Need it be a dirty fight on the NHS?
Does the debate about the NHS during the coming election have to be a dirty one? No.
Should it be a dirty fight? Absolutely not.
Do I think it will be? Sadly yes.
I referred in a recent post to the Hinchingbrooke hospital situation. The Daily Mail leader writers argued that this stitch-up heralds the start of a dirty fight on the NHS. They appear to have a point.
But how much better would it be for the NHS and for the quality of debate if we could have a grown-up discussion which
* starts with an admission that no party could afford to increase the NHS budget by as much as everyone would like to, in order to meet increasing demand for health resources,
* goes on to discuss how we can fund as much of that increase as possible,
* addresses what the nation's health priorities should be, and then
* discusses how we can make the finite resources available go as far as possible in delivering progress on those priorities.
It would certainly be more edifying and useful that all the lies along the lines of "The Tories are plotting to destroy the NHS" which Labour are putting out for the tenth election running ...
Should it be a dirty fight? Absolutely not.
Do I think it will be? Sadly yes.
I referred in a recent post to the Hinchingbrooke hospital situation. The Daily Mail leader writers argued that this stitch-up heralds the start of a dirty fight on the NHS. They appear to have a point.
But how much better would it be for the NHS and for the quality of debate if we could have a grown-up discussion which
* starts with an admission that no party could afford to increase the NHS budget by as much as everyone would like to, in order to meet increasing demand for health resources,
* goes on to discuss how we can fund as much of that increase as possible,
* addresses what the nation's health priorities should be, and then
* discusses how we can make the finite resources available go as far as possible in delivering progress on those priorities.
It would certainly be more edifying and useful that all the lies along the lines of "The Tories are plotting to destroy the NHS" which Labour are putting out for the tenth election running ...
Comments
Nor is ignoring a problem that's been pointed out, a good idea.
I quite like your proposal of lets think about how we can make things better with the resources we have. That sounds like a good idea to me. And that's why I agree with you, it's not likely to happen.
Anyway, as there is an election pending we can expect to hear Labour doing this only in reverse.
Watch for it over the next couple of weeks and I bet you at least smile once.
During interviews on cuts, no matter where the cut in spending was expect this amount to be denominated in "A&E Departments", "Hospitals" or "schools". Of course the money cut was never, and would it have ever been used for any of those, that's always what was cut. So there.
Also if we talk about errors, or waste, or a policy Labour don't like then this will be denominated in "Nurses". Yes, no matter how much we are talking about, Labour would have instead, just happen to have raised or borrowed the exact same amount and used it to employ "x number of nurses".
Nurses are the standard unit of wasted money, unless it's being tough on crime, then police officers are sometimes used instead.
Schools n hospitals have been the units for cuts for years, like the pound is 100 pence. The hospital is made of 25 A&E's. The school is made of 10 library's, and I think on today's exchange market you get 3 nurses to the doctor.
On autocorrect being a nuisance I also agree absolutely !
how can we best raise the resourses we do need? I would say ask that question to the tax payer. though in the interim a total shake up of things would help.
simplification of the tax system would be welcome, do away with all the NIC,VAT,Stamp duty, Council tax, etc.
simply replace them all with a Land Value Tax.
benefits well just replace all of those with a simple payment each and every single week of around £75 for every one, well, everyone over 18. Over 70s can have £180 a week then you could use a flat rate imcome tax of around 20% to make up the difference.
you see what i just did there?
(LVT of 3.5% current market value annually + 20% income tax)-current tax payment = pretty much the same tax income to the exchequer at the moment less a heck of a lot of admin costs.
Brilliant, now we just saved a fortune on tax collection and tax avoidance/evasion. sorted out benefits and gave many on benefits and pensioners a raise, encouraged employment and rewarded workers, cured a problem for first time home buyers and the young, helped to regenerate ran down areas, hammered those bankers and landlords and others, gave the hard pushed middle a break, and all at a gain to the exchequer to fund the NHS and massively cut the by reducing waste dramatically.
Years and years of petty arguements in a green benched chamber solved in one fell swoop
The "less bad" taxes could remain like road tax for example. its a charge for use of "your" bit of the road.
the nasty horrible ones though are gone, VAT, NICs (employee and employer).
as are the nasty ones that raise hardly anything anyway (Stamp duty, inheritance tax, TV licence, Capital gains)
the income tax being flat at 20% is much nicer than the 50% a basic rate payer pays now.
The payment to everyone replaces benefits, you see you would pay me around £3500 per year, well you would not, you would take 3.5% of £170,000 or £5,950 then minus the £3500, then take 20% Of my earnings) so basically my annual bill is £2,450 + 20% of all my earnings.
now if i dont earn anything and rent my home (LVT only applies to the land owner) then i am paid my £75 benefits each week. My wife gets hers too, and we pay our rent.
Child benefits can stay, so there we have no starving kids, and the insentive to work is put back.
losers would be Landlords, mortgage lenders, and some older people in the old family home. (if you like LVT just prevents the same money being taken privatly by mortgage lenders)
as for the "poor widow" well, just use deferment and roll up, this just means they pay nothing in LVT it just accumulates, then its taken all at once, when the property is sold upon death.
LVT takes into account the value of the unimproved land only, based upon the developed area around it.
Smart.