Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Optio wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Brexit is not the problem IMO. It was never the problem.

As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.

The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.

And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.

We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...

I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.

But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...

And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?

Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.

And as I said last year, if the vote had been yes, the EU with a lot of justification, could have said to Britain: you've voted twice now to stay in. Put up or shut up and get on board with full integration.

Our political class would have been reduced to a parliament of rubber-stampers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.

I think I can predict the outcome of this for the UK though given the general level of competence. It goes something like this...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Optio wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Brexit is not the problem IMO. It was never the problem.

As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.

The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.

And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.

We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...

I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.

But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...

And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?

You don't and that's why the whole affair has been driven by a few people wanting to benefit over the majority.

On an aside I'm slightly confused about May's statement today...

Theresa May said an "unstable coalition of divisive nationalists" was causing "uncertainty and instability".

I'm now confused is she supporting or against the Tory party???

Also more jobs are going abroad...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689

Do these count as biscuits?

"Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.

Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.

Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.

That's the thing. They are promoting the most nationalistic agenda possible with a hard Brexit over the last 9 months. Anyone with any sense will realise that.

So who is she attacking. Labour, no they want to guarantee EU citizens rights, LD - don't be ridiculous. That just leaves UKIP (in tatters) and SNP who quite rightly will point out that nationalism is fine for Westminster but not for Scotland.

I think most people would think this comment is an ...erh...what's she talking about?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.

Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.

That's the thing. They are promoting the most nationalistic agenda possible with a hard Brexit over the last 9 months. Anyone with any sense will realise that.

So who is she attacking. Labour, no they want to guarantee EU citizens rights, LD - don't be ridiculous. That just leaves UKIP (in tatters) and SNP who quite rightly will point out that nationalism is fine for Westminster but not for Scotland.

I think most people would think this comment is an ...erh...what's she talking about?

It's May - there should be a picture of her in the dictionary under U-turn.

Only a few weeks ago, she was saying that now is not the time for another independence referendum

This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.

Agreed. The law of averages says that some of those MPs under investigation have to be guilty.

If the Tories gained no advantage from the battle bus touring the Shires, then why bother with it?

It stinks to high heaven.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.

That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader.

To be fair, there is a practical point that we don't want to be in the late stages of Brexit negotiation with a general election looming. It is a circumstance where national interest and party interest (for the Tories) march happily hand in hand.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.

That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader.

To be fair, there is a practical point that we don't want to be in the late stages of Brexit negotiation with a general election looming. It is a circumstance where national interest and party interest (for the Tories) march happily hand in hand.

It hasn't dawned on the Tories yet that Brussels doesn't give two hoots whatever May's majority is, Greece being a prime example of that.

The Tories have been out-manoeuvred by Brussels at every turn. It hasn't surprised me in the least, but the fact that is has surprised the Tories speaks volumes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.

That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader...

I don't know if you've heard of the principal of followership, it's a buzz word used in the military and I believe industry which describes the ability of individuals to support and follow a leader. The labour party is suffering from poor followership. The days of the Blairites is over, and they need to either step aside, or demonstrate good followership and support their leader who has been democratically selected, twice.

I've been following a bit more of Corbyn, and I've been surprised at the pretty shoddy treatment he's getting from the media, including the BBC. I'm more inclined to support the man, not his party, as I feel that he is showing principle and grit despite all that is being flung at him.

 Whirlwind wrote:

On an aside I'm slightly confused about May's statement today...

Theresa May said an "unstable coalition of divisive nationalists" was causing "uncertainty and instability".

I'm now confused is she supporting or against the Tory party???

I'm sure she would much prefer a stable coalition of divisive nationalists.

I studied leadership in my organizational psychology module in my management degree. One theory of leadership is that rather than the leader mobilising the mass, it is the mass that mobilises and creates the leader (in terms of support, etc.) From that angle, the Labour Party has a serious split between the 'old guard' Blairites, and the XXXtreme Couponing members who support Corbyn.

As far as the BBC goes, I am listening to a lot of Radio 4 ATM. They aren't giving Corbyn a hard time. The Labour Party genuinely is in a bad situation for this election. They don't have clear policy statements, and if they do, they seem to fudge them up. Worst of all was Corbyn not being able to say if he personally as the leader of the party followed the party line on Trident. Comared to that, the Tories are leading with "We will deliver Brexit" and "Look at those Labour clowns." It is a striking message.

FWIW I actually do believe Corbyn has genuine convictions and ideas that are worth listening too. It's just that he presents in a way that doesn't work in the modern era of 24 hour news, social media, and soundbite politics.

If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.

Back to Do I Not Like That. If the EU ran rings around the Tories, why did the EU let the Tories have the stupid referendum that got us into this fething mess. /rhetorical

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.

From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.

Our political class is a group of professional blame dodgers, and we'll still have some involvement with the EU (what with it being over there). I'm under no illusion that the politicians will never stop blaming the EU, and tabloid readers will keep lapping it up.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.

Our political class is a group of professional blame dodgers, and we'll still have some involvement with the EU (what with it being over there). I'm under no illusion that the politicians will never stop blaming the EU, and tabloid readers will keep lapping it up.

It's easy to blame but both the public at large and populations. It divests them of their own responsibilities of the world (e.g. they are taking our jobs - but did the individual go out and retrain to get a better one or just expect it to fall in their lap? etc).

It is however hard to take real responsibility and look inwards at our flaws (except me I'm perfect... )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As something of an aside there was a discussion the other day as to where tax liabilities lies in the UK and the argument that the poorest pay more proportionally than the wealthiest.

Well the ONS has published results on this and it is rather staggering. The poor indeed pay a larger proportion of their salary in taxes (42%) compared to the richest (34.3%).

Who says the Tory party doesn't benefit the rich of over the poor

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/poorest-tax-richest-statistics-ons_uk_58ff33f7e4b0b6f6014a96e4?utm_hp_ref=uk

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.

From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.

Exactly.

I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't. He has been very supportive of LGBT rights like gay marriage. I also agree with him that we are all sinners in one way or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are several examples of Tory policy benefitting the well-off over the poor:

Reduction in inheritance tax by raising the limit disproportionately benefits people with substantial estates over ordinary working class people with small estates.

The Financial Compensation scheme that automatically replaces £75,000 of cash savings if your bank goes bankrupt clearly benefits the well off.

The introduction of the new top-up ISA massively benefits people whose children are capable of saving £3,000 a year by giving them an extra £1,000.

There are more.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.

From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.

Exactly.

I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't. He has been very supportive of LGBT rights like gay marriage. I also agree with him that we are all sinners in one way or another.

People tend to ignore the fact that it is in the same category as lying, pornography, blasphemy and missing mass. It is not the belief that these matters are a sin or not, but the action taken by the person, whatever they believe. I won't go any further down this path as I fear to say any more would be to get in to a discussion about religion and draw us off topic.

There are several examples of Tory policy benefitting the well-off over the poor:

Reduction in inheritance tax by raising the limit disproportionately benefits people with substantial estates over ordinary working class people with small estates.

The Financial Compensation scheme that automatically replaces £75,000 of cash savings if your bank goes bankrupt clearly benefits the well off.

The introduction of the new top-up ISA massively benefits people whose children are capable of saving £3,000 a year by giving them an extra £1,000.

I have to question the use of the term "ordinary working class people". I would argue that those have also effected most of the middle classes too. The majority of the middle classes are not "£100k plus, two weeks in Tuscany and minor public school for the children", but people who are comfortable enough, with 9-5 jobs, two cars and a week away in Spain. What they don't have is £250 per month to spare for every child, large savings or substantial estates, at least until they are close to retirement, once the children have left home and their mortgage has been paid off, but the funding would be much better spent helping low and middle income families when they need support, not once the middle income ones have become well off.

I think Farron is suffering from the American take - my values trump yours, BAN EVERYTHING I FIND OBJECTIONABLE!!

Like others, I don't think Farron is about to foist his morals. Distasteful a sound bite as I find it, he's doing 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' thing right.

He and anyone can believe anything they want, provided they don't insist on making it policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The FSCS does protect everyone though.

For some, their life savings might be a few hundred quid at most - but they're still protected.

My Mum and Dad have done well for themselves (sodding baby boomers ), and have various savings and investments here and there - and as they've divested those savings into a variety of accounts, they're well covered by FSCS protections.

Lefty as I am, I don't think the FSCS is there to help keep people rich, but to provide a buffer for the economy should a bank go under - and remember, that very incredibly nearly happened in 2007 with HBoS.

The FSCS also pays compensation for mis-selling of financial products should the original seller go under.

Let's consider some of the companies offering dodgy loans to people who really shouldn't have had them. I won't name names, but there were companies that offered high interest rate loans to let people re-finance. And they took a heavy hit during the economic crash. But they also sold expensive and on occasion useless PPI - an example would be a 25 year loan, where the policy was lumped in with the credit, attracting interest. But that policy itself might only offer 5 years of cover. But because it's cost is lumped in with the main product, it attracts interest for the full 25 years.

Clearly, that wasn't a good product, and had things been properly explained, no-one in their right mind would've agreed to it. So that's a PPI refund right there - and often a substantial one.

If that company is no longer solvent, the FSCS will consider the complaint, and if upheld, pay out that refund.

That's a massive benefit to some of the most desperate in society.

Interesting polling results here. May is only favourable to the older, 40+, population. For the <30 year olds they massively favour Labour. Election could then be about who actually turns out to vote overall. I suppose from a future political perspective the question is whether these people will become more conservative over time or whether they will continue to favour Labour. If it is the latter then Conservatives could be facing real support issues over the next generation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-polls-snap-general-election-2017-live-poll-under-40s-young-people-older-winning-a7702616.html

Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....

Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...

Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....

Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...

Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...

Have they released their manifesto then and that is all that is in it? Otherwise it's just articles from newspapers from one announcement and you are being overly critical.

There isn't anything wrong with ensuring you can keep the staff you need by paying them a larger salary. You have ro remember these people have been limited to pay rises of 0-1% generally which is much less than the cost of living has increased. Hence the attractiveness of working in the field is less (so less applicants) and if you drive a shortage then the private suppliers will pay more for such staff driving shortages even further. If people stop seeing at as good career (and we aren't just talking brain surgeons here) then they will look elsewhere for other jobs and that could already be happening. UCAS nursing applications were down 27% compared the previous year. How long do you think the NHS will be able to cope with such reductions (especially if you limit immigration as well)?

Here's some example of actual NHS staff

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nhs-crisis-public-duty-hashtag_uk_59005305e4b0af6d7189aa3f?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do and defend Libdem leader Tim Farron. The way the media is bombarding him with questions about his faith is disgusting. They're hypocritical bullies too because they'd never ask a Muslim these sort of questions, the

Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.

It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.

It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.

The problem is that's all well and good if you have no inflation and no weighted increase per person using the NHS, but that simply isn't the case. The number of people accessing the NHS is going up substantially more than the increase in funding. Top this off with increasing recruitment difficulties leading to the use of more expensive private agencies/employees then the funding is nowhere near enough.

Nor does it help that the GPs are overstretched and the local councils have had their budgets gutted to the point that to provide adequate social care would mean cutting about everything else they provide. This hence then puts more pressure on the NHS as the GPs only resort is to prescribe them a visit to hospital because the elderly simply can't afford or are unable to look after themselves. By cutting council budgets to the bone they have effectively compounded the issue on the NHS.

This article on the BBC has a discussion on the issues the NHS face.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38887694


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do and defend Libdem leader Tim Farron. The way the media is bombarding him with questions about his faith is disgusting. They're hypocritical bullies too because they'd never ask a Muslim these sort of questions, the

The only reason to attack him like they are doing is to make people question voting for him. Corbyn is weak already but likely to hold onto safe seats. It's only the marginal ones at risk. But comparatively Tories could be at risk in pro-Remain LD/Tory marginal seats. If LDs gain a good fraction of the seats they lost last time then any gains made by the Tories are likely to be wiped out (and in some ways that is even worse because they are definitely pro-EU rather than Corbyn who doesn't seem to know where he sits on the issue).

To be honest if I were Farron I'd turn the questioning on it's head.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....

Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...

Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...

Have they released their manifesto then and that is all that is in it? Otherwise it's just articles from newspapers from one announcement and you are being overly critical.

There isn't anything wrong with ensuring you can keep the staff you need by paying them a larger salary. You have ro remember these people have been limited to pay rises of 0-1% generally which is much less than the cost of living has increased. Hence the attractiveness of working in the field is less (so less applicants) and if you drive a shortage then the private suppliers will pay more for such staff driving shortages even further. If people stop seeing at as good career (and we aren't just talking brain surgeons here) then they will look elsewhere for other jobs and that could already be happening. UCAS nursing applications were down 27% compared the previous year. How long do you think the NHS will be able to cope with such reductions (especially if you limit immigration as well)?

Here's some example of actual NHS staff

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nhs-crisis-public-duty-hashtag_uk_59005305e4b0af6d7189aa3f?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

I'm not being overly critical - this is feeble stuff from Labour. Setting out an agenda to tackle the root causes of problems blighting the NHS and planning for future problems e.g the rise of diabetes and an ageing population, is what is need. Not a pay rise here, a pay rise there.

Having listened to PMQs at lunch, I think I would vote for anyone who would suggest some way to stop our elected representatives sounding like a braying bunch of schoolchildren when discussing the future of the country.

At the very least, if the Qs could receive some As, rather than the PM just trotting out whichever key phrase their advisors have told them to push that day, that would be great.

I know, twas ever thus, I wish it twasn't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't.

Except the time he voted No on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which is a blemish upon his voting record I don't believe he's ever chosen to explain, and thus makes me incredibly wary of his apparent change of heart.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't.

Except the time he voted No on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which is a blemish upon his voting record I don't believe he's ever chosen to explain, and thus makes me incredibly wary of his apparent change of heart.

I've banged this drum before, but Farron's continued support of Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem MP for Orkney and Shetland) during and after the Frenchgate affair, is also a black mark against him in my book.

Carmichael was branded a liar in court by two high court judges, lied to an inquiry about Frenchgate, which cost the taxpayer about a million quid, almost caused a diplomatic incident with France when he essentially accused a French diplomat of lying, and tried to bankrupt his constituents who took him to court to try and force a by election. The constituents being none to happy about their MP's actions during Frenchgate.

Farron defended this, whilst banging on about integrity in politics. He's a two faced git!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:
Having listened to PMQs at lunch, I think I would vote for anyone who would suggest some way to stop our elected representatives sounding like a braying bunch of schoolchildren when discussing the future of the country.

At the very least, if the Qs could receive some As, rather than the PM just trotting out whichever key phrase their advisors have told them to push that day, that would be great.

I know, twas ever thus, I wish it twasn't.

Yeah, I watched some of it. It was embarrassing.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.

It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.

The problem is that's all well and good if you have no inflation and no weighted increase per person using the NHS, but that simply isn't the case. The number of people accessing the NHS is going up substantially more than the increase in funding. Top this off with increasing recruitment difficulties leading to the use of more expensive private agencies/employees then the funding is nowhere near enough.

Nor does it help that the GPs are overstretched and the local councils have had their budgets gutted to the point that to provide adequate social care would mean cutting about everything else they provide. This hence then puts more pressure on the NHS as the GPs only resort is to prescribe them a visit to hospital because the elderly simply can't afford or are unable to look after themselves. By cutting council budgets to the bone they have effectively compounded the issue on the NHS.

This article on the BBC has a discussion on the issues the NHS face.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38887694

Education is facing exactly the same problem. The government continuously trots out the same statement about record levels of funding, but it's just not enough. Costs have risen, the pupil population has risen and all schools are facing massive deficits in their budgets.

I'm luck in that I work in a popular, over subscribed secondary school. My school has been able to avoid making any teachers redundant by not replacing staff lost to natural wastage and increasing our pupil intake by an extra 30 pupils per year group. The result is bigger class sizes, less marking and preparation time for teachers and many subjects being dropped from the curriculum.

The make matters worse, this government has messed about with the curriculum to the point where everybody is confused about the new GCSE grades in Maths and English. Pupils are stressed out and we can't reassure them it'll be okay, because we don't know if it will be. At a time when the school is on its knees financially, the change to the Maths A level coming in next year has just invalidated all of our text books and we can't afford new ones.

The government has said we need more students studying STEM subjects, but their messing with the maths curriculum and exam system has started to have the effect that fewer students are opting for Maths at A level ( because the new GCSE has totally put them off the subject).

I've been a teacher for 20 years now and I've never before had to put up with a government with such a monumental combination of incompetence and callous indifference when it comes to education policy.

I'm waiting for the interview where May is questioned relentlessly about her position on gay sex.