|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 6, 2024 7:52:55 GMT
It was the commitment to the commercial approach that Blair adopted, against the wishes of the ideologues in his party. I agree making things work is the answer but making things work for 55 million people becomes more problematic when you increase that number rapidly to over 60 million people. The whole thing has to be joined up. It is the inability of governments to do that tells the tale. If you lay on extra buses to to deal with a backlog of people waiting at bus stops it is just plain idiotic to wilfully add to the queue of people through deliberate policy. It all makes little sense. It was the inclusion of some of the commercial approach, not a wholesale commercial approach by New Labour, that made the difference. The Old Conservative ideological commercial approach failed time and time again. This government is open to changes in the way the NHS functions, IMO we need to to see what they do. I did not say it was wholesale but he was committed to a commercial approach as a means of improvement. The joining up process is whereby you do not disrupt the changes you have put in place by creating changes elsewhere. As I have said there is little point in putting on extra buses to deal with a backlog queue at a bus stop if you pump more and more people onto the end of the queue. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 6, 2024 11:30:27 GMT
Making it run more on commercial lines seems to have worked. Is that the message we take from this? You spotted the beauty of having a government that will do what is best for the country and 'for the majority not the few'. Not governed by political ideology. It is why New Labour was a breath of fresh air. They also made the system work while those committed to a 'commercial' approach only, failed. No political ideology??? One of the first things they did was ban fox hunting lol. I voted for Blair three times, he did some good things, but he also did some things that in retrospect were simply unaffordable (50% going to Uni, PFI contracts etc)... and of course we all know how the debt bubble he allowed worked out. "For the majority, not the few" is just garbage used to deflect from the actual problems. We have been living beyond our means for decades. The problem with the NHS is that it is highly political and the unions and senior doctors will fight serious reform, because it takes power away from them. I hope Labour do manage to reform it, but I can't see it under Starmer because he has a none existent relationships with the unions. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 6, 2024 13:34:15 GMT
It was the inclusion of some of the commercial approach, not a wholesale commercial approach by New Labour, that made the difference. The Old Conservative ideological commercial approach failed time and time again. This government is open to changes in the way the NHS functions, IMO we need to to see what they do. I did not say it was wholesale but he was committed to a commercial approach as a means of improvement. The joining up process is whereby you do not disrupt the changes you have put in place by creating changes elsewhere. As I have said there is little point in putting on extra buses to deal with a backlog queue at a bus stop if you pump more and more people onto the end of the queue. Partial commitment, a mixed approach. If it was a commitment to a commercial approach the Old conservatives would have got there before them. But Old Conservatism NEVER had the slightest inclination to make the NHS successful. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 6, 2024 13:45:17 GMT
You spotted the beauty of having a government that will do what is best for the country and 'for the majority not the few'. Not governed by political ideology. It is why New Labour was a breath of fresh air. They also made the system work while those committed to a 'commercial' approach only, failed. No political ideology??? One of the first things they did was ban fox hunting lol. I voted for Blair three times, he did some good things, but he also did some things that in retrospect were simply unaffordable (50% going to Uni, PFI contracts etc)... and of course we all know how the debt bubble he allowed worked out. "For the majority, not the few" is just garbage used to deflect from the actual problems. We have been living beyond our means for decades. The problem with the NHS is that it is highly political and the unions and senior doctors will fight serious reform, because it takes power away from them. I hope Labour do manage to reform it, but I can't see it under Starmer because he has a none existent relationships with the unions. So you don't even understand 'political ideology'. PFI costs became difficult to maintain because of the International Financial Meltdown. The SO CALLED debt bubble (your words) was based upon the the apparent success of the Banks and Financial Services. And the governments attempts to get affordable homes made available for those who wished to get onto the home ownership ladder. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 6, 2024 16:44:28 GMT
No political ideology??? One of the first things they did was ban fox hunting lol. I voted for Blair three times, he did some good things, but he also did some things that in retrospect were simply unaffordable (50% going to Uni, PFI contracts etc)... and of course we all know how the debt bubble he allowed worked out. "For the majority, not the few" is just garbage used to deflect from the actual problems. We have been living beyond our means for decades. The problem with the NHS is that it is highly political and the unions and senior doctors will fight serious reform, because it takes power away from them. I hope Labour do manage to reform it, but I can't see it under Starmer because he has a none existent relationships with the unions. So you don't even understand 'political ideology'.
PFI costs became difficult to maintain because of the International Financial Meltdown. You are going to have to explain this gem - what effect did the Financial crisis have on the affordability of PFI contracts?. The (excessive) returns for the operator and very high costs for the public sector were written into contract from day one, they never changed over the life of the contract. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 6, 2024 17:39:03 GMT
I did not say it was wholesale but he was committed to a commercial approach as a means of improvement. The joining up process is whereby you do not disrupt the changes you have put in place by creating changes elsewhere. As I have said there is little point in putting on extra buses to deal with a backlog queue at a bus stop if you pump more and more people onto the end of the queue. Partial commitment, a mixed approach. If it was a commitment to a commercial approach the Old conservatives would have got there before them. But Old Conservatism NEVER had the slightest inclination to make the NHS successful. OK partial I agree for peace and quite. Why do you keep ignoring the latter part. What is the point in improving a service to cater for a backlog and then bringing in hundreds of thousands from poorer health regimes to join the end of the queue and take us back to square one. It makes no sense and places extra strain on the health service that manifests itself slightly later in time with greater incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes. heart conditions and mental health issues? It is not as if the stats were not available. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 6, 2024 20:58:44 GMT
So you don't even understand 'political ideology'.
PFI costs became difficult to maintain because of the International Financial Meltdown. You are going to have to explain this gem - what effect did the Financial crisis have on the affordability of PFI contracts?. The (excessive) returns for the operator and very high costs for the public sector were written into contract from day one, they never changed over the life of the contract. A lack of finances as a healthy economy was left to struggle. A decade of austerity is the clue. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 6, 2024 21:02:59 GMT
Partial commitment, a mixed approach. If it was a commitment to a commercial approach the Old conservatives would have got there before them. But Old Conservatism NEVER had the slightest inclination to make the NHS successful. OK partial I agree for peace and quite. Why do you keep ignoring the latter part. What is the point in improving a service to cater for a backlog and then bringing in hundreds of thousands from poorer health regimes to join the end of the queue and take us back to square one. It makes no sense and places extra strain on the health service that manifests itself slightly later in time with greater incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes. heart conditions and mental health issues? It is not as if the stats were not available. When New Labour were encouraging immigration there was a need for skilled, trained and professional people in order to allow expansion in a successful economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 6, 2024 21:04:47 GMT
OK partial I agree for peace and quite. Why do you keep ignoring the latter part. What is the point in improving a service to cater for a backlog and then bringing in hundreds of thousands from poorer health regimes to join the end of the queue and take us back to square one. It makes no sense and places extra strain on the health service that manifests itself slightly later in time with greater incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes. heart conditions and mental health issues? It is not as if the stats were not available. When New Labour were encouraging immigration there was a need for skilled, trained and professional people in order to allow expansion in a successful economy. Nope. There was a need to train skilled and professional people in order to allow for expansion . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 6, 2024 21:37:30 GMT
You are going to have to explain this gem - what effect did the Financial crisis have on the affordability of PFI contracts?. The (excessive) returns for the operator and very high costs for the public sector were written into contract from day one, they never changed over the life of the contract. A lack of finances as a healthy economy was left to struggle. A decade of austerity is the clue. But none of that changed the terms of the contracts that Labour signed. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 7, 2024 1:56:33 GMT
No political ideology??? One of the first things they did was ban fox hunting lol. I voted for Blair three times, he did some good things, but he also did some things that in retrospect were simply unaffordable (50% going to Uni, PFI contracts etc)... and of course we all know how the debt bubble he allowed worked out. "For the majority, not the few" is just garbage used to deflect from the actual problems. We have been living beyond our means for decades. The problem with the NHS is that it is highly political and the unions and senior doctors will fight serious reform, because it takes power away from them. I hope Labour do manage to reform it, but I can't see it under Starmer because he has a none existent relationships with the unions. So you don't even understand 'political ideology'. PFI costs became difficult to maintain because of the International Financial Meltdown. The SO CALLED debt bubble (your words) was based upon the the apparent success of the Banks and Financial Services. And the governments attempts to get affordable homes made available for those who wished to get onto the home ownership ladder. Well your own Chancellor disagrees with you. She said New Labour failed to address the structural problems of our economy (ie it was built on retail and services funded through consumer debt, instead of increases in manufacturing). New Labour continued the stupid policies started by Major, which made credit far too easy, and ended up in us being royally shafted by the Financial Crisis. This is not an opinion, this is fact... facts admitted by all the key players at the time! YOU KNOW there was a debt bubble, YOU LIVED THROUGH IT, and YOU KEEP IGNORING evidence when it is presented.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 7, 2024 8:27:43 GMT
OK partial I agree for peace and quite. Why do you keep ignoring the latter part. What is the point in improving a service to cater for a backlog and then bringing in hundreds of thousands from poorer health regimes to join the end of the queue and take us back to square one. It makes no sense and places extra strain on the health service that manifests itself slightly later in time with greater incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes. heart conditions and mental health issues? It is not as if the stats were not available. When New Labour were encouraging immigration there was a need for skilled, trained and professional people in order to allow expansion in a successful economy. Indeed but in the main that is not what we got as the depression of the low skilled wages sector bears witness to as a continuous process from about 2000. If one goes to the supermarket and eschews home grown produce then eventually one loses the capability to grow ones own. Educashun was the watchword thrice delivered but it was overall the wrong sort. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 19:11:18 GMT
When New Labour were encouraging immigration there was a need for skilled, trained and professional people in order to allow expansion in a successful economy. Nope. There was a need to train skilled and professional people in order to allow for expansion . Yes there was and Blair was doing both. But it does take time to train people from scratch. Immigration was one of his answers to the almighty mess he inherited from the Tories.. He very early on increased the training of nurses and doctors followed by the dual approach with teachers where he gave financial encouragement to experienced teachers to return to the schools while also opening more opportunities for teacher training. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 19:15:05 GMT
When New Labour were encouraging immigration there was a need for skilled, trained and professional people in order to allow expansion in a successful economy. Indeed but in the main that is not what we got as the depression of the low skilled wages sector bears witness to as a continuous process from about 2000. If one goes to the supermarket and eschews home grown produce then eventually one loses the capability to grow ones own. Educashun was the watchword thrice delivered but it was overall the wrong sort. I have never seen a list of the trained, educated, skilled, professional people who entered the country around 2004/5, have you? Proof of your comment on education would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 19:31:14 GMT
So you don't even understand 'political ideology'. PFI costs became difficult to maintain because of the International Financial Meltdown. The SO CALLED debt bubble (your words) was based upon the the apparent success of the Banks and Financial Services. And the governments attempts to get affordable homes made available for those who wished to get onto the home ownership ladder. Well your own Chancellor disagrees with you. She said New Labour failed to address the structural problems of our economy (ie it was built on retail and services funded through consumer debt, instead of increases in manufacturing). New Labour continued the stupid policies started by Major, which made credit far too easy, and ended up in us being royally shafted by the Financial Crisis. This is not an opinion, this is fact... facts admitted by all the key players at the time! YOU KNOW there was a debt bubble, YOU LIVED THROUGH IT, and YOU KEEP IGNORING evidence when it is presented. Japanese carmakers replaced UK industry in many places imposed by Thatcher. The old apprenticeship system destroyed by 'Self Employment', Financial Services was the most available income for the country after the nightmare years of Thatcherism, the increase in home ownership was an intended move by Blair affordable homes, cash was flowing in the Banks so business as usual was taking place and mortgages were in the main continued to be paid with the housing market recovering in four years following the International Financial Meltdown (IFM). You posting so much insinuated shite suggests that you only have one half of your brain available. It is time for you to piss off with your incessant whinging denigrations, there are far more interesting posts to read and points to be made harboring your nonsense. |
|
