Chie wrote:GPs will be able to commission private consortia if they so wish (they're not obliged to do so). It's nothing like the dismantling or privatisation of the NHS.
You're wrong. Once you put spending power into private companies hands - who operate for profit - you are fundamentally changing the NHS from a non-profit organsiation into a commercial one. You will NEVER be able to put the genie back into the bottle, as from the TOP DOWN the NHS will operate as a private enterprise.
Those GPs who do not "commission" private companies (who, incidentally, are from the US and helped bank roll the tory party campaign) will have to set up their own private companies. Either way, their incentive will naturally be profit for shareholders or company directors.
At what stage during the election campaign did they announce this fundamental change to our NHS? Why was it rushed through within 30 days of coming to office?
I can think of hundreds of things which are more important than the Film Council. It's nice to have, but it's not a necessity.
I can only comment on the plans that they have already announced - these are ones they have mentioned, but there are many more to follow. I'll keep you up to date, don't worry.
The Film Council, by the way, helped us to produce a slew of pictures which gained the industry hundreds of millions of pounds. The film industry has been particularly strong in the last decade - thats a lot of jobs and a lot of tax paid into the country. "Nice to have" shows a lack or awareness on your part on the bottom line net results that this one particular body brought to the table.
My understanding is that functions currently undertaken by unaccountable medical quangos will be incorporated into the NHS.
Again, you are wildly wrong. The expert groups are not quangos (which in any event are not-for-profit bodies), and their work has been instrumental in devising treatments - extending the lives of thousands and improving wellbeing for those who suffer. These are not responsibilities that can be absorbed into existing hospitals - they were the best in their field, and unquestionably valuable to the NHS and society.
You could argue that by not taking so much money off them, tax cuts will give the middle-class more money to spend in the economy, thereby promoting economic growth. However, my opinion will depend on what the economic and social situation is in four years' time. Until I know that, I really can't say.
Why would anyone even attempt to argue for tax cuts for the middle classes, when there are swinging cuts being made to essential services? Why would you act as a mouthpiece (which to be fair you're hanging back from doing), when we'll see police and health budgets cut by up to 40%?
These are ideological cuts - it is clear that Britain was never going to go the way of Turkey or Iceland - so to slash and burn those valuable services is unjustifiable.
