Oh That's Alright Then

Growler wrote:Under 7 -8 years of the Tories we've now got the worst NHS performance records since they began, people dying in corridors because they can't see a doctor and cunts like  Branson siphoning money out of the system as quick as the Tories can give him contracts

I don't disagree with you, it's a shambles, but it's been a shambles for years and years.

But there are over a million more people in the UK than there were when the Labour government were booted out. A million people more. It isn't sustainable.

If Labour got in tomorrow nothing would change because they're politicians. To sort out the NHS you have to make unpopular decisions. Sadly, we don't have that sort of politician anymore.

xmiles wrote:Even if it were true do you really believe that spending less money on the NHS every year than the rate of inflation is going to improve matters?

I don't think enough is spent on the NHS, far from it. But if £100 billion was injected into the NHS tomorrow it wouldn't make that much difference. The doctors and nurses wouldn't get a pay rise - it'd all be wasted.

xmiles wrote:When are you going to provide factual evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that the NHS was in just as bad a state under Labour as it is now?

I've given factual evidence. My Great Aunt Ethel. You can't get any more factual than that.

A million people more yes, that’s also a million more contributors to the pot both in terms of output and taxes. It also highlights how cutting spending to 1% from 4% under Labour is such a disastrous policy.

All the facts show the NHS is in a worst state now than it was under Labour. But that’s beside the point, and gets us nowhere. What we need to look at is what governments plan to do, what policies do the Tories have to deal with this?

I don't know Nat. It seems that every decision made by the current government is disagreed with by the majority of this board.   (have to admit, often with good reason).

gloswhite wrote:I don't know Nat. It seems that every decision made by the current government is disagreed with by the majority of this board.   (have to admit, often with good reason).

The government don't spend enough on the NHS, but if they hiked everyone's taxes there would be riots in the street.

They can't win.

T.R.O.Y wrote:A million people more yes, that’s also a million more contributors to the pot both in terms of output and taxes.

Unless all million are of working age with a guaranteed job, then that couldn't possibly be the case.

I would suspect that based on the average age of the population - both resident and those arriving from abroad - that at least a third (if not more) are babies and children under the age of sixteen.

(The additional million would also be increasing the strain on other services also such as housing and transportation).

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Growler wrote:If the Tories can find £1 billion for the  DUP they can find extra  money for the NHS. Of course they won't, because the Tory end game is privatisation.The only solution to the NHS crisis is to remove a government that prioritises giving tax breaks to the mega rich over health care.

Ha ha, the NHS was a shambles under Labour as well - we've been hearing these sorts of stories for three decades or more.

Plus, the population is around 1 million more than it was under the last Labour government.

Some of you need to look at facts rather than just blame the Tories for everything. My sister is a nurse, she still thinks the problem is too many middle managers who don't actually contribute. Also, there's no incentive for young people to become a nurse.

Get rid of the middle managers, increase the average nurse wage, and the problem becomes more manageable.

the reason that nurses aren't coming into the profession is down to nursing bursaries being stopped by you guessed it - The Tories!

The baby boomer generation has reached maturity and consequently the state pensions they (we) contributed to are currently a greater expenditure than running the NHS. Had previous Government's not "borrowed" money from the NI pot to fund their wars and electorate/media-friendly projects there would be ample to go round. However we have an electoral system that demands short-termism in Government where the threat of Government change every few years overrides the long-term needs of the nation. Privatisation has been used as a "solution" to the lack of central Government funding created by weakness and mismanagement and it does look like the Tories are leading the NHS down the privatisation path and will claim there's no alternative when it gets bad enough and will use the rise of an ageing population as an excuse - rather than admitting that successive Governments have pillaged the pot to do vote winning stuff. Currently it's a matter of prioritisation because funds are tight and will get tighter e.g. would we rather have big infrastructure projects like Crossrail and the Olympics and defence projects like Trident or have a functioning NHS and decent schools?
We just have to get through this period because in 20 years time the make up of the national demographic will change again and there will once again be a far higher proportion of state contributors and a much lower proportion of state dependents - the exact circumstances that were in place when the baby boomer generation came into existence.
We do need to modernise and regulate our electoral system and Government to meet the needs of the modern world and until that happens we will always be tied to a variable economic cycle with successive Governments raiding the national pot to fund party-specific vote-winning projects rather than what we actually need as a nation.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:A million people more yes, that’s also a million more contributors to the pot both in terms of output and taxes.

Unless all million are of working age with a guaranteed job, then that couldn't possibly be the case.

I would suspect that based on the average age of the population - both resident and those arriving from abroad - that at least a third (if not more) are babies and children under the age of sixteen.

(The additional million would also be increasing the strain on other services also such as housing and transportation).

I know and thanks Sluffy, but I felt breaking that down was a little unnecessary given the main point of my post, money won’t solve everything - so what policies are being implemented by the Tories? 

For instance, what about the recruitment issues they’ve exacerbated by removing the nurses bursary?

Norpig wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Growler wrote:If the Tories can find £1 billion for the  DUP they can find extra  money for the NHS. Of course they won't, because the Tory end game is privatisation.The only solution to the NHS crisis is to remove a government that prioritises giving tax breaks to the mega rich over health care.

Ha ha, the NHS was a shambles under Labour as well - we've been hearing these sorts of stories for three decades or more.

Plus, the population is around 1 million more than it was under the last Labour government.

Some of you need to look at facts rather than just blame the Tories for everything. My sister is a nurse, she still thinks the problem is too many middle managers who don't actually contribute. Also, there's no incentive for young people to become a nurse.

Get rid of the middle managers, increase the average nurse wage, and the problem becomes more manageable.

the reason that nurses aren't coming into the profession is down to nursing bursaries being stopped by you guessed it - The Tories!

Beat me to it!

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:A million people more yes, that’s also a million more contributors to the pot both in terms of output and taxes.

Unless all million are of working age with a guaranteed job, then that couldn't possibly be the case.

I would suspect that based on the average age of the population - both resident and those arriving from abroad - that at least a third (if not more) are babies and children under the age of sixteen.

(The additional million would also be increasing the strain on other services also such as housing and transportation).

I know and thanks Sluffy, but I felt breaking that down was a little unnecessary given the main point of my post, money won’t solve everything - so what policies are being implemented by the Tories? 

For instance, what about the recruitment issues they’ve exacerbated by removing the nurses bursary?

It's an impossible problem to solve irrespective of which political party is in power.

I guess ideally a system where 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is fairly and universally implemented, should work - but Marxism has up to now failed miserably wherever its been tried - no doubt because as Orwell's Napoleon and Snowball put it 'some are more equal than others' still!

I guess it is best if we all simply don't fall sick in the first place.

You’ll never perfect it, but do you think the current government are doing enough to help it is the real point?

We need a referendum. Simple question so as not to confuse the populus. Brexit Trident or Hospitals - you choose.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’ll never perfect it, but do you think the current government are doing enough to help it is the real point?

I don't know in all honesty.

I tend to take all politics with a pinch of salt as there are only two rules in politics (whatever party you are - or even if it is just simple office [or home life] politics)

Rule 1 - gain power
Rule 2 - keep power.

People/parties will promise the earth to get you to support them - and then quickly forget about you once they do.

When they think they might lose that power they will give you anything you can to keep a hold of you.

As you can't please all of the people all of the time, then the weakest and less influential will always be the ones that suffer.

This manifests itself all the time throughout life.

Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely - as can be evidenced on political scales - a billion to the dodgy views of the DUP to keep the Conservatives in power - to the casting couch approach to young starlets (football apprentices) from film moguls (football coaches).

So if the Conservatives think they will lose the next election if they don't do something about it, then they will act. However I think they believe Brexit is where they will win/lose the next election and that is what they have their eye on, irrespective of anything else.

Although I don't think it's central to this debate I do agree about the Conservatives changing with the wind to get vote. You can see that with their sudden swing to try and get back some young voters having spent the last 7 years giving hand outs to the older generation at our expense. I don't think it will wash though, and I don't think they'll ever invest what needs to be in the health service. They never have and never will.

To be honest I struggle to see how anyone can read the evidence (much of which has been posted on this thread) and not come to the conclusion that the government are woefully under-performing on healthcare, it's all there.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Although I don't think it's central to this debate I do agree about the Conservatives changing with the wind to get vote. You can see that with their sudden swing to try and get back some young voters having spent the last 7 years giving hand outs to the older generation at our expense. I don't think it will wash though, and I don't think they'll ever invest what needs to be in the health service. They never have and never will.

To be honest I struggle to see how anyone can read the evidence (much of which has been posted on this thread) and not come to the conclusion that the government are woefully under-performing on healthcare it's all there.

My point was that all political parties change with the prevailing wind - not just the Conservatives.

Also under-performing is really only meaningful when it effects you or someone you know.

When demand outstrips supply what do you do?

I watch a BBC documentary series recently on the Ambulance services in the midlands and how stretched they were. The bottom line was that the service had basically moved away from providing front line service to becoming more of a social 'touchy feely' welfare provider to the old, mentally ill, drunks, druggies and everyone else on the margin of social care.

Should NHS money (I assume the ambulance service is NHS funded?) be spent on what is basically Social services provision (funded from local council's) - or even be provided at all to known serial abusers of the service?

If so where do you draw the line between unlimited Healthcare provision for all irrespective of the cost to provide it or limiting it in some way - one of the main costs I would imagine being the wages of those providing the service.

I guess if you can't control demand for the service and you have finite resources then something as to give somewhere and I would think from a political stand point - moving away from universal free healthcare provision provided by the NHS would be political suicide - and hence why staff provision costs are target instead.

I've no answers but like most things there are two sides to the argument and as long as long as NHS access is so widely available to all (even if you simply don't actually require it and waste everybody's time by demanding to be seen) then there will always be an issue in funding it fully.

Even if the NHS was fully funded and had retained universal access, then either taxes would have to be raised our other services say Education, cut to provide for it - and thus start a further political issue somewhere else.

I think it's difficult to judge that of Corbyn's Labour, this is a different animal from New Labour, and let's face it aside from Europe his principles (and those of the left in the party) have remained consistent for the last 30 years.

You raise an excellent point though cuts to social care means that the NHS is having to pick up the shortfall. When demand increases you raise the supply it's as simple as that, the Tories have effectively cut the NHS budget year on year since 2007, the increases aren't even keeping up with inflation now never mind growing demand.

Raise taxes to pay for it, we pay less for healthcare than any other country in the OECD that needs to change. Money won't solve everything though, policy needs to change behaviour both in terms of our personal health and how we use the healthcare services.

The thing with Corbynism (is there such a word?) is the same with what the Liberals/Lib Dem's have said for years - you can promise anything and always look good until you actually get voted into power and have to deliver on your polices.

Maybe Corbyn should be given a go but I have a nasty feeling it will all end in tears - just like it did under Labour pre-Blair.

The Wilson years led up to unsustainable nationalised industries coal, the car industry, Steel, etc, higher taxation and high inflation that it led to a radical reaction by the voters and a decade and a half of Thatcherism.

I guess the moral of the story is be careful for what you wish for because one day you may get it!

True, who knows until/unless it actually happens.