That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
Your statement, as far as it goes, must be true. However UKIP have suggested that health tourism is an issue, and that their one policy, leaving the EU, will address the issue.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
See, you're doing it now. Mixing up tourists and migrants.
What do you consider yourself? I bet the latter.
Do you have health insurance? - as I suspect most Brits migrants living in Europe have. No stats, but purely from the small number I know. Again, I know I would.
You really have no idea of the number of Eastern Europeans now living in the South East. I work and live with it on a daily basis. It really is getting to be a scary percentage.
I'm sure loads are here to better themselves, work hard, pay taxes and not become a drain on the system - but there are loads who have absolutely no intention of adding benefit to this Country.
Something needs to be done to limit the number of economic migrants coming to the UK.
Well, Ukip would certainly do that. In no time at all our economy would be in such dire straits that they'd all need to go home to improve their prospects.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
Your statement, as far as it goes, must be true. However UKIP have suggested that health tourism is an issue, and that their one policy, leaving the EU, will address the issue.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
See, you're doing it now. Mixing up tourists and migrants.
What do you consider yourself? I bet the latter.
Do you have health insurance? - as I suspect most Brits migrants living in Europe have. No stats, but purely from the small number I know. Again, I know I would.
You really have no idea of the number of Eastern Europeans now living in the South East. I work and live with it on a daily basis. It really is getting to be a scary percentage.
I'm sure loads are here to better themselves, work hard, pay taxes and not become a drain on the system - but there are loads who have absolutely no intention of adding benefit to this Country.
Something needs to be done to limit the number of economic migrants coming to the UK.
I really don't think most readers found that I'm mixing anything up. In my post I think it is clear to most people that I acknowledge the difference between two separate issues - which UKIP like to bung together with one simple resolution- leave the EU
I draw a salary from my company which is taxed PAYE including the relevant health charges so I am a "burden" on the Czech system,no different therefore to any Poles near you who are contributing NHI payments. I am not "entitled" to use the NHS despite being a British citizen and having paid up my NHI contributions to the point where I will get a "full" State pension
I am sure that there are issues with the sheer numbers. You've made this point to me before, and I accepted it. However IMHO you don't sufficiently demand or supply the facts and figures but instead tend (from what i read here) to be swayed by sweeping populist 'solutions' of the type propagated by UKIP.
Back to non-doms, today's Economist provides some figures that I haven't seen before.
At the last count, it says, there were 111,000 non doms.
Of these, 64,000 choose to be taxed on their overseas income (it mentions these are people like nurses and doctors, but doesn't explain why it has identified these professions).
The remaining 47,000 opt out of the taxes, and 5,000 of these pay fees (ie have lived in the UK for at least 7 of the last 9 years). Presumably the biggest flight risk would be the 42,000 who don't pay fees or taxes on overseas income, not sure how many of these would be protected by the Labour caveats.
The Economist is in favour of Labour's policy of removing non dom status (including the caveats on secondees and students that Labour have stated). The Economist seems not to be in favour of any of Labour's other tax proposals (though possibly could be convinced by reforming property tax rather than the "mansion tax" policy taken from the Lib Dems).
AFKA was right Prague, you should be a politician.
Two straightforward questions, neither of which you decided to answer.
Sorry???
What is it about what I am saying that is not clear. There are two issues health tourism and the pressures on the health service from migration. The article dealt with health tourism ( and did not pretend to deal with migration, acknowledging its a separate issue). I am sure that migration does put pressure on health and other services too in certain areas. I just don't agree that this then is a good reason to leave the EU, because that will bring other unintended consequences.
I have not watched it, but apparently C4 had a documentary a few days ago coming out with all the typical anti-migrant shite, including the pressure on the hospitals as well the taking our jobs line. The hilarious thing was that the people doing the talking were Spaniards talking about Brits on one of the costas.
You accuse me of a lot of things but not answering a question on here is surely not one of which I can be fairly accused. Not giving the answer you want to hear that's a slightly different problem
I can assure you that hard pressed Spanish communities (and wealthy ones as well) are really fed up with retired Brits and others using their health and social care services when they have not paid in for it.
AFKA was right Prague, you should be a politician.
Two straightforward questions, neither of which you decided to answer.
Sorry???
What is it about what I am saying that is not clear. There are two issues health tourism and the pressures on the health service from migration. The article dealt with health tourism ( and did not pretend to deal with migration, acknowledging its a separate issue). I am sure that migration does put pressure on health and other services too in certain areas. I just don't agree that this then is a good reason to leave the EU, because that will bring other unintended consequences.
I have not watched it, but apparently C4 had a documentary a few days ago coming out with all the typical anti-migrant shite, including the pressure on the hospitals as well the taking our jobs line. The hilarious thing was that the people doing the talking were Spaniards talking about Brits on one of the costas.
You accuse me of a lot of things but not answering a question on here is surely not one of which I can be fairly accused. Not giving the answer you want to hear that's a slightly different problem
I put two simple questions to you - yet you continue to ignore them and instead stick up an indignant post talking about 'unintended consequences' of UKIP because it suits your agenda. At the moment, I'm still waiting to hear what those consequences may be - other than guesses of what may happen to our trade deficit. I'd be more concerned if we had a trade surplus with Europe to be honest.
You crack on Prague. I'm pleased you know who you are going to vote for sitting in your ivory towers 1000km away, because at the moment I haven't a clue.
I'll just continue to live, work and bring up a family in the UK and vote for who I believe will deliver the best future for my family and Country as a whole. There are some serious issues that need dealing with in this Country, not least housing, immigration, education and pressure on all services.
Some difficult decisions need to be made and so far, all I've seen is politicos playing around at the edges.
And perhaps you need to watch the Channel 4 documentary on Brits on the Costa's before you start writing heresay. The retired couple where the wife was suffering from dementia and stuck in a property they couldn't get rid of was very moving. Their income was from UK pensions and investments and they certainly weren't taking any jobs from locals.
For christ sake @Addickted, if the "two questions" are, am I a migrant or a tourist and do I pay health insurance, then I bloody well answered you. But I'll try again. I'm a long term resident (that's an official status term) but not a citizen.So of the two I'm certainly not a tourist, guess that makes me a migrant. I pay the Czech equivalent of NHI so I qualify for the Czech health system which is itself insurance based on the way it collects and distributes revenue from the public - just like the majority of European systems. If you think I pay into BUPA or PPP or other such bollocks, well think again.
You make a decent point about the C4 programme which I'll try to watch over the weekend.
As for my ivory tower (jeez) I'll be vacating it for a week in London on Tuesday, so see you at the Trust stall before the Leeds game, or failing that, the POTY dinner.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Agree with this.
I am a Labour supporter but until now I have been ambivalent about Ed . I would have preferred David and I suspect had the older brother been standing then the Party would be clearly ahead now.
That said , I Squirmed when Michael Fallon made his attack and the pathetic Mail story about his love life has pushed me to actually feeling positive about him for the first time because of the dignified way he has responded and not taken the bait .
Isobel Hardman of the Tory supporting Spectator made an interesting observation on the Daily Politics yesterday . She talked about Lynton Crosby's dead cat strategy . In her opinion the Tories had lost the public opinion debate about non doms . Therefore in order to move the campaign into a new area they attacked Miliband which would be the equivalent of throwing a dead cat on to table .People start talking about the dead feline rather than anything else . I hope Boris's Australian friend is unsuccessful in his tactics.
Whether you support Labour or not, you have to be a fool to believe all tbe rubish the press have put out there about Milliband's ability. He is a very able, intellectual man. I think the mis-judgement is to overplay this aproach to the point people will see, or are seeing it for what it is. This is why Cameron is reluctant to go head to head with Milliband. Whether he wins the argument or not, he loses as people will see Milliband is not this communist buffoon he is painted. The press need to back off as they have used this card with some success, and if they use it too many times it will backfire for them.
Stuff I don't understand about data and their importance.
Question: Are data actually important or like dangerous dogs? That is, there all the time biting people but only making the news when there's nothing else going on?
Series One Episode One
When I was a kid, there was great focus on the exchange rate. There was a great furore in 1967 when the pound was devalued by 14% in 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40. And Harold Wilson came out with his famous "the pound in your pocket" line. (Ha! It's now $1.46!) The value of the pound was given in virtually every BBC news programme against both the $ and (I think) the Deutsche Mark. Now, it's rare that it ever gets a mention and I expect most people could not give you the answer, even in round terms, to the question "How many $ can you buy for a £?". (In the same way that many Americans can't tell you how many £s or Euros a $ buys them - it's just something that is of no interest to them.)
So was it important, really, all those years ago and, if so, why isn't it now?
Just registered for expat vote. Whether or not I can rely on the Spanish post system for it to get there on time is another thing though. Surprised how easy to register it was so hopefully all expats will be able to get it done. Still in touch with issues (and very alarmed at UKIP rhetoric), and will probably move back at some point so am very pleased to be able to exercise right to vote as a citizen.
Series One Episode Two The Balance of Payments. Again, all those years ago, religiously, the BBC would tell us what the trade deficit was when the figures were published every month. Now, I don't know, every now and again they might mention a change in the trade deficit when it goes a bit wonky otherwise, it's just not news. So, was it wrong to make such a big deal about it then or wrong to pretty much ignore it now? My own view for what it's worth is that it doesn't matter as long as the Germans, Japanese and Chinese are happy to take our money in payment. But see Episode One).
Series One Episode Three M0 - The Money Supply It's a few years on now but M0 was regularly reported on the BBC News. It was, as I recall, a measure which was the cornerstone of the Thatcher Government's economic policy. Now, well, it's not even published. M4 is used instead. But you never (rarely?) hear it mentioned. So, was it utterly useless?
In the past I got the impression that Govt. debt wasn't really all that important. I speculate on this being because of inflation. In that inflation meant that borrowing £1bn 20 years ago would only cost you around a third of that in real terms to repay now. Currently, of course, we barely have inflation so it's potentially going to be much more expensive repaying this money and the interest thereon in the future. Is that why it's important?
Finally (at least before the outcome of the election is known when I might start Series Two) we have previously been promised a "bonfire of the Quangos". And, indeed, there are less. I believe this Govt. may have got rid of around 220 but set up another dozen or so. And they've already told us there will be a new independent Porn Regulator if they are re-elected.
Me, I place most of our ills firmly at the door of the people that collect and interpret data. If no one knew whether we were spending too much/not enough, manufacturing more or less, were meeting hospital waiting times or tackling more crime, then we would all be very happy indeed and that confidence alone would ensure that the country prospered and output expanded. So, I'd start by getting rid of the ONS and all the other non-producers beavering away gathering meaningless tosh that we'll all have forgotten about in 20 years time.
Just registered for expat vote. Whether or not I can rely on the Spanish post system for it to get there on time is another thing though. Surprised how easy to register it was so hopefully all expats will be able to get it done. Still in touch with issues (and very alarmed at UKIP rhetoric), and will probably move back at some point so am very pleased to be able to exercise right to vote as a citizen.
The problem is also that the UK electoral officers don't allow enough time to get them sent. I contacted my MP (Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Kingston and Surbiton) and he kicked their asses in Kingston to get them out earlier. My advice would be to send it back the day you get it.
But anyone living anywhere remote might find their voting papers arrive too late.
At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
So have we had any more fantasy proposals over night then? Like the same day GP access for over 75's funded by...er...um...well because the Tories are so good at running the economy there's no need for details just yet, just trust them for now.
We don't have enough GP's as things stand, more are set to retire over the next few years and we can't attract newly qualified doctors to general practise yet somehow we're expected to believe this policy is actually viable.
What do others think about the 3 day paid volunteering thing btw?
Comments
I draw a salary from my company which is taxed PAYE including the relevant health charges so I am a "burden" on the Czech system,no different therefore to any Poles near you who are contributing NHI payments. I am not "entitled" to use the NHS despite being a British citizen and having paid up my NHI contributions to the point where I will get a "full" State pension
I am sure that there are issues with the sheer numbers. You've made this point to me before, and I accepted it. However IMHO you don't sufficiently demand or supply the facts and figures but instead tend (from what i read here) to be swayed by sweeping populist 'solutions' of the type propagated by UKIP.
Two straightforward questions, neither of which you decided to answer.
At the last count, it says, there were 111,000 non doms.
Of these, 64,000 choose to be taxed on their overseas income (it mentions these are people like nurses and doctors, but doesn't explain why it has identified these professions).
The remaining 47,000 opt out of the taxes, and 5,000 of these pay fees (ie have lived in the UK for at least 7 of the last 9 years). Presumably the biggest flight risk would be the 42,000 who don't pay fees or taxes on overseas income, not sure how many of these would be protected by the Labour caveats.
The Economist is in favour of Labour's policy of removing non dom status (including the caveats on secondees and students that Labour have stated). The Economist seems not to be in favour of any of Labour's other tax proposals (though possibly could be convinced by reforming property tax rather than the "mansion tax" policy taken from the Lib Dems).
Wouldn't say I was in love with him but now you've informed me he's veggie then I may consider a one night stand or some heavy petting at least.
What is it about what I am saying that is not clear. There are two issues health tourism and the pressures on the health service from migration. The article dealt with health tourism ( and did not pretend to deal with migration, acknowledging its a separate issue). I am sure that migration does put pressure on health and other services too in certain areas. I just don't agree that this then is a good reason to leave the EU, because that will bring other unintended consequences.
I have not watched it, but apparently C4 had a documentary a few days ago coming out with all the typical anti-migrant shite, including the pressure on the hospitals as well the taking our jobs line. The hilarious thing was that the people doing the talking were Spaniards talking about Brits on one of the costas.
You accuse me of a lot of things but not answering a question on here is surely not one of which I can be fairly accused. Not giving the answer you want to hear that's a slightly different problem
You crack on Prague. I'm pleased you know who you are going to vote for sitting in your ivory towers 1000km away, because at the moment I haven't a clue.
I'll just continue to live, work and bring up a family in the UK and vote for who I believe will deliver the best future for my family and Country as a whole. There are some serious issues that need dealing with in this Country, not least housing, immigration, education and pressure on all services.
Some difficult decisions need to be made and so far, all I've seen is politicos playing around at the edges.
And perhaps you need to watch the Channel 4 documentary on Brits on the Costa's before you start writing heresay. The retired couple where the wife was suffering from dementia and stuck in a property they couldn't get rid of was very moving. Their income was from UK pensions and investments and they certainly weren't taking any jobs from locals.
You make a decent point about the C4 programme which I'll try to watch over the weekend.
As for my ivory tower (jeez) I'll be vacating it for a week in London on Tuesday, so see you at the Trust stall before the Leeds game, or failing that, the POTY dinner.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Sorry but I won't be visiting the Trust stall prior to the Leeds game or attending the POTY do.
I will however be supporting the team at Hillsborough tomorrow if you can make it there.
Agree with this.
I am a Labour supporter but until now I have been ambivalent about Ed . I would have preferred David and I suspect had the older brother been standing then the Party would be clearly ahead now.
That said , I Squirmed when Michael Fallon made his attack and the pathetic Mail story about his love life has pushed me to actually feeling positive about him for the first time because of the dignified way he has responded and not taken the bait .
Isobel Hardman of the Tory supporting Spectator made an interesting observation on the Daily Politics yesterday . She talked about Lynton Crosby's dead cat strategy . In her opinion the Tories had lost the public opinion debate about non doms . Therefore in order to move the campaign into a new area they attacked Miliband which would be the equivalent of throwing a dead cat on to table .People start talking about the dead feline rather than anything else . I hope Boris's Australian friend is unsuccessful in his tactics.
Question: Are data actually important or like dangerous dogs? That is, there all the time biting people but only making the news when there's nothing else going on?
Series One Episode One
When I was a kid, there was great focus on the exchange rate. There was a great furore in 1967 when the pound was devalued by 14% in 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40. And Harold Wilson came out with his famous "the pound in your pocket" line. (Ha! It's now $1.46!)
The value of the pound was given in virtually every BBC news programme against both the $ and (I think) the Deutsche Mark. Now, it's rare that it ever gets a mention and I expect most people could not give you the answer, even in round terms, to the question "How many $ can you buy for a £?". (In the same way that many Americans can't tell you how many £s or Euros a $ buys them - it's just something that is of no interest to them.)
So was it important, really, all those years ago and, if so, why isn't it now?
The Balance of Payments.
Again, all those years ago, religiously, the BBC would tell us what the trade deficit was when the figures were published every month. Now, I don't know, every now and again they might mention a change in the trade deficit when it goes a bit wonky otherwise, it's just not news.
So, was it wrong to make such a big deal about it then or wrong to pretty much ignore it now? My own view for what it's worth is that it doesn't matter as long as the Germans, Japanese and Chinese are happy to take our money in payment. But see Episode One).
M0 - The Money Supply
It's a few years on now but M0 was regularly reported on the BBC News. It was, as I recall, a measure which was the cornerstone of the Thatcher Government's economic policy.
Now, well, it's not even published. M4 is used instead. But you never (rarely?) hear it mentioned. So, was it utterly useless?
The Budget Deficit and Government Debt
The be all and end all of everything right now.
In the past I got the impression that Govt. debt wasn't really all that important. I speculate on this being because of inflation. In that inflation meant that borrowing £1bn 20 years ago would only cost you around a third of that in real terms to repay now. Currently, of course, we barely have inflation so it's potentially going to be much more expensive repaying this money and the interest thereon in the future. Is that why it's important?
Finally (at least before the outcome of the election is known when I might start Series Two) we have previously been promised a "bonfire of the Quangos". And, indeed, there are less. I believe this Govt. may have got rid of around 220 but set up another dozen or so. And they've already told us there will be a new independent Porn Regulator if they are re-elected.
Me, I place most of our ills firmly at the door of the people that collect and interpret data. If no one knew whether we were spending too much/not enough, manufacturing more or less, were meeting hospital waiting times or tackling more crime, then we would all be very happy indeed and that confidence alone would ensure that the country prospered and output expanded. So, I'd start by getting rid of the ONS and all the other non-producers beavering away gathering meaningless tosh that we'll all have forgotten about in 20 years time.
Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Kingston and Surbiton) and he kicked their asses in Kingston to get them out earlier. My advice would be to send it back the day you get it.But anyone living anywhere remote might find their voting papers arrive too late.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/11/nigel-farage-ukip-support_n_7045956.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
Looking forward to @Dippenhall, @PeanutsMolloy and @Fiiish when he's back, giving the arguments against...
My head hurts.
Labour making serious commitments to clamping down on tax evasion and cynical avoidance, thus raising revenue.
We don't have enough GP's as things stand, more are set to retire over the next few years and we can't attract newly qualified doctors to general practise yet somehow we're expected to believe this policy is actually viable.
What do others think about the 3 day paid volunteering thing btw?