BMJ  2005;330 (30 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.0-g

Editor's choice

In praise of trade offs

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Next week Britain has a general election, and over the past three weeks Nick Timmins has been dissecting the manifestos of the three main UK parties (16 April, p 866; 23 April, p 925; p 981). Although sceptical about manifestos—"a newly landed Martian reading Labour's 1997 manifesto and looking at the NHS today would be entitled to wonder how on earth we got from there to here"—Timmins works hard to find real differences between the parties. So do our three commentators (p 986). Indeed, Keiran Walshe argues that the electorate doesn't have much choice: "If you believe in a nationalised NHS or if you want to see health care privatised, you don't have anyone to vote for."

Lack of anyone to vote for is a problem because it implies a muted discussion of values and trade offs. The main criticism of this current election is . . . [Full text of this article]

Jane Smith, deputy editor

(jsmith@bmj.com)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The heavy hand of suspicion
John Stone
bmj.com, 3 May 2005 [Full text]
Re: The heavy hand of suspicion
Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 4 May 2005 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ