I get your point, Warbler.
One of Andy Burnham's big policies is to link Social care with health care.
I was arguing they should work more closely at least 10 years ago at relevent conferences.
At that time the two services were miles apart, and it seemed a fair comment that the two should link more closely.
Now I get the impression our politicans see this as some massive new way to save more money.
I support things being linked up to improve standards of care, whereas of course some people want things 'linked up' to simply save money.
I'm not in a position to accuse Andy Burnham of wanting this yet, (although in truth his idea is 10 years old), but its a point worth making.
Its the same situation with the third sector I think. Linking with social services for example should be done to improve standards of care provided, first and foremost.
On a wider point, we have to accept, (and I'm sure someone who works within the EU like Grey would acknowledge this), that big public/charitable organisations get things wrong too, in the same way bankers did, but in different circumstances and for different reasons.
Just take the New Labour 'overspend' in the good years.
Coming out of a period of Thatcher domination, when your are spending billions to improve schools, hospitals, and public services, what is so strange about some of that money being overspent?
Surely better to have spent money improving things than to have never spent anything at all, which is what we now have with Cameron and Osbourne?
When spending billions central government make mistakes.
The sooner someone explains why this is the case to the public the better.
Otherwise this country is looking at an austerity package that is going to carry-on and be justified for a generation after it was actually required.
