The problem Labour has is that while they largely accepted the Thatcher economic reforms, they remain crude interventionists in their social policy. They beat rtaher than admit that the structures of government themselves mught be distorting results, they are reduced to setting more targets and pouring money in, in the hope that will make up for the structural deficiencies.

To a certain limit. Obviously a cut to a zero percent rate would yield no revenues!

On a more serious point, Neil is correct that France, Germany and the US spend more on healthcare. What he fails to note is that crude percentages of GDP don’t actually tell us much (GDP per capita would be a more instructive measure).

More importantly they all have very different healthcare models from the UK. The US uses a private insurance model, while Germany and France favour social insurance and regime of patient choice. They all offer higher chances of survival than the NHS model.

Chances of dying from…

…breast cancer 46% UK, 25% US

… cancer of the prostate 57% UK, 19% US

… cancer of the colon 40% survive for five years after diagnosis, while in the US 60% do.

Increased spending hasn’t increased survival chances in the the UK. The chances of being diagnosed have not increased. This is because the increased investment has been used to meet centrally set targets. An obsession with reducing overall waiting times for treatment had led to an emphasis on treating simple complaints at the expense of the more difficult. Waiting times for treatment are subject to targets, and therefore fall, while waiting times for diagnosis are not dtargete and have therefore surged.

The centrally controlled model is what’s at fault.

To do otherwise is to risk bankrupting the treasury when (not if) the economy does weaken - as is happening now.

That ‘investment’ in the public services was significantly lower in the 1980’s is not questioned and yet there has not been a commiserate growth in quality of public services since Major and Blair started pouring our taxes into them (at Blair’s admission in 1997 as per the above).

Comparing the UK with European countries is to compare a previously-modern economy with the old-world’s economies. And comparisons with the US are entirely irrelevant - they don’t have a publicly funded health service.

And lower taxes have been proven to increase the treasury’s tax take - that this is continually questioned by Labour, the Lib Dems and the BBC is quite, quite beyond comprehension - it’s at odds with logic.

Our public spending and taxation is low by international comparisons, tax should be increased not reduced if we want better public services. Of course efficiency can always be improved, but we are actually getting reasonable value for money in comparision with other countries.

I would also, though, like to stop hearing BBC journalists claiming that a reduction in the rate of increase in public spending is somehow prudent.

Congratulations to the labour spin machine: somehow they have managed to convince the media that Gordon Brown will be ‘tightening the public finance purse strings’ over the next few years. As Gav said, he will be doing nothing of the sort. Public spending will still be going up, but at a lesser rate. All the appallingly wasteful increases will still remain.

Equally, labour accuse the conservtives of ‘massive spening cuts’ when all Cameron has said is that he will not increase spending as much as Brown. This is, quite simply, a lie. Since when does the ‘Brown spending level’ act as our zero baseline? Surely, even if this were the case, it would mean that Brown would be guilty of ‘massive spending increases’?