| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Music | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 22 2015, 08:36 AM (286 Views) | |
| RJD | Jan 22 2015, 08:36 AM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
- Gordon Brown in Davos Why is it we have to wait for these people to lose high office before they start talking common sense? Get him alone with a pint of beer or a single malt and I bet he will admit that pumping up the UK's public sector without parallel reforms was a big mistake. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 22 2015, 09:58 AM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What has the thread header to do with the thread opener?
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 22 2015, 09:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 22 2015, 10:22 AM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well that's the Tory central office fairy tale. The verified truth is that he didn't pump up the UK public sector to something that wasn't sustainable. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 22 2015, 11:20 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a lot of that about, like the Tories selectively quoting Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies:- Only 1.5 minutes long:- Paul Johnson: Conservative advert should be removed The IFS's Paul Johnson calls for a Conservative campaign ad quoting him to be taken down http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02hccrg |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 22 2015, 11:25 AM Post #5 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Strange that even Gordon in his last years as PM was drastically trying to cut it to save his skin then Very much unsustainable |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 22 2015, 12:54 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm a bit confused ........ when has there ever been a reluctance of Private investors to put money into public services? Thatcher sold off every supposed loss making utility and had no problem finding buyers ....... and the pressures on the NHS from over eager investors has built up a mountain of papers produced to make their case for more access. 'That ain't workin' that's the way you do it Money for nothing, get your chicks for free' |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 22 2015, 04:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Really could you name a few of these queueing up to buy the NHS? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 22 2015, 04:27 PM Post #8 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Forget it the Red Nag Myth Machine has filled their heads with smoke. If the next myth was that the Earth is flat the Usuals would accept it as a gospel truth. |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 22 2015, 07:05 PM Post #9 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One thing is certain, economics, particularly 'home' economics or any 'economics' for that matter is not Gordon BROWN's strong point, neither is honesty for good measure. When he says what you quote though, underlies a truth about political economics, Gordon BROWN spent the national treasure on proving that particular point, that he could not run a water tap 'economically', so why did voters put up with him in any government position? Indeed, he is the most incompetent, dishonest & stupid idiot in government ever. He pumped quite literally, £BILLIONS into 'private' businesses, WITHOUT a clue what he was doing, 'PFI' being one of the least noticeable of his actions,yet, utterly destructive,as was his funding of mass-uncontrolled immigration. . |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 22 2015, 07:14 PM Post #10 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's said he'd have done well at the Olympics . Well if they'd replaced the shot putt with stapler throwing
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 22 2015, 07:59 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Buy into the NHS, Unum, Maximus, Atos, G4S, you know, the usual dodgy companies. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 23 2015, 01:18 AM Post #12 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps you are confusing ownership and being a supplier |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 23 2015, 07:25 AM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I specifically wrote buy into. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 23 2015, 10:30 AM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've asked before, with no direct answers ...... 'is there anyone that seriously believes that Privatising the NHS will provide more jobs, better access, and be less costly (to the tax payer) than as it is now'? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 23 2015, 10:36 AM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One out of three would be something, would be a reason to consider (and reject) privatisation of the NHS .......... so why is it ever considered? I know why .......... so do those that make the noise about how 'unaffordable' they believe the NHS is. It's Party Politics ...... with one Party so minimalist it cannot ever be trusted to provide for an NHS fit for purpose. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 23 2015, 10:40 AM Post #16 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's too loaded a question as phrased I seriously believe that opening up more areas of the NHS to private supply COULD increase efficiency and improve access. But more jobs? Of course not, in a labour intensive organisation how do you think you make it less costly.? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 23 2015, 11:08 AM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why loaded? I have given three supposed reasons why Privatisation could, or should be considered (a fourth would be higher standards - but that muddies the water too much). Of those three the evidence is that none of the three exist anywhere where the Private Sector is engaged in providing medical services for Health care at the level envisaged - not in Germany, not in France, and certainly not in the USA where the Coalition went to consult and engage 'experts' to formulate their 'reforms' agenda. You find it loaded because it shoots down all the BS. btw ...... more jobs is included because that too is a Tory claim that Privatisation brings in investments which creates More Jobs, more tax revenue, etc. ....... = More BS. Oh, and one of the reasons the NHS is said to be in crisis is 'bed shortages', leading to cancelled operations, an inability to accept A&E admissions, and you do know that the phrase means 'staff (nurses) shortages'? How do you cure 'staff shortages' by privatisation if not by increasing staff numbers? "improve access"? Only for those that pay or have medical insurance ....... which can then lead to reduced access for those that do not ......... 'you pay to have access' is what Privatisation actually means. You Steve are better than this ..... you must realise the error of what you say. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 23 2015, 11:55 AM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Affa is right Steve. It's not a loaded question. It's a stupid f**king question. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 23 2015, 12:42 PM Post #19 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well Affa I wouldn't quite put it as ACH1967 does but please read your question again. 'is there anyone that seriously believes that Privatising the NHS will provide more jobs, better access, and be less costly (to the tax payer) than as it is now'? You can only say yes if you believe the privatising (an ambiguous term on its own) would result in - more jobs AND - better access AND - be less costly As I pointed out two of those work against each other. You seem to see that as some sort of nasty conspiracy by me. It ain't. You also seem to believe more investment always equals more jobs - well it doesn't, especially in a constrained demand market. Edited by Steve K, Jan 23 2015, 12:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 23 2015, 02:38 PM Post #20 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a huge difference between "making the public sector more efficient" and "giving public services sufficient funding. You cannot have for example a hospital which is efficient, but not enough funds to function properly, and more to the point, you cannot use the need to cut expenditure as an excuse to "reform or make services more efficient", in other words use reform as a cloak for cuts. Somewhere on these forums I made the case for the restructuring of hospital services throughout the country, and as much as people may protest about the closure of am A&E department, or a maternity unit, the fact is that in many parts of the country there are duplications of services within 10 or 15 minutes drive of each other, resources that could be better used. On Teesside there are two hospitals ( Hartlepool Hospital & North Tees Hospital ), around 13 miles apart, there is a plan to build a brand new super hospital half way between the two towns, which will mean one A&E department instead of two, and one of everything instead of two of everything, the cost of equipping a modern ITU or A&E is huge, running costs are colossal, and there is such a thing as medical inflation. We need to get the best value for the money we have available But that does not mean we make staff do more, in less time, for less money, this is not what is meant by making the public sector more efficient, staff have undergone several years of immense pressure and cuts in real terms to pay. The next round of budget cuts ------------------------------- Whoever our government is after May 7th, there is going to be more reductions in spending, and anyone who believes that it is not necessary, is not facing up to reality, but these reductions to funding can either be reasonable, or they carry on along the course that this government has embarked upon - planting the idea into people s heads that public sector workers are lazy, inefficient, irresponsible, overpaid and dont care. Making the public sector more efficient means merging two nearby hospitals into one, it means abandoning 43 police forces and creating just 10 based on regions, as has happened in Scotland where there is now just one police force, it means a restructuring of local government and local services. Making reforms and efficiencies does not mean privatizing services, there is no logical reason why it should, it does not mean paying people less money for working more hours, and it does not mean you have to take peoples basic rights away from them as has happened under this government. Edited by krugerman, Jan 23 2015, 02:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 04:03 PM Post #21 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How did PFI end up with £billions going to private companies? I thought this ruse was restricted to buying Gilts, hence reducing the cost of borrowing as a consequence directing Banks to look for better margins by loans to businesses, which in turn invest more, then eventually, hopefully, one day selling these big stacks of Gilts and hence neutralising the situation. So they say. Note these are loans to businesses with a coupon so not a gift. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 23 2015, 09:00 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Should I A-B-C them for you? I didn't mention 'efficiency' you did, and that is another of the fallacies used when criticising the NHS; nay used every time Public owned utilities/services are Privatised. I addressed as it should be phrased 'less costly' ........ and I dare anyone to present evidence to support that Privatisation will reduce costs ...... it just doesn't happen that way - none of the reforms to the NHS over thirty years have reduced costs. The 'Internal Market' (bringing in consultants, Marketeers etc) increased costs made the NHS less efficient when the whole idea was that competition would reduce costs ...... enough said! |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 24 2015, 07:19 PM Post #23 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Efficient? Have you spent much time in hospitals lately, I have. Hopelessly inefficient at times. The whole exercise is hopelessly hierarchical, needlessly paralysed because seemingly every decision has to wait for the relevant doctor to agree it. I'll give you an example. You see visitors pestering nurses and other staff trying to find out just what is happening to their relatives. Then you see those nurses go off and ask etc etc until they interrupt the doctor so he/she has to come back and tell you Would it be so hard to agree with the patient a set of relatives' mobile phone numbers that are texted the relevant update summary? The same one the nurses can access on a screen so they don't have to go asking etc before deciding if the patient can have the water or whatever they are asking for. And I repeat your question you were so offended that no one was answering was a presumptive question You also seem to have missed the point about investment and jobs. Investment creates more jobs in area X by taking work and jobs from less efficient area Y. Great for the UK if Y is somewhere else in the world so Toyota investing in car plant does create more jobs in the UK. But the NHS is essentially a UK limited 'market' and a UK limited supply so you cannot expect investment in the NHS to deliver less costs and more jobs. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 24 2015, 09:46 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No I have not required a stay in hospital, not since the late eighties. If I accept all you say is wrong with the NHS, what on earth possesses you to think those faults can best be solved through Privatisation? There has been far too much tinkering with how the NHS is run, and you will be well aware which group is relentless in its 'reform' agenda. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 24 2015, 10:55 PM Post #25 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because the history of successful private companies is they constantly challenge and re-engineer processes and the history of successful nationalised organisations is one of the thinnest volumes you will ever see. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



2:32 PM Jul 11