Why is the public purse used to bail out private companies?

[SydneyRover]

Why is it that rent seekers and carpet baggers make shed loads of money at the tax payers expense and then at the first sign of trouble get bailed out as well. Why does the private sector live rent free while the average tax payer end up with a pineapple up the arse.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/30/chris-grayling-must-quit-says-lord-adonis-east-coast-line-bailout

[German Rover]

The farce that has been the privatisation of the ECML is the biggest advert for renationalising the railway there has ever been. GNER fell over and wanted bailing out, National Express and Virgin/Stagecoach have also asked to or cut short their contracts.  There was a period where the line returned money to the government and that was the East Coast days when it was run directly by the government.

The railways are a public service, just as much as the emergency services and they are being tendered out so ministers friends and government  donors can make money off them by wringing subsidies out of the public.

[RedJ]

It's ideological. There was no real good reason to reprivatise that line.

[hoolahoop]

It's ideological. There was no real good reason to reprivatise that line.

It was exactly that , yet another example of our wasted tug- of -war politics fostered by a FPTP system rather than a proper system of proportional representation that would probably stop this carry on . Had we have had PR then we wouldn't have seen a Tory Government for most of the last century.

[Donnywolf]

.... and its real beauty is that it avoids extremism from either wing of Politics

I simply dont know why we are not aligned that way - of except of course that both major Parties have the most to lose if FPTP is abolished

Lets get every vote counting via PR asap

[bpoolrover]

It's ideological. There was no real good reason to reprivatise that line.

It was exactly that , yet another example of our wasted tug- of -war politics fostered by a FPTP system rather than a proper system of proportional representation that would probably stop this carry on . Had we have had PR then we wouldn't have seen a Tory Government for most of the last century.

maybe things are not that bad for most people under a Tory government hoola, would we be so much better off under labour?

[i_ateallthepies]

The only reason there is any truth to that bpool is that historically the split of the vote has been close enough to get Labour back in or at least keep a leash on the Tories, knowing they'll be out on their ear at the next election were they to let the right wing rule the roost.
That is no longer the case.  Let's see how bad things get for most people when they win the next GE.

[Bentley Bullet]

Why is it no longer the case?

[aidanstu]

It's ideological. There was no real good reason to reprivatise that line.

It was exactly that , yet another example of our wasted tug- of -war politics fostered by a FPTP system rather than a proper system of proportional representation that would probably stop this carry on . Had we have had PR then we wouldn't have seen a Tory Government for most of the last century.

maybe things are not that bad for most people under a Tory government hoola, would we be so much better off under labour?

Things are ridiculously bad for the vast majority. The only people who haven't had their lives worsened by the tories are those that don't use railways or other public transport, utilities, the NHS, education, legal aid, police, domestic violence and children's services or the very wealthy, friends of Conservative minsters and the ministers themselves. Could you name one way which the average working person benefits from a Conservative government.

[aidanstu]

I'm not sure proportionate representation is the answer; i think the short-termism is a real issue which i feel is a result of the 4 year terms government usually have before calling an election.

I feel the NHS, transport, and many other departments would benefit from a cross party commission or being ran independently of any party like the bank of England. 

[i_ateallthepies]

Why is it no longer the case?

Because with the loss of seats to the SNP in Scotland and the bolstering of Tory seats when the boundary changes take effect, the chances of a long-term tory government increase massively.  Add to that the leftward shift of Labour which showed itself incapable of overturning a tory government in turmoil and running the most inept of election campaigns.  I don't see any chance of Labour regaining power.

[bpoolrover]

It's ideological. There was no real good reason to reprivatise that line.

Would it not be pretty much the same no matter who was in power?
It was exactly that , yet another example of our wasted tug- of -war politics fostered by a FPTP system rather than a proper system of proportional representation that would probably stop this carry on . Had we have had PR then we wouldn't have seen a Tory Government for most of the last century.

maybe things are not that bad for most people under a Tory government hoola, would we be so much better off under labour?

Things are ridiculously bad for the vast majority. The only people who haven't had their lives worsened by the tories are those that don't use railways or other public transport, utilities, the NHS, education, legal aid, police, domestic violence and children's services or the very wealthy, friends of Conservative minsters and the ministers themselves. Could you name one way which the average working person benefits from a Conservative government.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The BoE can be made independent because it is given ONE job (to control inflation) and the people in charge to know that they’ll be flayed alive in public if they fail to do that job.

With the NHS, it’s a political issue. Firstly, you have to decide how much of the national income and wealth you are going to give to it. Then you have to decide whether to spend that money looking after old folk, giving terminal cancer patients a few more months, saving smokers and drinkers over kids with horrific problems etc, etc, etc.

How do you judge when a system like that has worked? And if you accept that the funding of such a system has to be decided by The Peopld, how can you make it independent?

[aidanstu]

The BoE can be made independent because it is given ONE job (to control inflation) and the people in charge to know that they’ll be flayed alive in public if they fail to do that job.

With the NHS, it’s a political issue. Firstly, you have to decide how much of the national income and wealth you are going to give to it. Then you have to decide whether to spend that money looking after old folk, giving terminal cancer patients a few more months, saving smokers and drinkers over kids with horrific problems etc, etc, etc.

How do you judge when a system like that has worked? And if you accept that the funding of such a system has to be decided by The Peopld, how can you make it independent?

Sorry BST but the Bank of England do a bit more than just set the interest rate and dictate policy from an independent standpoint.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about

If it can work successfully with the Bank of England then it can work with other areas of policy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Fair points AS.

But there’s still a huge difference. The BoE doesn’t spend enormous amounts of tax payers’ money. The NHS does. So, if you have an independent NHS as you suggest, who sets it’s budget?

[bpoolrover]

Whatever you give the nhs will never be enough

[aidanstu]

Whatever you give the nhs will never be enough

It was for years. What would you propose as an alternative.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool.

We do spend FAR less on the NHS than most comparable nations do on their health care systems.

[bpoolrover]

We might well do bst, but you could give them another 5 billion and it won't be enough, soon as you give them money half will prob strike and want more pay ect, there is so much waste in the nhs if they stop wasting money that will help to start with

[bpoolrover]

I don't have a alternative stu

[aidanstu]

I don't have a alternative stu

It requires updating for sure, privatisation isn't the answer and we can't expect Jeremy Hunt Hunt, a man who contributed to a paper on how to dismantle it, to achieve positive change with it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool
If the NHS is wasteful then that doesn’t say much for other country’s systems. We spend less per capita in health than Germany, France, Netherlands etc yet we have similar health outcomes. We spend less than half per capita on health than the USA, yet our health outcomes are better.

Maybe the NHS is not actually that bad?

[aidanstu]

Bpool
If the NHS is wasteful then that doesn’t say much for other country’s systems. We spend less per capita in health than Germany, France, Netherlands etc yet we have similar health outcomes. We spend less than half per capita on health than the USA, yet our health outcomes are better.

Maybe the NHS is not actually that bad?

I'm all for the NHS but it really is that bad. i'm not blaming the staff but the financing, staffing and administration are awful. I have a lot of friends who work within the system who, without fail, speak of the poor state of the NHS and most blame Jeremy Hunt and the tories.

For instance, and i know its not the greatest example but one we can relate to, Doncaster and Basetlaw are contractually obliged to buy bread which costs £3.50 a loaf. That, just as one example, is a huge expense. Wonder which MP has shared in the supplier?

[wilts rover]

Interesting article here from the BMA on the future direction of the NHS essentially the need to concentrate more on prevention of illness rather than just treatment of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2018/jan/04/nhs-under-threat-new-model-of-care

[aidanstu]

That would seem a very appropriate response but how would they fund such a service?

I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies that seem to dictate to this government would also have something to say about it.

[wilts rover]

Funding for the NHS is decided by the government which prioritises its spending depending on its own interests. Similarly where it raises the money from for that funding.

One future source of raising funding might be cutting down on multinational tax avoidance. For example Virgin have £2 billion worth of contracts with the NHS yet pays no tax on it.

http://www.nhsforsale.info/private-providers/virgin.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/29/richard-branson-virgin-scoops-1bn-pounds-of-nhs-contracts

[aidanstu]

Funding for the NHS is decided by the government which prioritises its spending depending on its own interests. Similarly where it raises the money from for that funding.

One future source of raising funding might be cutting down on multinational tax avoidance. For example Virgin have £2 billion worth of contracts with the NHS yet pays no tax on it.

http://www.nhsforsale.info/private-providers/virgin.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/29/richard-branson-virgin-scoops-1bn-pounds-of-nhs-contracts

At least that is something we agree on.

[Ldr]

The problem with NHS Finance (and will be for the next few decades) is the money paid out each year on PFI build. Think buying stuff from the catalogue

[hoolahoop]

Bpool
If the NHS is wasteful then that doesn’t say much for other country’s systems. We spend less per capita in health than Germany, France, Netherlands etc yet we have similar health outcomes. We spend less than half per capita on health than the USA, yet our health outcomes are better.

Maybe the NHS is not actually that bad?

Exactly and imagine just how good it could be if it was funded as well as other countries currently fund their health systems.
It still is the envy of many countries in the world but if it isn't removed soon from the political football it currently is - then we risk further slippage.
Having spent the last 4 years in and out of DRI, Sheffield, the Royal Orthapaedic and the QE in Birmingham ; I can only report back that we still have the  finest caring and hard- working professionals working for us but it is at imminent risk. What's the phrase that the Maybot uses and pays little attention to ....got it " Just about Managing " - the Service is JAC ( Just About Coping ) , I don't want it to become worth only JACSHIT ! 
It is further  weakened when we send the wrong messages to ALL not just European workers that they aren't really welcome here anymore.

The Murdoch / Dacre empire has spent far too much time savaging a few health tourists and our apparent inability to reclaim the monies due from the individuals or countries involved and .....NOT enough time on just how much these workers and and the majority of foreigners ADD to our social fabric and nowhere is that more evident than in our healthcare provision where we now have these foreigners leaving in droves whilst we fail to attract newcomers to replace them .   

[Ldr]

Health tourism is a red herring as you say mate. Its easier to point the finger at scapegoats than to face the actual problems. 1) the crisis in social care which has the knock on effect of hospitals not been able to get people off wards (Bed blocking). 2) the lack of accessibility in primary care (GPs) which leads to ppl attending A&E uneccessarily. 3) the elephant in the room, the post war baby boom has hit old age, means a large elderly population pressure needing attention (look at a population pyramid)