The Terry Smith solution

purch

Wookster wrote: »

All of these seem imminently sensible.

But also unworkable and unlikely ever to happen.

Thrugelmir

Wookster wrote: »

All of these seem imminently sensible.

Where's the detail though?

Easy to make grand plans. Far harder to implement them. As everything takes time to change.

We just have to accept the fact that it could another decade to rebalance the economy.

Takes a generation to change a culture.

N1AK

Wookster wrote: »

All of these seem imminently sensible.

A lot of it sounds like ill-thought out nonsense to me. He suggests dropping foreign aid for various reasons. A large part of the point of foreign aid isn't just to give aid but to buy influence and support given how little we spend it's arguably very good value for money.

He suggests oncology should be covered by the NHS, ignoring the fact that insurance against cancer treatment wouldn't actually be that expensive and cancer isn't a costly disease to society (being coldly rational in line with his nature). If however you slipped a disk and now couldn't work in your expert field you'd get no assistance and become a bigger liability to the state (unless you'd do the decent thing and die to help him out). What's 'genuine' A&E and doesn't that ignore the fact that in many cases early intervention considerably lowers the cost of treatment (an elderly lady with risk of brittle bones can be assisted more cost effectively than waiting till she shatters a hip in a fall).

Some of his stuff is absolutely bang on. We should account for future liabilities and move to having funded pension pots as well as projecting spending more 'holistically'.

chewmylegoff

purch wrote: »

Certainly.

Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of visiting an ER at a US Hospital, receiving a far lower level of service than you would get at any NHS Hospital, and then been presented with a bill for many hundreds of dollars would echo that opinion.

Of course. However most people living in most other first world countries probably wouldn't want to swap their part private, part public healthcare systems for the free at point of delivery nhs and its poorer healthcare outcomes.

But as hamish pointed out, free healthcare at point of delivery is absolutely ingrained into the national psyche. The !!!!!! entitlement complex would see people prefer to pay less, wait longer and die sooner so we can celebrate the jewel in our crown, the envy of the world!

Anyone suggesting a radical overhaul of healthcare provision including a charging structure might as well go the whole hog and propose to euthanise pensioners to reduce the deficit.

MacMickster

Sounds like a typical self-publicist who has a new book coming out soon, so is trying to make sure that his name is in the public eye.

As for his solution - he makes The White Horse look like a despicable lefty.

Kennyboy66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Where's the detail though?

Easy to make grand plans. Far harder to implement them. As everything takes time to change.

We just have to accept the fact that it could another decade to rebalance the economy.

Takes a generation to change a culture.

Does it really though ?

Thatcher (and I'm no fan) changed the culture of the UK within 7 years (1980-87). It may have taken some people a lot longer to come to terms with it, but by 1987, large parts of life were a million miles away from 1979.

Kennyboy66

"Overseas aid should be stopped immediately to any country that has GDP per capita higher than the UK"

very sensible - although I'd struggle to imagine that any overseas aid falls into this category.

the_flying_pig

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

"Overseas aid should be stopped immediately to any country that has GDP per capita higher than the UK"

very sensible - although I'd struggle to imagine that any overseas aid falls into this category.

Yeah. There's a fair bit of crap in there as well as the odd bit of common sense. We still give aid to india, who with a slightly smaller GDP than us but c. 20 times the population is an immeasurably poorer country, and brazil, who with about the same GDP and maybe 3-4 times the population probably dorsn't have a v strong 'moral' case for aid... But in truth the sums we give it are trifling and it's just stupid to suggest that they're an impediment to uk growth. sub daily mail drivel from a writer who should know better. Just comes across as a greedy whingebag who doesn't want to pay tax.

A._Badger

So, ignoring the doctrinaire scorn being poured on this pundit's suggestions, what seems to be the alternative from our learned commentariat?

From here it looks like the forum wisdom is for more of the same sort of social democratic soft-Leftism that has prevailed in Europe (with one or two small interruptions) since WWII.

And doesn't that call to mind that fine old definition of madness - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?

Wookster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Where's the detail though?

Easy to make grand plans. Far harder to implement them. As everything takes time to change.

We just have to accept the fact that it could another decade to rebalance the economy.

Takes a generation to change a culture.

Change is on the way but, the biggest thing that needs doing: re-skilling much of the workforce does not seem to be happening. All we are seeing is erosion of living standards with no plan for really
creating skills and the environment that will enable growth.

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Does it really though ?

Thatcher (and I'm no fan) changed the culture of the UK within 7 years (1980-87).

From what I have read (I was young when she was in power) she did change a lot, most of it related to dismantling non state apparatus. It is far far harder to build a competitive economy then to smash unions (which needed to be done at the time).