FAO IC1967

[IC1967]

What a load of cobblers. PFI was first introduced in the 1992 Autumn Statement. It was initially considered for transport infrastructure. It was not initially under consideration for NHS projects.

Anyway this is a side issue. I am of the opinion that PFI as abused under Labour is a national disgrace.

You seem to think that PFI is a good thing regardless of the huge cost.

Unbelievable.

[wilts rover]

What a load of cobblers. PFI was first introduced in the 1992 Autumn Statement. It was initially considered for transport infrastructure. It was not initially under consideration for NHS projects.

Anyway this is a side issue. I am of the opinion that PFI as abused under Labour is a national disgrace.

You seem to think that PFI is a good thing regardless of the huge cost.

Unbelievable.

Where in my answer 'I campaigned against PFI' do you work out I think that PFI is a good thing regardless of cost?

Should have gone to Specsavers. Unbelievable.

[IC1967]

You are a very contradictory sort of person. You first claim Labour were right to spend all this money indeed here is what you said:

The answer to my question is simple the Tories under Thatcher and Major were killing people. People were dying prematurely as waiting times at hospitals were unacceptably high, so the Labour government began a massive programme of hospital construction, renovation and recruitment - which cost a lot of money. And the result was:

Number of Doctors
1997: 552,960
2009: 1,158,004

Number of Nurses
1998:323,457
2008:408,160

Waiting lists for an operation needing a stay in hospital
1997: 1,158,004
2009: 552,960

Average time waiting for an operation needing a stay in hospital
1997: 13.2 WEEKS
2009: 3.9 WEEKS

Average waiting time for a cataract operation
1996: 2 YEARS
2009: 3 MONTHS

Number of people waiting for more than 18 months for an operation
1997: 143
2009: 0

Percentage of people with suspected cancer seen within two weeks
1997: 63%
2009: 99.7%

Percentage of people seen in casualty within four hours:
2003/04: 91%
2007/08: 98%

Rate of cancer deaths in the under-75s
1997: 141 per 100,000 of population
2009: 115 per 100,000 of population


Life Expectancy
1997 men 74. 5 years
women 79.6 years
2007 men 77.5 years
women 81.7 years

Number of NHS walk-in centres
1997: 0
2009: 90


Now given this I think it is reasonable to assume you were defending Labour's record on PFI. Then in a later post you say you campaigned against PFI!

Talk about having it both ways!

You couldn't make it up.

Look. Let's try and clear this up. Do you think the vast fortune spent by Labour under PFI was the best use of taxpayers money? A simple yes or no will do.

[wilts rover]

If I can refer you back to my previous question that you did not know the answer to.

Sorry Mick, I forgot I had to make my questions simple for you. I have asked you;

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)

Labour came to power with the NHS in a total mess left to them by the Tories and had to do something to sort it out (the bit you missed out from the 1997 Manifesto) - which they more than achieved as you quote.

I didn't believe at the time that following the Tory policy of PFI was the right way to go about raising the funding for this, seems I was right.

But to re-emphasise the point, it was the Tory policy of running down the NHS that meant Labour had to spend a lot of money in bringing it back-up to standard.

[IC1967]

If I can refer you back to my previous question that you did not know the answer to.

Sorry Mick, I forgot I had to make my questions simple for you. I have asked you;

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)

Labour came to power with the NHS in a total mess left to them by the Tories and had to do something to sort it out (the bit you missed out from the 1997 Manifesto) - which they more than achieved as you quote.

I didn't believe at the time that following the Tory policy of PFI was the right way to go about raising the funding for this, seems I was right.

But to re-emphasise the point, it was the Tory policy of running down the NHS that meant Labour had to spend a lot of money in bringing it back-up to standard.

This is where you lefties are totally clueless. You think that we should have an excellent health service even if we can't afford it. It's called living beyond our means. The NHS we had under the Tories was better than the one we could afford. May I remind you that during their time in office they doubled the national debt. Labour called them big spenders. Labour weren't going to spend as much because they would be wise spenders. What a laugh.

Labour push the same ridiculous mantra today that the NHS is not good enough. They do it every time we have a Tory government. We then end up ploughing even more money into the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Whatever you spend on the NHS will never be enough for you lefties. The rest of the economy can go whistle and the national debt can keep on doubling.

It's about time people started taking their own health more seriously. For example obesity is on a relentless rise. People are living longer. Too long in my view. There should be a point where when you get to a certain age say 80 you are too much of a financial burden and you should have treatment withdrawn for the benefit of younger people. I could go on.

[BobG]

Funny really. Even though I've got  Mick and all his dim acolytes on ignore, I still get a sense that neither he nor they are able to read! Poor lads.... Perhaps one day they'll learn enough to be able to understand us more intelligent types.  In the meantime, to save prevent them embarrassing themselves any more than they've really got to perhaps they should think about locking themselves in a shed? Oh! Silly me. They won't have learned how to lock doors will they?  Oh well lads. Just lie down on a motorway or something equally helpful then.

Cheers all

BobG

[IC1967]

Funny really. Even though I've got  Mick and all his dim acolytes on ignore, I still get a sense that neither he nor they are able to read! Poor lads.... Perhaps one day they'll learn enough to be able to understand us more intelligent types.  In the meantime, to save prevent them embarrassing themselves any more than they've really got to perhaps they should think about locking themselves in a shed? Oh! Silly me. They won't have learned how to lock doors will they?  Oh well lads. Just lie down on a motorway or something equally helpful then.

Cheers all

BobG

Look. Let's get one thing straight. I am far more intelligent than you and your friends are. I'm also extremely modest (unlike you). Deal with it.

IC1967

[wilts rover]

Oh well if you believe euthanasia is the answer to funding the NHS then it's pointless arguing with you.

I have proven that you dont know anything about the set-up of PFI's, and by your own words you didnt know why Labour used them, and why they gained a landslide victory in 1997, so as I have comprehensively beaten you once again there is nothing more to say and I shall retire from the thread.

[IC1967]

Oh well if you believe euthanasia is the answer to funding the NHS then it's pointless arguing with you.

I have proven that you dont know anything about the set-up of PFI's, and by your own words you didnt know why Labour used them, and why they gained a landslide victory in 1997, so as I have comprehensively beaten you once again there is nothing more to say and I shall retire from the thread.

Excuse me. I've got you bang to rights again. I repeat, they were first introduced in the 1992 Autumn Statement for transport infrastructure not the NHS. Labour used them to keep hundreds of billions off the balance sheet despite being opposed to them when in opposition.

Keep living in la la land if it makes you happy. I just hope you don't run your own personal finances the way Labour ran the country's finances. You'd soon be bankrupt.

[wilts rover]

I wasn't going to do this to you and thus embarrass you before the whole forum, I offered to let the thread go soyou could leave with what little honour you had left intact, but oh no, you had to keep going.

What you actually wrote was this:

It was first introduced by the Tories for non NHS projects.

There is no 'only for transport policy'. Nor is there 'and extended by them to NHS projects later'. This only came later after I had pointed out your error. It is there, in black and white, with a big emphasis that the Tories used it for non NHS projects. However many times you attempt to ammend it, that is your original post.

So either:
You didn't know that 71 NHS projects were under discussion under the Tories
or, you misled the forum by not stating that they had done this

It is irrelevant which one it is as either way you were being deceitful and dishonest and misleading the forum by not revealing the true facts of the history of PFI funding in the NHS. Now I am quite a generous and forgiving person and I would think a general apology to the whole forum would sufice. Whether Billy, Bob, Glyn and the other members you attempted to decieve feel the same, well, that's up to them.

And just to clarify even further. The 1992 Autumn Statement did not preclude NHS projects from PFI funding, the only reason none began was because the Tories didn't have any!

[IC1967]

What a load of cobblers. PFI was first introduced in the 1992 Autumn Statement. It was initially considered for transport infrastructure. It was not initially under consideration for NHS projects.

Anyway this is a side issue. I am of the opinion that PFI as abused under Labour is a national disgrace.

You seem to think that PFI is a good thing regardless of the huge cost.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable. Your tactic of using diversionary tactics is reprehensible. The main point is that Labour massively abused PFI to keep many billions off the balance sheet even though they knew that the taxpayer would end up paying way over the odds.

Above is what I actually said. I didn't say the Tories used it for non NHS projects. I'll spell it out again for you as you've obviously got great difficulty remembering what I said. 'PFI was first introduced in the 1992 Autumn Statement. It was initially considered for transport infrastructure. It was not initially under consideration for NHS projects. I've highlighted in bold the key phrases. I stand by my comments. Initially it was considered for transport infrastructure. You do know what initially means don't you?

Here is the key phrase from the speech, I remember it well - In future, the Government will actively encourage joint ventures with the private sector, where these involve a sensible transfer of risk to the private sector. We may be prepared to consider such an approach, when the time arises, for projects such as the east-west crossrail, the central Scotland fastlink, the Birmingham western orbital road and perhaps also the channel tunnel rail link.

There you have it. Initially it was considered for transport infrastructure. There is no mention of using it for the NHS in this Autumn Statement.

Want more evidence? Here it is.

Meanwhile, all over the country, more new hospitals began to spring up. Although Labour had been critical of PFI when John Major introduced it in 1992 for non-NHS projects, Alan Milburn, incoming Health Secretary in 1997, embraced the concept, declaring that “when there is a limited amount of public-sector capital available, it’s PFI or bust”.


The above paragraph is taken from the article in the link below. It's written by an excellent journalist from one of our best broadsheet newspapers. She also confirms what I said that it wasn't initially introduced for NHS projects. The article is well worth a read anyway as it shows up Labour's terrible misuse of PFI.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/7407484/The-pros-and-cons-of-PFI-hospitals.html

Now do yourself a favour and get an abject apology sorted pronto. You have made slanderous allegations as a diversionary tactic that are patently untrue. I'll leave the rest of the forum to decide who indeed is the liar.