Dan Hodges on why Labour will probably loose the election.

Devon_Sailor

Moby,

At no point did I say that the increase in spending wasn't necessary - just highlighted how the "myth" was wrong.

As the NHS has evolved it has been consistently (one could argue) underfunded due to the disjoint between what Government thinks health costs, and what health actually costs. Treatments, medical procedures and drugs have become much more expensive over the years (which is why I find nothing wrong with the current Govnt attempts to improve competition in the realm of purchasing - it is the biggest single purchaser of medicines etc going...it should be able to negotiate massive discounts!)

What I do take issue with is how wisely that money was used - for example, you say about building hospitals. Most of them were built under crippling PFI deals. IF Blair had actually spent the money and built them, happy days. All for it. To buy them "on tick" and on such ludicrously advantageous contracts to the benefit of the builders, THAT was wrong..... A huge chunk of the "Blair Bounce" in NHS spending has gone not on nurses, Doctors or anything health related - they are wasting it away paying three, four and five times over for the same hospital.

Regards,

D_S

Some interesting articles/pieces form just pages 1 & 2 of a Google search...

http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/mar2011/pfi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2040348/60-hospitals-face-crisis-Labours-PFI-deals.html

http://metro.co.uk/2010/02/07/nhs-pays-63bn-for-pfi-hospitals-worth-11bn-82864/

Oh, and for a bit of balance (because I know you will unfurl your "Daily Fail" line )

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/6783 (Workers Revolutionary Party!)

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=12093

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Moby,

At no point did I say that the increase in spending wasn't necessary - just highlighted how the "myth" was wrong.

As the NHS has evolved it has been consistently (one could argue) underfunded due to the disjoint between what Government thinks health costs, and what health actually costs. Treatments, medical procedures and drugs have become much more expensive over the years (which is why I find nothing wrong with the current Govnt attempts to improve competition in the realm of purchasing - it is the biggest single purchaser of medicines etc going...it should be able to negotiate massive discounts!)

What I do take issue with is how wisely that money was used - for example, you say about building hospitals. Most of them were built under crippling PFI deals. IF Blair had actually spent the money and built them, happy days. All for it. To buy them "on tick" and on such ludicrously advantageous contracts to the benefit of the builders, THAT was wrong..... A huge chunk of the "Blair Bounce" in NHS spending has gone not on nurses, Doctors or anything health related - they are wasting it away paying three, four and five times over for the same hospital.

Regards,

D_S

Some interesting articles/pieces form just pages 1 & 2 of a Google search...

http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/mar2011/pfi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2040348/60-hospitals-face-crisis-Labours-PFI-deals.html

http://metro.co.uk/2010/02/07/nhs-pays-63bn-for-pfi-hospitals-worth-11bn-82864/

Oh, and for a bit of balance (because I know you will unfurl your "Daily Fail" line )

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/6783 (Workers Revolutionary Party!)

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=12093

Blair had to act fast...things were desperate at the time. It was a way out. Huge debts resulted...but the hospitals and schools are there now! Medical costs have increased due to the greed of the pharmaceutical companies. GP's should not be making funding decisions! They don't have the time! This Govmts NHS reforms are unwanted and totally wrong:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/01/nhs-reform-bill-incoherent-doctors

Devon_Sailor

Moby wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/01/nhs-reform-bill-incoherent-doctors

Grauniad quote....fail.



(Sorry...couldn't resist :rotfl:)


I have to disagree to some extent. Yes, investment was needed. But what it really needed was clear heads, taking the time to look at how to reform the NHS properly, and a considered plan as to how to renew or increase the Hospital stock. Just randomly chucking money at a problem rarely works; randomly chucking money at a problem without looking in detail at the sort of contracts you are signing works even less!

Blair had an absolutely platinum plated majority. He could have pushed through any sort of reform that he wanted - but bottled it and took the easy option and cracked open the chequebook.

If he had paused, identified and then made targeted investment, we could have had exactly the same number of hospitals; probably more - but without the crippling costs we have today, with up to 30-40% of an annual running budget being swallowed up by PFI payments.

D_S

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps. Clearly if many countries sent a large number of anti-EU politicians to the European Parliament then something would have to change. I suspect that something would be powers being removed from the parliament until voters voted correctly. There is form there.

UKIP is not anti EU. I suspect few people want to return to a totally devolved Europe. More of a rethink as to how Europe should be bound together, i.e. free trade.

Brussels is driven by political ideology in many ways. Which causes resentment due to the way in which many appointments are made. With no chance for voters to actually pass judgement on what they are doing.

The financial mess that Europe now finds itself in. Cannot be resolved with a one size fits all strategy. Something which impact more and more as the years pass. While the politicians do little to introduce policies for the long term.

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Grauniad quote....fail.



(Sorry...couldn't resist :rotfl:)


I have to disagree to some extent. Yes, investment was needed. But what it really needed was clear heads, taking the time to look at how to reform the NHS properly, and a considered plan as to how to renew or increase the Hospital stock. Just randomly chucking money at a problem rarely works; randomly chucking money at a problem without looking in detail at the sort of contracts you are signing works even less!

Blair had an absolutely platinum plated majority. He could have pushed through any sort of reform that he wanted - but bottled it and took the easy option and cracked open the chequebook.

If he had paused, identified and then made targeted investment, we could have had exactly the same number of hospitals; probably more - but without the crippling costs we have today, with up to 30-40% of an annual running budget being swallowed up by PFI payments.

D_S

.....But IMO Blair did all those things. Remember for the first few years of govmt he was very cautious and stuck to previous govmts spending plans. Blair was never random and he was the last person who could be accused of just chucking money around....In fact he was a control freak....your view as stated above is a tory re-write of recent history with a pinch of benefit of hindsight about PFI...remember they were all the rage at the time and were supported by the tories as well. Blair moved ahead with significant public services reforms following the 'What Works' model. He talked about 'scars on his back' from his battles with 'vested interests' ie people like me in the public sector:). In many ways he did the spade work by enacting legislation which has enabled this govmt to move ahead with further reform and privatisation more quickly! That's why people on the real left hate new labour as much as the tories. He made labour electable again after Thatcher but at what cost for those of a more socialist view?

Then as always events intervene and changes things....9/11, Iraq....the rest is history. He was tainted with that and it split the left.
Its an interesting question... what would have British politics have been like now if Iraq hadn't have happened?

shaggydoo

Generali wrote: »

It'll be a sad day for the UK if the Labour party fights the General Election on a platform of welfarism: confiscating from the few to give to the rest. Hopefully the British people are too sophisticated to fall for a con like that.

The few ??? Do you mean the 1%??? If you mean the 1% do you mean the top 1% of earners or the top 1% by wealth???

Given that most wealth in Britain is still in the hands of the families who were the sidekicks/Barons of William the Conqueror in 1066 it is not likely that the British people are about to wake up any time soon....:D

Devon_Sailor

shaggydoo wrote: »

The few ??? Do you mean the 1%??? If you mean the 1% do you mean the top 1% of earners or the top 1% by wealth???

Given that most wealth in Britain is still in the hands of the families who were the sidekicks/Barons of William the Conqueror in 1066 it is not likely that the British people are about to wake up any time soon....:D

I think if you look at the Sunday Times Rich List today Shaggydoo you will find that that assertion is about as outdated as a pair of William the Conquerors chain mail pants......

Regards,

D_S

Devon_Sailor

Moby wrote: »

Then as always events intervene and changes things....9/11, Iraq....the rest is history. He was tainted with that and it split the left.
Its an interesting question... what would have British politics have been like now if Iraq hadn't have happened?

A very interesting question. I happen to believe you are probably correct - without Iraq we would probably still be in the middle of a deeply entrenched Labour govnt. The irony being that armed intervention in Afghanistan had actually worked brilliantly when they first went in and kicked out the Taliban. They only returned in strength when the eye was taken firmly off the ball by Iraq.

Factor back in all those billions into the economy, plus the potential increase in international "standing" for successfully and virtually peacefully intervening and stabilising Afghanistan, Blair could have been an immovable political colossus.

Having said that however, nobody really knows what is round the corner - Iran might have kicked off with Iraq again (eminently possible) and we would be back to square one.

I suppose what would be the missing "x factor" of your scenario would be the Brown question. With Blair on a seemingly undentable political high, when/would/could he have got to the point where his resentment bubbled over enough to make a challenge?

D_S

Generali

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Having said that however, nobody really knows what is round the corner - Iran might have kicked off with Iraq again (eminently possible) and we would be back to square one.

Iraq 'kicked off' the war with Iran, not the other way around and did so with Western support.

I'm not sure that the Iraq war did for NuLabour it was probably mostly voter fatigue. The British electorate have a very healthy habit of booting out Governments after a while to give the other lot a go.

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UKIP is not anti EU. I suspect few people want to return to a totally devolved Europe. More of a rethink as to how Europe should be bound together, i.e. free trade.

Brussels is driven by political ideology in many ways. Which causes resentment due to the way in which many appointments are made. With no chance for voters to actually pass judgement on what they are doing.

The financial mess that Europe now finds itself in. Cannot be resolved with a one size fits all strategy. Something which impact more and more as the years pass. While the politicians do little to introduce policies for the long term.

Err...UKIP's cornerstone policy is for Britain to immediately leave the EU.