Mervyn King:Labour not responsible for crash

CLAPTON

prowla wrote: »

Sure; it's just that a lot of people seem to tout the numbers in particular as some sort of proof that Labour do more for the NHS than anybody else.

But again with waiting times you have to look at what they actually mean, for example:

• Waiting lists to get onto waiting lists.
• Being told to ring in n weeks time to make a follow-up appointment, rather than booking one there and then.
• Surgeries not releasing bookings until the morning of the same day.
• Seeing a doctor/consultant and then booking the next stage of a treatment, rather than pre-booking a timetabled plan.

So, again, if you measure something then you affect the thing your are measuring; in the above cases, the service providers may well have reduced the waiting lists statistics, but we can't tell by that whether they actually delivered an improved service.

yes indeed so

but everything negative you have said applies equally to Tory, Labour and LibDem periods of administration.

To the extent that you seem to consider all figures as fictional, there can clearly be no sensible discussion about the merits of the different approaches and spending levels.

prowla

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed so

but everything negative you have said applies equally to Tory, Labour and LibDem periods of administration.

To the extent that you seem to consider all figures as fictional, there can clearly be no sensible discussion about the merits of the different approaches and spending levels.

Sure, I am countering the assertion that a given government has more credibility because it provided more funds.

That is what I consider fictional.

Simply using the funding or headcount, or waiting times, as a de-facto measure of good vs bad is inadequate and misleading.

As with most statistics, you have to delve into them and their basis in order to determine the real facts.

In fact, contrary to your last sentence, I am saying that there can clearly be no sensible discussion without considering the merits of the different approaches and spending levels.

CLAPTON

prowla wrote: »

Sure, I am countering the assertion that a given government has more credibility because it provided more funds.

That is what I consider fictional.

Simply using the funding or headcount, or waiting times, as a de-facto measure of good vs bad is inadequate and misleading.

As with most statistics, you have to delve into them and their basis in order to determine the real facts.

In fact, contrary to your last sentence, I am saying that there can clearly be no sensible discussion without considering the merits of the different approaches and spending levels.

I await with interest, the results of your analysis of the real facts.

prowla

CLAPTON wrote: »

I await with interest, the results of your analysis of the real facts.

Give me a couple of years and I'll maybe write a thesis on it!

brit1234

DaveTheMus wrote: »

They were responsible for two illegal wars - mass immigration - a new law passed for everyday they were in office - an acceleration of wealth inequality - PFI contracts - surrender to the IRA...

One illegal war, Iraq. Afghanistan was was totally legal and justified. The Sickening thing about Afghanistan was the troops didn't go in 2 years before. We ignored mass ethnic and religious genocide as well as other huge attrocites as Taliban an al quadea took over 95% of the country in the same way ISIS is doing now. The Afghan government begged for help for years during the attrocites with eventually France and Russia starting to help out before 9/11.

I have a military back ground and totally agree Iraq was illegal, i felt it well before the invasion after listerning to the weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. However Afghanistan invasion was morally and legally justified, just disgustingly 2 years to late.

CLAPTON

brit1234 wrote: »

One illegal war, Iraq. Afghanistan was was totally legal and justified. The Sickening thing about Afghanistan was the troops didn't go in 2 years before. We ignored mass ethnic and religious genocide as well as other huge attrocites as Taliban an al quadea took over 95% of the country in the same way ISIS is doing now. The Afghan government begged for help for years during the attrocites with eventually France and Russia starting to help out before 9/11.

I have a military back ground and totally agree Iraq was illegal, i felt it well before the invasion after listerning to the weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. However Afghanistan invasion was morally and legally justified, just disgustingly 2 years to late.

in what way was IRAQ an illegal war : I understand many didn't approve of the war but to say it is illegal should have a specific meaning

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way was IRAQ an illegal war : I understand many didn't approve of the war but to say it is illegal should have a specific meaning

I'm not convinced that the war in Iraq, whether legal or illegal or whatever, had any connection whatsover to the Great Crash of 2007-08.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I'm not convinced that the war in Iraq, whether legal or illegal or whatever, had any connection whatsover to the Great Crash of 2007-08.

no more or less that any other spending by government before after or during

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

no more or less that any other spending by government before after or during

Well, I suppose there is that. But the cost of the war would not be affected by its legal status (so I don't see the point of that particular argument) and in terms of the overall deficit, the amount spent on blowing up various bits of the world is probably a lot less significant than the recurring cost of so many thousand hip replacements each and every year.

After all, a certain Prime Minister managed to win a war in the South Atlantic without crashing the economy.:)

Interestingly, there is a piece here from the Guardian regarding the cost of the UK's various engagements since 1990. Iraq was cheap at £10bn, Afghanistan cost £20bn.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs

purch

brit1234 wrote: »

One illegal war, Iraq. Afghanistan was was totally legal and justified.

So 15 Saudi citizens, 2 UAE citizens, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon hi-jack four planes and fly 2 into the WTC, and one into the Pentagon and the West goes to war against Afghanistan.

No wonder these people hate us.