Does Brown and Co. know what they are doing?

But I agree with their principles at the core. I don't like things like speed cameras, ID cards & DNA databases though. Anyway, if we're talking in historical terms, then Labour gave us the NHS and thats something to be proud of.

Is the NHS something to be proud of? The idea of healthcare for all (it's not free) can be acheived multiple ways, many of which would provide much better service and value for money, as well as choice, to the end user.

The idea that people are best served by a massive, force funded state monopoly is true certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor is it fair, just or adaptable.
 
Is the NHS something to be proud of? The idea of healthcare for all (it's not free) can be acheived multiple ways, many of which would provide much better service and value for money, as well as choice, to the end user.

The idea that people are best served by a massive, force funded state monopoly is true certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor is it fair, just or adaptable.

What better ways? I'd love to hear them.

Of course the NHS is something to be proud of. I don't want some horrible American system.
 
Economics has no laws. Nothing solid.

You can argue almost anything fairly convincingly - i.e. house prices are going down, people are getting evicted, lots of people now looking to rent, so the market is flooding with demand so rent prices are going up.

...except they aren't - because people who need to sell are finding they can't, or won't for the money they'd get (i.e. they are in negative equity and can't pay off the mortgage even if they sell up) so give up and decide to rent the places out instead. So the market is flooded with supply, rent prices go down.

So in those terms, /everyone/ saw the possibility of the big crash. However, nothing like the crazy growth had happened before; it was unprecedented, and even high-flying economists were able to argue that everything was fine and it'd all work out.

Even I reckon that I spotted it early, and was wondering how everyone could live with so much debt over our heads.

Whoops, looks like we can't. But it appeared to be working at the time, for so many years, so meh.

You could argue that maybe there should have been more contingency planning, I suppose...
 
What better ways? I'd love to hear them.

Of course the NHS is something to be proud of. I don't want some horrible American system.

The squandering of billions, postcode lottery for treatment, super bugs rife in our hospitals, yeah something to be proud of. :rolleyes:
 
Labour has lost their purpose. For almost a decade they convinced us they were doing good by looking after the economy... but now we now it was just a house of cards waiting to collapse.

Labour has used their economic track record as one of their selling points over the past decade. What else do they have left to sell themselves on? The NHS? Schools? Crime? I really can't think of anything!
 
One poorly implemented but notionally benevolent socialist ideal makes up for all the disasters Labour has overseen does it?

Well, saying things like "poorly implemented" and "disasters" is your opinion of course. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or believe you. Where did you even get, "makes up for" from anyway?

I'm not debating about the economic stuff anyway. Not one of my posts in this thread is talking about that.

There's enough threads and discussions about the economy on this forum already. Find someone else to flame.
 
What better ways? I'd love to hear them.

A french or scandinavian system (eg privately run/managed competative hospitals with either a government collected insurance policy or a government mandated minimum cover/cost level)? Still free at point of use, but massively increased choice, increased efficiency at local levels, rewards for better service/cleanliness/results etc etc

Of course the NHS is something to be proud of. I don't want some horrible American system.

There are plenty of alternative systems that are nothing like the american one, many of them providing better overall results than the NHS does...
 
And all this from a man not even elected. :rolleyes:

Gordon Brown was elected to represent his constituency, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in his case. In the UK we do not elect a prime minister we elect a local MP who maybe a member of a political party. Poltical Parties elect a leader and when a party forms a government this leader becomes PM.

It really is quite simple and straight forward.
 
Chimerical said:
I don't mean to ignore you, but I'm not really trying to debate about the current economic issues specifically.

No problem - The thing is, those extra doctors and nurse numbers were put in place by a report from about 1990 called 'Tomorrow's Doctors' that called for the expansion of UK medical school numbers. They were just reannounced numbers from a plan put in place before New Labour were even born.

By squandered money I mean that compared to the amount of money they've put into the NHS the returns aren't as good as would be expected. Much of the money has gone in overpriced PFI schemes where the tax payer gets screwed as prices spiral and we pay over the odds interest to the private companies.

Then there's the spiralling number of NHS managers and the non-comprehensive targets firgures, designed so that resources are targeted at one figure at the expense of another, or where to meet a deadline figure for 'definitive treatment' patients end up getting suboptimal treatment (eg radiotherapy instead of curative surgery for cancer) simply because the hospital can more easily provide it within the specified time-frame. They do much better to increase the numbers of facilities and resources and staff and allow doctors to decide what the targets should be, rather than non-clinical managers who come up with meaningless targets to meet as instructed from above. Targets for targets sake, set by people who'll manipulate them to keep their jobs. It's nonsense. Just think of what could have been done with all the money this country made over the past 12 years.
 
A french or scandinavian system (eg privately run/managed competative hospitals with either a government collected insurance policy or a government mandated minimum cover/cost level)? Still free at point of use, but massively increased choice, increased efficiency at local levels, rewards for better service/cleanliness/results etc etc



There are plenty of alternative systems that are nothing like the american one, many of them providing better overall results than the NHS does...

And costing much, much more and not being anywhere near as efficient as you seem to think.
 
But I agree with their principles at the core. I don't like things like speed cameras, ID cards & DNA databases though. Anyway, if we're talking in historical terms, then Labour gave us the NHS and thats something to be proud of.

Every argument for Labour is based on historical terms.

What have they done recently thats stuck to their core principles? Nothing, because they have totally abandoned them.
 
A french or scandinavian system (eg privately run/managed competative hospitals with either a government collected insurance policy or a government mandated minimum cover/cost level)? Still free at point of use, but massively increased choice, increased efficiency at local levels, rewards for better service/cleanliness/results etc etc

There are plenty of alternative systems that are nothing like the american one, many of them providing better overall results than the NHS does...

Unlike in the UK in France treatment, whether private or public, is not free at the point of delivery. Even if you subscribe to the Sécurité sociale, on seeing a doctor or specialist (specialiste) you first pay the full bill (tarif) and are then reimbursed at a later date (about 10 days). Generally speaking, Sécurité sociale refunds 70 per cent of the cost of a visit to a médecin traitant (a GP or family doctor) and most specialistes.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197

I think thats what you mean by free point of entry? Most of the money is refunded by the looks of it, but it appears to operate differently from the NHS.

The site I linked does say it is more efficient though, than the NHS, shorter waiting times, cleaner, etc. I don't know much about the French system anyway (i.e. that it was competatively run).
 
Every argument for Labour is based on historical terms.

What have they done recently thats stuck to their core principles? Nothing, because they have totally abandoned them.

People will always look to the past to prove points.

I've see plenty of Thatcher-based arguments by Conservative supporters who use that to justify whatever opinions. I agree that Labour don't stick to their core principles. They're more Tory-lite than anyone wants to admit really.

To be honest, I think that the education system needs reforming in this country. Problem is, if Labour won't do it, then the Conservatives definitely won't.
 
People will always look to the past to prove points.

I've see plenty of Thatcher-based arguments by Conservative supporters who use that to justify whatever opinions. I agree that Labour don't stick to their core principles. They're more Tory-lite than anyone wants to admit really.

More just 'Tory', but now one that won't get re-elected.

To be honest, I think that the education system needs reforming in this country. Problem is, if Labour won't do it, then the Conservatives definitely won't.

Hey, they gave us more faith schools to help with the problems of social integration and failed multi-culturalism!;)
 
Thats probably because it's true historically. Labour always seem to wreck the economy and the Tories always seem to sort it.

Historically true? Well the last recession certainly had nothing to do with the Labour party.
 
No problem - The thing is, those extra doctors and nurse numbers were put in place by a report from about 1990 called 'Tomorrow's Doctors' that called for the expansion of UK medical school numbers. They were just reannounced numbers from a plan put in place before New Labour were even born.

By squandered money I mean that compared to the amount of money they've put into the NHS the returns aren't as good as would be expected. Much of the money has gone in overpriced PFI schemes where the tax payer gets screwed as prices spiral and we pay over the odds interest to the private companies.

Then there's the spiralling number of NHS managers and the non-comprehensive targets firgures, designed so that resources are targeted at one figure at the expense of another, or where to meet a deadline figure for 'definitive treatment' patients end up getting suboptimal treatment (eg radiotherapy instead of curative surgery for cancer) simply because the hospital can more easily provide it within the specified time-frame. They do much better to increase the numbers of facilities and resources and staff and allow doctors to decide what the targets should be, rather than non-clinical managers who come up with meaningless targets to meet as instructed from above. Targets for targets sake, set by people who'll manipulate them to keep their jobs. It's nonsense. Just think of what could have been done with all the money this country made over the past 12 years.

Fair enough. That is something I'm not really qualified to agree/disagree with though, but thanks for posting something comprehensive. I understand your point however.

Maybe spending should be made more transparent. I just hope that if Cameron gets into power that NHS spending continues to the same degree.
 
More just 'Tory', but now one that won't get re-elected.

Hey, they gave us more faith schools to help with the problems of social integration and failed multi-culturalism!;)

I'm not massively happy about the existance of faith-schools (i.e. the stupid Roman Catholic secondary school that I used to attend).

But Christian, Muslim, Hindu & Jewish schools are fine of thats what some people want; not that I'd ever, hypothetically-speaking, send my child to a faith school.

I think all schools are too focused on academia & provide poor or too little sex education; are my issues with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom