Want to know quite what I find so laughable about this story?
Gordon Brown has ordered another inquiry into the funding of the National Health Service, which is expected to lead to a further injection of billions of pounds next year.
In a move that could also pave the way for a further increase in national insurance payments before the next general election, the Chancellor has asked Derek Wanless, the former chief executive of NatWest, to study whether the NHS needs more money on top of the £40bn allocation over five years announced last year.
The answer lies in the way that Gordon Brown has ordered an ‘inquiry’ into NHS funding in order to provide a patina of scientific, objective justification for the tax increases that he has clearly already made up his mind on.
And would you like to hear something even funnier? Well, just wait until the ‘opposition’ (chortle, snigger) Conservatives launch a fierce attack on the government for not spending enough on the NHS. Won’t that be a scream?
Yes, yes I know, it’s not really funny and I shouldn’t laugh. But, honestly, I just don’t know what else to do.
There is a very obvious thing to do: launch a libertarian party in time for the next election.
Hey, it can’t fail anymore dismally than the other parties. What’s to lose?
Not a bad idea, Julian. Especially if it was careful to only run in safe Labour seats (the helping-the-opposition charge Nader ran into with Democrats is a valid worry).
Meanwhile, could Gordon be preparing to conclude the problem with the NHS is that people always want too much of a free thing?
Run in labour safe seats only???? WTF????
That would be rewarding the Tory Party for a decade of statism and Euro-federism! The Tory Party is worthless. Have they repudiated statist mercantilists like Heseltine, Heath and Clarke? Hell no. Do you remember what happened to our civil liberties under Michael Howard? He tee’ed up the ball for Blunkett to hit onto the green.
To hell with the Tories. When it comes to the lesser of two evils, I choose ‘none of the above’ by not voting at all and actively encourage others to delegitimise the process by doing likewise.
Cor, vigorous stuff Perry! Yes, actually I do remember what a creep Michael Howard was and how keenly he drools over ID cards, presumption of guilt until proven innocent, and other such.
How about not running against like-minded Tories but trying to split the vote against Clarke, Heseltine et al? I’m all for that, mate.
Please forgive and humour my yellow streak of realpolitik caution.
Perry elaborates on precisely my point.
There is no “libertarian vote” to split and thus harm, because one gets a choice solely from commie pragmatists (labour), commie idealists (libdem) or a rabble of commie wannabes, fascists, and harrumphing old-timers (conservative). Given that every other party is firmly on the authoritarian side of the graph, and straining towards the left, libertarians have precisely nowhere to go.
Heck, a libertarian-right party could do a Haider or Berlusconi and sweep aside the opposition just because it’s new and worth trying.
Julian,
Don’t think the idea isn’t very tempting, because it is.
But (and call me a defeatist if you will) as soon as any segment of the British voting public hears about our plans to abolish the NHS, well, that’s that.
And don’t even get started on RKBA!
Besides, running an election campaign is expensive (who the hell will back us?) not to mention very time consuming and we all have jobs, businesses, lives etc.
Too many hurdles, my friend.
Heh, no I don’t believe in this business that the british public would throw up their hands in horror at anyone touching the NHS. That’s only if they think it’d be shut down post haste and nothing to replace it. But, that’s just a failiure of creative imagination.
For example, a plan I’ve thought would work would be (1) shut down NHS for anyone who could concievably pay, and anything merely cosmetic, leaving a hard core that is doing essential ops for the poorest people (2) hive this off into a free-floating charity. It’s not abolition, because anyone who supported it before can still keep it running.
Also doing much the same for social security would work (if only to convince the contributors of the daftness of paying people to be idle).
Re Michael Howard, informed opinion has it that initially he was not in favour of banning the legal possession of handguns post-Dunblane (though doubtless his reasons were pragmatic rather than principled) but that he was bounced into going for a ban, on grounds of short-term political expediency, by his colleague (whose name I forget) the Member for Dunblane who threatened to resign from the Cabinet. This threat to ensnare the Tories in Cabinet wrangles just before an election was a contributory factor in the subsequent contest between Conservatives and Labour to see who appeared to be shafting gun owners the most vigorously. Still bitter about this? Damn right I am.
BOHICA?
Patrick:
B.end
O.ver
H.ere
I.t
C.omes
A.gain
A political campaign costs around £20,000 per seat at the last estimate plus around £2M for general advertising, lobbying etc
Any takers, I think I still have a copy of the ILP’s constitution knocking around…