Posted by ReverendJasonGraves on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:35:57

...first up; loads of money saved on the health service and spending on big 'pharma' drugs, when the decriminalisation of the oldest anti-depressant around.


Cannabis legality will mean a huge saving on the "war on drugs".


All that extra money could go back into education... again, where I specialise...

Posted by ScooterMan on Friday, 09 March 2007 10:39:07

Why shouldn't we cut the budgets for Health and Education? Not to consider it is to imply that these are already very efficient areas of effort. Don't be so spineless. What is wrong with a platform that says "We will reduce the amount spent on health and educartion and also make them more efficient".

A case in point. Two un-related releases in the last few days: One saying, I believe, that medical Consultants can earn circa £150K per year after the pay settlement (it was more, but I can't remember exactly how much), the second was a young Doctor on Radio 4, with 6 years medical experience I think, whining that the selection process for Consultants was so bad that it precluded him from such a job. Expectations too high, surely?

How many consultants do we have, how many do we need and why are their salaries so high? Students now have to repay their loans. Given the massive increase in (GP) Doctors salaries now the Government has given them licence to print money, why not invoice those Doctors for the cost of their training? Quadruple the number of benefit fraud investigators and instigate a programme of working on the roads for those caught cheating. Loads of possibilities to legitimately get the tax take down.

For hundreds of years, England has been a tough-minded but fair society that was prepared to look after its' own. Unless the Tory Party can plot a course to get us back there, then the Country will continue to move steadily towards those who say that they can. You know, and I know, that UKIP and the BNP embody variously delusions and character defects that make Idi Amin look like Mother Theresa but there are many who will vote for them despite this on the basis that they would make this country a harder, tougher and less "Nanny State" place.

Posted by orpman on Friday, 09 March 2007 12:37:43

I would also like to know more on how you will achieve this.
I have no doubts that this is possible, but as to exact methodology, I have had to leave that to personal conjecture.
This would be especially useful as in my A-level politics class and daily life I am increasingly having to defend various conservative principles, and reasoned arguments on how you will use taxes more efficiently would be of great use.

Posted by DaveGould on Friday, 09 March 2007 14:43:21

The pot of wealth always gets bigger unless we're in a recession.

The Govt has more than doubled NHS spending and we've seen zero improvement. That implies there's a lot of waste.

Simultaneously hilarious and appalling, Labour's constant reorganisations have come full circle and we're now back at the NHS structure the Tories left them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/nrhewitt125.xml

You won't see Cameron pledge any cuts in frontline services though. To do so would be political suicide.

Posted by canvas on Friday, 09 March 2007 20:34:46

Well, for a start - if the Tories got into power they could use the funds that were originally intended for the 'ID card scheme' !!!

This HUGE amount of money could instead go towards improving public transport, the NHS and special needs schools (and education in general).

 

Comment edited by canvas on Friday, 09 March 2007 20:35:01

Posted by DaveGould on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:40:47

Despite Labour announcing extra billions multiple times, I realised nobody knows just how much money we're blowing on the NHS: £92bn. This is up from £40.2 billion in 2000.

Adjusting for inflation, that's an extra £47 billion each year (not including PFI interest payments).

How much is £47 billion?

£47 billion is so staggeringly huge an amount of money that it's hard for people to comprehend just what kind of things could be achieved with it. I think the only scale of operation it affords that the average person can conceptualise is something like the Iraq War.

The Iraq War has _in total_ cost us £4-6 billion. We could fund 40 Iraq Wars just with the _extra_ money Labour are spending/wasting on the NHS...

How about something worthwhile?

Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases (WHO)

Disease Estimated Annual Deaths
• Polio 720
• Diphtheria 5,000
• Pertussis (whooping cough) 346,000
• Measles 888,000
• Tetanus (including 215,000 neonatal tetanus) 410,000
• Haemophilus influenzae b (Hib) 400,000
• Hepatitis B 900,000
• Yellow Fever 30,000
Total 2,979,720

We could save 3 million people each year from a particularly nasty death and maybe even permanently eradicate these diseases. Believe it or not, the cost would repay itself in just one year. So how much?

According to UNICEF, it would cost an extra £0.6 billion a year to immunise every child in the the developing world, on top of the £0.7 billion which is already being spent. That is peanuts compared to what we're wasting on the NHS.

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/immunize_every_child.pdf

Posted by canvas on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:50:04

Davegould says "How about something worthwhile?"

The NHS is worthwhile. It's about the funds being spent wisely. For a start, nurses could do with a decent payrise.

Posted by DaveGould on Saturday, 10 March 2007 14:49:39

Posted by canvas on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:50:04
"The NHS is worthwhile.

Agree, I was comparing with the war but wanted to show what could have been done with the money.

"It's about the funds being spent wisely. For a start, nurses could do with a decent payrise."

They've already had one. How would that be wise spending?

Posted by canvas on Saturday, 10 March 2007 15:13:42

"It's about the funds being spent wisely. For a start, nurses could do with a decent payrise."

Reply by DaveGould: 'They've already had one. How would that be wise spending?'
______

Nurses (and teachers) are undervalued in this country. If our nurses were paid a decent wage (one that would allow them a good standard of living) then we might be able to convince them not to leave the country to work abroad. British trained nurses are among the best in the world. Their recent payrise is, I think, insulting.

 

Comment edited by canvas on Saturday, 10 March 2007 15:29:16

Posted by TonyC on Saturday, 10 March 2007 21:53:44

The responses I have had to my question are the very reason that I find this sight frustrating. If I wanted to know how other people would spend my taxes I would go down to the pub and talk about it. The point of my question is that we still do not know how David Cameron intends to spend our hard earnt money. I think that David Cameron is the best Conservative candidate for Prime Minister since Kenneth Clarke (who never got the chance). But as Tony Blair has proved its not enough to have charisma, and conviction, you need to have good policies. I am deeply annoyed with the Conservative party for being so weak that it was not able to displace such a hopeless government as Labour has been. But what I want to hear from David Cameron is whether he has the substance behind the charisma to Lead this country back out of the doldrums that I feel it is in. How is it that despite an undeniably successful economy, this country's outlook seems negative and unhappy with itself. We need the feelgood factor that Thatcher brought to us in the 80's. Admittedly she lost the plot in her third term, but she freed this country from the shackles of the unions, and allowed people to be proud of being successful.

Ok so I'm going on a bit now, its because i care about this country and I am deeply angered by what Blair has done to it, and I don't want Cameron to be a let down.

Posted by canvas on Saturday, 10 March 2007 23:17:00

TonyC - you obviously don't understand what this website is all about then! LoL
You should care what other people think about your article. David Cameron is interested in our thoughts and ideas.
We are shaping Webcameron - we are debating and DC responds. Come on - get into the spirit of things.
Oh, and forget about Maggie Thatcher - she's history. this is about the future. :)
PS > Webcameron is not just for Tories (thankfully!). We're a mixed bag ! If you don't like it then the pub might be more fun for you??!!

Posted by TonyC on Saturday, 10 March 2007 23:57:48

Canvas; now I really am annoyed. I'm sure that you didn't mean any harm in advising me that i did not get what this site is about, but this just compounds my frustration. Surely this sight can be whatever its users want it to be and if I'm a little late joining the party then that should not preclude me from trying to have an input on how it works.

I am interested in what other peoples opinions are, but I am realistic enough to realise that what really matters is what our countries leaders opinions are, because these people are the one's with the power. As candidate for prime minister I want to know about David Cameron's opinion. And I doubt that this website is likely to influence how, if he gets the chance, David Cameron will run the country.

Incidentally, its all very well saying "forget Thatcher, this is about the future". Surely its only from reflecting upon the good and the bad about the past that we can move forward in a better way.

Posted by canvas on Sunday, 11 March 2007 00:40:26

OK Tony - but if you want DC to answer your question then you might need our votes! LoL

charm charm charm :) :)

 

Comment edited by canvas on Sunday, 11 March 2007 00:43:54