Brexit NHS Funding Promise broken

[Beskar]

Headline: A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul

In other news...
Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment (thanks to Royal Mismanagement)

Priorities.

[Greyblades]

Their priorities are entirely sound; as bad as the NHS cuts are being responsible for buckingham palace going up in flames or collapsing would cause a hell of a lot more damage to the government's stability.

It is now obvious that the "winners" had no idea what to do with their victory, no plans whatsoever...
It is partially because they lied up to the teeth, but as well because the leavers had different reasons to do so.
[...]
So, what now for May: Everything UK wants UK will have, and had before. How to explain to the brexiters: This was not EU, this was us, in full agreement with EU.

You complain that brexiteers blame the EU for what you say is the results of autonamous government actions just after blaming brexit for the same government actions not three paragraphs before.

[Brenus]

"You complain that brexiteers blame the EU for what you say is the results of autonamous government actions just after blaming brexit for the same government actions not three paragraphs before." You lost me here. Is there a word missing?
The States belonging to EU are sovereign. So all "directives" by Brussel have to be approved by the States and Government. The associates states have a different status...
The various governments always blamed EU for all unpopular measures, even the one UK initiated and started. EU was never in disagreement with Cameron and Tories. Like them EU is against UNions, consumers protection, minimum wages and social protection. EU agrees that bankers should be exempt to pay taxes (private profits and commun debts), same for big companies, workers and middle classes should be taxed in order to paid police, fire-fighters, hospital and roads.
So yes, the brexiters will discovered (and start to do so) that nothing will change in term of laws and order in UK, as UK won't become a nice social Kingdom.

[Sarmatian]

Headline: A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul

In other news...
Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment (thanks to Royal Mismanagement)

Priorities.

I understand the underlying sentiment, being very much the proponent of French solution to monarchy if they refuse to go peacefully, but let's be fair - 369m over 10 years or so is a drop in the ocean for NHS (120b annually).

[Beskar]

I understand the underlying sentiment, being very much the proponent of French solution to monarchy if they refuse to go peacefully, but let's be fair - 369m over 10 years or so is a drop in the ocean for NHS (120b annually).

The money from the Royal Estate (15% per year) is meant to be used on maintenance and repairs. Which it was neglected. In fact, it has been suggested previously that if the Palace was open to Tourism across the year bar special occasions, this would be able to fund the repairs and maintenance too, but this was refused by the Royal Family. Instead, they are going to get 25% per year. Which means less money out of everyone elses budgets due to Royal Mismanagement.

I am also aware of the so called 'Pro-Monarchy' economic argument that usually contains a ton fallacies such as returning the entire Royal Estate from the Treasury back into the now Ex-Monarchies hands (I mean.. really?).

[Greyblades]

Yes who could ever believe such nonsense, that breaking the rent allocation agreement would actually revert the property's incomes back to the legal owner instead of the government keeping everything because we say so.

The royal estate is the collection of land george the third once had sole ownership of and is legally owned by his decendants, it is only by the condition of the monarchy's continuation that the government sees the majority of it's incomes, the most a republican britain would see would be a fraction in property tax.

[Beskar]

Yes who could ever believe such nonsense, that breaking the rent allocation agreement would actually revert the property's incomes back to the legal owner instead of the government keeping everything because we say so.

Government does have the right of nationalisation. It doesn't occur often as it tends to make the owners upset and other businesses can get wary depending on why and who. Private enterprises won't care if it is the royal family because they kind of see that belonging to the state anyway. So they have full right of 'because we say so'.

[Greyblades]

Ah so the first act of a republican britain will be an act of tyranny? We may as well nationalize every piece of property in the nation that makes a profit, seeing as private ownership is apparantly something that is to be confiscated whenever the government desires more money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Headline: A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul

In other news...
Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment (thanks to Royal Mismanagement)

Priorities.

360m over 10 years, or 36m a year. Not a huge amount given the size of Buckingham Palace, the miss-management claim is also debatable given that HM Queen isn't allowed to use her private wealth to conduct major repairs and the Sovereign Grant doesn't allow for major overhauls (like replacing 40-year old boiler systems.)

As to the NHS:

"Many of the plans make clear that widespread staff shortages are another key driver. They hope that by concentrating sometimes scarce medical personnel in fewer places they can ensure consultant presence more often than otherwise and so help realise Hunt’s ambition of a more 24/7 NHS."

Doctors are already paid plenty, and they aren't driven into the ground like they used to be. So what's the problem? Possibly too many of them lack a service ethos and are moving to the Dark Side, or maybe we just aren't importing enough doctors from India anymore because they feel they're better off there.

Maybe it's just that society is collapsing.

[Beskar]

Ah so the first act of a republican britain will be an act of tyranny? We may as well nationalize every piece of property in the nation that makes a profit, seeing as private ownership is apparantly something that is to be confiscated whenever the government desires more money.

It is not really tyranny, since it is reclaiming what the Tax-payers paid for anyway. There is a massive difference between that situation and any other within the country. Even then, I wouldn't completely strip them of anything and just cast them on the streets. I would give them fair compensation and only claim what belongs to the state is for the state. Any pet projects or private use houses they can keep, they also have their various branding and ips. So they will live happy lives as rich millionaires still, especially with their influence and networking.

[Brenus]

"We may as well nationalize every piece of property in the nation that makes a profit, seeing as private ownership is apparantly something that is to be confiscated whenever the government desires more money." Well, until now the UK "nationalized" when private sector by greed bankrupted the entire economy and re-privatised when taxpayers have paid the bills. It might be a nice move to try to reverse the trend.

[Furunculus]

I am also aware of the so called 'Pro-Monarchy' economic argument that usually contains a ton fallacies such as returning the entire Royal Estate from the Treasury back into the now Ex-Monarchies hands (I mean.. really?).

pah, when has britain ever cared about property rights!

[Idaho]

pah, when has britain ever cared about property rights!

Property rights are 99.9% about defence of privilege.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Property rights are 99.9% about defence of privilege.

Only if one separates the concept of property and the concept of person.

[Husar]

Only if one separates the concept of property and the concept of person.

Why does that make me think of slavery?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why does that make me think of slavery?

I was talking more in terms of Locke. Property accumulated by the capital and labor of a person is a product of a person's efforts (time) spend on its acquisition.

Thus, the burglar taking my TV is, by extension, taking the 2 hours of my life I spent earning the money to acquire it as well as some amortized portion of my education/training/etc. that fitted me to do the work for which I was compensated and with which compensation I purchased that TV.

[Husar]

I was talking more in terms of Locke. Property accumulated by the capital and labor of a person is a product of a person's efforts (time) spend on its acquisition.

Thus, the burglar taking my TV is, by extension, taking the 2 hours of my life I spent earning the money to acquire it as well as some amortized portion of my education/training/etc. that fitted me to do the work for which I was compensated and with which compensation I purchased that TV.

Thanks, but that only works up to the point where the money multiplies itself so fast that you can't even work fast enough to earn it.
I mean at some amount of wealth, gaining more wealth is not quite coupled to effort anymore. At school (IIRC) they told us CEOs earn a lot because of their huge responsibility, but seeing how they get 20 million farewell gifts after they ruined the company, responsibility can't be it, because they have none.