Labour is working

[andrewducker]

When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 21,474 consultants in the NHS - there are now 31,210.  On that day there were 28,046 GPs - there are now 32,194.

That's a 50% increase in consultants and a 15% increase in GPs.

In the last year, nursing shortages have dropped from 2.6% to 19.% - the 5th successive yearly fall.

At the end of June there were 43,200 patients waiting longer than six months for treatment in English hospitals - down 6,400 since the end of May and 31,600 since June 2004.

It's not sorted yet - but then doctors take 7 years to train, so it's not the kind of problem you can solve overnight.

And no, this isn't some kind of blanket support for all things Labour - but good news about the NHS seems to get very little publicity, so I thought it should be shared around.

All figures from the BBC here.

Comments

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

I admit that some of labours policies do indeed work.


The rest of them, however, are about as inspired and well thought out as coating every house on the planet with dog-do-do to reduce the ease on landfils of that particular substance.....

[andrewducker]

So some of them work and the ones that don't, don't?

Isn't that a tautology?

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

Lol. I'll now say some horrendously clichéd phrase about "wheat" and "chaff" and "enough chaff to re-stuff half the chairs in the House of Commons", before realising that chaff isn't used to stuff chairs, but that they probably would at any rate. I'd then issue another cliché about "power corrupting" and "absolute power corrupting absolutely", followed by "historic third term not a good thing for most people".

I just think that the majority of governmental bills involve people who don't have a __clue__ what they're actually discussing....And I did actually support Labour in '97. I was eight, and this streak of patriotism lasted until my grandmother's judge friend gave me a Private Eye annual for Christmas...

[andrewducker]

the problem, sadly, seems to be that they're better than the current alternatives.

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

Mmm. Like internet explorer, they are "good enough". The Lib Dems wouldn't be bad in power, they just have the political punch of a bowl of fruit-juice. Kennedy is a nice enough person - and his policies seem to make sense (for the most part...) it's just that he wouldn't be able to make a killing in an abattoir - his speeches lack conviction (well, so do blair's, but most people are fooled well enough) and his attacks don't appeal to the voter. Which is a shame. But yeah, I agree with you...