NHS not been invested in for years

[Wayward]

The efficiencies of state committee controlled enterprises...hmmmm?.  State manipulation of the housing market is going well so far, I don't think... Odd that other essential services such as food distribution and retailing works extremely well...

[Bluestone59]

3 hours ago, Switch625 said:

Thanks to PFI they don't spend ANY money on those big shiny buildings, at least not upfront. No that would be far too sensible. What they do is outsource the construction and then rent the buildings back over many decades for eye-watering sums of money, whilst spending exorbitant costs on servicing. Effectively putting the taxpayer on the hook for even more money with longterm contracts that can't be escaped from. As ever, if you want to understand why such a system would be contemplated, when it is clearly not fit for purpose, ask the simple question 'Who stands to gain from this?' and then just follow the money .....

I'd go as far as to say that one day Labour will be elected on a manifesto that promises to renationalise some things with restricted or even nil recompense.

[doomed]

29 minutes ago, Bluestone59 said:

I'd go as far as to say that one day Labour will be elected on a manifesto that promises to renationalise some things with restricted or even nil recompense.

And on that day we will return to the dark ages.

If Labour were to get elected on such a manifesto I would certainly leave for a less retarded country.

[Bluestone59]

11 minutes ago, doomed said:

And on that day we will return to the dark ages.

If Labour were to get elected on such a manifesto I would certainly leave for a less retarded country.

I don't disagree, nor with your choice should that come to it. Just saying that it could eventually go that way. 

Btw others elsewhere on here have pointed out that in terms of the rest of Europe, Labour's manifesto is not outrageously left wing. So successful have the owners and rulers been at indoctrinating people, an irrational phobia of the left has resulted.  I bet it was the same in 1945 before we elected probably one of the better governments we've had, despite its flaws.

For the record I've already ditched today's Labour on the grounds that nearly all.of them are idiots, zealots and persons with no obvious talent for the task. If I felt I could trust them I might feel otherwise.

[doomed]

2 minutes ago, Bluestone59 said:

I don't disagree, nor with your choice should that come to it. Just saying that it could eventually go that way. 

Btw others elsewhere on here have pointed out that in terms of the rest of Europe, Labour's manifesto is not outrageously left wing. So successful have the owners and rulers been at indoctrinating people, an irrational phobia of the left has resulted.  I bet it was the same in 1945 before we elected probably one of the better governments we've had, despite its flaws.

For the record I've already ditched today's Labour on the grounds that nearly all.of them are idiots, zealots and persons with no obvious talent for the task. If I felt I could trust them I might feel otherwise.

Personally I refuse to vote for any of our political parties. We need a much smaller state and less direct interference in people's lives.

[scottbeard]

6 hours ago, Shrink Proof said:

Too late. Taxpayer subsidy of the privatised railway is about 300% of what it was for British Rail. Whether we are getting value for money is an interesting question...

That's true - but still way behind what other European countries do:

[winkie]

14 hours ago, Switch625 said:

Thanks to PFI they don't spend ANY money on those big shiny buildings, at least not upfront. No that would be far too sensible. What they do is outsource the construction and then rent the buildings back over many decades for eye-watering sums of money, whilst spending exorbitant costs on servicing. Effectively putting the taxpayer on the hook for even more money with longterm contracts that can't be escaped from. As ever, if you want to understand why such a system would be contemplated, when it is clearly not fit for purpose, ask the simple question 'Who stands to gain from this?' and then just follow the money .....

Aah yes, clever accounting, quite costly to the social purse I should think, some must gain from it.....the biggest cost are the ongoing cost of staff and their work benefits....buildings are the easy bit.... We have already got good enough buildings with empty wards, what people want and need are not new shiny buildings but excellent health care with enough trained and caring staff that feel valued.... because we value them.?

[Habeas Domus]

12 hours ago, Wayward said:

The efficiencies of state committee controlled enterprises...hmmmm?.  State manipulation of the housing market is going well so far, I don't think... Odd that other essential services such as food distribution and retailing works extremely well...

The arguments about state run vs privatised railways misses the main point, no railway in modern times has been able to run completely independently - if you sold off a railway and gave it no financial support it would go bankrupt in no time.

Many make the argument that we should just rip up the rails and convert every railway into more roads, but that ignores the fact that roads are also subsidised: Vehicle Excise Duty raises £6.5 billion per year (an average of £98 per person) and is said to be significantly less than the actual cost of building, maintaining and policing the roads infrastructure. If we converted all the railways into roads you would see a massive increase in those costs.

So what it comes down to is "are you prepared to pay to have a functioning railway system?"

In the continent the answer is generally "yes" and they have a fantastic, clean and reliable service, in the UK the answer has generally been "not really" and so the result is our rubbish railway services. For comparison Germany spends around £10.1 billion in rail subsidies each year compared to the UK's £6.4 billion, of which £2.1 billion was for HS2.

If privatisation has proved anything it is that the company running it doesnt matter - if they don't have the funding, they can't do a good job. All of the current train companies in the UK suck in one way or another.

It's a bit like the NHS, the Tories are planning to privatise it but don't hold your breath expecting that to be any kind of improvement.

[doomed]

3 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

It's a bit like the NHS, the Tories are planning to privatise it but don't hold your breath expecting that to be any kind of improvement.

If privatisation means choice of service provider by the end user there will be a massive improvement.

What I would like to see is government setting a price for a service that private companies can claim for provision with the ability of end users to contribute for a more premium service.

Edited November 9, 2019 by doomed

[poppie]

1 hour ago, doomed said:

If privatisation means choice of service provider by the end user there will be a massive improvement.

If you say so!

You're very much in the tiny minority of people wanting to destroy the NHS.

[doomed]

1 minute ago, poppie said:

If you say so!

You're very much in the tiny minority of people wanting to destroy the NHS.

I recently paid to have a procedure carried out privately that included a before an after appointment with a consultant of my choosing. This was all done within 2 weeks of first contacting them.

I attempted to go via GP and got a referral but was told my urgent referral appointment to see someone at the hospital would be 4 months.

I paid less than it would cost the NHS to carry out the procedure.

Most people have an unrealistic view of the NHS as some marvelous free service that does an amazing job until they actually need it for something urgently that goes beyond a GP visit.

[Riedquat]

On 08/11/2019 at 15:36, winkie said:

But ain't that the plan...run it down slowly over time...every year advertise how bad A&E will be each winter....two week wait for a doctor's appointment, 10 mins rushed with the doctor... some staff poorly paid and undervalued ...many old time experience leaving or retiring, more expensive agency staff so not to be on the books.etc...the then plan is that they hope people will welcome privatisation with open arms.....just like they did with British Rail...remember Railtrack.....you get a service that is no better, but twice the price.....and the rolling stock still old diesel not even electrified.....where is the money going? To overseas investors?.....because you only have to look to Europe no comparison, what is it they are doing right that we are not?...?

?

So what you're saying with the railway comparison is that it results in less of a push to produce obnoxious shiny new sh1te? A mess of a rat's nest of wires and posts and trains with hard seats that don't line up with the windows are what we get when they do try to make things "better", so I'll take whatever doesn't result in "improvement" thank you very much.

[Riedquat]

6 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

In the continent the answer is generally "yes" and they have a fantastic, clean and reliable service, in the UK the answer has generally been "not really" and so the result is our rubbish railway services. For comparison Germany spends around £10.1 billion in rail subsidies each year compared to the UK's £6.4 billion, of which £2.1 billion was for HS2.

Actually what they get are a few flashy high-profile high speed things for the weird people who actually like that sort of thing but local services are often worse than ours. No-one anywhere seems particularly interested in spending money on keeping things going properly.

[onlooker]

8 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

The arguments about state run vs privatised railways misses the main point, no railway in modern times has been able to run completely independently - if you sold off a railway and gave it no financial support it would go bankrupt in no time.

Many make the argument that we should just rip up the rails and convert every railway into more roads, but that ignores the fact that roads are also subsidised: Vehicle Excise Duty raises £6.5 billion per year (an average of £98 per person) and is said to be significantly less than the actual cost of building, maintaining and policing the roads infrastructure. If we converted all the railways into roads you would see a massive increase in those costs.

So what it comes down to is "are you prepared to pay to have a functioning railway system?"

In the continent the answer is generally "yes" and they have a fantastic, clean and reliable service, in the UK the answer has generally been "not really" and so the result is our rubbish railway services. For comparison Germany spends around £10.1 billion in rail subsidies each year compared to the UK's £6.4 billion, of which £2.1 billion was for HS2.

If privatisation has proved anything it is that the company running it doesnt matter - if they don't have the funding, they can't do a good job. All of the current train companies in the UK suck in one way or another.

It's a bit like the NHS, the Tories are planning to privatise it but don't hold your breath expecting that to be any kind of improvement.

Yet the number of passenger train journeys in the UK has doubled since 1997 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/14/train-journey-numbers-double-since-privatisation-railways-uk-report)

So it can be argued that the rail industry is doing something right.

The problem with subsidies for trains, is that most people in the UK never use them (anecdotal belief, I can't find any stats), so why should those who never use them pay so much in tax to support those that do. Unfortunately, most new housing developments in this country are built where land is available and cheap, and is not aligned to the rail network, nor any public transport for that matter. Housing estates should not be built more than 2 miles from a railway station.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Yet the number of passenger train journeys in the UK has doubled since 1997 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/14/train-journey-numbers-double-since-privatisation-railways-uk-report)

Shifts in attitude against cars would be my guess, both from general anti-car sentiment and the fact that so many city centres are blocked solid with traffic.

[onlooker]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Shifts in attitude against cars would be my guess, both from general anti-car sentiment and the fact that so many city centres are blocked solid with traffic.

Car use has gone up by about 10% in the same time, and now accounts for 75% of passenger kilometres:

https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Transport-and-highways-travel-reaches-record-levels/13586

 

[zugzwang]

20 hours ago, Bluestone59 said:

For the record I've already ditched today's Labour on the grounds that nearly all.of them are idiots, zealots and persons with no obvious talent for the task. If I felt I could trust them I might feel otherwise.

Whatever reservations you might have about the current Labour Party manifesto, Corbyn and McDonnell are moral and intellectual colossi compared with the bankster-frotting, landlord-enabling neoliberal pygmies on the other side.

[chronyx]

21 hours ago, Bluestone59 said:

 

For the record I've already ditched today's Labour on the grounds that nearly all.of them are idiots, zealots and persons with no obvious talent for the task. If I felt I could trust them I might feel otherwise.

 

46 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Whatever reservations you might have about the current Labour Party manifesto, Corbyn and McDonnell are moral and intellectual colossi compared with the bankster-frotting, landlord-enabling neoliberal pygmies on the other side.

Am I alone in that I would happily oven them all.  Blue, red, yellow, blue with yellow stars...oven.

[Bluestone59]

49 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Whatever reservations you might have about the current Labour Party manifesto, Corbyn and McDonnell are moral and intellectual colossi compared with the bankster-frotting, landlord-enabling neoliberal pygmies on the other side.

That bar is set pretty low though. That I have ditched Labour does not constitute an endorsement for the Tories.

That I agree with your premise that those two have more about them than  most of the Tory party added together isn't enough. 

I never vote for an option I think I'm going to regret. I got as far as the voting booth in 1997, thought about it and walked out. Despite some sympathy with your views on JC and J M I just know I'll regret it if they win.

When I voted Labour in 2017 it was my first vote in 25 years. 

Your description of the Tories is by some way the most accurate I've seen.

 

[MarkG]

15 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

Many make the argument that we should just rip up the rails and convert every railway into more roads, but that ignores the fact that roads are also subsidised: Vehicle Excise Duty raises £6.5 billion per year (an average of £98 per person) and is said to be significantly less than the actual cost of building, maintaining and policing the roads infrastructure.=

********. Road tax hasn't been dedicated to building roads for many years now; it's all just thrown in the pot and wasted.

When I left the UK ten years ago, the total tax collected from motorists each year through the numerous taxes imposed on them was about five times the amount spent on roads. Petrol tax dwarfed road tax at the time, and I'm sure it's not been reduced.

[Si1]

8 hours ago, MarkG said:

********. Road tax hasn't been dedicated to building roads for many years now; it's all just thrown in the pot and wasted.

When I left the UK ten years ago, the total tax collected from motorists each year through the numerous taxes imposed on them was about five times the amount spent on roads. Petrol tax dwarfed road tax at the time, and I'm sure it's not been reduced.

It's rather hard to define what the costs of the roads truly are. Deaths through pollution and accidents, policing costs, loss of productivity to setting aside land. The road lobby always come up with this tiny minded gambit based on some very limited accounting.

[onlooker]

42 minutes ago, Si1 said:

It's rather hard to define what the costs of the roads truly are. Deaths through pollution and accidents, policing costs, loss of productivity to setting aside land. The road lobby always come up with this tiny minded gambit based on some very limited accounting.

How would this country exist without roads? 78% of passenger kilometres by car. 5% by bus, almost all the freight. Not to mention gas and electricity and water, services which also use the roads.

[nothernsoul]

Somebody who has private medical insurance in the uk currently, with affordable premiums,  cant just assume that if NHS was abolished, that they could have the same. The premiums for BUPA are far lower than in the USA because NHS carries the expensive costs of treating chronic conditions for the elderly or intensive care. If your operation goes horribly wrong in a private hospital, they will have to put you in an ambulance and take you to an NHS one that has intensive  care facilities . 

[Si1]

46 minutes ago, onlooker said:

How would this country exist without roads? 78% of passenger kilometres by car. 5% by bus, almost all the freight. Not to mention gas and electricity and water, services which also use the roads.

There's that too. Not simple

[A17]

On 09/11/2019 at 04:12, Habeas Domus said:

In the continent the answer is generally "yes" and they have a fantastic, clean and reliable service, in the UK the answer has generally been "not really" and so the result is our rubbish railway services. For comparison Germany spends around £10.1 billion in rail subsidies each year compared to the UK's £6.4 billion, of which £2.1 billion was for HS2.

So for a couple of billion pounds a year more we could have German style railways? Not a bad bargain really. A couple of billion pounds gets sprayed around on nonsense all the time really by the government, so it'd be barely noticeable in terms of overall spending.