May 2011 Election

[Reynard]

ie not answering it at all. It was clear that the Tories neglected NHS funding and measure were taken to correct this. Without stressing the national balance sheet.

Spending certainly went up massively under Labour. Maybe you can fish out the amount of money that was spunked away on wages within the NHS and how much this increased under Labour. The main reason being that although lots more money was spent, patients saw virtually f**k all in return for it. All the money was trousered by doctors, nurses managers etc. And that's pretty much who the NHS is being run for anyway. It's an absolutely centralised money pit and its spending needs to be looked at properly and geared towards patient care a hell of a lot more than it has been.

[banterman86]

The main reason being that although lots more money was spent, patients saw virtually f**k all in return for it.

Again, what's your basis for this?

[OldWasp]

To be fair (unusual I know) the Tories also increased spending on the NHS in their last shot. While the NHS is a Good Thing - it will eat up as much money as you can throw at it. The norma l response is to attack the number of managers - I think it needs a bit more analysis - if the NHS cant make economies then it is the only organisation in world history to be in that position.

[Reynard]

Again, what's your basis for this?

My basis for what?

Old Wasp is correct. You could basically spend every penny the country has on the NHS and it still wouldn't be enough, but without making it run more efficiently you'd be as well just burning the wedge. And although Labour certainly did increase spending on the NHS there was no attempt made to make it run in a more cost effective way.

And in spite of what the left will attempt to tell you, the Tories have actually never cut spending on the NHS. Although they probably should try and force some sort of reorganisation to get better bang for its bucks in terms of what it is actually there for. Preventing poor people getting chronically sick so we can have them in better nick for fighting wars.

[Reynard]

To be fair (unusual I know) the Tories also increased spending on the NHS in their last shot. While the NHS is a Good Thing - it will eat up as much money as you can throw at it. The norma l response is to attack the number of managers - I think it needs a bit more analysis - if the NHS cant make economies then it is the only organisation in world history to be in that position.

They have never actually cut spending on the NHS at any time they have been in power.

[Ad Lib]

They have never actually cut spending on the NHS at any time they have been in power.

Well, not strictly true. They cut health spending in 1996 (by about £7 billion in 2003 money), but every year since 1980 bar 1996 has seen a real terms increase in spending on the NHS. Real terms increase was almost always by about £1 billion in 2003 money under the Tories whereas Labour took the health spending from £48billion or so in 2003 money to £108billion in 2003 money in the space of 13 years.

[banterman86]

My basis for what?

That the NHS hasn't improved post '97. You've claimed that a few times now, then start babbling on about throwing money at it.

Fair point about it being a "financial black hole" but you've intimated that it hasn't improved at all, or in a way so small it isn't noticeable, in 13 years

[Mushroom]

No I'm not. Osborne isn't going nearly far enough. He's only doing what's necessary to balance the books. I'd go further and use it as a chance to cut back the state to the bare minimum to reach the stateless libertarian utopia.

I bet Osbourne would like to but Clegg will have dragged it back.

I don't agree with neo-libertarianism to be honest. Despite the word including "libera" it is a freedom directed at businesses rather than citizens. A distinctly right wing ideology. (Economic right/left which is in no way related to liberalism or authoritarianism)

I still like the Australian model. Pump some money into the public sector, address deficit as soon as we're out of the woods. In Scotlands case. Build shitloads of offshore wind farms.

[Ad Lib]

I bet Osbourne would like to but Clegg will have dragged it back.

I don't agree with neo-libertarianism to be honest. Despite the word including "libera" it is a freedom directed at businesses rather than citizens. A distinctly right wing ideology. (Economic right/left which is in no way related to liberalism or authoritarianism)

Osborne doesn't want to go far enough for me. He's allowed NHS spending to rise in real terms yet again when it's quite possibly the single most inefficient bit of the entire public sector.

Libertarianism is about government staying out of your lives to the greatest degree possible to allow the individual to take maximum responsibility for their own actions and prosperity, which is fundamentally right.

I don't think you understand what is meant by right wing economics. It is a belief in low taxes and small state, because the individual knows how better to spend his own money than government does. It's not this ludicrous caricature of "right wing is pro business and banks booh hiss" and "left wing cares about the poor wee man la la la". Big and monopolising business is in fact absolutely contrary to the belief in competition producing the most efficient outcomes, the cornerstone of the free market ideology.

I still like the Australian model. Pump some money into the public sector, address deficit as soon as we're out of the woods. In Scotlands case. Build shitloads of offshore wind farms.

Australia is completely incomparable though, as it has a tiny structural deficit which isn't even 18% of GDP (c.f. ours which is tipping 70%). They balanced their books when the times were good and they ran an export intensive economy. That means that they can afford to throw money at the problem without having to pay the equivalent of the cost of a new state-of-the-art fully paid up hospital on interest payments every week.

Imagine that one man has a small bit of his mortgage left (Australia). Imagine also that another man has a large mortgage (albeit on a bigger house), 3 maxed out credit cards and a loan secured on his car, and he's in arrears on his electricity bill (UK).

Both men want to buy Gold, and investment that, if they sit patiently, will make them a nice wad of cash. The first man can probably take a risk by renegotiating the terms of his mortgage, perhaps increasing monthly repayments to release some equity. His debt goes up a wee bit, but the asset he gains makes it safe for him to do so and he'll probably still be able to meet his monthly repayments.

What you are effectively suggesting is that the second man should take out another credit card to buy some gold. What the Coalition suggest is that he stops buying new clothes, shops at the Co-op instead of Waitrose, considers trying to downsize his car to something more fuel efficient, considers selling his old golf clubs and pays his bills to get back on top of things.

[raith_94]

If Scotland votes in Iain Gray as FM, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. It would prove that Scotland was too shit to be independent. And Labour would be loving it.

Scottish Labour embodies stagnation, pessimism and a lack of ambition or passion. I'm more and more beginning to think that's what we embody as a country.

Sadly I think you're right. The SNP are by no means perfect, but I trust them most to at least try and create and optimistic, self-determining, Scotland.

[Reynard]

That the NHS hasn't improved post '97. You've claimed that a few times now, then start babbling on about throwing money at it.

Fair point about it being a "financial black hole" but you've intimated that it hasn't improved at all, or in a way so small it isn't noticeable, in 13 years

I'm saying it hasn't improved in line with the amount of money Labour has lobbed at it. In fact it hasn't improved at all . Its much the same as it has always been. Apart from the fact that the wage bill is now much higher...

[Mushroom]

Osborne doesn't want to go far enough for me. He's allowed NHS spending to rise in real terms yet again when it's quite possibly the single most inefficient bit of the entire public sector.

Libertarianism is about government staying out of your lives to the greatest degree possible to allow the individual to take maximum responsibility for their own actions and prosperity, which is fundamentally right.

I don't think you understand what is meant by right wing economics. It is a belief in low taxes and small state, because the individual knows how better to spend his own money than government does. It's not this ludicrous caricature of "right wing is pro business and banks booh hiss" and "left wing cares about the poor wee man la la la". Big and monopolising business is in fact absolutely contrary to the belief in competition producing the most efficient outcomes, the cornerstone of the free market ideology.

Australia is completely incomparable though, as it has a tiny structural deficit which isn't even 18% of GDP (c.f. ours which is tipping 70%). They balanced their books when the times were good and they ran an export intensive economy. That means that they can afford to throw money at the problem without having to pay the equivalent of the cost of a new state-of-the-art fully paid up hospital on interest payments every week.

Imagine that one man has a small bit of his mortgage left (Australia). Imagine also that another man has a large mortgage (albeit on a bigger house), 3 maxed out credit cards and a loan secured on his car, and he's in arrears on his electricity bill (UK).

Both men want to buy Gold, and investment that, if they sit patiently, will make them a nice wad of cash. The first man can probably take a risk by renegotiating the terms of his mortgage, perhaps increasing monthly repayments to release some equity. His debt goes up a wee bit, but the asset he gains makes it safe for him to do so and he'll probably still be able to meet his monthly repayments.

What you are effectively suggesting is that the second man should take out another credit card to buy some gold. What the Coalition suggest is that he stops buying new clothes, shops at the Co-op instead of Waitrose, considers trying to downsize his car to something more fuel efficient, considers selling his old golf clubs and pays his bills to get back on top of things.

That was more convincing, but I've had too much of a confusing day to really think about it properly right now.

I think I'm still veering towards SNP for this election which feels strange because I think Salmond is a bit of a fud.

[kiwififer]

I've decided. If labour get voted in with a large majority - I'm off. Swarley better start preparing the spare room.

[Ad Lib]

I've decided. If labour get voted in with a large majority - I'm off. Swarley better start preparing the spare room.

Mercifully, the AMS system means that Labour aren't likely to get in with an absolute majority, never mind a large one. Their strength is in the constituency vote, but all that does is make it harder for them to win seats on the lists as the two are connected.

[kiwififer]

Mercifully, the AMS system means that Labour aren't likely to get in with an absolute majority, never mind a large one. Their strength is in the constituency vote, but all that does is make it harder for them to win seats on the lists as the two are connected.

Might not even depend on that. 101 shitty things swirling through my head tonight, just ignore me.

[banterman86]

I'm saying it hasn't improved in line with the amount of money Labour has lobbed at it. In fact it hasn't improved at all . Its much the same as it has always been. Apart from the fact that the wage bill is now much higher...

Yet again, what are you basing this on?

[nessies long lost ghost]

Anyone else bewildered that Gray will most likely become first minister in May.

[capybara]

Anyone else bewildered that Gray will most likely become first minister in May.

A terrible politician. Devoid of character and policies.

[Reynard]

Yet again, what are you basing this on?

I'm basing it on the fact that money has been lobbed into the NHS and the wage bill is higher. Patient care hasn't vastly improved has it?

[Law Stud]

Patient care certainly hasn't improved. How many cases of MRSA was there during Thatcher or Majors government? or CDiff? or Winter Vomiting?

I live in an area where the improvement should be massive and obvious but it's not.

I remember the day when I fell on my hand. I couldn't move it and it was swelling rapidly. I was in quite a bit of pain and I got a taxi to Law Hospital. I looked at the digital board flashing up the approximate wait time and decided that at 1.5 hours I was sore but not THAT sore. I went home, slept on it and returned the following morning to be seen in 10 minutes, x-rayed, plastered and home again within an hour.

These days a trip to Wishaw A&E at any time will see a standard wait time of 4 hours unless you are brought in by ambulance.

Oh and anyone who has had a baby in Law and then Wishaw will tell you just how badly that service has deteriorated too.