Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm curious, how old are you?

    I want to see how much younger/older I am.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The deadline is midnight tonight (tues 7th June), and if you are not registered (at your current address) you will not be able to vote and affect the future of our country.This is especially important for the under 30s because: a) we move around more frequently so are much more likely to not be registered, b) we are the demographic least likely to vote, c) we will have to live with the decision and its consequences for the longest.Based on current polling trends, the outcome could well be decided by the over 60s as they have the highest turnout and are most likely to vote leave. But, the vote will actually affect them least, because much EU policy relates to employment and they are retired, and because they will have to live with its consequences for the least amount of time.All UK citizens 18 and over are eligible, and registering is easy and only takes 5-10 minutes.Register HERE
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lol you say the immigrants bring skills that we don't have............................ ..

    Many end up working pound stores.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Right, so we've confirmed that you think everyone except yourself is stupid, and that everyone except yourself has had the same experiences you're convinced you had at the hands of the Conservatives.

    Nutter.
    OP has previously stated that anybody who is going to vote to leave should be banned from voting.

    Here
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Hooray for more economic and political illiteracy, I cannot wait until the 24th just so you shut up, although you probably won't, you'll spend a month complaining about the result and telling us all about how the country is doomed as little happens to anything and people keep their jobs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hooray for more economic and political illiteracy, I cannot wait until the 24th just so you shut up, although you probably won't, you'll spend a month complaining about the result and telling us all about how the country is doomed as little happens to anything and people keep their jobs.
    ^This
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The NHS (and other public services like schools) is struggling severely right now. People seem to think that this is because of overpopulation putting too much strain on it, and that leaving the EU and reducing immigration would help that, but it's just not the case.

    OUR GOVERNMENT are deliberately under-funding the NHS. That's the only reason it's struggling. They've cut the deficit in half (in spite of giving tens of billions in tax breaks to the rich), so we have more than enough money to fund the NHS adequately for our growing population. EU immigrants bring far, far more money into the country than they take out, especially since they fill skilled jobs that we don't have the graduates to fill. They pay for themselves.

    We have enough money to fund the NHS. It isn't a set size. The NHS could grow with our population, and that's what should happen as these immigrants bring more money into the country. Our government is choosing not to spend that money on the NHS. It's their decision not to provide the funding for our services to grow.

    Why does anyone think leaving the EU will change this? The government is sabotaging the NHS. They're providing the bare minimum funding possible to just keep it running, to prevent public outcry. If the strain on the NHS is reduced, then they'll just reduce the money going into it. It's as simple as that.

    The government are deliberately letting the NHS struggle, so that they can save money and so they have an excuse for privatising. If we reduce the size of our population, they'll reduce the money they give to the NHS so that it continues to struggle.

    This exact same principle applies to other public services, housing, and infrastructure. Immigrants pay for themselves. Our government is specifically choosing not to build enough houses or schools.

    Stop burying your heads in the sand. Leaving the EU won't make this problem go away, because the problem is OUR GOVERNMENT, not the EU.
    Preventing a continent from accessing and using the NHS wont help the NHS just like preventing anybody from eating at your buffet wont help the amount of food at your buffet

    Two different governments over 2 and a half decades have decided or are not able to build enough houses and schools for the burgeoning population therefore vote REMAIN and put your faith in them to change this is not a good argument
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Lol you say the immigrants bring skills that we don't have............................ ..

    Many end up working pound stores.
    Yep. They have a skill we don't have but once did called, "Don't mind low paid dull work."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The NHS (and other public services like schools) is struggling severely right now.
    Not remotely true. The NHS is always in a state where people demand more of it than it can realistically provide. That people are dissatisfied with a service is not evidence of it working poorly.

    The NHS goes above and beyond in providing healthcare, free at the point of use, in the UK. There are few state healthcare providers so comprehensive.

    OUR GOVERNMENT are deliberately under-funding the NHS.
    Considering that every government in recent times has increased NHS spending ahead of inflation, you'd have to accuse all of them of underfunding then. A more reasonable analysis is that it has had huge amounts of cash injected into it, has been immune from spending cuts seen in other areas and is, in fact, given a very generous allocation of public money.

    The problem is that people want more and more from it. It's a baseline healthcare provider, that covers everyone - it's not a goldplated service, nor should it be.

    In some ways, however, this is becoming increasingly the case in certain areas. The Cancer Drugs Fund, for example, provided (usually new, and very expensive) cancer medication that cannot be adequately accounted for in terms of the balance of cost against extended life quality. Yet we do it, because - again - the NHS has enough money, yet there is a political imperative for it to do more.

    The government are deliberately letting the NHS struggle, so that they can save money and so they have an excuse for privatising.
    The far left is never far away from a conspiracy theory, is it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Yep. They have a skill we don't have but once did called, "Don't mind low paid dull work."
    So you're saying they have no respect for themselves and that by lowering themselves to accept low paid, dull work they are in fact keeping the minimum wage so low since employees realise that even though the British have enough self respect to turn a crappy job down, the East Europeans will be willing to shovel **** for a shilling a day and a horseshit sandwich.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    [/list]It has already tried. Whole trusts were tendered to the lowest bidder to deliver all manner of treatments a couple of years ago. It failed miserably because they were fixed cost contract where the patients didn't play ball and more turned up than predicted. But regardless some aspects of the nhs are still in private hands.
    Yeah, that's not true, I can vouch for this.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    Yeah, that's not true, I can vouch for this.
    Me too

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ycr55
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Again, "sold off" is not the correct term, "outsourced" is. No assets are transferred, it's just the running of certain services that is.

    Besides, it's not the government that decides, what happens is that the board decides on each contract to give, if the NHS has an offer it thinks will save it money, what's the problem? These people clearly know more about the implications of this than either of us do.
    Offline

    4
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The NHS (and other public services like schools) is struggling severely right now. People seem to think that this is because of overpopulation putting too much strain on it, and that leaving the EU and reducing immigration would help that, but it's just not the case.

    OUR GOVERNMENT are deliberately under-funding the NHS. That's the only reason it's struggling. They've cut the deficit in half (in spite of giving tens of billions in tax breaks to the rich), so we have more than enough money to fund the NHS adequately for our growing population. EU immigrants bring far, far more money into the country than they take out, especially since they fill skilled jobs that we don't have the graduates to fill. They pay for themselves.

    We have enough money to fund the NHS. It isn't a set size. The NHS could grow with our population, and that's what should happen as these immigrants bring more money into the country. Our government is choosing not to spend that money on the NHS. It's their decision not to provide the funding for our services to grow.

    Why does anyone think leaving the EU will change this? The government is sabotaging the NHS. They're providing the bare minimum funding possible to just keep it running, to prevent public outcry. If the strain on the NHS is reduced, then they'll just reduce the money going into it. It's as simple as that.

    The government are deliberately letting the NHS struggle, so that they can save money and so they have an excuse for privatising. If we reduce the size of our population, they'll reduce the money they give to the NHS so that it continues to struggle.

    This exact same principle applies to other public services, housing, and infrastructure. Immigrants pay for themselves. Our government is specifically choosing not to build enough houses or schools.

    Stop burying your heads in the sand. Leaving the EU won't make this problem go away, because the problem is OUR GOVERNMENT, not the EU.
    lel
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    Again, "sold off" is not the correct term, "outsourced" is. No assets are transferred, it's just the running of certain services that is.

    Besides, it's not the government that decides, what happens is that the board decides on each contract to give, if the NHS has an offer it thinks will save it money, what's the problem? These people clearly know more about the implications of this than either of us do.
    If you listen to the programme you will find that it was government policy. They are the ones trying to save money. It didn't work because the terms of the contract were based on delivering x amount of care for a fixed price. But when x+y patients turned up it fell to pieces because the private company delivering care was losing money.

    And there is the crux that I have never understood about delivering public services. How is it cheaper for a company looking to return a profit to do it cheaper compared to a service just delivering what it was intended to do?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    based on delivering x amount of care for a fixed price. But when x+y patients turned up it fell to pieces
    In which ByEeek inadvertently stumbles across a reason for ending unlimited European migration
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    In which ByEeek inadvertently stumbles across a reason for ending unlimited European migration
    Agreed. But I feel it is a small price to pay keeping in mind the other huge benefits. Besides we could reduce immigration by 150,000 tomorrow. Could... but don't, or can't?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed. But I feel it is a small price to pay keeping in mind the other huge benefits. Besides we could reduce immigration by 150,000 tomorrow. Could... but don't, or can't?
    These huge benefits such as having to pay nearly 10bn a year for more expensive trade? Such as the EU taking credit for things they held up and jumped on the band wagon of at the last minute? Or perhaps paying for MEPs to have an effective salary of about a quarter of a million, or if we translate it all into their net pay, if they were in the UK getting on for half a million?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    These huge benefits such as having to pay nearly 10bn a year for more expensive trade? Such as the EU taking credit for things they held up and jumped on the band wagon of at the last minute? Or perhaps paying for MEPs to have an effective salary of about a quarter of a million, or if we translate it all into their net pay, if they were in the UK getting on for half a million?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    10 billion is nothing out of a budget of 450+ billion. And we get the best part of half that back in reand investment.

    And EU governance is good value compared to our own, employing 55,000 civil servants compared to our own 393,000 civil servants.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    10 billion is nothing out of a budget of 450+ billion. And we get the best part of half that back in reand investment.

    And EU governance is good value compared to our own, employing 55,000 civil servants compared to our own 393,000 civil servants.
    You really have no idea what you're going on about, do you? That 10bn is the bit we never are again, the UK budget is £772bn, and the EU budget is not much over £100bn p/a.

    You also need to look at the current differing roles when it comes to counting civil servants; what do their civil servants do, what do ours? I'll tell you that ours have to cover a lot more things, the EU dictates, the UK does. Does the EU have a (very big) DoH, MoD, Ministry of education etc? No, that's mostly done at the national level. I would also ask you when the EU accounts were last audited and how much of the EU budget basically vanishes into thin air, but I expect you would have no hope with either.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.