Running down the NHS so it has to be privatised?

yes, a big discussion needs to take place about expensive drugs. Some cancer drugs are massively expensive, with a possible life extension of a few weeks. Does it always make sense? If it was my daughter or grand-daughter, I'd probably think so. But away from very personal circumstances, probably not. Same for a lot of medication and treatment.

Same for end of life care- when all quality of life has gone, does it make sense to continue to over treat, over feed, over medicate. During Covid, I heard a geriatrician saying that modern medicine has 'robbed the very elderly of death- like pneumonia, etc.

Fleurpepper

Amalegra

An excellent comment! The hysteria that we are encouraged to believe about ‘privatisation’ is to no one’s benefit. We do indeed need to look at other models of healthcare that are getting it right! I do not believe that the Labour Party is the answer to many of the country’s problems, let alone the NHS. Remember PFI? (Blair government). Often an expensive mess! A cross party, or even Royal, Commission should be established to examine this, preferably one that will not take a decade to do so! It would also be helpful if the nation as a whole could take better care of its health. So many severe illnesses which cost the health service so dear, are lifestyle induced. Whatever happens, change must come soon as we can’t keep being encouraged to worship at the shrine of an institution which is costing us so much yet failing us so badly.

And what do you call this Amalegra?

'Groundbreaking new dementia drugs are likely to be the preserve of the rich while NHS patients will be subject to a “massive postcode lottery” when they become available for the first time in the UK, according to the co-chair of the government’s national mission to tackle the condition.

Amid multiple scientific and pharmaceutical breakthroughs – the latest of which, donanemab, is to have its full clinical trial results published at a conference in the Netherlands on Monday – more research funding and the establishment of a dedicated government taskforce, it should be a promising time for tackling the disease that affects more than 850,000 people in Britain.

But Hilary Evans, who is also chief executive of Alzheimer’s Research UK, has warned that even though a licensed treatment could become available in as little as 12 to 18 months, it will be available only to “small pockets of the UK”. And for it to be widely available even in five to 10 years’ time, huge systemic changes are needed.'

The problem with the new drugs are that they are extremely expensive because drugs firms have to recoup the costs of research, development and clinical trials as soon as they can.

They have to be approved by NICE both on cost and clinical effectiveness grounds and whether the side effects would be grounds for concern.
The NHS cannot just decide whether to use them or not until they have been approved.

Sometimes new drugs will not be approved for whatever reasons but occasionally pressure from doctors, patients and charities will persuade NICE to change their decision. This could be the case with the new dementia drugs.

As soon as new drugs come off licence other firms can start to make their own version and costs will drop.

Back to the privatisation of the NHS please. If you want to discuss Gordon Brown- start a new thread, please.

It is very clear from some posts that there are strong and 'illegal' bridges between Private health care and NHS. The Private sector happy to take on all the lucrative stuff, helping people to cut the queues, and then switching back to NHS when it is not to easy of money making. New regs were supposed to stop that- it is very clear that it has not.

I disagree.

We will have to live with the results of this Government's disastrous decision and mismanagement - and it will be much harder to do because it was 100% dishonest and pure greed, and calculated.

Doesn't really matter how or why someone made a mistake, all that matters is trying to live with the results afterwards.

Monica ''I absolutely agree that Gordon Brown is an honourable man with high ethical standards, but all the evidence was there that the economy was overheating and he misjudged it. Being virtuous does not stop you making honest mistakes.''

of course not. An honest mistake, trusting True Conservative values- that those who would be helped to become very rich would massively contribute to society on the way. That is not incompetence- it is misplaced trust. I have known many very rich people in my parents and grand-parents generation - very well off- but happy for a good proportion of their wealth going for education and social nets, etc. Now the same people will just continue to get richer and richer, to the point that they are so much so that they can't even spend their money... and also quite happy to keep piling it up without contributing to the welfare or the less able, less fortunate, and the country.

This is where GB got it wrong- he applied his strong Protestant ethics to the Conservatives who run over them with glee and filled their pockets.

The Tories in the past 14 years have made gigantic mistakes- NOT at all honest mistakes, but deliberate mistakes that would further fill their pockets and that of their friends- as we all know now.

And knowing that they will lose the next GE, are further and further scuppering the country, continuing to fill their own pockets before they leave the country bankrupt. Honest?

We'll have to agree to disagree, MOnica.

I don't think it was an ethical lapse, I think it was a conventional belief in the rationality of financial markets.

MaizieD It is just that I never expected it of Gordon Brown, who, as is mentioned above has always been seen as a rigidly honest and ethical man.

Certainly I noticed the utterly amoral laissez faire attitudes of New Labour, but while Gordon Brown was Chancellor he did keep a strong control of the economy, but once he became PM he seemed to loose any semblance of control. We know he had always set his sights on being Prime Minister, perhaps, in his case, of being careful about what you wish for.

It's not an 'admission' at all. I'm surprised you didn't notice it was part and parcel of New Labour at the time.

New Labour did lots of good things when in office but they subscribed to the same monetarist free market doctrines as did the tories. Remember Mandelson being 'relaxed about the wealthy'?

And what was PPI all about?

Keynes went out of the window in the 1970s, thanks to Dennis Healy

Gordon Brown was a Labour party PM.

Must I assume that when you write When you've lived in a market driven world for decades and been fed the line that 'markets' are good because they are rational, why should yo believe anything different? you believe that he too was among those who fell for that line?

What an admission!

Nothing was done because of rampant greed by all involved, those taking out enormous mortgages on houses they couldn't afford. It was noticeable that the repossessions were mainly of large detached houses, not the 2 up 2 downs, that featured so much in the mid 1980s recession.

People were just doing what was expected of them in a capitalist society, MOnica. I'm not saying this from any 'socialist' perspective, just from observation of how our society works.

The overweening confidence of governments and their ministers that they could ride the wave of rampant financial jiggery pokery and land safely the other side.

When you've lived in a market driven world for decades and been fed the line that 'markets' are good because they are rational, why should yo believe anything different?

Look how difficult it is to change beliefs in 'ruling theories'

Doesn't the GFC tell us that we shouldn't put our trust in the financial markets? Have we allowed that to change our views ('we' being a massive generalisation which includes politicians)? No, we haven't. we're still in thrall to the financial markets.

You might find this interesting:

annpettifor.substack.com/p/why-are-western-governments-impotent

Nothing was done because of rampant greed by all involved, those taking out enormous mortgages on houses they couldn't afford. It was noticeable that the repossessions were mainly of large detached houses, not the 2 up 2 downs, that featured so much in the mid 1980s recession. Those selling these unsustainabl mortgages, and taking their cut, the banks selling financial 'products' and the people buying into financial products they did not understand because of the promise of rch returns, the bank employees creaming in bonuses for selling them.

The overweening confidence of governments and their ministers that they could ride the wave of rampant financial jiggery pokery and land safely the other side. Sadly, even Gordon Brown fell for it in the end.

I can't see how we can keep cutting back on our public services. If govts believe we pay for them out of tax then raise tax. It would take money out of general circulation and help people who need help. Why on earth are the conservatives talking about reducing inheritance tax, it helps the wrong people and will stoke house prices/inflation. Nothing seems to make sense except desperation to get votes.

M0nica

MaizieD because there were people who were concerned and were raising their concerns and it was out in the open and not suppressed, but governments just dismissed those who warned about the coming storm. It is because I read all about it in the papers and onine as far back as the late 1990s that I knew and feared it.

But you were a person of no importance or influence, MOnica, so why would anyone take notice of what you thought?

The US and the UK were in the grip of the market driven theories I already noted. There was a strong belief among people in high office in the rationality and probity of the finance industry. (This belief still obtains today, BTW). Not only that, but a disdain for the fears of the 'little people' who couldn't possibly understand such arcane matters.

Politicians, however high the office they've achieved, are just people and if they have no expertise, or have a belief in a certain school of thought, they can be fooled as well as the next person into accepting what appears to others to be totally irrational positions.

Perhaps we could look at our modern day (disproven) belief that taxation funds govt. spending and ask how anyone could carry on believing it in the face of evidence to the contrary? But most people, from the highest to the lowest in the land, do believe it, despite the damage it has done, and will continue to do, to our economy.

The whole of Europe was affected as well as the rest of the world, and yet no one thought to press the panic button.

Strange that.

MaizieD because there were people who were concerned and were raising their concerns and it was out in the open and not suppressed, but governments just dismissed those who warned about the coming storm. It is because I read all about it in the papers and onine as far back as the late 1990s that I knew and feared it.

I absolutely agree that Gordon Brown is an honourable man with high ethical standards, but all the evidence was there that the economy was overheating and he misjudged it.

But the same thing was happening in the US, MOnica, and as the UK had followed the US beliefs in the supremacy of the markets, particularly financial markets, and the capacity of the markets to act rationally, why would anyone press the panic button?

MerylStreep

MaizieD
That doesn’t put Starmer in a very good light, but I’m not surprised.

It doesn't put Starmer in a very good light if you don't subscribe to the current economic 'ruling theory'. But as millions of voters do subscribe to it (clearly evidenced on this forum alone) I'm not sure it will hurt Labour's chances of winning a majority at the next General Election.

But unless they suddenly change their economic tune once in power, it really doesn't auger well for the UK.

MaizieD
That doesn’t put Starmer in a very good light, but I’m not surprised.

Fleur He did tip into incompetence because the 2008 crash was being signposted from the year 2000 and before. Many people were experessingconcrens about reckless lending on mortgages, lenders giving loans of 100% and more and giving people loans o up to 6 times their income.

One of the noticeable thing was the foreclosures after 2008, compared with that in the late 1980s. In the late 80s, the repossessions were almost entirely small houses where first time buyers, desperate to get a house while they could still - just afford them then were crippled by lost jobs and overtime. After 2008, so many repossessions were big houses where people had gone out to buy big houses with enormous multiples of income, where any sensible lender would have refused.

The crash that happened despite plenty of signs that it was coming, but Britain under its then government ignored them as did other big countries. The government was a Labour government and Gordon Brown was either Chancellor or Prime Minister.

I absolutely agree that Gordon Brown is an honourable man with high ethical standards, but all the evidence was there that the economy was overheating and he misjudged it. Being virtuous does not stop you making honest mistakes.

Well Maizie,I agree with you.
I absolutely despair of British politics and feel that none of them care a toss for most of us. British politics is broken. Of course there are a few individual politicians who do their very best for their constituents, but they are hampered all the way by the cabinet and shadow cabinet behave. There seems to be little idea of how to solve the economic problems except to reduce the money in circulation, but of course inflation wasn’t caused by too much money, but by increased energy costs.

MerylStreep

We obviously have a few posters on GN who understands economics.
What is your opinion of Rachel Reeves? We were talking to a friend who works in Canary Wharf ( voted conservative all his life) and his ( and others) in financial circles claim she ^passes the sniff/smell test^

Your financiers will be more than happy with Reeves because she subscribes to the same economic beliefs that have made them and their friends wealthy ever since the 1980s.

I don't rate her at all because she is promising more of the same austerity that has caused so many problems for the UK since the 2010 tory government. It won't lead to growth and it won't lead to increased prosperity for anyone but the already wealthy.

What she will give us more of is monetarism, which seems to be based on the belief that markets are the answer to everything and that it is the private sector that creates the nation's wealth. That prosperity will 'trickle down'. Well, after 13 years of it and more and more of our population falling into poverty I think we know that that isn't the case.

The alternative is the Keynesian option of state investment to stimulate growth. Goodness knows, we need it, because we aren't getting much investment from elsewhere (and look what happens when our businesses are foreign owned).

It was the Keynesian option post WWII, when the UK was absolutely broke, that gave us the welfare state and nationalised industries and the rising prosperity we experienced over the 50s and the 60s. OTOH, it was failure to invest the Marshall Plan money in rebuilding our industries and in research and development, using it instead to bolster up our military presence in our dying Empire, which left us so vulnerable to the oil price shock of the early 1970s.

However. I'm all for a Keynesian solution to our present problems, especially as we know as a fact that taxation doesn't fund spending and the government is free to invest into the economy so long as there are resources available to purchase.

So I don't rate Reeves at all highly and I dread to think how she will mange the economy.

Having said that, I don't rate any of the other parties, either. They're all sold on the 'household economy' myth and will do nothing for most of the UK population.

M0nica

One of the many reasons I have never voted Labour in the past is because of its economic incompetence. Even Gordon Brown tipped into incompetence once he was PM

I still do not have no confidence in the party's economic competence. What has changed, however, is the Conservatives. They have in the past, generally been more economically competent than Labour, not that I could ever bring myself to vote for them for many other reasons.

What has changed, is that now, the balance has tipped and now, Labour is economicaly, slightly less incompetent than the Coservatives. - but, no, I still have no intention of voting for them.

No, Gordon Brown did not 'tip into incompetence'. He is a very clever and honest man- who comes from a strong and honest Clavinist Ethics background. He actually believed that the banking and financial sector could grow, doing extremely well for themselves AND pay taxes honestly to benefit all. He was not wrong at all about the needs to free the financial and banking sector from many restraints- he was absolutely and totally wrong to trust them to wish to benefit the country and others less able or fortunate, the NHS, education, social services and more- from the taxes due. THEY were at fault from their refusal to do so and their greed and dishonesty, not him.

Freya5

foxie48

Freya5 if you are really well off, keep voting Conservative because they will always run the economy to benefit the rich and if you have no conscience about the effect it has on poorer and more vulnerable people in our society then you will be happy. Take the recent change in pension contributions, the PM said he'd listened to the hospital consultants and changed the rules to accommodate them, but he didn't change them just for consultants, it actually is a massive perk for everyone on high salaries and hospital consultants make up a very small percentage of those who will benefit. So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There's talk of reducing inheritance tax or even scrapping it, who will benefit? The richest people in our society yet again. There doesn't seem to be a problem in giving money to the already wealthy, that doesn't seem to create inflation!

What a nasty piece of writing,you know nothing about me or my circumstances. Or what I do. So I won't vote Labour, never have. You think you can bully or guilt trip someone into voting a particular way.

I know nothing about you apart from what you write on these threads, I have started my post with the word "if" and used the word "if" again. I honestly don't care who you vote for, I am just replying to the posts that you have made regarding how different parties manage the economy. It is my view that this Conservative govt does not care about anything other than trying to buy votes and line the pockets of those who are already rich. That's my opinion, I've not always held such an opinion of Conservative politics but over the last few years I have found myself moving further to the left. I used to describe myself as a "wishy washy liberal", loathed Corbyn and was a typical floating voter. No more, all our public services have been decimated I can't think of one that is effective, the NHS is in a complete mess and instead of trying to sort out the difficultie that this country faces,which I accept are not all of their own making, the Conservatives prefer to back stab each other. What an unholy mess they have made but IF you want to vote for them, that's your choice. I just don't agree with what you post anymore than you agree with what I post and tbh that's perfectly fine with me.

foxie48

Freya5 if you are really well off, keep voting Conservative because they will always run the economy to benefit the rich and if you have no conscience about the effect it has on poorer and more vulnerable people in our society then you will be happy. Take the recent change in pension contributions, the PM said he'd listened to the hospital consultants and changed the rules to accommodate them, but he didn't change them just for consultants, it actually is a massive perk for everyone on high salaries and hospital consultants make up a very small percentage of those who will benefit. So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There's talk of reducing inheritance tax or even scrapping it, who will benefit? The richest people in our society yet again. There doesn't seem to be a problem in giving money to the already wealthy, that doesn't seem to create inflation!

What a nasty piece of writing,you know nothing about me or my circumstances. Or what I do. So I won't vote Labour, never have. You think you can bully or guilt trip someone into voting a particular way.