Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
Not a coincidence that the waiting times have rocketed under Tory mismanagement ? They fell under labour under the first part of that ten year timescale.
The Conservative party are not a party of home ownership for a young person leaving care at 18 in Lewisham East with a minimum wage job at Nandos. Indeed the Conservative party is a party of homelessness for such an 18 year old given their record on social housing.
Well at least they have a job under The Tories. Under Labour they'd be jobless.
Go to work and sleep on a park bench huh? Can you tell me Conservative policy for accommodating those 10000 18 year olds obliged to leave the care system annually?
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
I see, we simply have to match healthcare spending to the requirements of the population! It's that good old Labour money tree again, or is it the credit card?
The only part of this I agree with in the last line: politics is for life, not just for elections. Politics only works if politicians are held to account during their whole career, not only in the run-up to elections. And by that I mean ALL politicians. The Government, the Opposition, the Greens or UKIP or SNP or whoever. Some people on here are only concerned with holding the Government to account. I find it is much more necessary to hold whoever would take their place equally to account. Too many people think the Opposition should held a free run and be immune to criticism, but this is dangerous thinking.
I do have to expose Brand's fallacy that everything that the Government isn't funding that the person who wants it can't afford himself is 'a cut'. There were plenty of things that were not being funded under the previous administration that are not being funded for now yet apparently this can be considered to be a cut. If one government decides to increase the funding for a particular public service or government subsidy without guaranteeing the long term funding for it, then something somewhere has to be cut at some point in time in order to avoid insolvency. That's the reality of how the world works. One party wants to guarantee every school leaver a job. Great idea if we can afford it, but where are they going to get the funding for to fund this in the long term? Or if they can't get the funding, what are they going to cut, or will this jobs-guarantee be short-term only? Money doesn't, as many people would have you believe otherwise, grow on trees.
I think that if Brand was on CL, he'd be of those who would post anything just to get his "Like" count up and not so much his "LOL" count, even though, he's spose to be a comedian
In that case he's probably already on here...
Hmm, so we're looking for an unnecessarily aggressive pro-Labour poster desperately looking for likes by posting about stuff he barely understands...
Needle in a haystack on this thread
Given that you said that people with 2 million pound houses were "Cash-rich but asset-poor", I don't think you're in a position to disparage people for posting about stuff they barely understand
I think that if Brand was on CL, he'd be of those who would post anything just to get his "Like" count up and not so much his "LOL" count, even though, he's spose to be a comedian
In that case he's probably already on here...
Hmm, so we're looking for an unnecessarily aggressive pro-Labour poster desperately looking for likes by posting about stuff he barely understands...
Needle in a haystack on this thread
Given that you said that people with 2 million pound houses were "Cash-rich but asset-poor", I don't think you're in a position to disparage people for posting about stuff they barely understand
That was a typo, I clearly meant it the other way round. I won't bother going through the thread to find the countless errors you've made.
The Conservative party are not a party of home ownership for a young person leaving care at 18 in Lewisham East with a minimum wage job at Nandos. Indeed the Conservative party is a party of homelessness for such an 18 year old given their record on social housing.
Well at least they have a job under The Tories. Under Labour they'd be jobless.
Go to work and sleep on a park bench huh? Can you tell me Conservative policy for accommodating those 10000 18 year olds obliged to leave the care system annually?
No, I doubt many could. I respectfully suggest that the only reason you can, is of personal interest.
I doubt many of the electorate could answer that. No offence intended.
The Conservative party are not a party of home ownership for a young person leaving care at 18 in Lewisham East with a minimum wage job at Nandos. Indeed the Conservative party is a party of homelessness for such an 18 year old given their record on social housing.
Well at least they have a job under The Tories. Under Labour they'd be jobless.
Go to work and sleep on a park bench huh? Can you tell me Conservative policy for accommodating those 10000 18 year olds obliged to leave the care system annually?
SEN support continues until 25 years of age, since 2012 - a major step in the right direction. Not exactly answering your question (though a massive increase in apprenticeships of late is also a welcome step too.
From Gov.uk Health, education and care services legally required to work together
Parents are to get a new legal right to buy in specialist special educational needs (SEN) and disabled care for their children, under plans set out today by Children’s Minister Sarah Teather.
For the first time ever, parents will be given the power to control personal budgets for their children with severe, profound or multiple health and learning - meaning they can choose the expert support that is right for their child, instead of local authorities (LAs) being the sole provider.
The biggest reform of SEN for 30 years will also force education, health and social care services to plan services together by law - so when their children are assessed, parents will be assured they will get full provision to address their children’s needs.
Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
Not a coincidence that the waiting times have rocketed under Tory mismanagement ? They fell under labour under the first part of that ten year timescale.
That may have been because under Labour no one included in those data all those patients who just gave up and went home. Now they do. (It's around 3% apparently). See, we could go on with statistics all day if you like!
It's comments like that that completely undermine this election, and turn it into a class war, when it is anything but that.
What politicians got up to at school should not be relevant to how they are trying to run the country.
Its literally just a line trotted out by Labour when they have no actual reasonable arguments left.
Pathetic.
University.
And the line "trotted out" is an important one, when placed in the context of what are the social motives of the protagonists. One of them is someone interested in lowering housing costs, one of them is interested in smashing up restaurants.
However, I would agree that it's preposterous to rely only on a single comparison of how two people behaved many years ago. But I would also suggest it's more relevant than how someone looks when he's eating a bacon sandwich.
The Conservative party are not a party of home ownership for a young person leaving care at 18 in Lewisham East with a minimum wage job at Nandos. Indeed the Conservative party is a party of homelessness for such an 18 year old given their record on social housing.
Well at least they have a job under The Tories. Under Labour they'd be jobless.
Go to work and sleep on a park bench huh? Can you tell me Conservative policy for accommodating those 10000 18 year olds obliged to leave the care system annually?
No, I doubt many could. I respectfully suggest that the only reason you can, is of personal interest.
I doubt many of the electorate could answer that. No offence intended.
No offence taken, but often what influences ones vote begins from the personal and that is a valid starting point. The Conservative candidate here told me he is obliged to rent privately which was a decent disclosure on his part and fair enough. That was in the context of my quiet talk to him about the right to buy policy, and youngsters leaving care. I would like to think that I am an altruistic voter, but we are all shaped to an extent by our personal agendas.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
I see, we simply have to match healthcare spending to the requirements of the population! It's that good old Labour money tree again, or is it the credit card?
This is the nations health we're talking about. I would suggest that along with the security of the nation that nothing is more important.
In answer to your question. Yes we spend what's needed to look after the sick, the injured and vulnerable.
It's comments like that that completely undermine this election, and turn it into a class war, when it is anything but that.
What politicians got up to at school should not be relevant to how they are trying to run the country.
Its literally just a line trotted out by Labour when they have no actual reasonable arguments left.
Pathetic.
University.
And the line "trotted out" is an important one, when placed in the context of what are the social motives of the protagonists. One of them is someone interested in lowering housing costs, one of them is interested in smashing up restaurants.
However, I would agree that it's preposterous to rely only on a single comparison of how two people behaved many years ago. But I would also suggest it's more relevant than how someone looks when he's eating a bacon sandwich.
Completely wrong though that comparison isn't it. One is what David Cameron got up to in his social life at Uni, one is what Milliband got up to in his extra curricular academic life. A fair comparison would be what Cameron did while a member of the University conservative party, or what drunken antics Milliband got up to whilst at Uni. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with what the Bullingdon club got up to, but if you doubting Cameron's ability to run the country now on what he got up to when a 22 year old then you are really clutching at straws.
I also don't agree with the whole bacon sandwhich thing, but at least that is Milliband now (not when he was 22), and is just another example of him being a bit of a buffoon, at the present moment.
Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
Not a coincidence that the waiting times have rocketed under Tory mismanagement ? They fell under labour under the first part of that ten year timescale.
That may have been because under Labour no one included in those data all those patients who just gave up and went home. Now they do. (It's around 3% apparently). See, we could go on with statistics all day if you like!
It's comments like that that completely undermine this election, and turn it into a class war, when it is anything but that.
What politicians got up to at school should not be relevant to how they are trying to run the country.
Its literally just a line trotted out by Labour when they have no actual reasonable arguments left.
Pathetic.
University.
And the line "trotted out" is an important one, when placed in the context of what are the social motives of the protagonists. One of them is someone interested in lowering housing costs, one of them is interested in smashing up restaurants.
However, I would agree that it's preposterous to rely only on a single comparison of how two people behaved many years ago. But I would also suggest it's more relevant than how someone looks when he's eating a bacon sandwich.
Completely wrong though that comparison isn't it. One is what David Cameron got up to in his social life at Uni, one is what Milliband got up to in his extra curricular academic life. A fair comparison would be what Cameron did while a member of the University conservative party, or what drunken antics Milliband got up to whilst at Uni. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with what the Bullingdon club got up to, but if you doubting Cameron's ability to run the country now on what he got up to when a 22 year old then you are really clutching at straws.
I also don't agree with the whole bacon sandwhich thing, but at least that is Milliband now (not when he was 22), and is just another example of him being a bit of a buffoon, at the present moment.
You almost had me, up to "buffoon"!
The only reason I posted the stupid pictures of the Bullingdon Club; the sandwich eaters; and Clegg with the fish, is to highlight how incredibly stupid it is to draw inferences from "silly" pictures.
It's a hoot, it's funny, it's perfectly acceptable satire; but, when people start to think "look at the way he eats a sandwich - that must mean he'd be a bad prime minister", it's dangerous, stupid and wrong.
simple way to increase investment in the Nhs is to turn the national lottery into a NHS lottery - over 7bn was spent on tickets last year if 25% went to the NHS this would make a huge difference.
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
I think the NHS is an animal that no government will ever really tame. Suggesting throwing money at it will solve all the problems is misguided. Poor Administration and poor communication brought about by poor management has ALWAYS been its achilles heel. I remember watching Gerry Robinsons excellent series on the Beeb a few years back which found management failing at nearly every level. On a personal view things are getting better. I've visited hospital on 3or4 occasions during this conservative tenure and the organisation got progressivly better than when my Dad was in there during 2009. The NHS needs strong management and it's probably only going to find these people in the private sector. This will cost money, but with the population using it spiralling out of control, it needs sorting sooner rather than later. The problem I have with Labour is that they very quick to splash the cash but never really watch where it goes.
Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
Not a coincidence that the waiting times have rocketed under Tory mismanagement ? They fell under labour under the first part of that ten year timescale.
That may have been because under Labour no one included in those data all those patients who just gave up and went home. Now they do. (It's around 3% apparently). See, we could go on with statistics all day if you like!
simple way to increase investment in the Nhs is to turn the national lottery into a NHS lottery - over 7bn was spent on tickets last year if 25% went to the NHS this would make a huge difference.
Surprised no-one has suggested this.
Why not cut out the middle man and implement an 'idiot tax' to fund the NHS, since that's basically what the lottery is.
simple way to increase investment in the Nhs is to turn the national lottery into a NHS lottery - over 7bn was spent on tickets last year if 25% went to the NHS this would make a huge difference.
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
I see, we simply have to match healthcare spending to the requirements of the population! It's that good old Labour money tree again, or is it the credit card?
This is the nations health we're talking about. I would suggest that along with the security of the nation that nothing is more important.
In answer to your question. Yes we spend what's needed to look after the sick, the injured and vulnerable.
We spend it wisely of course but yes we spend it.
No one is denying the importance of healthcare. The question and the problem is how to fund it. You and I are aware of the advancements in treatments, technology, knowledge, techniques etc and the increased costs involved. It is simply impossible to provide for everyone's needs and desires when it comes to healthcare. Are you saying that everyone should have access to every treatment available? Should I expect the taxpayer to pay for my apronectomy because I've had too much beer? Should we be giving free IVF treatment to Lesbian couples? Do we spend thousands on a 96 year old man with prostate cancer? What do you mean by "matching the requirements of the population". Are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is there to provide for all the requirements of the population and that the government should be expected to meet all the costs involved? Yes it would be wonderful to fund everything, but we live in a world without money trees unfortunately.
Comments
Not a coincidence that the waiting times have rocketed under Tory mismanagement ? They fell under labour under the first part of that ten year timescale.
I do have to expose Brand's fallacy that everything that the Government isn't funding that the person who wants it can't afford himself is 'a cut'. There were plenty of things that were not being funded under the previous administration that are not being funded for now yet apparently this can be considered to be a cut. If one government decides to increase the funding for a particular public service or government subsidy without guaranteeing the long term funding for it, then something somewhere has to be cut at some point in time in order to avoid insolvency. That's the reality of how the world works. One party wants to guarantee every school leaver a job. Great idea if we can afford it, but where are they going to get the funding for to fund this in the long term? Or if they can't get the funding, what are they going to cut, or will this jobs-guarantee be short-term only? Money doesn't, as many people would have you believe otherwise, grow on trees.
more recent, interesting Education now higher than immigration, yet UKIP still high
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e52e06c-f30e-11e4-b98f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3ZMXT9Qs5
I doubt many of the electorate could answer that. No offence intended.
From Gov.uk
Health, education and care services legally required to work together
Parents are to get a new legal right to buy in specialist special educational needs (SEN) and disabled care for their children, under plans set out today by Children’s Minister Sarah Teather.
For the first time ever, parents will be given the power to control personal budgets for their children with severe, profound or multiple health and learning - meaning they can choose the expert support that is right for their child, instead of local authorities (LAs) being the sole provider.
The biggest reform of SEN for 30 years will also force education, health and social care services to plan services together by law - so when their children are assessed, parents will be assured they will get full provision to address their children’s needs.
It's comments like that that completely undermine this election, and turn it into a class war, when it is anything but that.
What politicians got up to at school should not be relevant to how they are trying to run the country.
Its literally just a line trotted out by Labour when they have no actual reasonable arguments left.
Pathetic.
And the line "trotted out" is an important one, when placed in the context of what are the social motives of the protagonists. One of them is someone interested in lowering housing costs, one of them is interested in smashing up restaurants.
However, I would agree that it's preposterous to rely only on a single comparison of how two people behaved many years ago. But I would also suggest it's more relevant than how someone looks when he's eating a bacon sandwich.
I would like to think that I am an altruistic voter, but we are all shaped to an extent by our personal agendas.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11582748/Election-polls-UK-latest-opinion-polls-show-Conservatives-and-Labour-tied.html
In answer to your question. Yes we spend what's needed to look after the sick, the injured and vulnerable.
We spend it wisely of course but yes we spend it.
Completely wrong though that comparison isn't it. One is what David Cameron got up to in his social life at Uni, one is what Milliband got up to in his extra curricular academic life. A fair comparison would be what Cameron did while a member of the University conservative party, or what drunken antics Milliband got up to whilst at Uni.
Don't get me wrong I don't agree with what the Bullingdon club got up to, but if you doubting Cameron's ability to run the country now on what he got up to when a 22 year old then you are really clutching at straws.
I also don't agree with the whole bacon sandwhich thing, but at least that is Milliband now (not when he was 22), and is just another example of him being a bit of a buffoon, at the present moment.
The only reason I posted the stupid pictures of the Bullingdon Club; the sandwich eaters; and Clegg with the fish, is to highlight how incredibly stupid it is to draw inferences from "silly" pictures.
It's a hoot, it's funny, it's perfectly acceptable satire; but, when people start to think "look at the way he eats a sandwich - that must mean he'd be a bad prime minister", it's dangerous, stupid and wrong.
Surprised no-one has suggested this.
On a personal view things are getting better. I've visited hospital on 3or4 occasions during this conservative tenure and the organisation got progressivly better than when my Dad was in there during 2009.
The NHS needs strong management and it's probably only going to find these people in the private sector. This will cost money, but with the population using it spiralling out of control, it needs sorting sooner rather than later. The problem I have with Labour is that they very quick to splash the cash but never really watch where it goes.
https://www.healthlottery.co.uk/lottery-good-causes
Yes it would be wonderful to fund everything, but we live in a world without money trees unfortunately.
Swept away by a landslide victory for the strongly Left leaning NDP party.
Hard to put into a British context other than to say this would be like UKIP winning every seat in Scotland!!