become intense. When I was a lad working as a junior hospital doctor, it wasn't nearly so bad and I never had to refuse an admission because of bed shortages. Sometimes had to park someone in another ward for a while, though.

Mental health is a particular problem. My OH is a psychiatrist and even though the bar for admission has become very high, on those occasions where someone a bit tricky has to be admitted, it could be to a bed several counties away, and sometimes there are no beds available in some risk categories. ICU capacity has been a known problem for years, especially in winter, and neonatal ICU a particular problem.

Unfortunately, there is a party ideology difference, noting that I am neither a Labour member or voter. Tories are much more likely to speak in favour of a social insurance funding model with multiple providers, including private ones, operating under an NHS banner. This model is a hard nosed business one and therefore cuts costs and capacity to the narrowest margin, as determined locally. Unfortunately we have seen that this is sometimes too narrow and some degree of central planning is needed. The same model places little value on public health. Responsibility for public health moved from the NHS to local authorities a few years ago and has suffered badly as a result.

 

[SocketRocket]

I do agree that bed numbers have fallen under all parties, although the clinical impact of this varies with time. The facts (Kings Fund, for example) shows that at the start of bed reductions, under Thatcher and Major, was fairly steep, under Blair was slower, but in recent years it has become dangerous. Pressures on beds often now become intense. When I was a lad working as a junior hospital doctor, it wasn't nearly so bad and I never had to refuse an admission because of bed shortages. Sometimes had to park someone in another ward for a while, though.

Mental health is a particular problem. My OH is a psychiatrist and even though the bar for admission has become very high, on those occasions where someone a bit tricky has to be admitted, it could be to a bed several counties away, and sometimes there are no beds available in some risk categories. ICU capacity has been a known problem for years, especially in winter, and neonatal ICU a particular problem.

Unfortunately, there is a party ideology difference, noting that I am neither a Labour member or voter. Tories are much more likely to speak in favour of a social insurance funding model with multiple providers, including private ones, operating under an NHS banner. This model is a hard nosed business one and therefore cuts costs and capacity to the narrowest margin, as determined locally. Unfortunately we have seen that this is sometimes too narrow and some degree of central planning is needed. The same model places little value on public health. Responsibility for public health moved from the NHS to local authorities a few years ago and has suffered badly as a result.

That's a bit of a turn around for you, you told us you were joining the Labour Party under the cheap 'Vote in Corbyn' Scheme back then and were quite vocal in your wishes for a Labour Goverment. What's changed, are they too right wing for you now?

 

[Ethan]

That's a bit of a turn around for you, you told us you were joining the Labour Party under the cheap 'Vote in Corbyn' Scheme back then and were quite vocal in your wishes for a Labour Goverment. What's changed, are they too right wing for you now?

I consider it an indicator of education and maturity to be willing to change my mind in light of new information and changes in external factors. This used to be known as learning. Since Corbyn was elected leader there have been 2 GEs and one EU election and I have not voted for Labour in any of them. Not because Corbyn was too left wing (although he kinda was), but because he was unwilling to wise up on Brexit despite the majority of his party and MPs realising Brexit was a stupid idea. Having said that, a Labour Govt would have been a damn sight better than the current mob of idiots, crooks, charlatans and sociopaths. Labour is much improved by Starmer although he is trying to stay away from Brexit. For now. It remains to be seen how the rest of the party evolves.

Have you likewise shown personal growth in any matter of importance?

 

[Hacker Khan]

I consider it an indicator of education and maturity to be willing to change my mind in light of new information and changes in external factors. This used to be known as learning. Since Corbyn was elected leader there have been 2 GEs and one EU election and I have not voted for Labour in any of them. Not because Corbyn was too left wing (although he kinda was), but because he was unwilling to wise up on Brexit despite the majority of his party and MPs realising Brexit was a stupid idea. Having said that, a Labour Govt would have been a damn sight better than the current mob of idiots, crooks, charlatans and sociopaths. Labour is much improved by Starmer although he is trying to stay away from Brexit. For now. It remains to be seen how the rest of the party evolves.

Have you likewise shown personal growth in any matter of importance?

There's no place for nuance and not blindly supporting one party no matter what in the modern game son.

 

[SocketRocket]

I consider it an indicator of education and maturity to be willing to change my mind in light of new information and changes in external factors. This used to be known as learning. Since Corbyn was elected leader there have been 2 GEs and one EU election and I have not voted for Labour in any of them. Not because Corbyn was too left wing (although he kinda was), but because he was unwilling to wise up on Brexit despite the majority of his party and MPs realising Brexit was a f***ing stupid idea. Having said that, a Labour Govt would have been a damn sight better than the current mob of idiots, crooks, charlatans and sociopaths. Labour is much improved by Starmer although he is trying to stay away from Brexit. For now. It remains to be seen how the rest of the party evolves.

Have you likewise shown personal growth in any matter of importance?

Unlike you I have no need to change my political allegiance as the party I support are doing very well. However, I always strive for ways to advance my personal growth and education. Currently I'm reading through a set of books that focus on the politics of the Anglo Saxon period from King Ethelred (The unready) to the Norman invasion, I recommend it as similar characters seem to emerge as in the latterday cut and thrust. Not sure if that qualifies as a matter of importance with you though.

 

[Hobbit]

I’ve already linked the FT report saying it was the correct decision at the time, all this bad decision etc is stated with hindsight, even your own post, stated “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......” so with 2 sides normally to an argument it also wasn’t “Arguably the worst Investment decision of all time.......”

I had a search when this was being discussed yesterday. The FT piece was the only piece on the first page of search results that supported the decision. That said, it made what I thought was a very valid point. Why should a sovereign nation have such a large amount of money sat doing nothing? Gold might go up in value but it doesn't earn interest that could be spent on, e.g. a new school or hospital.

My thoughts down the years has always been why did the idiot sell the family jewels? Having read the FT piece, and given its reasoning a lot of thought, I'm more inclined to say great idea but why sell when almost every expert was saying it was the wrong time to go to market?

To understand Brown's reasoning you're really got to dig deep into Brown's relationship with Blair and most of the Cabinet. Its intriguing and quite Machiavellian, but that's not for this thread.

 

[Foxholer]

I work in Investments in Canary Wharf by the way.

Where's your info to say my claim is an Urban myth?

Like me, you, apparently, also support West Ham. So that pretty much destroys 99% of your 'common sense credibility'!

 

[Ethan]

Unlike you I have no need to change my political allegiance as the party I support are doing very well. However, I always strive for ways to advance my personal growth and education. Currently I'm reading through a set of books that focus on the politics of the Anglo Saxon period from King Ethelred (The unready) to the Norman invasion, I recommend it as similar characters seem to emerge as in the latterday cut and thrust. Not sure if that qualifies as a matter of importance with you though.

Doing well? Well, if you mean they are securely in power, certainly. If you mean doing well by doing a good job on the response to this virus, and preventing further economic self harm by making sensible decisions on European cooperation including extending transition, you are utterly deluded.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I had a search when this was being discussed yesterday. The FT piece was the only piece on the first page of search results that supported the decision. That said, it made what I thought was a very valid point. Why should a sovereign nation have such a large amount of money sat doing nothing? Gold might go up in value but it doesn't earn interest that could be spent on, e.g. a new school or hospital.

My thoughts down the years has always been why did the idiot sell the family jewels? Having read the FT piece, and given its reasoning a lot of thought, I'm more inclined to say great idea but why sell when almost every expert was saying it was the wrong time to go to market?

To understand Brown's reasoning you're really got to dig deep into Brown's relationship with Blair and most of the Cabinet. Its intriguing and quite Machiavellian, but that's not for this thread.

It’s like a lot of things with Politics, these people make decisions which over time can be seen as both clever or a disaster, I’d like to believe that the majority of the decisions they make are for the “right” reasons at the time they are taken, because one thing is for sure, history will judge them.