Is the biggest increase in costs in the NHS not the ageing population?

Smoking, drinking, obesity is also very big but sure the fact we live so much longer is massive?

Various wastes taht have annoyed me that are in Schools that I am aware of (did it happen in hospital, no idea) many millions of pounds was wasted in design of schools, many millions wasted (and palms greased) over the tender process, when building new scholls.

There should have been one design and one national procurement programs and this will have saved a staggering amount of wasted cash.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14778406

Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

And in tomorrows indie, the front page is an article about the tories closing hospitals.

So they pay 13 bn for high speed 2. Which is equivalent to the cost of student fees, hospital cuts, police cuts and other public sector cuts.

I don't know why some people still think connies are nationalistic in any way.

Conservatives = rich people who can afford not to go on NHS, to live in a posh area where you don't need police and to send Tarquinne and Genevieve to Eton and Winchester.

You should read the article http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 49771.html

'They' haven't spent anything yet have they?

NHS hospital in Cambridge to be run by private firm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15679742

Don't you see what is happening. The doctor on this program is a tool. This is incremental changes, one private one here, on there, privatise this little part (don't worry people! DON'T WORRY, its still nationalised, just a little privatised, just to help things!!!!!!!!!!!!). The tories are destroying this country for the middle and lower classes, just like it did last time they were inpower. That's how they screw you over. Little bit here, little bit there. Its done incrementally so that you accept the changes.

Are they what does that make a former Labour leader who ensured his son got an education denied to rest of us, most of the current Labour elite fit your image, but you seem to ignore that.
Use the NHS a lot have done for family reasons for very many years, yes it has its faults, main one hate is the post code lottery, but at least my experience it is changing and for the better, it will always have problems, as we learn more a greater amount of money is required its a bottomless pit, the better it performs the more it needs.
The staff at hospital was at yesterday, could not in my view give better service they were brilliant, a new system was being put into place when you booked in, but they coped with that and still managed to ensure appointment times not just close but on time. Had doctors meet, blood test, x-ray and made appointment for a scan all within 1 hour, to me thats first class.

I'm sure the votes solely of people who send their kids to Eton and Winchester is enough to get the most votes in a general election. What with the rest of us state educated morons being so incompetent we are unable to put an X by any other party on a ballot paper they will surely walk it.

This entire line of argument, is lazy, bogus and dangerous.

The Prime Minister is clearly vastly underpaid for the degree of accountability of the job. The job is at least equivalent to a CEO of a major global company which would pay £1M+ and bonus and stock. Using the Prime Minister as some sort of benchmark for determining the pay of senior staff in public service positions is totally flawed.

In addition, restrictions on public sector staff pay so that they are not attractive to top talent is counter-productive. Here is an example. A certain government IT project was planned to cost ~£200M ended up costing three times that. Due to public sector salary restrictions the project was not allowed to staff anyone earning more than ~£100k. When audited, the project was found to have failed to follow “basic” project management principles, or establish a realistic budget, timescales and governance. These are all rookie mistakes. Rookie mistakes that ended up costing the tax-payer an additional £400M

A complex IT project in the private sector of that scale would have numerous staff in the £100-150k range of salary, and would be headed up by a very experienced programm manager earning £200k+. That is what it costs to get the level of experience required to deliver a complex IT programme like this one. Not staffing correctly will end up costing a hell of a lot more in the long run.

I am a Cambridge graduate, and most of my contemporaries are now getting quite senior in the legal and private sectors - nearly all are comfortably over the £100k mark in their early 30s. I can count on one hand the people I know who went into the public sector - it just isn't financially competitive. For people like me from a working class background who left university with more than £20k debt, it wasn't even an option. I would love to be a teacher, but I couldn't have afforded to do it at the time.