Lansley splashes the cash

Nick Kaplan

Perhaps the biggest crime of this Labour Government is the monumental amount of money wasted. Given the last 15 years of unprecedented economic growth it is incredible that we can have the biggest budget deficit in Europe, as all the money has been spent without any signs of improvement (we have actually gone down in terms of our international position in education). However the most incredible political achievement of NuLab has been to get away with this by equating more spending to an achievement, such that whenever the Conservatives criticize the government, they shout back the usual mantra of how they have increased spending on this that and the other. This is not impressive, it is more of an achievement to reduce spending whilst keeping standards the same, a government, like a private organization, should always be trying to achieve better value for money. I cannot understand how Labour have managed to con the public and now apparently the Conservatives into believing that more spending is, by itself, good. If I were to stand in front of a fire and throw £5 notes into it all day, I have not achieved anything!

David

"If Cameron and Osborne really want to move to a low tax economy then they should attack the “more spending = good” ideology head-on*" It's funny how this applies to everything except defence...... Lansley's article is a good deal more nuanced than you are reporting. He talks about how the increase in life expectancy and costly new treatments will naturally mean an increase in spending, but also talks about how undesirable it would be for it to go much higher than it is now, and that the NHS should look far more at increasing competition.

Chris

Quite. The NHS is awash with money and it's still dire. The one thing labour has succeeded at over the last few years is proving that throwing more and more money at the state sector doesn't improve services. There's a desperate need for a political party which would roll back the state. That should be the Conservatives.

Chuck Unsworth

The point is well made. But it's unwise to make the assumption that the cash will be spent in quite the same manner is NuLab seem to think is appropriate. As always, the devil is in the detail. Maybe we should not rush to condemn until further detail becomes available. Then we can condemn.

Ian C

Heaven help us all if a Tory Gov. wd spend this extra money on the NHS. It rather answers Tebbits questions, doesn't it? One step forward two back. That's why Cameron cannot put clear sky between him and Brown.

MagicAldo

Please someone tell me this is a joke. Is it a leap year joke, perhaps, a day early?

Trumpeter Lanfried

This pledge, if that is what it amounts to, was utterly irresponsible; a totally unnecessary own goal.

Tom Freeman

George Osborne, March 2007: "no policy proposals with implications for public spending are Conservative Party policy until they have been approved by me and by David Cameron, passed by the Shadow Cabinet, and appear in our draft manifesto."

What's happened to that, then?

Simon

I see the bone headed drivel content here has not depleted over the last few weeks. He was arguing that affluent societies spead increasingly more on health care. Your argument seems to be vote for us and we will spend less on health because Labour have spent a lot and some of it could have been better spent. There is always an outside chance that the media/Labour would politely ask where the cuts will be made? Your answer would no doubt be admin etc which would be sustainable for about 5 mins before falling apart. Alternatively, Dave could indeed launch an ideologoical campaign to convice the public that more public spending on health is a bad thing and we need to move towards private sector solutions. You seem to believe this would be a vote winner because he cannot complete on Brown's more spending ground. On what experience of life or politics this bold assertion is made one can only speculate. You obviously believe you have a better feel for the political pulse of the nation than Margaret Thatcher ever did. May I suggest the next time you visit planet earth you take the time to test your theory in the nearest GP waiting room.

Dave B

I can't believe Mr Lansley is the best the Consevatives can find to head up the health team. If all else fails, they could always buy a hamster.

mart

Simon : "He was arguing that affluent societies spead increasingly more on health care". Perhaps so. But then saying this might still qualify as a political gaffe for a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Politicians know how their words will be taken, and Mr Lansley is usually very sure-footed, showing that he has a good grasp of how his words will be taken and reported in the media. The message from the Tory party needs to be spend the same or less, spend it better. Not spend more. That's my humble opinion anyway.

Simon

Mart. I wish it were possible to win on a spend less ticket. But its not. And I find the "who can be more right wing" competition on here just childish.

Nick Kaplan

One wonders whether Simon is a GP himself, hoping for some extra pay? Your analysis of voter opinion is sadly correct, the public will never go for any privatization despite the fact it would, in all likelihood vastly improve provision in most cases. However you seem to lack understanding of the economic argument and the goal of “sharing the proceeds of growth.” If the economy grows we can have more (or the same) level of spending on the NHS whilst having the same level of tax. What’s more, due to the Laffer Curve, it is possible to get larger government revenue through cutting taxes, thus we can overall reduce the percentage of GDP spent on the NHS whilst in real terms increasing spending, such is the nature of economic growth. Lansley on the other hand was arguing for a higher proportion (11%) of GDP to be spent on the NHS. This clearly flies in the face of a fundamental Conservative principle; that the state should play a smaller role in people’s lives. Simon, don’t be so defeatist, there are convincing economic and philosophical arguments for reducing the size of the state in all areas, we should not pander to public opinion but try and convince people of the fact that a new type of politics is needed, one with a smaller state and more personal responsibility. This is, I believe, what Cameron truly intends, however he has packaged it in a way that appeals to voters, with the slogan of “social responsibility.”

Ian C

The idea that the British public is so attached to its NHS that it will allow whatever taxation is required to meet whatever levels of expenditure is needed is a complete fantasy. The last 10 years have put that to rest and Lansley has gone put the case for a mixed health economy a long way back by not taking the opportunity presented by this facile and incompetent government. Thatcher was in charge when her view was valid, not after 10 years of money being poured away by the grillion. The USA spends 14%+ on Health and still not everyone is covered. So when it comes to convincing the electorate that it can be done for less as it has been here and in many parts of Europe, there is no need to run and hide on the pretence that he NHS is sacrosanct regardless.

Fergus Pickering

Everything nLansley said on The World at One makde good sense to me.

John Corbett

Lansley's speech was deeply depressing. When is a senior Tory going to make the intellectual case for wholesale pruning of public expenditure. I'm further away than ever from voting at the next election if this is the best they can do.