tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547704.post-772834242002-06-03T04:40:00.000-07:002002-06-08T12:05:33.000-07:00Dear readers - if I have any. You will probably have gathered from my first posting that I have not understood how to use Blogs yet! <br />I am not brilliant with computers and it will probably take me some time to make sense of the system. Also my first messsage was something of a 'rant' and although we all need a good rant I hope that in the future this site will develop into a powerful forum for a critique of the current British Government. Evidence will be of crucial importance and I will gladly publish any material that you post to me by Email. Also I am interested in collaboration with any similar sites and perhaps the formation of a group - whatever that entails.I mentioned in my first posting that I would have something to say about Public services so here goes. <br />The position of New Labour is that vast amounts of 'new money' are being spent on public services. Government ministers all talk in terms of Billions of Pounds of new expenditure, yet the experiences of the public of health, education and transport services is increasingly appalling. What is the explanation for this apparent paradox? The first thing to say is that the proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on public services is generally a much more reliable indicator than talk of 'billions'.Britain has increased the proportion of GDP on education and health by 0.2% (so much for "Education, Education ,Education" as the governments main priority) and 0.6% respectively. I live in France which has an excellent health service, waiting lists are almost unknown, I make an appointment to see a doctor at a specific time which is honoured and people don't die on trolleys in hospital corriders. There are many inefficiences in French medicine particularly caused by a top heavy bureaucratic system but as France spends a much greater proportion of its GDM on heath than Britain care is necessarily much better. The only exception to this general link between proportion of GDP spent on heath and the well being of a countries population is the USA which spends a massive amount of GDP on heath but has a sick and ailing population. This is because of the 'free market medical system' in the USA which creates huge incomes for the medical profession and also lawyers because of litigation against the appalling consequences of this free market. <br />There is little doubt that if John Major or William Hague had won the last two elections thay would have had to spend a similar amount of money to that of New Labour just to save education and health from total collapse, which is all that New labour has really done - saved the system from total collapse. Real solutions to the problem of public services demand massive increases in the volume of GDP spend on these services which in turn requires large and genuine progressive tax increases for the very rich and the middle classes. If this is carried out properly it will be reflected in the distribution of wealth statistics as well. There is of course wastege in both health and education which needs to be dealt with as well. The failure of New Labour to dismantle the market oriented management structure in the health service which they promised has lead to a great deal of the structural problems and wastefulness that market oriented service always creates.Stepaulehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17458002475927834324noreply@blogger.com