We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Labour Ahead In Economy Poll -By 2% You Gov
Comments
-
You're right that public opinion was in favour of increased spending but that doesn't allow the government off the hook it just spreads the blame. A governments job is to manage the country not just chase votes.
What makes Labour's behaviour even less excusable is the fact that the current conservative government is doing the unpopular, right, thing and dealing with our finances; what does Labour do? Campaign for more of the irresponsible spending without funding that got us here in the first place.
Surely Governments elected by the people should do what they said they would do , at least initially, or until they realise that this is not in the national interest.
Labour in 1997 did exactly what they were elected to do and increased education and heath spending. You can argue that they should have looked for more efficient ways of spending the money but that does not mean they had any reason not to increase spending.
Similarly, the Conservatives and Lib Dems, while not exactly elected, did do what they said in terms of public spending cuts. Where they deserve to be criticised is in doing things that werer not necessary and which they were not elected to do. For example, wasting vast sums of money we cannot afford to waste on further NHS reorganisation.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
It would bring real NHS spending down to levels around 1990.
'''''''''''''
Most health spending is an economic luxury and as British politicians don't have the cojones to tell their electorate that they have to cut the biggest service costs which provide the least value for money (NHS and education) they'll leaves it to foreign diplomats.
People speak of health spending as if we are indulging ourselves. Labour in 1997 only planned to raise spending to the average of EU spending on health and its still much , much less than the US spend.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Of course, increasing spending was not the same as making improvements. (And some of the increased spending was stolen from charities by siphoning off National Lottery funds to spend on infrastructure.)0
-
-
People speak of health spending as if we are indulging ourselves. Labour in 1997 only planned to raise spending to the average of EU spending on health and its still much , much less than the US spend.
Anyone who thinks comparing the healthcare spend per capita between the UK & US gives any meaningful result is displaying their ignorance. The cost structure is s different they are incomparable!0 -
Of course, increasing spending was not the same as making improvements. (And some of the increased spending was stolen from charities by siphoning off National Lottery funds to spend on infrastructure.)
Every penny spent on the NHS is a penny wasted. It's not investment, its burning cash on nothing.0 -
Anyone who thinks comparing the healthcare spend per capita between the UK & US gives any meaningful result is displaying their ignorance. The cost structure is s different they are incomparable!
Do please explain my ignorance in this matter.
Are citizens of other nations facing different health problems?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »What relevance does other countries spending have?
Some are arguing that money spent on the NHS is wasteful.
My point is simply that whatever model you adopt for funding healthcare in UK it will cost the population something. How much would we collectively spend on insurance if we did not have the NHS. Would the average person pay more than the average US citizen or less? More than the average German or less?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Are citizens of other nations facing different health problems?
Yes cost of insuring oneself in the USA for healthcare is expensive. Basic service is very poor.
Remember when an employee on business required emergency treatment for a gallstone. Despite having medical cover. We had to deposit $20,000 before the operation could be performed.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards