This institution once made Britain proud, but now it is crumbling.

Reference News Network reported on January 14th that in the past, the National Health Service was often praised as the pride of Britain. Everyone living in Britain can enjoy its medical service without paying the full cost.

Now, Ian Higginson, deputy dean of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "The emergency department of the National Health Service is facing one of the most challenging periods in history."

Emily Bauer, a general practitioner in northwest England, made a depressing assessment of the current situation of the National Health Service. She told reporters: "I think the National Health Service is not only in crisis, it has experienced a crisis and now it has completely collapsed."

▲ In 22, a slogan was displayed at Wembley Stadium in London, England, thanking the National Health Service for its efforts in fighting the COVID-19 epidemic. Figure/Xinhua News Agency

According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the administrator of the National Health Service pointed out that the surge in COVID-19 and flu cases in winter has brought great pressure to the medical system. To make matters worse, in this difficult winter, British hospitals and ambulance workers launched a rare strike, in which nurses went on strike for the first time in a hundred years. At a time when inflation is soaring in Britain, nurses are demanding higher wages. According to an article in the Financial Times, health sector leaders are increasingly worried that the National Health Service, which is already under great pressure, will be affected cumulatively.

On the 7th, British Prime Minister Sunak called for "bold and radical" actions to reform the national medical system in crisis. However, it is extremely difficult to reform this system that has accumulated disadvantages for many years. Previously, successive British prime ministers promised to repair the dilapidated social care system, but the system still failed completely.

First of all, it is difficult to get the funds needed to invest in the health insurance system in the UK. According to the British "Guardian" report, before the outbreak of the epidemic, the related expenses in Britain lagged far behind other major economies, which led to the national health service being shaky and ill-prepared.

Secondly, the problems of NHS and social care system in Britain are not only related to money, but also cultural, political and structural problems. Reform is often blocked by narrow political arguments and differences. According to the British "Guardian" report, British political parties have always refused to unite to decide the best way forward, but instead rejected each other's ideas in order to give their own parties the upper hand. Specific examples include the social care plan put forward by the Labour Party before the general election in 21, and other plans abandoned by Theresa May and the Conservative Party in 217. The Conservative Party called the Labour Party's plan a "death tax" and May's policy a "dementia tax".

Dan poulter, a Conservative MP who used to be the Minister of Health, said: "It is very difficult to reform the health care system. This is a ten-year project, but the election cycle in Britain is only five years. Reform is difficult to achieve because any debate about reform always uses politics. " Labour politicians refuse to cooperate with the Conservative Party to solve the social care problem. They will privately admit that if they do so, they will lose their most powerful political card-they can attack the Conservative Party in the National Health Service and social care.

poulter also pointed out the structural defects of the British medical and social care system. At present, this system is composed of too many parts that operate independently, and each part must keep its own budget. To some extent, this is a legacy of trying to introduce more business rules into the system.

As the cost and complexity of reform make politicians cringe, efforts to find financial solutions for social care often encounter endless delays.

Further reading:

A neighboring country of China opened its doors to NATO troops. Many foreign media warned of danger

kishida fumio and Sunak

The two countries that declared an alliance to deal with the same country p>12 years ago have recently come together in a historic way. One of them is Britain, and the other is China's neighbor.

This time, the two countries made another big move. The British and Japanese prime ministers signed a military agreement described by the media as a "century agreement", allowing each other to station troops in each other's territory. Behind the signing of the agreement, the figure of another western power quietly emerged

What does this action of Britain and Japan mean? At least, many international media read two words: danger!

"The most important defense agreement in 12 years"

On January 11th, local time, in London, England, visiting Japanese Prime Minister kishida fumio held talks with British Prime Minister Sunak, and the two sides signed the defense agreement "Reciprocal Access Agreement".

Foreign media have noticed that this is the first and most important defense agreement signed between Japan and European countries for more than a century. The last time the two countries signed such an agreement can be traced back to 192.

this agreement is mainly about "promoting the joint training between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the British forces, so that the troops can communicate smoothly". It is mentioned that the two sides allow each other to station troops, the British army can station in Japanese territory, and the Japanese army can also station in Britain. The two sides also allow "joint defense when any country is attacked". Foreign media pointed out that this is similar to the agreement signed with the United States and Australia.

Japan and Britain signed a "significant" defense agreement. Image source: Qatar Al Jazeera report screenshot

The British government believes that this agreement can help to consolidate its commitment to "Indo-Pacific region" and enable British and Japanese troops to "plan and launch larger and more complex military exercises and military deployments".

In order to strengthen defense cooperation, the two countries have previously concluded the Agreement on Intelligence Protection, which can exchange confidential information, and the Agreement on Mutual Provision of Goods and Services, which can accommodate goods and services.

what are the benefits of signing an agreement between the two countries?

Shortly after p>223, Japanese Prime Minister kishida fumio started his first trip to Europe and America, and visited France, Italy and Britain nonstop. Of these three countries, only British Prime Minister Sunak signed such a defense agreement with Kishida.

to travel all the way to Europe, kishida must be carefully planned and have "results", so why did Japan sign an agreement with Britain?

As a defeated country in World War II, Japan is required to limit its military strength to defense, and its military aspect is totally dependent on the United States. At present, more than 5, American troops are stationed in Japan, and American soldiers often get into trouble and offend the public. However, the Japanese government not only accepts stationing troops, but also pays a huge "protection fee" according to the cost-sharing agreement of American troops stationed in Japan. It is reported that in the five years from 222, Japan will bear the cost of about 1,55 billion yen, an average annual increase of about 1 billion yen over the previous year.

The Financial Times believes that Japanese military leaders are increasingly aware that long-term dependence on Washington has put Japan in a weak position in developing military technology. As a result, the country decided to strengthen weapons and military technology cooperation with the United States "closest ally" Britain, which will not be opposed by the United States.

Japan is really not an ordinary country. In recent years, its military trend is becoming more and more alarming. One NATO country's army is not enough. Coming to another NATO country will bring more benefits to Britain. The article on Qatar Al Jazeera gives three goals for Britain:

First, Britain and Japan signed a defense agreement, which conforms to the new British military doctrine expressed in the vision of "global Britain" after Britain left the EU.

In this vision, Britain has found a defensive card called "Pacific Shift Strategy". Before the military cooperation with Japan in the Pacific Ocean, Britain, the United States and Australia reached a "trilateral security partnership" aimed at building nuclear submarines to monitor the Pacific Ocean and "form a deterrent weapon against China's actions in the region".

the p>AUKUS agreement will allow Britain to acquire a military base in the Pacific and transfer its navy and nuclear fleet to Japanese ports.

second, Japan has decided to increase its military budget to $315 billion in the next five years, an increase of 57%, which is a "budget that fascinates Britain". Therefore, Britain is eager to reach a huge deal with the Japanese army.

Third, in the next four years, Britain's famous Typhoon fighter will be retired. For this reason, Britain has allocated a budget of over 2 billion pounds, and together with Japan and Italy, it needs Japanese manufacturing technology to develop the latest aircraft in the world.

The British military said that this project will be able to produce the latest, fastest and most powerful fighters known in the world. The analysis pointed out that this may be the reason why Britain and Japan seek to "ensure air superiority". Because "facing China, the air force is very important to Japan". As for London, it is to maintain "the dominant position of fighters in front of Russia."

The BBC also pointed out that it is meaningful for Britain, Japan and Italy to jointly develop the sixth-generation fighter, aiming at the "Indo-Pacific region".

aiming at "Indo-Pacific", but the ability is questioned

In fact, when it comes to "Indo-Pacific region", we know that behind the signing of the agreement between Japan and Britain, there is no need for a country's promotion-the United States, which continues to dominate the "Indo-Pacific strategy".

don't forget, these G7 countries visited by Kishida also have "dual identities", and they are all NATO members at the same time.

"Let the British army ranked fifth in the world join hands with the Japanese army ranked eighth in the world. Without the support of the United States, it is impossible to sign this agreement," said the website of Qatar Al Jazeera.

The United States led G7 countries and NATO members to * * * to stir up trouble in the Indo-Pacific region, and Japan took the initiative to cooperate in putting on a drama of "unity", stationing troops for each other and cooperating with each other in defense, thus opening the door to more NATO troops. This plot is not easy to guess.

Japan's * * * news agency pointed out more bluntly that this move by Japan and Britain is aimed at "the rise of China" and deepening security cooperation.

However, regarding the defense cooperation between Britain and Japan, The Times of Britain questioned its own country, and thought that given that "the United States is the guarantor of deterring China", whether the existence of dozens or hundreds of British soldiers and military equipment can change the situation of Japan's "confrontation with China"?

"The defense cooperation between countries concerned should be conducive to enhancing mutual understanding, trust and cooperation among countries, and should not create imaginary enemies, let alone introduce the old thinking of group confrontation into the Asia-Pacific region." On the 11th, China Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a regular press conference.

"Asia-Pacific is a highland for peaceful development, not an arena for geopolitical games. China is a cooperative partner of all countries and is not a challenge for any country. " Wang Wenbin stressed.