Who will win the UK election ?

Thrugelmir

tberry6686 wrote: »

The big winner in this election will be Alex Salmond. The biggest losers will (as always) be the electorate.

Or even the start of his epitaph.

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's not policy though. That's on the hoof spin. No sooner that it was announced, then energy prices globally have been falling. Do we hear the policy now?

What's next weeks reactionary policy going to be? What the UK requires is long term plans from the Government of the day.

Yes we do hear it now - it was part of a speech Milliband made the other day.

This week's reactionary policy is that Labour will cap the amount of profit that the private sector can make when working on NHS contracts. A max profit of 5% apparently. Quite what this means and how it will be assessed and monitored is anyone's guess.

Loughton_Monkey

:rotfl:

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yes we do hear it now - it was part of a speech Milliband made the other day.

This week's reactionary policy is that Labour will cap the amount of profit that the private sector can make when working on NHS contracts. A max profit of 5% apparently. Quite what this means and how it will be assessed and monitored is anyone's guess.

I expect that all those fat cats enjoying the lucrative fruits of the "PFI" so-called 'initiative' [an oxymoron if ever I heard one] will be laughing in their offshore banks knowing they cannot be touched retrospectively.

Surely the largest private suppliers to the NHS are the drug companies. Now restricting their profits to 5% is going to be fun, Eddie!

The charities who normally do it at a loss will now get the all clear to bung in cost+5% invoices....

.... large gin & tonics all round....

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yes we do hear it now - it was part of a speech Milliband made the other day.

This week's reactionary policy is that Labour will cap the amount of profit that the private sector can make when working on NHS contracts. A max profit of 5% apparently. Quite what this means and how it will be assessed and monitored is anyone's guess.

It means different accounting.

What is wrong with politicians that efficiency is a bad thing in the NHS. It seems that the electorate are stupid enough to believe that spending on the NHS is the same thing as good health outcomes.

michaels

Labour proved that paying every doctor nurse and administrator in the NHS more did not increase the resource available only the cost....

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

It means different accounting.

What is wrong with politicians that efficiency is a bad thing in the NHS. It seems that the electorate are stupid enough to believe that spending on the NHS is the same thing as good health outcomes.

YOu could say that about any government department. I understand that Defense has had 'obscene' money thrown at them over the years, and virtually wasted the whole lot!

You do not get the CEO of any successful enterprise doing this sort of thing. Can you imagine that John Lewis receiving a report that says [to make it up], that soft furnishings, female clothing, and stores generally in the North are all underperforming? Would he instantly allocate a significantly larger budget to soft furnishings, female clothing, and stores generally in the North?

I think not.

How many times have we heard the soundbite "tax XYZ... and build more schools..." This automatically implies that the building of a new school improves education. It doesn't necessarily.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Labour proved that paying every doctor nurse and administrator in the NHS more did not increase the resource available only the cost....

Ah but by paying bureaucrats who run the NHS more means more NHS spending which means better health outcomes. :money:

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Ah but by paying bureaucrats who run the NHS more means more NHS spending which means better health outcomes. :money:

Cameron is threatening a "7 Day NHS" if elected.

Surely us British have the decency to keep our health needs to within the normal 5 day working week?

So operating theatres will be used full on Saturdays and Sundays (instead of just A&E) and all those expensive CT Scan and MRI scan equipment will be used too?

If he carried on like this, he'll be suggesting a full 24/7 to get even more efficiency within the NHS.

Before you know it, we'll become like China and Korea where such a scan or operation is performed within a few hours, or the next day at worst. What will happen to the 10's of thousands of NHS staff who manage the waiting list for god's sake?

Scandalous!

padington

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Cameron is threatening a "7 Day NHS" if elected.

Surely us British have the decency to keep our health needs to within the normal 5 day working week?

So operating theatres will be used full on Saturdays and Sundays (instead of just A&E) and all those expensive CT Scan and MRI scan equipment will be used too?

If he carried on like this, he'll be suggesting a full 24/7 to get even more efficiency within the NHS.

Before you know it, we'll become like China and Korea where such a scan or operation is performed within a few hours, or the next day at worst. What will happen to the 10's of thousands of NHS staff who manage the waiting list for god's sake?

Scandalous!

Euthanasia could save the NHS alone. When is a decent politician going to step up and offer us a chance at an honourable end ? Letting those that don't want it to interfere with those that do is criminal in my mind.

The majority of the work the NHS does is just an expensive form of end of life torture. The problem is forced demand mainly, not supply.

cells

padington wrote: »

Euthanasia could save the NHS alone. When is a decent politician going to step up and offer us a chance at an honourable end ? Letting those that don't want it to interfere with those that do is criminal in my mind.

The majority of the work the NHS does is just an expensive form end of life torture. The problem is forced demand mainly, not supply.

I was listening into a conversion today by a group who were foreign,

one of the women was talking about her father who is at the beginning of serious medical conditions. No NHS there. The choice was to spend more than what it would cost to buy a home on his treatments (for arguments sake £250,000) which would perhaps extend his life by upto 10 years but cause a lot of side effects....one of which was his memory is likely to completely go and he wont be able to eat unaided.

the woman said their family discussed it and were on the verge of going through with it and would have done so if the father had agreed.

fortunitly the father even in his terrible condition had enough sense left in him to see that what was offered was a living 10 year death and said no way

what stuck me in their conversions is how hard a decision it seemed to be for them and their family. as cold as it might sound for me it would have been a very easy very simple decision and that decision would be the same if i were the father or the daughter. the cost simply wouldn't be justified and in their shoes i would have said spend the money on the young family or even give it to charity to save 100 young lives elsewhere than to extend someones life into 10 years of misery


I think that in the end they made the right decision,
but I wondered if they were British and had access to the NHS would they have gone with the treatments assuming the NHS does em?