Global Recession
-
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
sorry to ask a month later but didn't leavers promise money to fund the nhs?
Firstly, the headline is classic Guardian fake news. The Leave campaign did not make any promises as they were in no position to do so. But to answer your question, yes and no.
No, in that the Leave campaign was cross-party and was in no position to make promises for any government. They made a big thing of the fact that the UK's EU of £50m a day (it was actually around £30m after rebates) contribution could be spent on the NHS.
Yes, in that the government, led by the leader of the Leave campaign, increased annual NHS spending (excluding Pandemic costs) from £150Bn p.a to £177Bn p.a. - or around £50m per day.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
sorry to ask a month later but didn't leavers promise money to fund the nhs?
Firstly, the headline is classic Guardian fake news. The Leave campaign did not make any promises as they were in no position to do so. But to answer your question, yes and no.
No, in that the Leave campaign was cross-party and was in no position to make promises for any government. They made a big thing of the fact that the UK's EU of £50m a day (it was actually around £30m after rebates) contribution could be spent on the NHS.
Yes, in that the government, led by the leader of the Leave campaign, increased annual NHS spending (excluding Pandemic costs) from £150Bn p.a to £177Bn p.a. - or around £50m per day.
Seems a bit complicated to me (https://www.thenational.scot/news/18982490.350m-nhs-oven-ready-deal-broken-brexit-promises/) but I'm not there or have a dog in the fight.
-
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
sorry to ask a month later but didn't leavers promise money to fund the nhs?
Firstly, the headline is classic Guardian fake news. The Leave campaign did not make any promises as they were in no position to do so. But to answer your question, yes and no.
No, in that the Leave campaign was cross-party and was in no position to make promises for any government. They made a big thing of the fact that the UK's EU of £50m a day (it was actually around £30m after rebates) contribution could be spent on the NHS.
Yes, in that the government, led by the leader of the Leave campaign, increased annual NHS spending (excluding Pandemic costs) from £150Bn p.a to £177Bn p.a. - or around £50m per day.
Seems a bit complicated to me (https://www.thenational.scot/news/18982490.350m-nhs-oven-ready-deal-broken-brexit-promises/) but I'm not there or have a dog in the fight.
It's not complicated at all. You asked if the Leave campaign promised money to fund the NHS. I pointed out:
-
The Leave Campaign never promised any spending commitments. It was in no position to do so.
-
The leader of the Leave campaign, when he became PM, delivered increased NHS spending he said was possible if we left the EU.
The article you posted is similarly confused.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
sorry to ask a month later but didn't leavers promise money to fund the nhs?
Firstly, the headline is classic Guardian fake news. The Leave campaign did not make any promises as they were in no position to do so. But to answer your question, yes and no.
No, in that the Leave campaign was cross-party and was in no position to make promises for any government. They made a big thing of the fact that the UK's EU of £50m a day (it was actually around £30m after rebates) contribution could be spent on the NHS.
Yes, in that the government, led by the leader of the Leave campaign, increased annual NHS spending (excluding Pandemic costs) from £150Bn p.a to £177Bn p.a. - or around £50m per day.
Seems a bit complicated to me (https://www.thenational.scot/news/18982490.350m-nhs-oven-ready-deal-broken-brexit-promises/) but I'm not there or have a dog in the fight.
It's not complicated at all. You asked if the Leave campaign promised money to fund the NHS. I pointed out:
-
The Leave Campaign never promised any spending commitments. It was in no position to do so.
-
The leader of the Leave campaign, when he became PM, delivered increased NHS spending he said was possible if we left the EU.
The article you posted is similarly confused.
Nope, not convinced.
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.https://www.gov.uk/government/people/michael-gove
While Boris was secretary of state under May (from 2016)
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-Johnson2 While the government spent that much and more, extra spending did not prove the promise on the bus, by a group that included government ministers.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
-
-
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.
Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.As I said before, having a Government minister in a cross-party, non-Government political campaign group doesn't give it the power to promise and implement Government spending commitments.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
Another confused article (more an article for confused people) which, like you, has difficulty understanding the basic difference between a non-government campaign group listing possible benefits and an elected government's spending commitments.
I note the article you posted was written before Johnson became PM, won a majority and the UK moved from a hung Parliament, and able to implement their manifesto and increase NHS spending
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.
Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.As I said before, having a Government minister in a cross-party, non-Government political campaign group doesn't give it the power to promise and implement Government spending commitments.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
Another confused article (more an article for confused people) which, like you, has difficulty understanding the basic difference between a non-government campaign group listing possible benefits and an elected government's spending commitments.
I note the article you posted was written before Johnson became PM, won a majority and the UK moved from a hung Parliament, and able to implement their manifesto and increase NHS spending
Excellent, you have now moved to insulting me directly without addressing the substance of my reply. You can twist and turn like a twisty thing but you still catch yourself out.
listing possible benefits
They didn't list possible benefits.
And people can promise things without being able to deliver them.
Given I have provided UK sources including the Financial Times which lists a report that underestimated the damage to the UK economy I don't feel the need for this argy-bargy to continue. Thanks for initially replying to me but I am not interested in any more of this false debate, I'll soon have time to ask people who are more impartial and less offensive. -
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.
Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.As I said before, having a Government minister in a cross-party, non-Government political campaign group doesn't give it the power to promise and implement Government spending commitments.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
Another confused article (more an article for confused people) which, like you, has difficulty understanding the basic difference between a non-government campaign group listing possible benefits and an elected government's spending commitments.
I note the article you posted was written before Johnson became PM, won a majority and the UK moved from a hung Parliament, and able to implement their manifesto and increase NHS spending
Excellent, you have now moved to insulting me directly without addressing the substance of my reply. You can twist and turn like a twisty thing but you still catch yourself out.
listing possible benefits
They didn't list possible benefits.
And people can promise things without being able to deliver them.
Given I have provided UK sources including the Financial Times which lists a report that underestimated the damage to the UK economy I don't feel the need for this argy-bargy to continue. Thanks for initially replying to me but I am not interested in any more of this false debate, I'll soon have time to ask people who are more impartial and less offensive.OK, let's deconstruct. You asked if the £350m NHS figure promised by the Leave campaign had happened. I pointed the fact that (a) it was not a promise as they were in no position to make promises, and (b) when the Leader of the Leave campaign became PM that figure (and more) was delivered to he NHS. Additionally, I pointed out the £350m figure the Leave campaign used was false.
Then you said the Leave campaign leaders had the "real power" to promise and to increase NHS spending, I pointed out that constitutionally they didn't have that power, that you were confused (on the working of the UK constitution) and the article you posted was incorrect and reinforced that confusion.
I have pointed out 2 simple facts, additionally, that you were confused about how the UK constitution works, and that Remain-supporting newspapers in the crappy UK media will reinforce that confusion.
I don't feel the need for this argy-bargy to continue.
As you seem to regard pointing out facts as insulting, twisting the narrative, being partial and false debate, I can entirely understand your response.
-
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.
Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.As I said before, having a Government minister in a cross-party, non-Government political campaign group doesn't give it the power to promise and implement Government spending commitments.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
Another confused article (more an article for confused people) which, like you, has difficulty understanding the basic difference between a non-government campaign group listing possible benefits and an elected government's spending commitments.
I note the article you posted was written before Johnson became PM, won a majority and the UK moved from a hung Parliament, and able to implement their manifesto and increase NHS spending
Excellent, you have now moved to insulting me directly without addressing the substance of my reply. You can twist and turn like a twisty thing but you still catch yourself out.
listing possible benefits
They didn't list possible benefits.
And people can promise things without being able to deliver them.
Given I have provided UK sources including the Financial Times which lists a report that underestimated the damage to the UK economy I don't feel the need for this argy-bargy to continue. Thanks for initially replying to me but I am not interested in any more of this false debate, I'll soon have time to ask people who are more impartial and less offensive.As soon as you said Financial Times was your source, I'm afraid you lost me. They ceased to be objective a long time ago. Like most market commentators, they use the stats that best suit their argument (EU good, Brexit bad, Global finance should not be interfered with). Bot saying they are always wrong, but sometimes you need to take a step back to see the angle the commentary is being written from.
And this is the problem with modern day journalism. Opinion has been wrapped up as fact so often that it is hard to distinguish between objective reporting and subjective commentary. Which breeds mistrust, which fosters defensiveness and conflict.
-
@stodders said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Global Recession:
@nostrildamus said in Global Recession:
1 The Vote Leave group had a government minister - Michael Gove - colead it but Boris, as far as I understand, was a spokesman but not leader.
Gove had power and say in the government.
He was appointed by Cameron so he did have power.As I said before, having a Government minister in a cross-party, non-Government political campaign group doesn't give it the power to promise and implement Government spending commitments.
"The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested."
Another confused article (more an article for confused people) which, like you, has difficulty understanding the basic difference between a non-government campaign group listing possible benefits and an elected government's spending commitments.
I note the article you posted was written before Johnson became PM, won a majority and the UK moved from a hung Parliament, and able to implement their manifesto and increase NHS spending
Excellent, you have now moved to insulting me directly without addressing the substance of my reply. You can twist and turn like a twisty thing but you still catch yourself out.
listing possible benefits
They didn't list possible benefits.
And people can promise things without being able to deliver them.
Given I have provided UK sources including the Financial Times which lists a report that underestimated the damage to the UK economy I don't feel the need for this argy-bargy to continue. Thanks for initially replying to me but I am not interested in any more of this false debate, I'll soon have time to ask people who are more impartial and less offensive.As soon as you said Financial Times was your source, I'm afraid you lost me. They ceased to be objective a long time ago. Like most market commentators, they use the stats that best suit their argument (EU good, Brexit bad, Global finance should not be interfered with). Bot saying they are always wrong, but sometimes you need to take a step back to see the angle the commentary is being written from.
And this is the problem with modern day journalism. Opinion has been wrapped up as fact so often that it is hard to distinguish between objective reporting and subjective commentary. Which breeds mistrust, which fosters defensiveness and conflict.
I've mentioned about 3-4 newspapers and with FT they were reporting on a report. But it does seem pointless trying to mindread what would be considered to be an objective source on here. It doesn't exist but I did try to find sources that had further references including https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/ who quoted IMF on expected 2023 GDP for the UK (GDP – International Comparisons: Key Economic Indicators). But I'll leave this thread as the onus of evidence seems very one-sided.
-
Interesting if not new thoughts
-
@voodoo Is his prose always so turgid. Made it almost unreadable for me. As a consequence, I'm a bit meh, move along - nothing to see here.
His big cycle is pretty obvious, but I'd argue we have seen it before post 1945, most notably in the late 70's; which sort of undermines his whole proposition.
Not to say he is wrong, but as you say nothing new.