The centre-left pressure-group Compass has recently published an essay called "Liberalism Alive" by Dr Roz Savage, the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds. Here is a brief extract:
For decades we have quietly equated prosperity with rising private consumption. Perhaps we have been measuring the wrong thing.
There are two ways to feel richer. One is to own more. The other is to live in a place where more wonderful things are available to everyone: beautiful parks, libraries open into the evening, reliable and affordable public transport, clean rivers, thriving high streets and public spaces where neighbours can connect with one another. That is the promise of private sufficiency and public luxury.
We do not all need enormous private gardens if every child can walk to a beautiful park. We do not all need several cars if public transport is genuinely reliable. We do not all need to purchase individually what we could enjoy together.
The entire essay is worth reading, though it is rather long (32 pages - an hour well spent perhaps.) You can find it here:
Of course, Dr Savage is saying nothing new. The late great economist J K Galbraith coined the phrase "private affluence and public squalor" in his very popular book "The Affluent Society" way back in 1958 (when I was 21 - oh happy days. I was finally allowed to vote.)
But today's Conservative Party seems to have learned nothing in the succeeding decades. Despite the plain evidence of their 14 years' neglect of the state sector through their mistaken adherence to government "austerity" they still bang on and on at their Conference about tax cuts and a smaller state.
Such a policy might benefit the billionaires but I suspect would not benefit the bulk of their own supporters.
I have experienced the peak of my own private affluence for many years now and I suspect the same is true of most Tory supporters as well.
I cannot think of any additional private acquisition, good or service, which I don't already posses or could have access to if I wanted,which would improve my quality of life.
I can keep my house warm, clean (with a little help) and comfortable. It is decorated to my taste with the bric a brac I have collected over the years, and the garden is tidy (again with a little help), I eat the food that I like and wash it down with the drinks I like, constrained only by the need to eat healthily, not put on weight,and remain reasonably sober. I take the holidays I want, buy the books I like to read, wear the clothes I like and attend the plays and concerts I enjoy (though it would help to be able to hear them better.)
Any improvements in the quality of my life would come only through better public services.
In this area I admit I am pretty lucky. The local health services respond reasonably promptly and effectively to the modest needs I have encountered so far: ditto the NHS dental service. The council is brilliant at emptying the bins and reminding me when and where to vote.
However, the roads are so pitted with potholes and ill-fitting manholes that I have had to abandon riding my bicycle. Swerving to avoid the uneven patches risks being knocked over by motorists, and bumping over them makes contact between my backside and the saddle uncomfortable beyond the call of duty. So it's walk or take the car.
Taking the car is not only environmentally unfriendly but also very time consuming becasue it is almost impossible to go anywhere at all without being held up by road works or a tail back becasue of the intensity of the traffic.
We are blessed with a reasonably good bus service when it is fully operational but it is subject to frequent "cancellations." It is always necessary to take the bus earlier than the most convenient just in case that one doesn't turn up, which wastes a lot of time.
Although I live in a former industrial area we have plenty of open countryside in which to walk and jog. I jog round our country park (based on a former pit and its slag heap) most mornings. The council is now in charge of it and doubtless does its best, but the paths and amenities become shabbier and shabbier as the years go by.
I obtain much of my news and most entertainment from the BBC, both radio and television, and heartily wish they were able to concentrate on these activities instead of wasting my and their time on advertising their good works in order to drum public support to convince the Government not to cut their funding.
I know these inconveniences don't amount to much and I feel very fortunate. But the fact remains that my quality of life, and that of most "comfortable" Britain, including Tory voters, probably the most comfortable) can only be improved by more public expenditure.
I hope the chancellor can find some way of squaring the circle to enable at least a start on this when he announces the budget at the end of the month.
purchase individually what we could enjoy together.
I cannot think of any additional private acquisition, good or service, which I don't already posess which would improve my quality of life.
ReplyDeleteBully for you — I can certainly think of more I could do with more money. I can’t afford to see all the plays I would like to, especially in the West End. I can’t afford to fly as much as I want to (the glorious days of dirt-cheap, plentiful flights are sadly over).
I had a look at how much of my money is being taken by the government in taxes and I can tell you, getting some of that back would really go sone way to remedying this - plus of course I could give more to my church.
Of course there’s no way Mr Healy will do that, so let’s just hope after the next election he gives way to someone who will.
And of course it's not just about my own quality of life. It's also that I know how to spend my own money better than the government does. For example, the government funds, through the Arts Council, all sorts of rubbish. If the Arts Council were abolished and instead my taxes were cut, I would spend the money that the government was no longer taking form me by going to see the plays I want to see, and so the money would go to them instead.
ReplyDeleteAnd if everybody did this — got to keep their money and spent it on the plays the wanted to see — then the money would go to the plays that people actually want, instead of what some bureaucrat in a quango thinks they ought to want. And wouldn't that be better?
Basically everything boils down to the fact that the 'man in Whitehall' never knows best. I always know what I want better than he does.
And of course there’s same thing applies not just to plays. You write of parks. But what if, instead of a park, more people would have preferred an ice rink, or a bowling alley, or a cinema? Then everybody is missing out because of the mindless functionary at the council who decided to put a park there.
DeleteWhereas if you let people keep more of their own money instead of taking it off them in taxes, they would spend that money supporting whatever it is they actually want and not what the apparatchiks decided for them.
"I know how to spend my own money better than the government does"
DeleteOf course you do - and so do I
But that's not the point.
I - and you - voluntarily choose to live in a society/economy and so have to accept that there will be various costs involved. Some of those costs will be financial – taxes for example which I see in part as my membership subscription. Other costs may be non-financial – noisy neighbours, a windfarm spoiling my view ….
Overall however, I judge that the benefits I get from being part of that society/economy outweigh the costs (if they didn’t then I’d have moved by now)
Equally, I accept that the society I live in is run on more or less democratic lines and as such decisions will be taken that I don’t agree with. Market economics generally accepts that there is a role for government (at some level) to get involved in activities that the market doesn’t (for a variety of reasons).
You may not personally value some of these activities but others do. That's a price you - and I - pay for the wider benefits we get from being part of our chosen society./economy
Overall however, I judge that the benefits I get from being part of that society/economy outweigh the costs (if they didn’t then I’d have moved by now)
DeleteEven so, wouldn’t it be better if the costs were lower?
that depends on what you reckon you're getting for your money
Delete£40 billion plus for Trident?
Waste of money to me. Others would disagree. Who's right?
Waste of money to me. Others would disagree. Who's right?
DeleteIn that case, the others, obviously. But £60 billion on working-age benefits? Definitely a waste of money.
But £60 billion on working-age benefits? Definitely a waste of money.
DeleteFor once we agree
But the solution is NOT to cut benefits simply to save money but to manage the economy to create economically meaningful opportunities for these people - something the market economy has failed to do - predictably
But the solution is NOT to cut benefits simply to save money
DeleteThat’s not the full solution, but it’s definitely a good start.
but to manage the economy to create economically meaningful opportunities for these people - something the market economy has failed to do - predictably
How can an opportunity be economically meaningful if the market doesn’t provide it? A pity job given by the government to someone with no useful skills is not economically meaningful. A job being economically meaningful means that it is providing something someone else actually wants and is willing to pay for — and so it will be provided by the market.
Employing people to dig holes and fill them in again, to borrow an example from Mr Keynes, is not economically meaningful! And we shouldn’t do it!
"How can an opportunity be economically meaningful if the market doesn’t provide it? "
DeleteOh dear that old canard
Proper jobs can only be created by the private sector. BS
Let's see now - doctors, nurses, teachers, police ...
Of course none of them have an economically meaningful job do they?
Again, you need to do some more reading around labour market economics
In economics, an economically meaningful job refers to work that individuals perceive as purposeful and worthwhile as well as providing an adequate wage.
Stacking shelves on a night shift at Tesco is NOT by definition an economically meaningful job
Working for minimum wage in a hospice would be for some.
The market provides work opportunities for money. We've seen a trend where increasing numbers of those are not economically meaningful
For some, that's not enough and if the market can't/provide such jobs the state can and has to.
The research is available.
Getting people off welfare and into meaningful jobs brings multiple benefits to the individual, to the economy, to govt budgets
Getting people to do non-work doesn't and unfortunately many of the govt work support schemes historically haven't recognised this
Maybe Burnham has
Why is the choice only between the state and the individual spending this money? Shouldn’t the community get a look in too? LibDems ought IMHO to spend a bit more effort on thinking through what this third option should look like.
ReplyDeleteShouldn’t the community get a look in too?
DeleteEither people spend their own money voluntarily on what they want, or it’s taken away from them (in tax) and spent by someone else - what possible third option is there?
That you have to ask that question demonstrates how much work stilll needs to be done by a those who want a truly communitarian alternative
DeleteBut do you have an answer?
DeletePhil Wainwright makes a god point. The community is and should be involved. This happens, and could be further developed, in two ways. First semi-officially, via the local authority, at its lowest level the Parish Council (and the more of these the better.) As already mentioned, our local authority is in charge of our country park, and there are other parks, playing fields, play areas and sports centres in the area.
DeleteSecondly there is a great amount of volunteering, encouraging youth football (children, girls as well as boys, as young as seven and fully kitted out) and cricket; a team of volunteers helping at the the country park; another (including me) helping to keep our library open; youth organisations such as Scouts and Guides: cadet forces; vibrant "Town in Boom" groups; in coastal areas the wonderful RNLI (recently vilified for rescuing asylum seekers); operatic societies and drama groups.(in which my role is now reduced to ushering people to their seats.)
Often volunteer groups and local authorities work together, with the local authority providing facilities and minimal financial support to the volunteers.
The community is and should be involved.
DeleteBut all the examples you give are things that happen now, and if they don’t happen more it is just because of people opting to use their voluntary free choice not to volunteer.
The article seemed to be calling for some kind of change. What kind of concrete change (that isn’t simply more involuntary government confiscation of money in the form of taxes) would ‘more community involvement’ actually mean?
The man in the County House, or in the parish clubroom, doesn’t know what’s best for me any more than the man in Whitehall does.
Delete“The article seemed to be calling for some kind of change. What kind of concrete change (that isn’t simply more involuntary government confiscation of money in the form of taxes) would ‘more community involvement’ actually mean?”
DeleteOh dear – Anon is back with the usual BS
I take it as a given that the existing systems – political and economic - have failed many communities across the UK. People feel not listened to, abandoned by decision-makers, with few prospects or hope for them and their families. They also see ever increasing gaps between themselves and the wealthy. Political decision making is remote with politicians not trusted and economic decision making by the private sector is seen as driven primarily by profit and not wider community well being.
Unsurprisingly they search for alternatives – any alternative - and see Farage and his ilk acknowledging their plight.
Real community engagement provides an opportunity to counter this trend.
There’s a wide spectrum of what this could involve.
My own view is that genuine community involvement relates primarily to enabling and empowering communities to engage with the decision-making that impacts directly on their own one lives.
It’s not about creating yet another talking shop that public sector managers can ignore but giving local communities a direct voice in what happens in their own community and a role in prioritising resource allocation and potentially in providing and running local services.
There’s a wide spectrum of what this could involve.
DeleteBut you can’t give just one concrete example?
Dozens
DeleteLocal community where I live had a series of fund raising events (no tax payer money involved)
Money was used - after community consultation and examination of options) - to have a small hydro elec scheme installed in the village
This will generate a positive NPV and an income stream for the next 25 years
Each year the community decides what to do with the annual "profit"
So far:
- paid for a teaching assistant for SEN at the local primary school
- used to purchase land to be used to build social housing for young villagers
- Xmas & Hogmanay basket for pensioners in the community (me included)
- establishment of local community cafe (which employs 3 local villagers)
The community had initial training input on leadership, strategy, option appraisal from external partners including the private sector.
Win/Win
Local community where I live had a series of fund raising events (no tax payer money involved)
DeleteSo basically people voluntarily paying for what they want, and not paying for what they don’t want?
Sounds great, but hardly a ‘third way’. Just normal individuals spending their money by their own free choice.
This is an example of community involvement engagement and empowerment as you asked
DeleteI only wish it was happening more
It doesn't happen by itself, it needs proactive action often by one or two entrepreneurs in the local community or by the local public sector partnership
This is an example of community involvement engagement and empowerment as you asked
DeleteThe comment was:
‘Why is the choice only between the state and the individual spending this money? Shouldn’t the community get a look in too?’
I asked for an example of something which wasn’t either ‘the state’ or ‘the individual’ spending money.
This is just individuals spending their money.
So it’s not the example I asked for
Are you deluded?
DeleteThis is not individuals acting out of self interest but collective action, cooperation and decision making.
But I remember now. You're the numpty who doesn't believe there's such a thing as Society or community
No man is an island I believe is the saying although you might be better off on one.
Then you could spend all you money on whatever you wanted. Although there wouldn't be much to buy would there? No economic community!
(Actually I suppose there is an example of spending neither by government nor individuals: charities. There we go.)
DeleteThis is not individuals acting out of self interest but collective action, cooperation and decision making.
DeleteBut all collective action, co-operation and decision making is driven ultimately by self-interest: nobody co-operates with others unless they judge that it is their own best interests to do so.
For example people who live on one side of a river might get together and co-operate to build a bridge. But they only do so because it is in each of their own self-interests to be able to get to the other side of the river!
"But all collective action, co-operation and decision making is driven ultimately by self-interest: nobody co-operates with others unless they judge that it is their own best interests to do so."
DeleteSo I - and others - have supported the collective actions of our community out of pure self interest!
Tell me what I got
(I passed the Xmas hamper on to someone who needed it more. I suspect you'd have sold it)
And explain to me why a charity is an acceptable example but my local communities actions aren't
BTW, it's a community trust which has charity status
So it is a charity then. Fine. If people want to voluntarily give their money to a charity that’s up to them. I only object if people’s money is forcibly taken from them.
DeleteBut indeed, when I wrote ‘Either people spend their own money voluntarily on what they want, or it’s taken away from them (in tax) and spent by someone else - what possible third option is there?’ I had forgotten that there is a third option, which is charities: people voluntarily give up their money to be spent by someone else. So I was wrong there.
But it doesn't matter whether it was a charity or not.
DeleteIt's not individuals "spending" - it's individuals coming together to achieve something collectively that they can't achieve as single individuals
The "individuals" have created a mechanism for achieving that isn't the government and it isn't individual actors in the market
I leave it to Mik W to respond, should he wish , to that particular question.
ReplyDeleteMy response to your earlier posts on the "volunteers" topic is that local authorities are now so cash strapped ( what used to be called their "rate equalisation grant" has been cut by around 40% while their statutory responsibilities towards social care and pupils with special needs have expanded) that they can no longer afford to maintain some of their more optional functions, such as the maintenance of parks and other facilities.
There are some projects which,, with the best will in the world, cannot be completed or maintained by volunteers alone. Converting our pit and its slag heap into a much used and enjoyed country park is one such.
It is the privilege of local authorities to be able to help. It is, as Mik W points out, our privilege to contribute a small subscription to enable them to do it. That's what living in a democracy means.
Ten year ago my friend the late Michael Meadowcroft published this article of the responsibilities of local authorities. You might like to read it:
https://www.beemeadowcroft.uk/writing/current-affairs/political-issues/the-death-and-life-of-local-democracy
while their statutory responsibilities towards social care and pupils with special needs have expanded
DeleteWell at least we can agree that we need to cut the ridiculous spending on social care and pupils with special needs in order that councils can get back to doing the things they are actually for.
Converting our pit and its slag heap into a much used and enjoyed country park is one such.
If the park is really ‘much used and enjoyed’ then couldn’t the conversion have been funded by an admission charge to the park? Wouldn’t that have been better, and proved that people really wanted the park more than the other things they could have spent their money on?
And where would the initial money come from for turning the slag heap into something of value?
DeletePlease don't say banks or the private sector. If this were commercially viable rather than a socially valuable project it would have been done already
If this were commercially viable rather than a socially valuable project it would have been done already
DeleteI think you’re telling on yourself here. Either the benefit of the conversion to the users of the park is greater than the cost, in which case it would be commercially viable, and a bank would lend the money. Or the benefit is less than the cost, in which case it has been a waste of money and should’t have been done.
There are some projects where this logic doesn’t work because they are non-excludable: if you can’t stop someone from getting the benefit of a thing then they will free-load and try to get the benefit without paying, and this can lead to something that would be valuable not being commercially valuable. This applies to the military, for example, to clean air, to a road system.
But it doesn’t apply to a park because you can put fences around a park and have entry gates to ensure that nobody can use the park without paying.
Then if enough people are willing to use the park it will be commercially viable and the money can come from a bank, or if not enough people are willing to,pay to cover the cost then the conversion was a waste of money and should not have been done.
“But all collective action, co-operation and decision making is driven ultimately by self-interest: nobody co-operates with others unless they judge that it is their own best interests to do so.”
DeleteOh dear oh dear.
I do feel sorry for you.
You appear to inhabit a tiny self-centred world detached from reality and with an inability to learn
I can only assume you’ve had some traumatic experiences in the past that have caused considerable mental damage
In your little bubble world it’s dog-eat-dog and devil take the hindmost. People should grab what they can, as much as they can and for as long as they can. Anyone who doesn’t is deluded and deserves everything that happens to them and they shouldn’t expect any help or support from those who’ve “succeeded”.
Pure self-interest (aka greed) rules your little world where of course all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds (if only the government would butt out)
So we have the teacher spending extra time with the pupil who’s struggling; the nurse going the extra mile for the patient dying of cancer; the parents giving up their spare time to help run the local village kids soccer club
All out of pure self-interest of course.
I’d normally encourage some sort of therapy or support from mental healthy professional but that’s not the sort of help the government should be funding is it?
"Either the benefit of the conversion to the users of the park is greater than the cost, in which case it would be commercially viable, and a bank would lend the money. Or the benefit is less than the cost, in which case it has been a waste of money and should’t have been done."
DeleteYou're showing your ignorance of cost benefit analysis in economics I'm afraid
Just because you can't make money from something doesn't mean it's not worth doing
Benefits don't necessarily accrue directly to those who've put up the cost. They can accrue to the wider economy or to the local community - but of course you don't believe communities exist do you?
Concrete example
Parts of Scotland have chronic problems with diet, exercise and subsequent poor health
This impacts more widely than just the individual in a number of ways - time off work due to sickness, increased welfare payments, impact on NHS services
A number of local health projects have been undertaken to impact on people's habits and behaviours. No direct benefit to the agencies funding these but certainly to the individuals concerned and to other organisations - public and private sector alike. That's what CBA is about
Back to Peter's park example.
You've have an electrified fence around the place, entry restricted only to those who can afford the entrance fee and renamed to the Elon Musk Arboretum (for the wealthy)
So we have the teacher spending extra time with the pupil who’s struggling; the nurse going the extra mile for the patient dying of cancer;
DeleteWhat! You mean that teachers and nurses are doing those jobs for free? I always thought they were being paid! Well, you do learn something ew every day.
the parents giving up their spare time to help run the local village kids soccer club
Parents doing things for their children! Whatever next.
Benefits don't necessarily accrue directly to those who've put up the cost.
But if the benefit is not accruing to the person who is paying the cost, how do you know the money is being spent efficiently?
If the person who gets the benefit is paying, and the money is being wasted along the way, then there’s a simple solution: they stop paying, and go get the benefit from someone else instead.
But if the person paying isn’t the one getting the benefit, how do they know, and why would they care, if the money is being wasted? For all they know the person who is supposed to be benefitting might be getting no benefit at all — all the money might be being spent, but be doing no good whatsoever!
A number of local health projects have been undertaken to impact on people's habits and behaviours.
Have you asked people whether they want to have their behaviours and habits modified? This sounds to me like a bunch of interfering busybodies deciding they know what’s best for people and sticking their noses in where they are not wanted.
as I said - your own little bubble word.
DeletePeter, re your original post
Deletefor me this links to another thread where I commented on the need to move away from a culture and expectation of ever increasing materialistic lifestyles
When you have enough to be comfortable it's time to think more about others
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to win votes and we have the various parties vying with each other to promise "growth" rather than "sharing better"
"But if the benefit is not accruing to the person who is paying the cost, how do you know the money is being spent efficiently?"
DeleteYou really do need to do your research before showing your own ignorance
CBA has a tried and tested methodology (unlike your own ramblings) and an extensive track record in economics globally - try looking up some cases
But of course I forgot - you don't believe in evidence do you?
That would simply get in the way of your blabber
But of course I forgot - you don't believe in evidence do you?
DeleteI do rather — like all the evidence of public sector organisations where more and more money is spent to little or no benefit.
Look at the NHS: real-terms spending goes up and up and up every year but the service gets worse and worse.
That wouldn’t be accepted if the health system was run like, say, the German health system.
But in Britain because the one who receives the bad service is not the one who pays, they have no mechanism to force the service to improve: they just have to accept what they are given, however bad it is.
So where's your evidence that CBA doesn't work?
DeleteSo where's your evidence that CBA doesn't work?
DeleteI don’t even know what’CBA’ stands for. I’ve searched the page and I don’t think you’ve ever spelt it out, and all the inter-net returns is the Council for British Archaeology, the Criminal Bar Association and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, none of which I’m sure can be right.
Oh dear you're showing your economics ignorance again
DeleteCBA = cost benefit analysis
So where's your evidence that [cost-benefit analysis] doesn't work?
DeleteThat’s like saying ‘where’s your evidence that maths doesn’t work’
A cost-benefit analysis can give you the right answer if all the costs and benefits are included and the calculations are done right; or it can give the wrong answer if some of the costs and benefits are left out, or are overstated, or are just made up, out of the calculations are wrong.
Oh dear
DeleteA short while ago you'd never heard of CBA. Now you're an expert
CBA doesn't give you an "answer". It provides additional information.
I'm afraid you exhibited your own ignorance earlier .
A short while ago you'd never heard of CBA. Now you're an expert
DeleteOf course I’ve heard of a cost-benefit analysis. I’ve just never seen it abbreviated to ‘CBA’. What’s the matter, did you typing finger get sore? Try writing things out in full if you want to be understood.
CBA doesn't give you an "answer". It provides additional information.
Additional information with may be correct or incorrect, depending on what factors the cost-benefit analyst took into account, whether the data on those factors was accurate, and how those factors were weighted.
Oh dear
DeleteAny economist knows what CBA is just like gdp, mpc
This is an economics forum after all
If you didn't it only suggests one thing
This is an economics forum after all
DeleteNo it’s not. It’s someone’s personal web-site.
If you didn't it only suggests one thing
Ah — impugning your opponent’s credentials. A good kind of ad hominem to bring in when you have no actual arguments.
Wat credentials?
DeleteIt's clear from your posts these ae non existent as far as economics is concerned
And arguments about what.
You're the one admitting yo didn't know what CBA referred to. As I mentioned anyone wit an economics background WOULD know
So either you DON'T have an economics background (and this is also evidenced by your other posts) or you should ask for your money back
So either you DON'T have an economics background
DeleteThe point Is that the validity of an argument has nothing to do with who makes it.
You should stick to engaging with arguments.
If my arguments are correct, then it doesn’t matter what my background is.
If my arguments are incorrect, then you should be able to demonstrate that by pointing out the flaws in the arguments themselves.
What you are doing — trying to judge an argument based not on the content of the argument but on who is making it — is a fallacy known either as ‘the genetic fallacy’ or as a form of argumentum ad hominem (you should look those up).
By bringing up something totally irrelevant — my background — you just draw attention to your inability to refute my arguments.
And where's your evidence that the German health system is "better" ( and define better first)
ReplyDeleteAnd where's your evidence that the German health system is "better" ( and define better first)
DeleteBetter: better outcomes for patients. Obviously. Nothing else matters for a healthcare system because that is its purpose.
https://ceoworld.biz/2025/09/21/countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2025/ ; ranked 8th in the world (but Australia is third, so I’d be open to us modelling our system on down under’s instead).
Health care
Deletewell the methodology you cite is as clear as mud - and doesn't even seem to cover "better outcomes"
As any health economist will tell you "health outcomes" are not easily compared
And surely as a tax payer you're interested in costs as well, not just outcomes?
Outcomes can always be improved by allocating more funding
Germany spends around 12% of its GDP on health services compared with around 8/10% in the UK.
And of course Germany's GDP is around 25% higher than the UKs so you'd expect outcomes to be better wouldn't you?
And as I'm sure you're aware real spending per capita on the NHS under the Tories stagnated, averaging -0.03% to -0.07% annually
In Germany it averaged +2.5% annually over the same period
better be careful what you compare with what
Outcomes can always be improved by allocating more funding
DeleteNot true. More money doesn’t mean better outcomes if the money is not spent on the right things.
And as I'm sure you're aware real spending per capita on the NHS under the Tories stagnated, averaging -0.03% to -0.07% annually
Only because the population increased — real spending on the NHS went up every year. So I’ll glad you agree that there problem is there increasing population, ie, too much immigration.
The usual gibberish
Deleteback to Germany
Still think its health service is "better"?
It should be shouldn't it if its spending more money than the UK
Still think its health service is "better"?
DeleteYes: people wait shorter times to be seen by better doctors.
It should be shouldn't it if its spending more money than the UK
No, doesn’t correlate. Success isn’t about how much money you spend, it’s about how well you spend the money.
Oh dear
DeleteSo the German system is now "better" because it's managed "better" not because it's better funded?
Evidence please
So the German system is now "better" because it's managed "better" not because it's better funded?
DeleteYes.
Evidence please
Evidence that proportion of GDP spent on healthcare doesn’t correlate with outcomes? Well, America spends the highest proportion of is GDP on healthcare of all developed countries, and its outcomes are terrible.
If you were right and the better funded a healthcare system is the better the outcomes, then the American healthcare system should have the best outcomes in the world.
You're the one claiming Germany has a better health service. I've said it's because it's funded better. You've provided no evidence that it's better managed as you claim
DeleteYou're the one claiming Germany has a better health service.
DeleteWhich it does
I've said it's because it's funded better. You've provided no evidence that it's better managed as you claim
And you’ve provided no evidence that the better results are in any way connected to the higher funding. You just seem to be hoping that if you mention a correlation enough times it will turn into causation, but things don’t work like that.
here you go
DeleteFrom various public source including Nuffield, Kings Trust, BBC
“Germany’s healthcare system generally outperforms the UK’s NHS in terms of resource availability, staffing, and access, primarily because Germany spends significantly more per capita and as a percentage of GDP. While the German model offers shorter waiting times, higher doctor-to-patient ratios, and greater freedom of choice, it requires higher direct contributions from employees and employers”
Note the words “primarily becuase …”
“Germany maintains a much denser healthcare infrastructure, with approximately 14 nurses and 8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, compared to the UK’s 9 nurses and roughly 6.6 beds per 100,000 inhabitants (which equates to ~0.66 beds per 1,000). Doctor density is also higher in Germany (4.3 per 1,000) than in the UK (2.9 per 1,000).
” The German system is better staffed and stocked than the UK, relative to the population.
More money buys more resources which gets you better health care
“The most recent data for cancer survival rates dates back a few years, but they show more patients are alive five years after treatment in Germany than the UK. For cervical cancer the gap is small, and for colon cancer it is bigger.”
Some outcomes are better some aren’t
“There is no clear evidence that the system itself is the key factor in driving health outcomes. It could be that Germany, as a relatively rich country and with fewer inequalities, has a healthier population.
“But the jury is very much out on whether copying a different country's health system is really the way forward.”
Couldn’t find a single mention of better management
So let's see your sources that mention it
DeleteGermany’s healthcare system generally outperforms the UK’s NHS in terms of resource availability, staffing, and access,
DeleteSo it is better...
primarily because Germany spends significantly more per capita and as a percentage of GDP
... but that's just an assertion, there's no reasoning there.
More money buys more resources which gets you better health care
If that were true then the American healthcare system would be the best in the developed world, and actually it's one of the worst. How much money you spend isn't important; what you spend the money on is what's important. The Americans spend it on many useless layers of insurance administration. The NHS wastes it on useless bureaucracy. The Germans spend it on doctors and hospitals.
Increasing funding to the NHS wouldn't get better outcomes because it the extra money would all just be wasted. We know this is what would happen because it is what has been happening for the last twenty years: every year more and more money in real terms is spent on the NHS, and yet outcomes stay the same or get worse.
What matters is not how much you spend; it's what you get for the money you spend.
Some outcomes are better some aren’t
The quote you gave -- 'more patients are alive five years after treatment in Germany than the UK. For cervical cancer the gap is small, and for colon cancer it is bigger' -- says not that some outcomes are better and some aren't, but rather that all outcomes are better in Germany, some are lots better and some are only a little better.
There is no clear evidence that the system itself is the key factor in driving health outcomes. It could be that Germany, as a relatively rich country and with fewer inequalities, has a healthier population.
Nope, it's the system. The German population isn't noticeably healthier than ours -- obesity + overweight rates in Germany for adults are pretty much the same as Britain, for example (Britain has slightly more obese, Germany slightly more overweight, but the differences even out).
"The NHS wastes it on useless bureaucracy. "
DeleteOnce again where's your evidence
"There is no clear evidence that the system itself is the key factor in driving health outcomes. It could be that Germany, as a relatively rich country and with fewer inequalities, has a healthier population."
DeleteNope, it's the system.
So once again you disagree with the experts and their evidence based on a personal belief?
Pure BS
Find me a frontline nurse who doesn't put in more hours a week than they're paid to and then explain to me how they're doing this out of "self interest"
ReplyDeleteFind me a frontline nurse who doesn't put in more hours a week than they're paid to and then explain to me how they're doing this out of "self interest"
DeleteIf they are all putting in extra overtime then one who did’t would be noticed and fired, so putting in the extra overtime is to ensure they keep their job — ie, it’s in their self-interest to put in the overtime.
Babble babble babble
ReplyDelete