To want someone to link to any evidence which says the Tories are planning to get rid of the NHS?

[bruffian]

As I haven't seen any, and yet if Facebook memes are to be believed they are going to get rid of it as soon as they get back into power? The only costings I can find seem to suggest they are planning to fund it about as much as labour is.

"In order to keep the economy and employment growing - you need to encourage business - you do that with low employment taxes (employers NI) and low corp tax. No secret that all the companies we bash on mumsnet are based in Ireland - nice low tax rate there. That increases employment, reduces the welfare bill and increase vat take and income tax. "

The ideology is flawed:

"Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

Meanwhile, all of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited. Widely touted statistical results were, it turned out, based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures – plus a few outright mistakes – and evaporated under closer scrutiny."

I do not see any evidence to suggest that increasing corporate taxes to the levels they were at in 2010 will have any negative effect on growth.

NHS have always outsourced a load of stuff, running it top level, but getting others to do the work - that is not the same as privatisation - selling it off for others to run.

What a patronising post- a quick google would've come up with the naylor report

What is the status of the Naylor report? Is it Tory policy and in the manifesto? Or is it a report?

bruffian I think your OP is a very good one. I am heartily sick of some Labour supporters treating other voters as if they are stupid. I hope, and think it will backfire.

This is exactly why increased privatisation is not a bad thing - the NHS is not accountable to anyone by any stretch being a public service. Private companies are incentivised to perform well to retain contracts (through meeting NHS targets) and be efficient to satisfy shareholders. If it means patients get better care, what's the issue?

Yes because that's how business works they never ever cut corners to increase profits

The railways are awesome now they've been privatised

NHS is not accountable to anyone by any stretch being a public service

The NHS is a hell of a lot more accountable than a private company. Why do you think you hear stories about the NHS and its failings?

Because they're reported publically.

The NHS is held accountable - it has to report its spending to Parliament.

There is a central government spending watchdog which accounts for the money that the NHS spends every financial year. There is a myriad of health regulators in place which check what the NHS does.

You don't hear about the private sector because, clue is in the name, it is private. You've no idea what happens to your money in private companies, hence the shocks that occur when the likes of Tesco fiddle their profits.

That just can't happen in the public sector.

reports on the nhs
here

here

I could go on.

Now let me have a Google of what public reports there are on the likes of virgin 🤔

Oh wait there won't be any. Because it's private and only accountable to its shareholders

You don't hear about the private sector because, clue is in the name, it is private. You've no idea what happens to your money in private companies, hence the shocks that occur when the likes of Tesco fiddle their profits.

Tesco PLC? public limited company? Anyone can download their annual report and accounts online.

The Naylor Review is a report that TM has said pubically that she agrees with and will implement should she be re-elected.

"It's difficult to provide hard evidence because it's something that's currently unpopular so no one will stand up and say it. You have to look at the circumstantial evidence. NHS funding compared to GDP is significantly less than other developed nations. This means the NHS is running under stress. I believe this is a planned outcome because people will eventually get fed up with it not working properly and will demand something different. At that point the Tories can openly tout their plan to get rid of it.

It's a recognised tactic, to run a service down by underfunding it to the point that the public demand a change. Then you privatise it. In the Tories case, selling it to you mates who then give you seats on their company boards."

Very well said no cake.

You nailed it.

This is exactly my take on the situation.

Pop down to your local a&we department and have a chat with the staff, see what they say.

You want evidence, why not ask the boots on the ground, they can see what is happening to their services.

Yes, the Naylor report.

The naylor review is not policy and has the perfectly sensible suggestion that trusts sell off land to boost their coffers. Naylor himself was the head of a huge NHS trust.

Stop being so scared of it.

The Naylor Review says nothing at all about privitisation and will probably be implemented even by Labour if they win.

It's been seized on by left wing activists who are deliberately misrepresenting it because they take such a dim view of the intelligence of the electorate they think that as long as the words 'sell' and 'NHS' appear in the same document they can con them into believing it's about privitisation when it's nothing of the sort.

It's just typical left wing lies, manipulation and misrepresentation.

The Naylor Review outlines a plan to force NHS trusts to sell assets primarily land to private investors. Trusts will be forced because if they refuse the Treasury will diminish their capital funding.

Trusts are being forced to sell their assets to provide capital funding eg new equipment. Once the cash from the land has been spent there is no plan for public money to be put into capital funding.

The report does not use the term 'privatisation' because this is an unpopular word. And there isn't another one that accurately described selling off public assets to the private sector whilst public funding is stopped.

But it is a plan to continue the privatisation of health services, make no mistake about that

I think it:s unlikely that Labour will implement the Naylor Report as their manifesto explicitly funds public services with public money.

It's very different from Blair and his PFIs.

Documentary on this selloff.org.uk/about/

Private health providers are taking over many services formerly provided by the NHS, including GP surgeries and social care contracts. They are paid private rates by the government at a much higher cost than would have been paid had the service been retained by the NHS. Pure profit.
My MIL deals with invoices and although she told me herself that the bills for services are "BUPA prices" and she doesn't understand why, she's still voting Conservative
It wouldn't be so bad if the service level improved but sadly not and people are being left high and dry. Branson is now suing the NHS for the loss of a lucrative contract. Lord knows how much that will cost to settle.

www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/15223166.Mum_claims_severely_disabled_girl__put_in_danger__by_Virgin_Care_after_NHS_transfer/

Pumpkin. The statement isn't worthless just because you can't infer the obvious. A government isn't going to establish a policy which will knowingly trash the economy unless they're the left

The left trash the economy? After 7 years of Coalition and then Tory rule, the deficit has increased and for the majority of people there's nothing to show for 'austerity'.

Ever increasing wealth inequalities though.

Private health providers are taking over many services formerly provided by the NHS, including GP surgeries

Almost all GPs surgeries are private businesses and always have been.

The plan is to privatise healthcare - it's happening already.

Virgin are very happy about it and are buying up all the contracts they can get their hands on ( have a google). It's highly profitable you see - people being sick.

Healthcare is a bit like food or clothing. We all need to access it.

There is no hard evidence. However, everyone is of the opinion (it seems) that it's either the NHS or a private, paid for by the user US system

Which is bollocks

There are plenty of countries who have free (at point of delivery) health services, funded by the government( in some way) but not run by the government.

Some of the NHS could easily be private. Having every NHS employee on AFC pay grades is ludicrous. Remember, AFC applies to the porters and support staff as well as front line health staff and compared
To private industry those people are paid well over the odds for comparable jobs

This is exactly why increased privatisation is not a bad thing

Tell that to the NHS staff TUPE transferred over to the outsourcers. They are the lucky ones. New joiners come in on different terms and conditions, and way less valuable pension schemes. We have so many fixed term contracts and part time contracts (but full time working hours) that it's hard to forge a real career in health care. Physios/OTs etc are often hired on 18 hour contracts - who can fund a family on only 18 hours guaranteed pay?!

The result is that we are deskilling and demotivating a professional, expensively educated workforce (not so much now that bursaries have been withdrawn) with the result of a creaking service.

Privatisation of the NHS is very wrong.