Boris & the sick child

[Thor]

Its embarrassing, the reporter said that when they went off air the spokesmen tore him to shreds, at least he had the bottle to tell the listeners that and not keep it to himself.

Shocking.

[spen666]

Its embarrassing, the reporter said that when they went off air the spokesmen tore him to shreds, at least he had the bottle to tell the liate era that and not keep it to himself.

Shocking.

Liate era?

[Still's Carenae]

He won’t answer you, he never does when faced with an argument counter to what he wants.

If what you post is correct in terms of doctors and nurses, where are they all? Worst still is that if the beds have disappeared like you claim then that’s a pretty big scandal across all three parties. Restore the beds, increase the doctors and let’s get the nhs working better.

In 74, we had 400,000 beds, 79 -350,000, 91 300,000, 2010 - 160,000, now 150,000. However, they changed the way they count beds in 2010 - i always thought that there was only one way to count, but obviously more in the NHS.

[Thor]

There must be an optimum number required so as to be able to function effectively. There would also be another number that allows treatments and operations to happen so as to get waiting lists down and people be treated in a reasonable period of time. It can’t be 150k as we’ve all read and heard about bed shortages so why don’t they move it to say 250k? Why isn’t this discussed?

[StillSpike]

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that in the last 40 years, while governments - of both parties - have pursued a low-tax, low spend (dare one say - "neoliberal") agenda, the number of beds in the NHS has halved, at the same time as the population has increased, and the proportion of the population in the 70 years + bracket has shot up.

We're all living longer (how many folk did you know at the end of the 70s who were over 75? - and how many now?). Older people require more medical interventions (not just beds, medicines and other services too) than younger folk.

At the same time, spending on social care is plummeting, which puts even greater strain on the already stretched resources.

But at least we're all paying a bit less tax

[Max B Gold]

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that in the last 40 years, while governments - of both parties - have pursued a low-tax, low spend (dare one say - "neoliberal") agenda, the number of beds in the NHS has halved, at the same time as the population has increased, and the proportion of the population in the 70 years + bracket has shot up.

We're all living longer (how many folk did you know at the end of the 70s who were over 75? - and how many now?). Older people require more medical interventions (not just beds, medicines and other services too) than younger folk.

At the same time, spending on social care is plummeting, which puts even greater strain on the already stretched resources.

But at least we're all paying a bit less tax

Many people in Scotland opted to elect a government who raised income tax to pay for things like the NHS.

I'm not convinced that the increase in NHS spending under Labour was low spend. The trouble was it went to PFI robber barons who extract userous profits from the system. First in building the facilities and then running them at ridiculous cost.

[Disoriented]

The number of beds has halved consistently over the last 30 years, despite consistently having an above average inflation increase over the period.

However the number of doctors has increased from 57,000 to 150,000. Almost a 3 fold increase. Nurses/midwives have increased from 550,000 to 693,000 in the same time.

The population has increased by 10 million (57 to 67 million)in this about 17.5%.

So the question is with such an increase in numbers and funding, why has the number of beds halved?

Because we have a Tory govt for the few (private health) and not the many.

So how do you account for the fact that 40% of the beds were lost during Tony Blair's tenure? Just to put things in context during the previous labour government of 74-79, they reduced beds by 50,000.

How desperate are you that you are making up facts circa 1974!

Hysterical.

[Thor]

No hes actually shown the decline of the beds and when it started till today. It's a valid point.

[Still's Carenae]

Because we have a Tory govt for the few (private health) and not the many.

So how do you account for the fact that 40% of the beds were lost during Tony Blair's tenure? Just to put things in context during the previous labour government of 74-79, they reduced beds by 50,000.

How desperate are you that you are making up facts circa 1974!

Hysterical.

I found a research paper that covered how the number and use of beds has changed. I am stunned how they have gradually declined against an increase in population.

I thought that this may be of interest to all.

Unfortunately, the NHS is a single party issue, not cross party. Then we may have a more coherent approach.

That is the first time in my life I have been called hysterical, but that is because you are thinking about politics and not the NHS.