Re: Asda price? : Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:46 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So how does huge spending on public services follow what Thatcher was doing which was the opposite i.e. reducing the size of the state?

It was financed privately. Wander round Darwen or Blackburn and see how many NHS buildings are labelled with "Capita". What did Labour donor, Mr Aldridge have to do to get his company name linked to the NHS? Build an "academy".
That's the Labour legacy, let me profit from the NHS and I'll build you a school.

Re: Asda price? : Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:55 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

It was financed privately. Wander round Darwen or Blackburn and see how many NHS buildings are labelled with "Capita". What did Labour donor, Mr Aldridge have to do to get his company name linked to the NHS? Build an "academy".
That's the Labour legacy, let me profit from the NHS and I'll build you a school.

Are you really saying the massive amount of extra money spent on health and education by Blair/Brown's Labour was all really a myth it didn't actually happen?

The institute for fiscal studies suggest they did - spending on health and education went from 10.1% of national income to 14.8% by 2010.

Re: Asda price? : Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:31 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Are you really saying the massive amount of extra money spent on health and education by Blair/Brown's Labour was all really a myth it didn't actually happen?

No, I'm saying look where it came from, how it was financed. What was it spent on. It's quite interesting, that for all this extra money the spent on health, the life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest grew for the first time in decades.

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:37 am  

BobbyD wrote:

No, I'm saying look where it came from, how it was financed. What was it spent on. It's quite interesting, that for all this extra money the spent on health, the life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest grew for the first time in decades.

It was financed from taxation and/or government borrowing - that much is proven.

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:43 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It was financed from taxation and/or government borrowing - that much is proven.

Well, yes, but every single thing the government buys is financed from taxation and/or borrowing.

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:24 am  

BobbyD wrote:

Well, yes, but every single thing the government buys is financed from taxation and/or borrowing.

You are saying it was all private investment not government money? So how do you explain the move from 10% to nearly 15% if it is not increased government spending on health and education?

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:31 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You are saying it was all private investment not government money? So how do you explain the move from 10% to nearly 15% if it is not increased government spending on health and education?

No, I'm not. I'm asking what's the proportion of spending through taxation or private investment. If in the past a new hospital was paid 100%/95%/90% or whatever through taxation is it the same now?
If a government spends an extra 5% on health and education, which isn't going to be chicken feed, just where did the money come from?

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:35 am  

BobbyD wrote:

... That's the Labour legacy, let me profit from the NHS and I'll build you a school.

PFI was created by Major's government.

And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing.

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:01 am  

Mintball wrote: PFI was created by Major's government. And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing. Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not. Then you've this from 2012. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

Mintball wrote: PFI was created by Major's government. And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing. Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not. Then you've this from 2012. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

Re: Asda price? : Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:57 am  

BobbyD wrote: Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not... It's what New Labour does/did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was a reason that one of the first things Blair did, on becoming leader, was to get rid of Clause 4 from the party's constitution – the clause that tied the party, at least ideologically, to public/state ownership. In office, Blair's government continued down the same ideological, economic route set in motion by Margaret Thatcher: continued privatisation, continued deregulation etc. The only substantial difference – the 'third way' – was actually spending something on public services, although not to the record levels that became a myth that the party left unchallenged for political reasons at the time. But by 1997, hospitals and schools etc were in crisis in terms of infrastructure after nearly two decades of cuts, privatisation etc. Hence the newspaper headlines about old people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors. BobbyD wrote: Then you've this from 2012. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though. Since the rise of hospital infections, there have been vast numbers of attempts to get infection rates down (handwashes everywhere has been a recurring favourite) – and blame levied all over the shop (too many visitors etc). Back in 2009, UNISON sponsored a study in a Scottish hospital where it was found that just one extra cleaner on a ward cut infection rates. The experiment lasted for six months on one ward and was then repeated on another ward for the same amount of time. The problem, if you will, is that staff cost money: handwashes, on the other hand, make profits for someone. If infections kill patients, then any cost (compensation) is likely to be socialised (as was also being agreed when there were efforts to privatise and offshore medical secretaries – a move that had serious consequences for patient outcomes when tried in the US some years ago, and huge financial costs in terms of compensation etc). There are reasons that the obvious and – you would think – easiest options are often the ones least likely to be put into practice. Story. Additionally, though not mentioned in that story, UNISON has also repeatedly called for a return to proper sisters on wards, and for them to be given control over cleaning staff. The situation that remains in place at present is that medical staff cannot call a cleaner to do something, because they are not the cleaner's line manager – someone at the private company is – so it's more complicated than it should be to have cleaning services respond to need determined by medical staff.

BobbyD wrote: Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not... It's what New Labour does/did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was a reason that one of the first things Blair did, on becoming leader, was to get rid of Clause 4 from the party's constitution – the clause that tied the party, at least ideologically, to public/state ownership. In office, Blair's government continued down the same ideological, economic route set in motion by Margaret Thatcher: continued privatisation, continued deregulation etc. The only substantial difference – the 'third way' – was actually spending something on public services, although not to the record levels that became a myth that the party left unchallenged for political reasons at the time. But by 1997, hospitals and schools etc were in crisis in terms of infrastructure after nearly two decades of cuts, privatisation etc. Hence the newspaper headlines about old people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors. BobbyD wrote: Then you've this from 2012. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though. Since the rise of hospital infections, there have been vast numbers of attempts to get infection rates down (handwashes everywhere has been a recurring favourite) – and blame levied all over the shop (too many visitors etc). Back in 2009, UNISON sponsored a study in a Scottish hospital where it was found that just one extra cleaner on a ward cut infection rates. The experiment lasted for six months on one ward and was then repeated on another ward for the same amount of time. The problem, if you will, is that staff cost money: handwashes, on the other hand, make profits for someone. If infections kill patients, then any cost (compensation) is likely to be socialised (as was also being agreed when there were efforts to privatise and offshore medical secretaries – a move that had serious consequences for patient outcomes when tried in the US some years ago, and huge financial costs in terms of compensation etc). There are reasons that the obvious and – you would think – easiest options are often the ones least likely to be put into practice. Story. Additionally, though not mentioned in that story, UNISON has also repeatedly called for a return to proper sisters on wards, and for them to be given control over cleaning staff. The situation that remains in place at present is that medical staff cannot call a cleaner to do something, because they are not the cleaner's line manager – someone at the private company is – so it's more complicated than it should be to have cleaning services respond to need determined by medical staff.