General Election 2017: The Results and Aftermath

[najaB]

...total government spending is down by only 3% from its peak in 2010/11 and is about 10% higher than it was a decade ago.

Factor in inflation and that could well mean a real terms cut or no increase at all for many departments.

 

[me123]

^This is exactly the case with the NHS. They claim that "more money than ever" is being spent on the NHS (which is true in essence if you look at raw numbers), however with inflation it's a real terms cut.

 

[furnessvale]

^This is exactly the case with the NHS. They claim that "more money than ever" is being spent on the NHS (which is true in essence if you look at raw numbers), however with inflation it's a real terms cut.

I am probably wrong, but I could swear I heard the term "in real terms" being used with regard to increased expenditure on the NHS.

This indicates that inflation has been factored in.


https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

 

[Busaholic]

^This is exactly the case with the NHS. They claim that "more money than ever" is being spent on the NHS (which is true in essence if you look at raw numbers), however with inflation it's a real terms cut.

There's another important fact - an ever-growing population, the proportion of which are elderly also increases.

 

[D365]

Corbyn won his increased vote on student tuition fees and retaining all the various payments to OAPs.

He won votes by not being Tory.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Reading through the new stories, my gut feeling is that we'll have another General Election by the end of the year if the Queen's Speech gets voted out

 

[47802]

There's another important fact - an ever-growing population, the proportion of which are elderly also increases.

Which is why we need to look at what is funded by the NHS rather than just throwing more money into the bottomless pit

 

[me123]

Reading through the new stories, my gut feeling is that we'll have another General Election by the end of the year if the Queen's Speech gets voted out

Expect a light Queen's Speech. This is going to easily get the support of the DUP and Tories. They cannot afford any risks, or any dissent. With the DUP, the majority is very slender (two). It puts the longevity of the government at risk, but there's no way TM will risk this speech being voted down. She'd face a leadership contest within minutes.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Expect a light Queen's Speech. This is going to easily get the support of the DUP and Tories. They cannot afford any risks, or any dissent. With the DUP, the majority is very slender (two). It puts the longevity of the government at risk, but there's no way TM will risk this speech being voted down. She'd face a leadership contest within minutes.

A good chunk of it, maybe even all of it might be dominated by stuff to do with Brexit given how many laws might/will need either amending or scrapping and the clock is ticking towards the deadline for Brexit

 

[furnessvale]

He won votes by not being Tory.

Analysis of voting patterns does not support that. The Tory vote remained high. Labour gained a large increase in their vote, mainly young people.

How to win the vote of a young person? Offering them £20,000-50,000 a head may help!

 

[najaB]

How to win the vote of a young person? Offering them £20,000-50,000 a head may help!

You might want to rephrase that post. It reads as an accusation of electoral fraud.

 

[deltic]

Factor in inflation and that could well mean a real terms cut or no increase at all for many departments.

Sorry the figures I quoted were in real terms - ie took into account inflation into account so Govt is spending 10% more in real terms than a decade ago

 

[deltic]

I am probably wrong, but I could swear I heard the term "in real terms" being used with regard to increased expenditure on the NHS.

This indicates that inflation has been factored in.


https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

The Kings Fund shows that the NHS budget has increased in real terms every year since 1975/6 except in the following years 1977/78 (Labour), 1997/97 (Conservative) and 2010/11 (Coalition)

 

[D365]

A good chunk of it, maybe even all of it might be dominated by stuff to do with Brexit given how many laws might/will need either amending or scrapping and the clock is ticking towards the deadline for Brexit

Haven't you already discussed this upthread...

Analysis of voting patterns does not support that. The Tory vote remained high. Labour gained a large increase in their vote, mainly young people.

How to win the vote of a young person? Offering them £20,000-50,000 a head may help!

That's because they ran a fantastic campaign and convinced many young voters who were not ever going to vote Tory. And I don't care about the reasoning behind the pledge, it wasn't a deciding factor for me as my fees are set in stone.

What I can't understand is how the clearing of debts/scrapping of fees (which, let's be honest, is not that many billions) isn't seen as an investment into our future workforce.

 

[northwichcat]

If that was true, I would have expected a higher vote for the LibDems.

Corbyn won his increased vote on student tuition fees and retaining all the various payments to OAPs.

It was a General Election not a terms of Brexit vote but the Conservatives fought it on a Hard Brexit manifesto and lost seats. Labour put the NHS ahead of Brexit and won additional seats. Vote Leave also claimed Leave would give a huge cash injection to the NHS and won but there was no mention of that in the Conservative manifesto despite the claim originating from a Conservative cabinet member.

The Lib Dems and Greens both seemed to lose votes as people were more bothered with getting Tories out than who replaced Tory MPs. The Lib Dems did win more seats with a smaller proportion of votes which suggests tactical voting.

 

[najaB]

Sorry the figures I quoted were in real terms - ie took into account inflation into account so Govt is spending 10% more in real terms than a decade ago

My question then is what are they spending it on, as Defence, Education, Healthcare and Social Security have all been squeezed.

Edit: I may have answered my own question, I was forgetting population growth. If you look at it per capita then the picture is clearer:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2003_2020UKd_17c1li111lcn_10t00t30t40t20t

 

[deltic]

What I can't understand is how the clearing of debts/scrapping of fees (which, let's be honest, is not that many billions) isn't seen as an investment into our future workforce.

I dont think £86bn can be called not that many billions? Equals the whole education budget for one year

 

[northwichcat]

Analysis of voting patterns does not support that. The Tory vote remained high. Labour gained a large increase in their vote, mainly young people.

How to win the vote of a young person? Offering them £20,000-50,000 a head may help!

Where does that value come from? If you're referring to tuition fees then it's misleading as the tuition fees are only paid if the graduate both gets and stays in well paid employment, which many won't. Also not all young people can get in to universities and not all want to.

Incidentally given universities can charge a lot more to non-UK students I guess that means either we'll have to continue allowing as many EU students as the universities want coming over post-Brexit, otherwise UK tuition fees will rocket or they'll need millions in government support.

 

[northwichcat]

The Kings Fund shows that the NHS budget has increased in real terms every year since 1975/6 except in the following years 1977/78 (Labour), 1997/97 (Conservative) and 2010/11 (Coalition)

As the population has increased it would be very bad if it had not increased in real terms most years.

 

[D365]

I dont think £86bn can be called not that many billions? Equals the whole education budget for one year

The most common costing I've seen is appx. £11bn to "abolish tuition fees and reinstate maintenance grants". Nothing in the region of £86bn.

 

[deltic]

My question then is what are they spending it on, as Defence, Education, Healthcare and Social Security have all been squeezed.

Edit: I may have answered my own question, I was forgetting population growth. If you look at it per capita then the picture is clearer:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2003_2020UKd_17c1li111lcn_10t00t30t40t

Spending on health has continued to increase in real terms albeit by small numbers, to date so has spending on education although that is now projected to fall. Spending on pensions continues to rise rapidly and now debt interest payments are also starting to increase rapidly up about £30bn a year since 2008/9 to nearly £70bn.

 

[D365]

Spending on health has continued to increase in real terms albeit by small numbers, to date so has spending on education although that is now projected to fall.

Does that take inflation into account, or the increasing demand in certain areas?

 

[deltic]

The most common costing I've seen is appx. £11bn to "abolish tuition fees and reinstate maintenance grants". Nothing in the region of £86bn.

I was referring to your comment about wiping out existing debt - happy to agree that cost of abolishing tuition fees etc is c£11bn a year

 

[deltic]

Does that take inflation into account, or the increasing demand in certain areas?

Yes takes into account inflation - but no it doesnt take into account spend per person - I havent got detailed enough numbers to work the latter out but at a guess we have probably seen a fall in real expenditure per person on health over the last 5/6 years.

 

[najaB]

Yes takes into account inflation - but no it doesnt take into account spend per person - I havent got detailed enough numbers to work the latter out but at a guess we have probably seen a fall in real expenditure per person on health over the last 5/6 years.

Courtesy of the website linked in my post above:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1990_2020UKd_17c1li117800_600cs_10t

 

[me123]

Yes takes into account inflation - but no it doesnt take into account spend per person - I havent got detailed enough numbers to work the latter out but at a guess we have probably seen a fall in real expenditure per person on health over the last 5/6 years.

Apparently not. Per person, NHS spending has actually gone up slightly (surprisingly) in England and Wales, whilst falling slightly in Scotland and NI. (Nuffield Trust). There is expectation that a per-capita cut is going to happen in England and Wales too in the imminent future.

Per patient is probably a different matter (can't find stats to say for certain). There's an ageing population which means that more people are using the NHS. A lot of people don't actually use the NHS very much, if at all. I, for example, haven't used any NHS services for many years, visiting my GP only to register as a patient. When more people are using the NHS, the funds are being split amongst a greater number of patients. So, whilst the funding per head of the whole population is going up, average funding per patient is undoubtedly dropping. There's also the unavoidable fact that medicine is advancing at a rapid rate, and there is a cost to modern healthcare technologies. New chemotherapy drugs are coming onto the market. Innovative surgeries are being performed. Preventative care is bringing a lot of costs forward.

People have talked about the NHS "living within its means" and this would mean curtailing services. Without a meaningful private sector, that cannot ethically be allowed to happen. The NHS doesn't deliver healthcare that isn't required, so there's no slack to cut.

In its current form, the NHS should be focussed at delivering the highest standard of care (which it is capable of doing, given funding). If you want to cut the funding further, the answer is going to see a rise in private care. So, those who want to continue starving the NHS of funds in the name of balancing the books - what model do you propose?

 

[deltic]

Courtesy of the website linked in my post above:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1990_2020UKd_17c1li117800_600cs_10t

Interesting - shows spending per person in real terms almost trebled between 1990 and 2010. Shows what a bottomless pit healthcare is given how strapped for cash it appears to be now.

Given our aging population and demands to reduce migration I can only see a massive advance in robotics solving the problem.

 

[northwichcat]

Well we already have a robot PM and that isn't working well as the algorithm didn't call an election at the right time.

 

[najaB]

Interesting - shows spending per person in real terms almost trebled between 1990 and 2010. Shows what a bottomless pit healthcare is given how strapped for cash it appears to be now.

Don't forget that 1997-2008(ish) included the worst of the PPP capital projects to replace and renew older hospital buildings.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

....and now debt interest payments are also starting to increase rapidly up about £30bn a year since 2008/9 to nearly £70bn.

I suppose that the Labour Party would have been well aware of that particular matter when they planned their latest manifesto.