Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Soviet 10 year plans.
Topic Started: Jan 27 2015, 11:29 AM (880 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Labour party and Millband have introduced another ten year soviet style plan into their election manifesto, now with a ten year plan for the NHS and social security
I seem to remember they made similar 10 year plans in the past prior to other elections, with the Railways coming to mind, but I believe there were others, so here they go again, with their Soviet style 10 year Manana plans for the future that will be forgotten in the future when they are not achieved.
Not today, not tomorrow, not next month or year, but always in the distant future.
Promises, promises , promises. Manana, Manana, Manana, but nothing for today.

But I see your true colours
Shining through
I see your true colours
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colours
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 10:11 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 10:48 PM
Rich
Jan 27 2015, 10:35 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 01:27 PM
What the hell are you babbling on about now ffs? ;D

Ten year plans, communism and Labour all nicely juxtaposed to give off some air of doom! The problem in the UK is long term planning is almost unheard of due to the instability of what is laughingly called the free market. A Chinese finance minister two of three years ago claimed that China was largely unconcerned with volatile stock markets and the anal obsession with every minute change of fortune, no, he said they were looking ten to twenty years ahead and that was what the government was planning for and working towards, control of your own destiny is what China plans for, completely unthinkable in an increasingly unstable and financially incompetent West.

In the past the "markets" have said that 10% annual growth in China was dangerous but then when it dropped to 6% a full blown recession was on the way! Growth then went back up to 7% and the economy was overheating. The markets are frankly bollocks!
How often does the government in China change?
And what has that got to do with anything?

Apart from the fact they do not have to try and bribe the electorate with it's own money every five years because most voters are to thick to think ahead.
No, they just run people over with tanks when they voice their concerns.
What every single time?

Your serial denseness is reaching biblical proportions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 28 2015, 10:34 PM
RJD
Jan 28 2015, 12:07 PM
krugerman
Jan 28 2015, 10:13 AM
Rich
Jan 27 2015, 10:44 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Sorry but your reasoning here is ilogical

We have a problem - the problem is that not enough patients are been seen to quickly enough, or cared for quickly enough, and that care is often rushed, staff are under immense pressure, the time it takes to get to see your GP has shot up, ambulance response times and the availability of ambulances is not good.

But yet some posters say that more resources, investment, more doctors or nurses is not the answer, sorry but I really dont understand, this would be rather like the British army been overwhelmed by an enemy, and then someone saying that more resources, men and equipment is not the answer............what ?

So if more staff and more resources is NOT the answer, what is ?, bearing in mind that that many many staff are at breaking point, perhaps that "other" old Tory excuse of "efficiency" could be wheeled out, make the staff work even longer, just like the good old Tory days of the 1980s when A&E staff frequently worked 80 hours per week, and when doctors regularly fell asleep on the job.

Why cannot you face up to reality instead of simply making excuses
No just smarter with less overmanning.

Really is amusing that the Usuals claim that this Gov. is privatising the NHS when they point their fingers at an increase of ~1.5% from the ~4.2% portion of outsourcing under the last lot. Sounds and smells like conspiracy theorists gone mad.
Clearly Labour are seeking to weaponise the NHS for own selfish political advantage with zero thought of what this might mean for patients. Andy Burnham made a fool of himself last night and demonstrated that Labour is all bluster with no substance. He like many others just hate the market, hate capitalism, in the old days they would have been proud to proclaim themselves as Marxists, but today they seek to hide that from view.



Investment grade twattery. !clp!

Ignore the fact that we are running short of GP's, midwives ans assorted skilled clinicians (many cite poor money) and just impose market forces and make the remainder work harder, in addition get them to assemble widgets for a local factory in their lunch time. that'll sort the bloody socialists out!

Pop into your local hospital and get that dogma removed from your backside, and soon.

Couldn't agree more. The Tories Go on about Millipede weaponising the NHS shambles to use against the incompetent Tories. Well what about their lies over the economy? Did not the hypocrites use these lies to weaponise against Labour?

Giddie or so I recall had a five year plan to reduce the deficit. Well the blundering incompetent failed on that one too.
Edited by Lewis, Jan 29 2015, 07:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
NEWSFLASH - - - Tories Tell Lies - - - Labour tell lies - - - Posters fake indignation at this - - - FFS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 28 2015, 01:26 PM
No just smarter with less overmanning.

Are you completely out of your mind ?, A&E departments are not over-manned, if there were more emergency beds, more doctors and nurses in our A&E departments, there would not be the queues and long waiting times that we currently have.

And one of the major causes of the current problems, is the cuts to social care, nowhere for patients to be discharged to, blocking up beds.


Really is amusing that the Usuals claim that this Gov. is privatising the NHS when they point their fingers at an increase of ~1.5% from the ~4.2% portion of outsourcing under the last lot. Sounds and smells like conspiracy theorists gone mad.

At no time did the previous government take medical care provision away from the NHS and put it out to tender to profiteers, what they did do was supplement NHS provision with the private sector, outside of the NHS, in order to alleviate the pressure on waiting times and waiting lists.
The current government is actually taking healthcare away from the state sector and giving it to the profit makers of their buddies in the private sector - something that Labour would never do.

Clearly Labour are seeking to weaponise the NHS for own selfish political advantage with zero thought of what this might mean for patients. Andy Burnham made a fool of himself last night and demonstrated that Labour is all bluster with no substance. He like many others just hate the market, hate capitalism, in the old days they would have been proud to proclaim themselves as Marxists, but today they seek to hide that from view.

The Labour Party are representing the views of almost the entire workforce of the NHS from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, every professional body, and also (according to opinion polls) the majority of the British public.

No one wanted this huge reorganisation, no one believes it to be necessary, the public do not want medical care and provision handed to private companies, people want the NHS to remain a state funded and state run health service, the Labour Party are with the majority view.

The NHS is in a poorer state now than 5 years ago, people are now waiting longer to see their GP, longer to get into A&E, and its quicker and more reliable to order a pizza delivery than it is to call 999 for an ambulance; We have seen the longest period of negligible funding in the history of the NHS, and even these figures are fiddled.

I am so pleased the NHS is the number 1 issue as we move towards the election


Now let me see. In our many discussions about the Helth service you have said that one should trust the kings funds research. Today they apparently released research that indicated peoples satisfaction levels with the NHS had gone up. Please feel free to explain how this matches up with the NHS in crisis.


Olive Branch - the NHS is underfunded now. Reform will be needed in the future though as the population ages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

NHS reforms, the need of, does not and imo should not mean even more Private Sector involvement. Why there is such a debate is entirely ridiculous as there can only be the outcome of health care becoming more expensive. ........ and in all probability less accessible.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 12:18 PM
RJD
Jan 28 2015, 12:07 PM
No just smarter with less overmanning.

There are set levels of staffing on wards, the required number of patients per nursing staff - a bed shortage is when there are not enough nurses and so wards remain closed.
To pretend there is overmanning on the wards is yet another falsity - done because the argument is lost.

Why Privatise the NHS - and what would a Privatised NHS look like, better or worse?

Bear in mind that the argument for privatisation arises because it is said that the NHS is unaffordable, that it cannot cope with current demands.
How will privatisation address those issues?



You inserted the word "wards" not I. I think you will find, if you look, that the NHS employees a lot more than Doctors and Nurses.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Maybe we should also be indignant when Opposition Parties also lie to us? Lie about the privatisation of the NHS where we find their complaint is quantified by an increase in subcontracting to the private sector from ~4.2% to ~5.7%. Hardly proof of privatisation is it?

There is not doubt that the NHS is under pressure and that will remain so for two basic reasons, the firsts is demographics and the second is that to force improvements it is necessary to keep a lid on budgets. NL took the lid off the NHS, doubled it's budget with ~60% swallowed up in payroll increases and watched a continuous year on year decline in productivity. The NHS must learn to do more with less and to achieve such it needs to invest more in prevention, which in turn requires significant increases in measurements, testing and analysis and clearly this will come from new technologies and putting pressure on GP's and Users to identify symptoms at an early stage. It is also likely that such testing will be best provided by the Private Sector as it will require funding and additional revenues outside of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction. If on top of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction an annual MOT paid for privately by as many as possible also brought in additional revenues and less demand on the NHS budget then why not. As the Labour MP said, I paraphrase, "we should focus on what works not dogma".

We should also look for the NHS to buy British developed analysis products, where possible, as this is a sector where the UK has considerable expertise. The UK and the USA are leaders in medical-physics a subject not taught in German Universities.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:14 PM
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 12:18 PM
RJD
Jan 28 2015, 12:07 PM
No just smarter with less overmanning.

There are set levels of staffing on wards, the required number of patients per nursing staff - a bed shortage is when there are not enough nurses and so wards remain closed.
To pretend there is overmanning on the wards is yet another falsity - done because the argument is lost.

Why Privatise the NHS - and what would a Privatised NHS look like, better or worse?

Bear in mind that the argument for privatisation arises because it is said that the NHS is unaffordable, that it cannot cope with current demands.
How will privatisation address those issues?



You inserted the word "wards" not I. I think you will find, if you look, that the NHS employees a lot more than Doctors and Nurses.


When it comes to understanding the term 'crisis' and the supposed motivations for reform of the NHS, it is never argued that it porters, cleaners (well not these days), window cleaners, or administrators blocking access to treatment and beds ... is it.

Please, don't leave, I do anticipate your visits here with some relish.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



I was just suggetsing you save yourself the indignation and blood pressure spike by being more pragmatic. I wasn't saying it's accpetable but it is the way of the world and as Steve K said earlier many things that are simply disengenuous are called lies. They are dishonest but the are not lies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:31 PM
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Maybe we should also be indignant when Opposition Parties also lie to us? Lie about the privatisation of the NHS where we find their complaint is quantified by an increase in subcontracting to the private sector from ~4.2% to ~5.7%. Hardly proof of privatisation is it?

There is not doubt that the NHS is under pressure and that will remain so for two basic reasons, the firsts is demographics and the second is that to force improvements it is necessary to keep a lid on budgets. NL took the lid off the NHS, doubled it's budget with ~60% swallowed up in payroll increases and watched a continuous year on year decline in productivity. The NHS must learn to do more with less and to achieve such it needs to invest more in prevention, which in turn requires significant increases in measurements, testing and analysis and clearly this will come from new technologies and putting pressure on GP's and Users to identify symptoms at an early stage. It is also likely that such testing will be best provided by the Private Sector as it will require funding and additional revenues outside of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction. If on top of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction an annual MOT paid for privately by as many as possible also brought in additional revenues and less demand on the NHS budget then why not. As the Labour MP said, I paraphrase, "we should focus on what works not dogma".

We should also look for the NHS to buy British developed analysis products, where possible, as this is a sector where the UK has considerable expertise. The UK and the USA are leaders in medical-physics a subject not taught in German Universities.

So in general this is what I do not get. You say that the budget was doubled. In all the OECD and national statistics i have seen I have not seen the amount our country spends on health doubled. Even I think I might spot that on a graph. Furthermore if it was doubled and we still spend less on our health service than France and Germany then before it was doubled it must have been fantastically efficient.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
He's not lying ACH, he's being disingenuous .......... when I asked my ten year old grandson what disingenuous means, he told it means 'lying'.

He'll learn better as he gets older ........ and loses integrity.





Edited by Affa, Jan 29 2015, 04:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 03:17 PM
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:14 PM
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 12:18 PM
RJD
Jan 28 2015, 12:07 PM
No just smarter with less overmanning.

There are set levels of staffing on wards, the required number of patients per nursing staff - a bed shortage is when there are not enough nurses and so wards remain closed.
To pretend there is overmanning on the wards is yet another falsity - done because the argument is lost.

Why Privatise the NHS - and what would a Privatised NHS look like, better or worse?

Bear in mind that the argument for privatisation arises because it is said that the NHS is unaffordable, that it cannot cope with current demands.
How will privatisation address those issues?



You inserted the word "wards" not I. I think you will find, if you look, that the NHS employees a lot more than Doctors and Nurses.


When it comes to understanding the term 'crisis' and the supposed motivations for reform of the NHS, it is never argued that it porters, cleaners (well not these days), window cleaners, or administrators blocking access to treatment and beds ... is it.

Please, don't leave, I do anticipate your visits here with some relish.



So what. I claimed that smarter working, implying greater efficiency and did not include or exclude anyone employed by the third largest employer on the Planet.

Is it not remarkable that only the other year Medical Students who recently graduated were having to go abroad to find a position and today, only a few years later, the NHS is combing the Globe to find suitable candidates?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 29 2015, 03:42 PM
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:31 PM
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Maybe we should also be indignant when Opposition Parties also lie to us? Lie about the privatisation of the NHS where we find their complaint is quantified by an increase in subcontracting to the private sector from ~4.2% to ~5.7%. Hardly proof of privatisation is it?

There is not doubt that the NHS is under pressure and that will remain so for two basic reasons, the firsts is demographics and the second is that to force improvements it is necessary to keep a lid on budgets. NL took the lid off the NHS, doubled it's budget with ~60% swallowed up in payroll increases and watched a continuous year on year decline in productivity. The NHS must learn to do more with less and to achieve such it needs to invest more in prevention, which in turn requires significant increases in measurements, testing and analysis and clearly this will come from new technologies and putting pressure on GP's and Users to identify symptoms at an early stage. It is also likely that such testing will be best provided by the Private Sector as it will require funding and additional revenues outside of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction. If on top of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction an annual MOT paid for privately by as many as possible also brought in additional revenues and less demand on the NHS budget then why not. As the Labour MP said, I paraphrase, "we should focus on what works not dogma".

We should also look for the NHS to buy British developed analysis products, where possible, as this is a sector where the UK has considerable expertise. The UK and the USA are leaders in medical-physics a subject not taught in German Universities.

So in general this is what I do not get. You say that the budget was doubled. In all the OECD and national statistics i have seen I have not seen the amount our country spends on health doubled. Even I think I might spot that on a graph. Furthermore if it was doubled and we still spend less on our health service than France and Germany then before it was doubled it must have been fantastically efficient.
1996-97 £61b
2008-08 £137b

both in real terms

So yes I was wrong the factor is 2.24

Want to check it for yourself, you say you can read a graph, so try: http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk

How you judge that the NHS was once fantastically efficient just because it once spent a lot less is beyond me as I though other factors such as output were involved in such a calculation? Maybe you could explain?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 04:25 PM
He's not lying ACH, he's being disingenuous .......... when I asked my ten year old grandson what disingenuous means, he told it means 'lying'.

He'll learn better as he gets older ........ and loses integrity.





I expect you to withdraw that statement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 06:28 PM
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 03:17 PM
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:14 PM
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 12:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You inserted the word "wards" not I. I think you will find, if you look, that the NHS employees a lot more than Doctors and Nurses.


When it comes to understanding the term 'crisis' and the supposed motivations for reform of the NHS, it is never argued that it porters, cleaners (well not these days), window cleaners, or administrators blocking access to treatment and beds ... is it.

Please, don't leave, I do anticipate your visits here with some relish.



So what. I claimed that smarter working, implying greater efficiency and did not include or exclude anyone employed by the third largest employer on the Planet.

Is it not remarkable that only the other year Medical Students who recently graduated were having to go abroad to find a position and today, only a few years later, the NHS is combing the Globe to find suitable candidates?
Instead of pumping out copious quantities of hot air how about explaining how we get these efficiencies for a change? As you might say put some meat on the bone and let's have some substance.

And according to a quick search the NHS is nowhere near the biggest employer on the face of the planet, where do you get this generic bollocks from? The US state department of defence,The Peoples Liberation Army, Walmart, The Chinese State Railway, China Petroleum and the Indian Railways all employ more people, in fact the NHS did not appear in any list I could find!

File under make it up as you go along. Oh and don't forget to tell us how to make the NHS more efficient, I can't wait!
Edited by Tigger, Jan 29 2015, 06:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tig: Instead of pumping out copious quantities of hot air how about explaining how we get these efficiencies for a change? As you might say put some meat on the bone and let's have some substance.

You will not find it in Students satirical Magazines, but I point you in the direction of the current NHS plans as articulated recently by theHead Honcho in that service. It is always best if you do a bit of research before shooting your ignorant gob off.

Tig: And according to a quick search the NHS is nowhere near the biggest employer on the face of the planet, where do you get this generic bollocks from? The US state department of defence,The Peoples Liberation Army, Walmart, The Chinese State Railway, China Petroleum and the Indian Railways all employ more people, in fact the NHS did not appear in any list I could find!

Correction 4th largest employer on the Planet.
US Defence 3.2m
Chinese Army 2.3m
Walmart 2.1m (seems they must have undertaken a few more acquisitions since I last looked)
NHS 1.7m

As I said best if you do some research before shooting off your ignorant gob.

Tig: File under make it up as you go along. Oh and don't forget to tell us how to make the NHS more efficient, I can't wait!

By all means, that is if you actually have a filing system.

If you had an ounce of humility I would ask you to withdraw your statements, but as you have no idea what the word means then I will let it ride. Also I do not expect you to check NHS plans or even look up the meaning of the word efficiency.

File: Trash Can.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
No you misunderstand, I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW WE GET A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT NHS I'm not interested in lazy linking and willy waving on behalf of others who have done the leg work, spell it out man in your OWN WORDS, let us see if you actually understand what you are banging on about, SUBSTANCE FOR ONCE!

And only you would accuse me of shooting my mouth of for proving you wrong! ;D So please no more silly claims about the NHS being the biggest employer on the planet, (and you even edited that to take it to fourth place! ;D ) You should know by now that I do check your spurious claims!

File under busted like a good un!
Edited by Tigger, Jan 29 2015, 07:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 06:35 PM
ACH1967
Jan 29 2015, 03:42 PM
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:31 PM
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Maybe we should also be indignant when Opposition Parties also lie to us? Lie about the privatisation of the NHS where we find their complaint is quantified by an increase in subcontracting to the private sector from ~4.2% to ~5.7%. Hardly proof of privatisation is it?

There is not doubt that the NHS is under pressure and that will remain so for two basic reasons, the firsts is demographics and the second is that to force improvements it is necessary to keep a lid on budgets. NL took the lid off the NHS, doubled it's budget with ~60% swallowed up in payroll increases and watched a continuous year on year decline in productivity. The NHS must learn to do more with less and to achieve such it needs to invest more in prevention, which in turn requires significant increases in measurements, testing and analysis and clearly this will come from new technologies and putting pressure on GP's and Users to identify symptoms at an early stage. It is also likely that such testing will be best provided by the Private Sector as it will require funding and additional revenues outside of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction. If on top of that which the NHS is prepared to sanction an annual MOT paid for privately by as many as possible also brought in additional revenues and less demand on the NHS budget then why not. As the Labour MP said, I paraphrase, "we should focus on what works not dogma".

We should also look for the NHS to buy British developed analysis products, where possible, as this is a sector where the UK has considerable expertise. The UK and the USA are leaders in medical-physics a subject not taught in German Universities.

So in general this is what I do not get. You say that the budget was doubled. In all the OECD and national statistics i have seen I have not seen the amount our country spends on health doubled. Even I think I might spot that on a graph. Furthermore if it was doubled and we still spend less on our health service than France and Germany then before it was doubled it must have been fantastically efficient.
1996-97 £61b
2008-08 £137b

both in real terms

So yes I was wrong the factor is 2.24

Want to check it for yourself, you say you can read a graph, so try: http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk

How you judge that the NHS was once fantastically efficient just because it once spent a lot less is beyond me as I though other factors such as output were involved in such a calculation? Maybe you could explain?
RJD’s graph seems to be sourced from the IFS. I am not sure what “share of national income “ means. Probably something similar to GDP. So the reason I didn’t see a doubling is because I was looking at GDP figures not absolute spend. As you can see (these numbers are from the world bank initially provided to me by Affa). They support the lefts case they we were just catching up in relation to our spend on health with “comparable economies”.

Years 1996 2008
UK 6.8 9.0
Germany 10.4 10.7
France 10.4 11.0

This puts two questions in my mind:
Was our health service really that bad in 1996 (if not hence my comments about it being pretty efficient although perhaps efficient was the wrong word, perhaps better to be great value for money compared to France and Germany)

Has the 2% rise in GDP spent on the NHS seen comparable improvements in the service delivered?

The absolute figures you quote could be construed as misleading because it doesn’t take into account in any meaningful fashion the growth of the economy over the period of time which is removed from the analysis when GDP figures are used.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The NHS is efficient, it is widely acknowledged by those who have conducted studies to be very efficient, and contrary to claims made by some, the NHS has a lower ratio of management than large private companies and institutions.

In 2010, updated in 2011, the Commonwealth Fund, which is a major policy research organisation in the United States undertook a major research undertaking to compare health care in 7 of the worlds richest nations.

Its conclusions have been published and debated widely across the world, it discovered that the NHS in the UK ranked number 1 in efficiency, and ranked number 2 in actual quality of health care ( UK - USA - Holland - Germany - Australia - New Zealand - Canada ).

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

The excuse of efficiency been a problem in the NHS, is precisely that - an excuse, mostly and mainly laid at the door of the NHS by the Conservatives, who have a track record of wrecking the NHS.

The National Health Service was born out of poor standards of health and health care by the mess of the private market, it is ranked at number 1 as the most cherished national institution, the Tories have made a colossal blunder in messing with the NHS, I believe and I sincerely hope that they will pay dearly for the unnecessary and unwanted meddling all for the sake of political dogma.

Edited by krugerman, Jan 30 2015, 09:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 29 2015, 07:11 PM
No you misunderstand, I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW WE GET A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT NHS I'm not interested in lazy linking and willy waving on behalf of others who have done the leg work, spell it out man in your OWN WORDS, let us see if you actually understand what you are banging on about, SUBSTANCE FOR ONCE!

And only you would accuse me of shooting my mouth of for proving you wrong! ;D So please no more silly claims about the NHS being the biggest employer on the planet, (and you even edited that to take it to fourth place! ;D ) You should know by now that I do check your spurious claims!

File under busted like a good un!
You can wish for the Moon as far as I am concerned as I am not wasting my time on someone who never bothers to substantiate anything and takes his cue from Student satirical magazines. Why should I regurgitate that which has already been stated in print, but objected to by the likes of yourself who have not bothered to read up on the matter.

You lie I have never claimed the NHS was the biggest Employer on the Planet, only that it was the third, now I see that Walmart have taken that slot pushing NHS into 4th. Your claim was that you you could not even find such a list, when I found with a simple search that in ~2 seconds that list was on my PC screen.

As I said you are without one shred of intellectual humility, you are no more than a very loud and extremely ignorant gob. As for substantiation I point to pretty well all of your juvenile postings here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH: RJD’s graph seems to be sourced from the IFS. I am not sure what “share of national income “ means. Probably something similar to GDP. So the reason I didn’t see a doubling is because I was looking at GDP figures not absolute spend. As you can see (these numbers are from the world bank initially provided to me by Affa). They support the lefts case they we were just catching up in relation to our spend on health with “comparable economies”.

One Penny plus another Penny is Two Pennies. That is what one refers to as a doubling. The slight of hand you wish to use reminds me of Osborne's claim that he had halved the deficit when in absolute terms he has not, but cleverly he claims that it is now a half when measured against GDP. You know that to be no more than a political slight of hand.

ACH:

Years 1996 2008
UK 6.8 9.0
Germany 10.4 10.7
France 10.4 11.0

This puts two questions in my mind:
Was our health service really that bad in 1996 (if not hence my comments about it being pretty efficient although perhaps efficient was the wrong word, perhaps better to be great value for money compared to France and Germany)


That is a subjective question, some in France claim their Health Services are too expensive.

ACH: Has the 2% rise in GDP spent on the NHS seen comparable improvements in the service delivered?

What 2%? If you calculate 9.0-6,8 you get a number which is not 2, but is pretty meaningless. The question is did we get good value for the additional £76b PA currently being spent over and above that spent in 1997? Well you could have bought yourself a 2nd version on the 1997 service for that money.

ACH: The absolute figures you quote could be construed as misleading because it doesn’t take into account in any meaningful fashion the growth of the economy over the period of time which is removed from the analysis when GDP figures are used.

What has growth in the economy got to do with value for money? There is no logical connection between GDP and the NHS budget other than what you think you can afford from current tax revenues. The only measure is absolute expenditure and what you get for your money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Different sources of information come up with different facts, usually because of methodology, I do clearly remember distinctions been made between "the worlds largest employer" as against "the worlds largest civilian employer".

I seem to remember the three largest "civilian" employers were the NHS, Walmart and the Indian Railways, and at one time, not so long ago, the NHS was in number 1 position, though it would seem Walmart has now taken that role.

I would suggest that you are kind of right, and kind of wrong, but definately splitting hairs over something thats neither here, nor there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 30 2015, 11:29 AM
Different sources of information come up with different facts, usually because of methodology, I do clearly remember distinctions been made between "the worlds largest employer" as against "the worlds largest civilian employer".

I seem to remember the three largest "civilian" employers were the NHS, Walmart and the Indian Railways, and at one time, not so long ago, the NHS was in number 1 position, though it would seem Walmart has now taken that role.

I would suggest that you are kind of right, and kind of wrong, but definately splitting hairs over something thats neither here, nor there.
It is important that one gains some perspective as to the magnitudes involved in terms of staff and financial budgets. Improving productivity from such an organisation as the NHS is not only possible, after years of decline, it is absolutely necessary, but such gains cannot be obtained without structural changes, introduction of new technologies and procedures, plus a willing workforce. Unfortunately those on the lhs of the debate seem to think that the status quo is acceptable.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 11:15 AM
Tigger
Jan 29 2015, 07:11 PM
No you misunderstand, I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW WE GET A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT NHS I'm not interested in lazy linking and willy waving on behalf of others who have done the leg work, spell it out man in your OWN WORDS, let us see if you actually understand what you are banging on about, SUBSTANCE FOR ONCE!

And only you would accuse me of shooting my mouth of for proving you wrong! ;D So please no more silly claims about the NHS being the biggest employer on the planet, (and you even edited that to take it to fourth place! ;D ) You should know by now that I do check your spurious claims!

File under busted like a good un!
You can wish for the Moon as far as I am concerned as I am not wasting my time on someone who never bothers to substantiate anything and takes his cue from Student satirical magazines. Why should I regurgitate that which has already been stated in print, but objected to by the likes of yourself who have not bothered to read up on the matter.

You lie I have never claimed the NHS was the biggest Employer on the Planet, only that it was the third, now I see that Walmart have taken that slot pushing NHS into 4th. Your claim was that you you could not even find such a list, when I found with a simple search that in ~2 seconds that list was on my PC screen.

As I said you are without one shred of intellectual humility, you are no more than a very loud and extremely ignorant gob. As for substantiation I point to pretty well all of your juvenile postings here.
How's that combination of hole digging and backtracking going? ;-)

Can't hang around I'm afraid I'm only in the office for my lunch and I've got to run a disabled war veteran down to the bank to draw out £865 (+VAT), as one of the minimum wage Somali/Polish apprentices has just changed a tap washer for the miserable old sod!

Remember as our coloured friends say, keep it real.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
We should all be indignant about how our Government continually lies to us!

It is rare for a lie to have justification on grounds of National security - not rare at all for the lies to be propagated for Party Political motives.



Says the poster that when previously challenged to give an example of such lies failed to respond.

Hyperbole will never do your cause any good Affa, it just makes it look like it has no substance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 11:28 AM
ACH: RJD’s graph seems to be sourced from the IFS. I am not sure what “share of national income “ means. Probably something similar to GDP. So the reason I didn’t see a doubling is because I was looking at GDP figures not absolute spend. As you can see (these numbers are from the world bank initially provided to me by Affa). They support the lefts case they we were just catching up in relation to our spend on health with “comparable economies”.

One Penny plus another Penny is Two Pennies. That is what one refers to as a doubling. The slight of hand you wish to use reminds me of Osborne's claim that he had halved the deficit when in absolute terms he has not, but cleverly he claims that it is now a half when measured against GDP. You know that to be no more than a political slight of hand.

ACH:

Years 19962008
UK 6.8 9.0
Germany 10.4 10.7
France 10.411.0

This puts two questions in my mind:
Was our health service really that bad in 1996 (if not hence my comments about it being pretty efficient although perhaps efficient was the wrong word, perhaps better to be great value for money compared to France and Germany)


That is a subjective question, some in France claim their Health Services are too expensive.

ACH: Has the 2% rise in GDP spent on the NHS seen comparable improvements in the service delivered?

What 2%? If you calculate 9.0-6,8 you get a number which is not 2, but is pretty meaningless. The question is did we get good value for the additional £76b PA currently being spent over and above that spent in 1997? Well you could have bought yourself a 2nd version on the 1997 service for that money.

ACH: The absolute figures you quote could be construed as misleading because it doesn’t take into account in any meaningful fashion the growth of the economy over the period of time which is removed from the analysis when GDP figures are used.

What has growth in the economy got to do with value for money? There is no logical connection between GDP and the NHS budget other than what you think you can afford from current tax revenues. The only measure is absolute expenditure and what you get for your money.
I see your strategy frustrate people with silly tangential comments that no one in their right mind would bother to waste time upon. I am in my right mind. You may make some decent points but your childishness on the other points makes it clear to me that this is pointless. Such is your political sycophancy that you clearly cannot even see when parts of a post might agree with you, quite sad really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 30 2015, 11:29 AM
Different sources of information come up with different facts, usually because of methodology, I do clearly remember distinctions been made between "the worlds largest employer" as against "the worlds largest civilian employer".

I seem to remember the three largest "civilian" employers were the NHS, Walmart and the Indian Railways, and at one time, not so long ago, the NHS was in number 1 position, though it would seem Walmart has now taken that role.

I would suggest that you are kind of right, and kind of wrong, but definately splitting hairs over something thats neither here, nor there.

Would a fully privatised UK Health service still be one of the top three employers?
It is as K says a none factor.

Then there is the other much stated (false) argument that the NHS is inefficient. International surveys disagree, or to be precise rank NHS efficiency as highest on most criteria.
That isn't to say that there cannot be efficiency savings/improvements, but these can just as readily be made under public ownership as through Privatisation.

The underlying fact is that health care cost are rising, everywhere. An ageing population, people living longer, and medical advances all contribute to it being so. Add that the UK population is also growing in numbers, and it is unavoidable that costs will rise.
We are left with only one choice - do we commit to maintaining standards of care or let them drop?
I repeat it often, but must do so again - the Conservatives have a minimalist approach to delivery of public services, the NHS is not an exception.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
NHS means British healthcare rated top out of 11 western countries, with US coming last


edit ..... the actual report.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror
Edited by Affa, Jan 30 2015, 07:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 28 2015, 10:36 PM
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 10:11 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 10:48 PM
Rich
Jan 27 2015, 10:35 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
And what has that got to do with anything?

Apart from the fact they do not have to try and bribe the electorate with it's own money every five years because most voters are to thick to think ahead.
No, they just run people over with tanks when they voice their concerns.
What every single time?

Your serial denseness is reaching biblical proportions.
The world was watching on that occasion, how many dissidents have quietly disappeared since then? I do not know and neither do you, as usual, your mouth resembles a biblical parting of the red sea, I do not normally resort to insulting people, but if you insist on trying to belittle me with your petty name calling rather than resigning yourself to the fact that this is a debating forum where opinions are proferred and opined then I can assure you I can get much nastier, but that is not my style, you can always put me on ignore if you think I talk rubbish, in fact I would be pleased if you do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 29 2015, 02:03 PM
krugerman
Jan 28 2015, 01:26 PM
No just smarter with less overmanning.

Are you completely out of your mind ?, A&E departments are not over-manned, if there were more emergency beds, more doctors and nurses in our A&E departments, there would not be the queues and long waiting times that we currently have.

And one of the major causes of the current problems, is the cuts to social care, nowhere for patients to be discharged to, blocking up beds.


Really is amusing that the Usuals claim that this Gov. is privatising the NHS when they point their fingers at an increase of ~1.5% from the ~4.2% portion of outsourcing under the last lot. Sounds and smells like conspiracy theorists gone mad.

At no time did the previous government take medical care provision away from the NHS and put it out to tender to profiteers, what they did do was supplement NHS provision with the private sector, outside of the NHS, in order to alleviate the pressure on waiting times and waiting lists.
The current government is actually taking healthcare away from the state sector and giving it to the profit makers of their buddies in the private sector - something that Labour would never do.

Clearly Labour are seeking to weaponise the NHS for own selfish political advantage with zero thought of what this might mean for patients. Andy Burnham made a fool of himself last night and demonstrated that Labour is all bluster with no substance. He like many others just hate the market, hate capitalism, in the old days they would have been proud to proclaim themselves as Marxists, but today they seek to hide that from view.

The Labour Party are representing the views of almost the entire workforce of the NHS from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, every professional body, and also (according to opinion polls) the majority of the British public.

No one wanted this huge reorganisation, no one believes it to be necessary, the public do not want medical care and provision handed to private companies, people want the NHS to remain a state funded and state run health service, the Labour Party are with the majority view.

The NHS is in a poorer state now than 5 years ago, people are now waiting longer to see their GP, longer to get into A&E, and its quicker and more reliable to order a pizza delivery than it is to call 999 for an ambulance; We have seen the longest period of negligible funding in the history of the NHS, and even these figures are fiddled.

I am so pleased the NHS is the number 1 issue as we move towards the election


Now let me see. In our many discussions about the Helth service you have said that one should trust the kings funds research. Today they apparently released research that indicated peoples satisfaction levels with the NHS had gone up. Please feel free to explain how this matches up with the NHS in crisis.


Olive Branch - the NHS is underfunded now. Reform will be needed in the future though as the population ages.
Propaganda ?

I'm related to a nurse and the message I hear is not good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 11:28 AM
ACH: RJD’s graph seems to be sourced from the IFS. I am not sure what “share of national income “ means. Probably something similar to GDP. So the reason I didn’t see a doubling is because I was looking at GDP figures not absolute spend. As you can see (these numbers are from the world bank initially provided to me by Affa). They support the lefts case they we were just catching up in relation to our spend on health with “comparable economies”.

One Penny plus another Penny is Two Pennies. That is what one refers to as a doubling. The slight of hand you wish to use reminds me of Osborne's claim that he had halved the deficit when in absolute terms he has not, but cleverly he claims that it is now a half when measured against GDP. You know that to be no more than a political slight of hand.

ACH:

Years 19962008
UK 6.8 9.0
Germany 10.4 10.7
France 10.411.0

This puts two questions in my mind:
Was our health service really that bad in 1996 (if not hence my comments about it being pretty efficient although perhaps efficient was the wrong word, perhaps better to be great value for money compared to France and Germany)


That is a subjective question, some in France claim their Health Services are too expensive.

ACH: Has the 2% rise in GDP spent on the NHS seen comparable improvements in the service delivered?

What 2%? If you calculate 9.0-6,8 you get a number which is not 2, but is pretty meaningless. The question is did we get good value for the additional £76b PA currently being spent over and above that spent in 1997? Well you could have bought yourself a 2nd version on the 1997 service for that money.

ACH: The absolute figures you quote could be construed as misleading because it doesn’t take into account in any meaningful fashion the growth of the economy over the period of time which is removed from the analysis when GDP figures are used.

What has growth in the economy got to do with value for money? There is no logical connection between GDP and the NHS budget other than what you think you can afford from current tax revenues. The only measure is absolute expenditure and what you get for your money.
What we did get was many of the things we needed (Wanless Review 2007).

One of the best health services in the world and no where near the most expensive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 30 2015, 08:15 PM
Tigger
Jan 28 2015, 10:36 PM
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 10:11 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 10:48 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
No, they just run people over with tanks when they voice their concerns.
What every single time?

Your serial denseness is reaching biblical proportions.
The world was watching on that occasion, how many dissidents have quietly disappeared since then? I do not know and neither do you, as usual, your mouth resembles a biblical parting of the red sea, I do not normally resort to insulting people, but if you insist on trying to belittle me with your petty name calling rather than resigning yourself to the fact that this is a debating forum where opinions are proferred and opined then I can assure you I can get much nastier, but that is not my style, you can always put me on ignore if you think I talk rubbish, in fact I would be pleased if you do.
That's a joke right?

You claim to be in favour of opinions and yet the minute someone else praises another poster or god forbid pushes a left wing cause you are all over it like a rash calling for balance! We are also told these people are know it alls or lack humility! ;D

It of course never occurs to you that your own serial failures in this respect rightly attract stinging criticism.

And as for the Chinese it is their country and their culture is very different to ours, some would argue, and with some justification, that they are beating us hands down at our own game and that democracy as we like to think of it is not even wanted in China, as in many Asian countries the needs of the group trump individual rights whether we approve or not, what it boils down to ultimately is different horses for different courses.
Edited by Tigger, Jan 31 2015, 11:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 10:48 PM
Rich
Jan 27 2015, 10:35 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 01:27 PM
What the hell are you babbling on about now ffs? ;D

Ten year plans, communism and Labour all nicely juxtaposed to give off some air of doom! The problem in the UK is long term planning is almost unheard of due to the instability of what is laughingly called the free market. A Chinese finance minister two of three years ago claimed that China was largely unconcerned with volatile stock markets and the anal obsession with every minute change of fortune, no, he said they were looking ten to twenty years ahead and that was what the government was planning for and working towards, control of your own destiny is what China plans for, completely unthinkable in an increasingly unstable and financially incompetent West.

In the past the "markets" have said that 10% annual growth in China was dangerous but then when it dropped to 6% a full blown recession was on the way! Growth then went back up to 7% and the economy was overheating. The markets are frankly bollocks!
How often does the government in China change?
And what has that got to do with anything?

Apart from the fact they do not have to try and bribe the electorate with it's own money every five years because most voters are to thick to think ahead.
Personally, having worked for two communication and three financial companies who were VERY keen to do business with China, I think "what the hell that has to do with it" is that if we leave aside the bollocks and baggage that the term "ten year plan" inevitably dredges up, which is one of ...

1) stalinist purges of the kulacks and deliberate rollout of inappropriate "planned" agriculture designed deliberately to kill off political opposition by causing those politically opposed to starve to death

or

2) Cultural Revolutions in which the intellectuals are generally taken out into the fields and either shot, or made to work paddy fields on pain of being shot if they do not ...


"what this has to do" with the creation of a "ten year plan" is that China, and for that matter Russia, could count upon state imposition of terror as a political weapon crushing dissent so as to allow those at the top time to "implement" their hopeless and indeed largely barking mad ideas which as I point out had little to do with helping the people and rather more to do with crushing the voice of the people

In this country it was Norman Lamont who arrogantly invented the idea of a budget measure that would come into force not in the year he was talking about, but the next, and it is a cunning stunt that was widely adopted by his successors of all political colours and parties, and each is as arrogant asd the next for having the bare faced cheek to presume they would be in post to carry out the said measure, and not looking down on it from a pike as they deserve.

In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, and anyone who votes for such a person is a bloody fool·
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 01:05 PM


In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, and anyone who votes for such a person is a bloody fool·
Given how many of the Tory policies announced since May 2010 have implementation dates beyond May 2015, there is no way I can argue with your comments.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 01:53 PM
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 11:28 AM
ACH: RJD’s graph seems to be sourced from the IFS. I am not sure what “share of national income “ means. Probably something similar to GDP. So the reason I didn’t see a doubling is because I was looking at GDP figures not absolute spend. As you can see (these numbers are from the world bank initially provided to me by Affa). They support the lefts case they we were just catching up in relation to our spend on health with “comparable economies”.

One Penny plus another Penny is Two Pennies. That is what one refers to as a doubling. The slight of hand you wish to use reminds me of Osborne's claim that he had halved the deficit when in absolute terms he has not, but cleverly he claims that it is now a half when measured against GDP. You know that to be no more than a political slight of hand.

ACH:

Years 19962008
UK 6.8 9.0
Germany 10.4 10.7
France 10.411.0

This puts two questions in my mind:
Was our health service really that bad in 1996 (if not hence my comments about it being pretty efficient although perhaps efficient was the wrong word, perhaps better to be great value for money compared to France and Germany)


That is a subjective question, some in France claim their Health Services are too expensive.

ACH: Has the 2% rise in GDP spent on the NHS seen comparable improvements in the service delivered?

What 2%? If you calculate 9.0-6,8 you get a number which is not 2, but is pretty meaningless. The question is did we get good value for the additional £76b PA currently being spent over and above that spent in 1997? Well you could have bought yourself a 2nd version on the 1997 service for that money.

ACH: The absolute figures you quote could be construed as misleading because it doesn’t take into account in any meaningful fashion the growth of the economy over the period of time which is removed from the analysis when GDP figures are used.

What has growth in the economy got to do with value for money? There is no logical connection between GDP and the NHS budget other than what you think you can afford from current tax revenues. The only measure is absolute expenditure and what you get for your money.
I see your strategy frustrate people with silly tangential comments that no one in their right mind would bother to waste time upon. I am in my right mind. You may make some decent points but your childishness on the other points makes it clear to me that this is pointless. Such is your political sycophancy that you clearly cannot even see when parts of a post might agree with you, quite sad really.
Up to you ACH I will not worry myself one jot if you are not prepared to see the foolishness of some of your points. That's life as they say and I have precious little left.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 01:05 PM
. . . In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, . . .
Do you not see the logical flaws in that ^ ?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lie#lie-2
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:05 PM
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 01:05 PM
. . . In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, . . .
Do you not see the logical flaws in that ^ ?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lie#lie-2
Steve, the last man to actually make a go of carrying out, while in the hall of westminster, that which he pledged to do before he entered, was one guido fawkes....

The bottom line as far as the matter in the OP is concerned, is that I consider the individual making the statement so desperate to get his arse on the big chair in the cabinet room he will say anything ... and that there is form for spokespeople on both sides of the house having made a statement of a long term goal they simply abandon, as quietly as they possibly can.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 03:17 PM
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:05 PM
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 01:05 PM
. . . In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, . . .
Do you not see the logical flaws in that ^ ?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lie#lie-2
Steve, the last man to actually make a go of carrying out, while in the hall of westminster, that which he pledged to do before he entered, was one guido fawkes....

The bottom line as far as the matter in the OP is concerned, is that I consider the individual making the statement so desperate to get his arse on the big chair in the cabinet room he will say anything ... and that there is form for spokespeople on both sides of the house having made a statement of a long term goal they simply abandon, as quietly as they possibly can.

With respect, utter poppycock ^

It would be wrong for me to take PS to task for woeful abuse of a very simple word "lie" and not point out your woeful abuse of the English language too. If you can show that Lamont was a liar in that example in that he KNEW it would never happen then I will apologise.

You may hate all MPs but might that not be more connected with them attracting votes to easily keep you and your party of choice out of the house rather than a woefully unsubstantiated allegation that they all turn to the dark side the moment they enter the house?

As for your allegation about the woefully inept Norman Lamont can you show that he or indeed any chancellor did not carry out the policy changes they gave a year's advance notice of?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 01:05 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 10:48 PM
Rich
Jan 27 2015, 10:35 PM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 01:27 PM
What the hell are you babbling on about now ffs? ;D

Ten year plans, communism and Labour all nicely juxtaposed to give off some air of doom! The problem in the UK is long term planning is almost unheard of due to the instability of what is laughingly called the free market. A Chinese finance minister two of three years ago claimed that China was largely unconcerned with volatile stock markets and the anal obsession with every minute change of fortune, no, he said they were looking ten to twenty years ahead and that was what the government was planning for and working towards, control of your own destiny is what China plans for, completely unthinkable in an increasingly unstable and financially incompetent West.

In the past the "markets" have said that 10% annual growth in China was dangerous but then when it dropped to 6% a full blown recession was on the way! Growth then went back up to 7% and the economy was overheating. The markets are frankly bollocks!
How often does the government in China change?
And what has that got to do with anything?

Apart from the fact they do not have to try and bribe the electorate with it's own money every five years because most voters are to thick to think ahead.
Personally, having worked for two communication and three financial companies who were VERY keen to do business with China, I think "what the hell that has to do with it" is that if we leave aside the bollocks and baggage that the term "ten year plan" inevitably dredges up, which is one of ...

1) stalinist purges of the kulacks and deliberate rollout of inappropriate "planned" agriculture designed deliberately to kill off political opposition by causing those politically opposed to starve to death

or

2) Cultural Revolutions in which the intellectuals are generally taken out into the fields and either shot, or made to work paddy fields on pain of being shot if they do not ...


"what this has to do" with the creation of a "ten year plan" is that China, and for that matter Russia, could count upon state imposition of terror as a political weapon crushing dissent so as to allow those at the top time to "implement" their hopeless and indeed largely barking mad ideas which as I point out had little to do with helping the people and rather more to do with crushing the voice of the people

In this country it was Norman Lamont who arrogantly invented the idea of a budget measure that would come into force not in the year he was talking about, but the next, and it is a cunning stunt that was widely adopted by his successors of all political colours and parties, and each is as arrogant asd the next for having the bare faced cheek to presume they would be in post to carry out the said measure, and not looking down on it from a pike as they deserve.

In this country, anyone who announces as policy a measure that requires more than half a full parliament to implement is a lying bastars, and anyone who votes for such a person is a bloody fool·


Soviet style ten year plans are old hat and an incorrect comparison here in my opinion, it far more cerebral than that. The way they dangle a carrot to Western businesses is at times something to behold, too greedy to resist the lure of a marketplace of over a billion people and not bright enough to realise that they are being used.

I've suggested in the past that the Chinese have learned from our economic and financial mistakes and will not be repeating them, hence Western banks operating in China are on a very short leash, large enterprises must have a Chinese partner and financial hubs are controlled in a manner that is unthinkable here, political interference in the free market? No, people not blinded by short term ambition or greed reigning in those who are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply