> As a Hegelian synthesizer, may I say: both Martin (McKee) and Adam are
right.  We thought we were richer than we are (the financial services
bubble...the belief handed down by all macro-economists save a few that
we can be rich without producing real things), but we are not so poor
that we can't afford a more generous welfare state than the
Cameron-Clegg cod-neo-liberal clique are offering. And of course, re the
distribution of benefits, Martin and Tom are right: they could have
rephrased one of their points - the reason why the US does not have a
socialist tradition - as  that it has its own brand of socialism -
socialism for the rich (what used to be socialism for the
middle-classes, before they became the working-classes), including
feather-bedding and tax exemptions...from which England has been
learning fast since the 1980s (and to which the Permanent Secretary at
HMRC, the UK chief tax-collector, clearly subscribes - writing off
billions of interest due on tax from big corporations and
banks.......while insisting I pay my 23 quid interest due, late because
HMRC was late in advising me despite my requests....!)

Oh and by the way, it's not just an Anglo-American phenomenon: when the
Russians ditched 'communism', they found a surrogate in 'socialism for the
rich' too - Yeltsin selling off state assets for c. one-hundredth  of
their worth in return for political support.....which allowed (eg)
Abramovich to buy Chelsea FC (it's called 'the global economy')...

Yes, have a grumpy old Christmas, everybody, and don't forget - a cynic is
a thwarted idealist...!

Ho-ho...ahem....ho

Calum

 Hi All
> Happy holidays to all.
> It is so pleasant to feel all of society speed up just to glide into a few
> days of less frenetic activity. In a way very different than I experienced
> it as a child- I can't wait.
>
> I am writing now, about to finish my shopping, thinking about Adams claim
> that we have overspent ourselves. Is this true?  Or have we been spending
> badly?  Or have we not been maximizing our income?
>
> Ken
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Oliver <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: Anglo-American Health Policy Network <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:50:02
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UK welfare state
>
> Humbug.
>
> Actually, I think Martin and David have a point (although it's a bit too
> much 'standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park Corner'). If you attack
> universalism, you risk undermining middle class support for anything - I
> wrote about this a few years ago re. the NHS. I think I was pretty much
> ignored though, even by me, eventually.
>
> But...as we know, many people (and governments) in the West spent far
> more than they (we) can afford over the last ten years. Now we're having
> to cut back, everything seems like a loss, and losses hurt (101
> behavioural economics). If we hadn't have spent so much, we may have
> smaller welfare states today, but losses wouldn't be necessary now. i.e.
> we would have been happier with less. I think there's an economic
> paradox in there, and lessons that will never be learned.
>
> Anyway, ho, ho ho. Merry Christmas, everyone.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Tom Foubister
> Sent: 23 December 2011 09:15
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: UK welfare state
>
> Dear all,
>
> In today's BMJ Martin McKee and David Stuckler have a short article
> giving a succinct outline of how the welfare state in England is
> currently being eroded. The article misses the devastation underway
> within local government welfare services, especially in terms of care
> received at home, where the picture is most depressing of all. But if
> you're interested in a good snapshot view, which also provides a take on
> the US (have they got it right on the US?), here's the link.
>
> http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7973
>
> Happy Christmas,
>
> Tom
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>