britains 4.8 trillion pound debt

[rover07]

Lets divvy up this debt between the whole population...thats £77,000 each right?

Or how about we divide it up according to who has the most assets.

Since 90% of the country's wealth is owned by the top ten percent. That means the other 90% have to pay £7k...over 25 years say.

The top 10% have to pay £700,000 each. I'd like to see George Osbourne propose that one at the next Tory conference

 

[BigTom]

@ rover07's suggestion, sounds right to me..

I managed, just, to kind of watch all of that - I actually just listened to the last twenty minutes or so whilst browsing here.
It has to be the worst documentary I've seen on british tv. I didn't watch the great global warming swindle, but from what I've heard about it, that could be the only documentary to rival it.
awful doesn't even come close. I can't even begin to slate it.

It's also worth remembering that of the £800bn national debt, ~£200Bn is owed by the government to the bank of england, so the government pays interest to itself - effectively it costs us nothing. the program did some scare mongering about how if the cost of borrowing rise we'll be fucked, but failed to take note that when moody's kept us at AAA credit rating it was despite the cuts, not because of them. take a look at ireland to see what happens when you slash government spending during a recession.

 

[ovaltina]

The bit on the NHS is really annoying... the expert keeps saying the NHS is the worst health system in the world but doesn't provide any evidence, just some waffle about cancer drugs. How did this nonsense get on TV?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

The bit on the NHS is really annoying... the expert keeps saying the NHS is the worst health system in the world but doesn't provide any evidence, just some waffle about cancer drugs. How did this nonsense get on TV?

Yes there are figures that show that in respect of cancer cures the UK is behind other countries. That is something that the last government was trying to put right, which means that it was aware of the facts. Attacking the whole of the health service on that one bad area is not really valid though. The American health system is much more expensive because it is insurance based and the insurance companies need to take their cut of the money. Also because it is a market system the hospitals need to have lots of accountants and similar people working in them. Somebody has to make out the bills to send to the patients.

It used to be the case that the British NHS was spared these costs. Unfortunately the introduction of the 'internal market' now means that the hospitals have acquired a layer of business managers and accountants that were not needed before. This seems to add together the worst aspects of the American system with the disadvantages of the British one. The latter are the need to keep down salaries for the medical practitioners which are much lower than in the states.

All public sector wages are kept well below that of the private sector. With the rush to privatise them there will be an increase in staffing costs because of the need to pay managers and cuts in wages of the people who do the real work so as to keep profit margins up and compete to get the contracts. Look at what happened with PFI schemes which were criticised by the Audit Comission for being bad value for money. Yet Camaron and his monkeys intend to extend PFI. Ask any of the cleaners or porters at your local hospital what has happened over the last few years.

 

[ovaltina]

Attacking the whole of the health service on that one bad area is not really valid though.

It's tabloid journalism on TV. Interesting that Kelvin M is one of the prominent talking heads. What does he know about anything, except being one of the most hated people in the media? (at least in Liverpool)

the introduction of the 'internal market' now means that the hospitals have acquired a layer of business managers and accountants that were not needed before.

True. The abolition of PCTs is a strange decision by Andrew Lansley - their main role is to commission services, including hospital services, and to get the best quality and value possible. Now procurement is being handed to GPs (or probably consortiums of GPs). How does that fit with the internal market model?

 

[uk benzo]

Another thing that bothered me about the TV show was how the presenter dude kept on trying to prove that in the past, the UK did not have debt and had lots of industry etc.

A big reason for this is that the UK, as a colonial power, built and funded most of the industrial revolution with the spoils of war + colonisation. Hence, there was no need for crazy taxation and yet still build grand buildings like the British museum etc. So it was easy for the presenter dude to make black and white statements/present graphics showing levels of debt etc from the past compared to the present.

 

[The Rural Juror]

It's Durkin -he's a woeful apologist / fantasist, what did people expect? And why criticise Channel 4? You do realise that, y'know, "the views expressed in the programme.. " etc etc

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's Durkin -he's a woeful apologist / fantasist, what did people expect? And why criticise Channel 4? You do realise that, y'know, "the views expressed in the programme.. " etc etc

Rubbish. Channel 4, as the broadcaster, has a duty of quality control. Would it be ok if they gave money to David Irvine to explain how the Holocaust didn't happen?

There was a time when C4 was the best broadcaster on UK TV. That time has long gone.

 

[Diamond]

pensions liabilities

 

[metalguru]

Only saw one decent in depth review of this programme:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9888/

which gives it some balance.

 

[stethoscope]

That's probably because Spiked are right-leaning libertarians who would like to see the 'market' do everything too.

I have a feeling Durkin might have had connections with Spiked at some point.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Why would anybody object to calls for people to pay less tax ? Governments are rubbish at spending money and giving them more merely encourages it. I can accept the need for central planning when it comes to certain elements of a nations infastructure and so on but even then there are ways of raising funds for that can go beyond taxation in its classic sense. For example roads. I see nothing wrong with a pay-per mile usage scheme but only if the money raised is ring fenced for spending on transport.

I can never make out you lefties. On the one hand you seem keen to constantly slag Government off and fair enough, they deserve it. But then you seem to want to encourage them in their general shittiness by forcing people to give them more money to piss up the wall. All I see Tax doing is encouraging the tossers to be even more shite than they are already.

 

[Blagsta]

that's 'cos you're an idiot, now fuck off

 

[Chz]

The title alone was enough to make me think "What utter bullshit" and watch Toy Story 3 instead. I imagine Toy Story was quite a bit more mature and thought out.

 

[strung out]

watched some of it and turned it off after about ten mins, pissed off that this shit was being shown on telly

 

[BigTom]

The title alone was enough to make me think "What utter bullshit" and watch Toy Story 3 instead. I imagine Toy Story was quite a bit more mature and thought out.

no, Toy Story 3 is a lot more mature. It's like comparing a feotus to a middle-aged adult.

Stoat Boy - have you done much research into what life was like for most people around the turn of the 20th century? That's what capitalism is like without a state.
Please can you explain how you came to the conclusion "governments are rubbish at spending money"? It's such a blanket statement, I'd like to know if you really believe that to be true.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That's probably because Spiked are right-leaning libertarians who would like to see the 'market' do everything too.

I have a feeling Durkin might have had connections with Spiked at some point.

I have a feeling that your feeling is entirely accurate.

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

 

[audiotech]

Why would anybody object to calls for people to pay less tax ? Governments are rubbish at spending money and giving them more merely encourages it. I can accept the need for central planning when it comes to certain elements of a nations infastructure and so on but even then there are ways of raising funds for that can go beyond taxation in its classic sense. For example roads. I see nothing wrong with a pay-per mile usage scheme but only if the money raised is ring fenced for spending on transport.

I can never make out you lefties. On the one hand you seem keen to constantly slag Government off and fair enough, they deserve it. But then you seem to want to encourage them in their general shittiness by forcing people to give them more money to piss up the wall. All I see Tax doing is encouraging the tossers to be even more shite than they are already.

Piss up the wall? The government is actually ploughing taxpayers money into the banking system to stop it from collapsing. The banks then create more debt from this money and then have the audacity to lend it back to us at high interest. They are holding us to ransom and taking the piss.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> explain how the Holocaust didn't happen? <snip>

Possibly Durkin's next project judging from his previous form ...

Channel 4 are probably already preparing some suitable 'The views expressed in this programme ... ' letters.