OT - Governments war on the NHS - Tory's first casualty

DonDaddyD

OK, so my Chief Executive keeps sending me emails about Health sector reform and change

The NHS is the Countries largest employer. + There is already about 2million unemployed people in the UK.

The Tory/Lib Dem war machine with their health bill have fired the first salvo. There are casulaties.

it is all well and good that they are trying to demistify the admin level of health services but the economy was just picking and if there aren't enough new jobs being created for the already 2million unempolyed how will it accomodate an additional 30% of the NHS' workforce?

I ask this for conversational reasons and personal, I have the chance to return to the NHS but would much prefer to work in the private sector.

UndercoverElephant

I wholeheartedly doubt that 30% of the NHS will lose their jobs. There probably will be some areas of the organisation who lose that percentage, but you could pick most organisations to streamline and that would happen.

Kiblams

Awww are the Bureaucrats and clueless middle management going to have to find proper jobs? I feel compelled to donate my below national average salary to help them pay for their Mercs and BMWs...

el_presidente

The labour government was borrowing £500 million pounds EVERY DAY.

the national debt equates to £45,000 for Every household in the country. Our taxes need to pay this back.

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

DonDaddyD

I wholeheartedly doubt that 30% of the NHS will lose their jobs.

NHS is expected to cut 30% of its admin costs. It'll cull the admin so that top layer directors, NEDs etc will keep their jobs.

SHAs are expected to be decimated as well.

Kiblams wrote:

Awww are the Bureaucrats and clueless middle management going to have to find proper jobs? I feel compelled to donate my below national average salary to help them pay for their Mercs and BMWs...

Define proper job?

I don't disagree, I don't think that a person being able to afford a Mercedes or BMW should be the subject of resentment. People work in the jobs they are hired for.

El wrote:

the national debt equates to £45,000 for Every household in the country. Our taxes need to pay this back.

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

when these people are out of work, what do you think it'll do to taxes and the economy?

tailwindhome

I can't get my head round who you actually work for.

Is it tax payer funded?

Is it under threat?

el_presidente

the national debt equates to £45,000 for Every household in the country. Our taxes need to pay this back.

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

when these people are out of work, what do you think it'll do to taxes and the economy?

paying someone £50 a week on the dole is cheaper than paying them say £50,000 net of tax received.

hence why VAT will be going up to %20 or higher, 50% top rate is here to stay, etc etc.

These 6bn cuts are a literallty drop in the ocean. You ain't seen nothing yet.

rjsterry

What I know about the NHS would fit on a postage stamp, so I'm not really qualified to comment, but from what I understand, but this is only the public sector taking the hit that the private sector (at least in my industry) took a year ago. Government spending has delayed the effect of the recession somewhat, partly to try and kickstart the private sector, but that was mostly borrowed money, which now has to be paid back. I don't see that the Tory/Lib Dem 'war machine' (?) have much option really.

I do get slightly bored of the 'too much management' rant that is so common. Maybe there is too much management, but nurses (to pick an emotive example) need organising by someone, and their jobs don't have some intrinsically greater value than managers.

el_presidente

TailWindHome wrote:

I can't get my head round who you actually work for.

Is it tax payer funded?

Is it under threat?

Everything is under threat

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

I can't get my head round who you actually work for.

Is it tax payer funded?

Is it under threat?

Funds come from DH, subscriptions, sponsorship and other organisations who benefit from its existence such as drug companies.

Unless you're an established charity its safe to say that most are under threat.

I'm just interested in what happens to the Health sector because I've spent four years and change working within it.

My career path (marketing with aspirations towards business development and business straegy - type jobs) means that I would benefit from leaving this sector.

Kiblams

DonDaddyD wrote:

Define proper job?

I don't disagree, I don't think that a person being able to afford a Mercedes or BMW should be the subject of resentment. People work in the jobs they are hired for.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with people who can afford nice cars, I just have an issue with middle management and the governments unhealthy obsession with funding 'workshops' and 'groups' facilitating 'consultants' ability to bleed the economy dry.

My reference to a proper job in this instance is one which is given to someone who has the most knowledge and working experience in the area that they are working in, or that those working under them are in.

Working your way up the in a chosen feild is the most efficient way of doing this, not hiring clueless business graduates into management positions who know very little about the jobs/pressures/motivation of those working under them.

This is of course my own personal opinion

DonDaddyD

el_presidente wrote:

the national debt equates to £45,000 for Every household in the country. Our taxes need to pay this back.

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

when these people are out of work, what do you think it'll do to taxes and the economy?

paying someone £50 a week on the dole is cheaper than paying them say £50,000 net of tax received.

That's too simplistic.

If you have 10 people earning and 5 people on the dole. Then you take in more revenue from tax than you do. 5 people earning and 10 people on the dole. Couple that with the fact that the reduced income from tax and increase of paying benefits reduces the Governments money further and you're in a situation that isn't sustainable. Most likely solution, the Government taxes the people employed more.

Then there is the fact that less people working means less money in circulation, economy slows due to a lack of public spending and people generally spending money (both employed and unemployed) and that's where shit hits the fan for the private sector.

So it isn't a good thing to increase unemployment levels without a workable solution to reduce said levels.

I do get slightly bored of the 'too much management' rant that is so common. Maybe there is too much management, but nurses (to pick an emotive example) need organising by someone, and their jobs don't have some intrinsically greater value than managers.

There are some tokenistic roles and there are some creative job titles. Services could be made more efficient. I just don't want a bunch of NHS workers also looking for jobs alongside the 2million already unemployed people at a time when I'm shaping to make a significant career move.

Porgy

I'm not misty eyed about the NHS despite my past life as a Labour Party member. It seriously needs reform. Rather than sacking people though I believe in making people do their jobs efficiently and effectively - and the NHS still has a long way to go in that respect. I also believe in making people more responsible for their own good health - education rather than stick mind you. It's time the NHS was seriously reformed - and by that I do NOT mean privatised. i've never understood why people believe privatising something saves money - it merely puts the organisation beyond regulatory control and ensures that off the books accounting becomes rife; sharholders win, taxpayer loses.

I seriously doubt that Cameron has the balls to do what needs to be done...but we shall see.

jedster

DDD,

the thing is, as you may have followed from the whol Greece/PIIGS/Euro crisis, investors are in no mood to trust governments who don't appear to be serious about reducing their deficits. What this means is that if our Government doesnt take steps to close the deficit they may not be able to borrow more on reasonable terms. As they are currently borrowing more than £1 in £10 that they spend, this could mean that they are forced to make savage cuts very quickly (see Greece). So the choice is gradually ratchet up the pain in a considered manner or risk having to slash and burn at a moments notice.

Not a nice choice but actually not a difficult one either IMO.

J

Porgy

The GPs out my way could all do with a shake up - either cut their pay or send them to work in inner London - where for 7 years, living in Camberwell, I was unable to find a GP who would take me on!!

for that matter - why not level health provision to that of the avergae person living in Lambeth or southwark - that would save billions!

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

when these people are out of work, what do you think it'll do to taxes and the economy?

LOL as the tax they paid is at the very most just under 40% of the total pay out of tax receipts, the tax situation will get better!

As for NHS being the first target, no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Simon

DonDaddyD

Kiblams wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Define proper job?

I don't disagree, I don't think that a person being able to afford a Mercedes or BMW should be the subject of resentment. People work in the jobs they are hired for.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with people who can afford nice cars, I just have an issue with middle management and the governments unhealthy obsession with funding 'workshops' and 'groups' facilitating 'consultants' ability to bleed the economy dry.

My reference to a proper job in this instance is one which is given to someone who has the most knowledge and working experience in the area that they are working in, or that those working under them are in.

Working your way up the in a chosen feild is the most efficient way of doing this, not hiring clueless business graduates into management positions who know very little about the jobs/pressures/motivation of those working under them.

This is of course my own personal opinion

Middle management exists because it isn't practicle for a Director to actively manage a department that could span numerous departments in numerous locations around a City (or the Country) on a day to day basis.

tailwindhome

The Beginner wrote:

no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Why stupid?

They seemed liked a decent idea, encouraging families to build a nest egg for their kids future, benefiting from tax free interest.

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The coalition have got a war machine, the country needs to be on a war footing. The NHS will need to get in the trenches like everyone else.

when these people are out of work, what do you think it'll do to taxes and the economy?

LOL as the tax they paid is at the very most just under 40% of the total pay out of tax receipts, the tax situation will get better!

Simon

How will it get better if less people are paying taxes and more people are claiming benefits paid from taxes, of which their is less.

Plus, yes public funded salaries are in part paid for through the Governement but that money is then reinvested into the economy. With less of it it doesn't then become better.

Kiblams

DonDaddyD wrote:

Middle management exists because it isn't practicle for a Director to actively manage a department that could span numerous departments in numerous locations around a City (or the Country) on a day to day basis.

*slaps forehead* And there was me thinking that they cleaned the toilets

DonDaddyD

Kiblams wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Middle management exists because it isn't practicle for a Director to actively manage a department that could span numerous departments in numerous locations around a City (or the Country) on a day to day basis.

*slaps forehead* And there was me thinking that they cleaned the toilets

So if there is a necessary need for them, why such the militant stance?

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

How will it get better if less people are paying taxes and more people are claiming benefits paid from taxes, of which their is less.
.

When talking about a service industry like tyhe NHS yes, their total beneifts plus the taxes they are no longer paying will still be a lot less than most will claim in benefits, or you are saying they will be better off on benefits!

TailWindHome wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Why stupid?

They seemed liked a decent idea, encouraging families to build a nest egg for their kids future, benefiting from tax free interest.

Stupid because the first rule of saving is don't until your debt is under control, there is no evidence that those who added to the vouchers wouldn't have saved anyway, and those kids getting them will be the ones paying off this debt they add to in 25 years time, although with interest that will then be about 2.5 times what they got!

Simon

Kiblams

Kiblams wrote:

Working your way up the in a chosen feild is the most efficient way of doing this, not hiring clueless business graduates into management positions who know very little about the jobs/pressures/motivation of those working under them.

This is of course my own personal opinion

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

How will it get better if less people are paying taxes and more people are claiming benefits paid from taxes, of which their is less.
.

When talking about a service industry like tyhe NHS yes, their total beneifts plus the taxes they are no longer paying will still be a lot less than most will claim in benefits, or you are saying they will be better off on benefits!

Hang on, I thought that's what you were saying. That the Government would be better off with public funded workers on benefit because they would essentially be paying them less.

itsbruce

I am deliberately not reading any of this, because I like a lot of people here and politics threads are normally nothing but trouble. There are forums in other places created for the purpose of having this kind of argument, but this isn't it.

If it were about transport cuts, that'd be relevant enough to justify the potential trouble.

el_presidente

TailWindHome wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Why stupid?

They seemed liked a decent idea, encouraging families to build a nest egg for their kids future, benefiting from tax free interest.

The idea is sound, unfortunatley there is no money to pay for them

So effectively you are borowing money now, paying it to the child, then the child has to pay it back (plus interest) in taxes when they reach adulthood.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Kiblams wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Middle management exists because it isn't practicle for a Director to actively manage a department that could span numerous departments in numerous locations around a City (or the Country) on a day to day basis.

*slaps forehead* And there was me thinking that they cleaned the toilets

So if there is a necessary need for them, why such the militant stance?

I've seen both sides of this - by actually being middle management myself, albeit in a small firm (no BMW yet As. If.), and my wife being treated like crap in a large plc, where the nest rung up on the ladder spent more time rearranging everything to make the figures for their department (and hence them) look good than they ever did managing anything. As with the workforce in general, there are good middle management and bad middle management.

My biggest issue with the public sector (based on my experience with local authority planning departments) is that you seem to have o be catastrophically bad at your job for it to be legitimate for you to lose it, whereas in the private sector, if you aren't much cop, you'll be the first to go when times are tight.

Aidy

DonDaddyD wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

paying someone £50 a week on the dole is cheaper than paying them say £50,000 net of tax received.

That's too simplistic.

If you have 10 people earning and 5 people on the dole. Then you take in more revenue from tax than you do. 5 people earning and 10 people on the dole. Couple that with the fact that the reduced income from tax and increase of paying benefits reduces the Governments money further and you're in a situation that isn't sustainable. Most likely solution, the Government taxes the people employed more.

That works if you're talking about private sector employment, but in this case, all the money is presumably coming out of the same pot.

rolf_f

itsbruce wrote:

I am deliberately not reading any of this, because I like a lot of people here and politics threads are normally nothing but trouble. There are forums in other places created for the purpose of having this kind of argument, but this isn't it.

If you haven't read any of this, how do you know that the thread hasn't evloved into a discussion about whether baby ducks or fluffy kittens are the cutest?!

CiB

Gawd it's lefty corner again. It's not difficult to gauge DDD's stance on this and that it's another excuse to waste some screen ink, not when the thread title includes the words 'war on NHS' and 'first casualty'. Blox.

We've finally got shut of the biggest bunch of wasters ever. The govt who inherited a decent economy, p!ssed it all up the wall in an orgy of spending & borrowing, who never once considered that it might be a good idea to build up a bit of surplus or to keep debt in check, who floooded the market with our gold reserves and wondered why they didn't raise as much as they expected, and who steadily created an army of people dependent or just used to being on the benefits system. Heck even we get benefits. What sort of system is it that takes a load of tax off me, passes it through a ridiculous beaurocracy and then gives it to my wife in the form of Childrens Tax Credit. I can give it to her without employing 10,000 people to pass it round until it gets back to us 4 months later. Jeez. I'll be first in the queue cheering to give it back when Dave abolishes CTC.

The country is now on the edge of financial ruin. Thankfully we have a coalition that agrees on the need to make cuts. There's no option; the financial world agrees and expects as such. If Brown & Darling were still at the helm with Mandy pulling the levers we could kiss goodbye to any idea of us ever coming out of this debt. We'd still be borrowing to fund 'the plan'. FFS and all that.

No one organisation is sacrosant or immune from cuts. Live with it everyone. Cuts are a coming. If that includes the NHS so be it. It's far too big anyway now and has so outgrown its original purpose and premise that slimming it back a bit won't be such a bad idea.

</rant at bloody lefties who think that only Brown can possibly govern this country. Good riddance to the useless clot>

tailwindhome

The Beginner wrote:

Stupid because the first rule of saving is don't until your debt is under control

Your possibly right there. For example if I owe a fortune on credit cards, I'm better paying them off before opening a deposit account.

However this doesn't explain why the Child Trust Vouchers at 1/2 billion cost should go, more than the National Savings, ISA, Premium Bonds, Tax breaks on pensions.

Is it possible that the means tested Child Vouchers were benefiting lower income families

.

Brian Morris, of the Building Societies Association, said: 'This is disappointing as CTFs are a very good way of getting children into the habit of saving. It will hit hardest those on lower incomes.'

The Beginner wrote:

There is no evidence that those who added to the vouchers wouldn't have saved anyway

By last month, 3.7million CTFs had been opened - holding more than £2billion.
Fewer than one in five parents were saving for their children before their launch in April 2003 but this has now risen to three in five.

Quotes from the Daily Mail