[Closed] C4 last night Trillion pound horror story

Martin Durkin? - the man has a history...

basically, everytime he gets on Telly, C4 have to apologise to the nation for all the misinformation he's presented.

years ago, he presented a show called 'the great global warming swindle' - C4 had to apologise to more or less everyone involved for the completely inaccurate way in which their information had been twisted to suit Durkin's agenda.

whatever Martin Durkins says, you can be sure that the truth lies somewhere in the opposite direction.

i'm a litte/lot disappointed that C4 are still employing this git.

Its a one sided polemic.

Teh alternative view is Keynesian I believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

I half watched it during various phone calls.

I'm no expert but when I saw someone from the taxpayers alliance I reckoned I could treat the whole thing with a pinch of salt.

ahhh i see, didnt know the guy had history. whilst on the face of it plausable, I'd suspected that many of the arguments were over-simplified.

Keynesian from what I've skim read there advocates a mixed but predominately private sector-lead economy, whearas we're over 50% public spending no? I do think that 'efficiencies' being made in ratio of front-line to admin staff is not something to argue against though? 🙂

Government spending doesn't (just) mean making paper pushing jobs.

It can be paying private companies to build roads, railways or airports which can stimulate economic development; it can be paying companies to build tanks, planes, aircraft carriers which provides jobs and generates expertise; it could also be giving money to universities or high tech companies to develop new technologies which then have lucrative applications, sometimes even creating their own markets eg space industries.

yeah but his point was that the government's money to spend on those things only comes from taxing private companies (or borrowing)

As an economics teacher I deliberately avoided this programme, knowing that it would be bad for my blood pressure, screaming at the telly.

Scare-mongering / tabloid TV of the highest order (based on the ads I saw for it! 🙂 )

As an economics [b]graduate[/b] I deliberately avoided this thread, knowing that it would be bad for my blood pressure, screaming at the [b]TJ[/b].

😉

As above, it was very one sided polemic but he did make a few very good points:

The NHS as a state monopoly is failing badly.
50+% of GDP as public spending is a disaster.
Failing government departments don't close, they expand.

Pretty textbook Smithsonian stuff so I await the Keynesians to come and give me a kicking.

I'm with Francis Urquhart - Low taxes and a tight ship!

yeah but his point was that the government's money to spend on those things only comes from taxing private companies (or borrowing)

Yes but they generate wealth. Private industry does many things very well, but companies and shareholders tend to have certain aims and requirements. Governments can have different priorities and capabilities, and different timescales too.

I managed 30 second before i had to turn over. As mentioned it was a polemic.

Torminalis - Member

As above, it was very one sided polemic but he did make a few very good points:

The NHS as a state monopoly is failing badly.

evidence? it does more with less money than any comparable system. Its main failings are poor management, political interference and lack of money

As mentioned it was a polemic.

It was an attack on our current culture of statism. If polemicism is reason enough to discount an argument then we are all f*cked.

Chapeau Stoner 🙂

I don't mind a polemic at all - so long as its not mistaken for balanced nuanced analysis

TJ, I simply cannot be arsed. If you think the NHS is a roaring success then groovy.

I don't mind a polemic at all - so long as its not mistaken for balanced nuanced analysis

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I enjoyed it. In the same way as I sometimes enjoy reading the Mail on Sunday. Chortling away to myself at the outrageously simplistic world view of the average right-winger. All that was missing at the start was the traditional refraim:

"there now follows a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party"

The only left wing voice was some bloke from the TUC. Who, like most union leaders, couldn't see the bear-trap he was about to walk into if it had been signposted with neon lights

It made some very valid, if breathtakingly obvious points though:

The country last year paid out more in benefits alone than it took in tax revenue's.

Apparently this is unsustainable. No Shit Sherlock!!!! Bet you're glad for that degree in economics now eh?

Torminalis - Member
As mentioned it was a polemic.
It was an attack on our current culture of statism. If polemicism is reason enough to discount an argument then we are all f*cked.

Who is discounting it because it is a polemic?

The NHS as a state monopoly is failing badly.

Love it.

But before I completely disagree with you, just for clarity, can you just explain what you mean by
"state monopoly" and "failing"

Who is discounting it because it is a polemic?

Sorry if I misunderstood but it seemed in your post like you watched it but then turned it over because it was an attack rather than a discussion. If I was mistaken I apologise.

I'm no economist and it was clear that there was an agenda to the documentary, but clear all that away and it's clear that Britain cannot carry on the way it has been.

I think the most valid point of the whole film was that spending your way out of trouble is a most ridiculous concept.

What gripes me is that we vote in Governments that spend like water on whatever they like and we have to pick up the tab regardless. The fact that the cost of benefits last year was greater than tax reciepts gobsmacked me.

Ultimately this programme only reinforces my own opinion that Britain is on a one way ticket to bankruptcy. The problem is no Politician has the balls to stand up and say it because any change would be political suicide and very painful for many.

Don't we pay money to the state as taxes so that we get a return such as

- Better Infrastructure.
- Better educated workforce.
- Healthy workforce so they can be productive.
- Better environment, as we need to look long term.

All these things could be seen as a waste but a company would have to make exactly the same choices and have the same costs. It is just that UK PLC has a fixed work force and we can't give anyone the sack. The real killer for taxes is meant to be Pensions. It was on an episode of the BBCs statics programs that the huge increase in the welfare budget is infact due to rises in Pension costs but it is a bit hard to tackle this problem in a democracy if you cut the income (pensions) of most of your voters.

The same could be seen as the major cost for UK employers as loads of companies have huge pension deficits.

Tax cuts to drive economic grow also have one small problem in that most of that money will be spent on rubbish produced in China instead of jobs at home.

My solution would be to reduce pensions massively, legislate so all tax payers money must be spent with UK producers if possible, and get rid of a load of legislation designed to "protect" the public and consumers. Example: Did you know that all cows and sheep have a passport??? Designed so that all animals have traceability after the Foot and Mouth outbreak but do we really need it so much that we want to pay for it??

Totally conflicting arguments but there you go..

Torminalis - Member

TJ, I simply cannot be arsed. If you think the NHS is a roaring success then groovy.

What model would you prefer? Show me a system that works better?

It has faults mainly based around poor management and continual political interference.

Remember we pay a lot less than most European countries and have a legacy of underfunding still.

so tell me what system do you think works better?

The problem is no Politician has the balls to stand up and say it because any change would be political suicide and very painful for many

erm.... have you read this mornings proposals about welfare reform? I'd say we have precisely such people presently at the helm. Who quite frankly, look to be relishing the prospect. Safe as they are with their own enormous wealth. They know they'll be out in five years but by then the changes will be irreversable

Read this book (published before the banking crisis):

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

and be very very afraid

But before I completely disagree with you, just for clarity, can you just explain what you mean by
"state monopoly" and "failing"

Okay, I should have just kept my mouth shut, I have work to do but cannot resist the fight.... oh the conflict.

Monopoly = over 25% of the marketplace IIRC from my economics classes. State monopoly = One we can't even vote for with our money, it is taken and apportioned. We have little choice and no opt out.
Failing = 100billion+ per year and we can't even keep our hospitals clean.

As I said, if you think everything is grand, splendid, I just think that the only thing worse than corporations is government and we have some interesting times ahead with ours.

jimmer himself - Member

I think the most valid point of the whole film was that spending your way out of trouble is a most ridiculous concept.

Well, that's gonna depend what you spend it on. Option (a) - pay folk benefits to sit at home idle. Option (b) pay folk to build things we can sell, or develop the countries infrastructure ready for an upturn. Think of the latter as [i]investment[/i] and it might make more sense.

if Durkins says we should be worried, then i'm immensely reassured.

On the monopoly point - why do you think that is relevant to the "failure" of the NHS?

As a contrast, do you think that our road network is a failure?

Or that our air traffic control system is a failure?

Or that the police are a failure?

Or that the fireservice is a failure?

Or that the coastguard service is a failure?

etc, etc...

There are many services that just don't work except as "monopolies" - the NHS is one of them.

Of course you could have a system where all healthcare was paid for directly by those who used it, but if you happened to be disabled, or old, or just unlucky in your health, I suspect that you would then regard that sort of system as a "failure"

Personally I make relatively little use of the NHS, I'm sure that I and my family are net contributors. But you know what, I'm really pleased about that.

I'm still not sure why you think the NHS is a failure. You say:

Failing = 100billion+ per year...

So how much should we spend on health care?

And:

we can't even keep our hospitals clean.

Really? Are you saying that all hospitals are dirty all of the time? It's another totally meaningless phrase. Not really one you can build much of an argument on.

Are people suggesting privatised healthcare etc is the way to go?

Failing = 100billion+ per year and we can't even keep our hospitals clean.

I doubt the cleaning bill is £100billion, thats like saying I earn £X0,000+ but still get punctures on my bike.

Monopoly = over 25% of the marketplace IIRC from my economics classes. State monopoly = One we can't even vote for with our money, it is taken and apportioned. We have little choice and no opt out.

Yes, but even BUPA the biggest of the private health providers in the UK picks and chooses which parts it will compete with. Targeting richer people and opperations. Good luck finding a BUPA A&E for example, its not a monopoly, anyone could compete with them, its just that no one can manage it.

can't say i have any stats to actually back this up but I am lead to believe that the NHS is WAY down the european league table in terms of beds, technology, kit, etc.

The example the programme used was germany where an insurance system is used. people who cant afford insurance get it paid by government.
not sure why that gives a 'better' service though

So how much should we spend on health care?

I don't know but conceivably we could spend our nations entire wealth on healthcare and it still wouldn't be enough.

Are you saying that all hospitals are dirty all of the time?

Of course not, but it is a common complaint. As TJ said above there are loads of problems with political interference and poor management. It just doesn't seem to me to be very good value for money.

I don't know what a better system would be but I reckon for a cool £100bil I can find out and implement it with change. 😉 (added for clarity)

Americans pay a much larger percentage of their GDP for healthcare which does nothing for a vast percentage of the population. The one's that don't count.

Is that what 'success' represents? I think I'll stick with the failure thanks.

I notice that on programmes like last nights, you never see anybody other than the very-comfortably-off espousing the virtues of Laissez Faire Capitalism. IE: The media multi-billionaire from Hong Kong thought it was great. At the risk of stating the obvious: "he ****ing would though, wouldn't he?"

Even as a raging right winger (at least as far as economics is involved, rather than a social right winger) it was obvious that this program was totally biased, unbalanced, and rather un channel four like in it's total lack of left wing bias.

I take it as the extreme end of the argument that it is time to roll back the state, reduce public spending and taxes and allow the private sector to thrive.

Having said that, there were some mahoosive holes in the programs arguments which even I could see (and I'd love to believe what he said was 100% true).

Government spending can stimulate the economy in a downturn to allow it to recover more quickly. However we've just had 10 years of government stimulus in a boom time, so now there is a downturn there is nothing left for the stimulus, and our rates of borrowing are really quite scary.

Yes we do need to rebalance the ecomomy in favour of the private sector, will the programs prescribed solution work, no, beacause there would be a total break down of law and order if it was applied. We need a much more subtle shift which is what I hope the present coalition are working towards. (with a few glaring mistakes along the way.)

Are you saying that all hospitals are dirty all of the time?
Of course not, but it is a common complaint

How often do people complain about dirty hospitals in other countries?

[i]Torminalis - Member said:

The NHS as a state monopoly is failing badly.

TandemJeremy - Member said:

evidence? it does more with less money than any comparable system. Its main failings are poor management, political interference and lack of money [/i]

And both these statements can be true.

I believe in the NHS, but it is a monopoly which means there is no real competition, its 'run' by the government and could easily spend more money.

We could probably easily knock 10% off its costs without impacting patient care, but it would be very hard to prove you hadn't. Plus cutting costs are not in the interest of the management/staff - so they'll always show how cuts impact patients. And don't even get me on to NHS IT...

DenDennis - Member

can't say i have any stats to actually back this up but I am lead to believe that the NHS is WAY down the european league table in terms of beds, technology, kit, etc.

The example the programme used was germany where an insurance system is used. people who cant afford insurance get it paid by government.
not sure why that gives a 'better' service though

b r - Member

We could probably easily knock 10% off its costs without impacting patient care,

How? - where?

I doubt that very much - I have saeen what 3% cuts did

(Looks into thread. Sees it's the same boring old rubbish as usual. Notices there are no pictures of nice bottoms or indeed anything else. Is bored very quickly. Wanders off again...)

TJ Germany is about 20% higher funded in terms of GDP - even more than that in cash terms. (30% iirc ) thats why it is better.

dont forget poor management and continual political interference. 😉

TJ - not quite as simple as that if you look at the data properly.

Germans spend 10.5% of GDP on health compared to 8.7% for UK - as you say, 20% more BUT the UK make much more of that expenditure from the public purse. Germans use more privately funded insurance to cover their health expenditure. These reduces that 20% extra to actually only 11% more spent by the German state on health than the UK.

The OECD data Im looking at has limited "output" metrics to work with (i.e. that can be assumed to normalise for health expenditure as opposed to other social variables), but keeping it simple, if we use, say hospital bed numbers, the Germans manage to run 140% more beds than we do for that 10% higher National Health Service expense.

[i]All numbers from OECD Health report 2008[/i]

conceivably we could spend our nations entire wealth on healthcare and it still wouldn't be enough.

Come on, think a bit more. What does this actually mean? If you think that no one should be allowed to die or suffer any pain then you are right, it will never be enough.

So if you set that as your goal, then yes, the NHS is and will always be a "failure"

But if you consider that the NHS should be there to treat [u]anyone[/u] who needs medical attention for any [u]treatable[/u] condition that is having a -ve impact on their physical or mental well being, maybe with some prioritisation of the most serious/urgent cases according to medical need. And also to relieve pain and suffering of those who can't be treated or are in terminal decline, then actually I think it does a pretty good job.

Just how far the NHS extends its services to prolong life though is a political decision and says nothing about the efficiency of the NHS. If politicians want to prolong the life of the very old and sick to the absolute limits of science then the service will always appear to be "expensive" (to some of those who aren't old or sick).

I don't know what a better system would be but I reckon for a cool £100bil I can find out and implement it with change.

Rather arrogant of you to claim to be better qualified to do this that anyone already in the system though? Do you not think that most people in the NHS don't think about its cost?

can't say i have any stats to actually back this up but I am lead to believe that the NHS is WAY down the european league table in terms of beds, technology, kit, etc

no evidence, but you've heard? well, it's on the internet now, so it must be true.
incidentally, I'm Spartacus