Would you scalp George Osborne

greg66_tri_v2.0

Herbie The Dog wrote:

Who was it in the Nazi party who said "the principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily"

I think that came from an episode of the X-Files.

How d'you feel about, ohh, I dunno... Climate Change?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.

It's not a FACT at all.

If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.

There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.

I find it very bizarre that your automatic reasoning for the NHS being such a large employer is "mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff". Even after DDD briefly explained ways in which efficiency is improved and budgets reduced, you ignore everything he said and then just went back to the "Lazy Public Sector Criticism" script...

I find it equally bizarre that you are such a public sector apologist - that's a "script" too I suoppose. It's your tax money that is being wasted, surely you object to that?

It is logical to conclude that if other countries do not require such a large health service then there is something going wrong with ours. My experience of the public sector would point the finger at mismanagement, inefficiency and an inability to fire useless staff. There may well be other factors, such as abuse by overuse (which is why I would agree fothat small charges should be levied to put off the time-wasters and those who don't show up) but that still doesn't justify the enormous size of the NHS for our relatively small, developed country.

Out of interest, do you have an example of a health service/system that you do think is the 'right' size and provides a good service? I'm guessing that you have another western European country in mind (I'm pretty sure you don't mean the U.S.)

In my experience the Australian system is a good example of how to deal with a national health case system without it becoming an oversized burden.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Dirtydog11 wrote:

It is not standard practice for families in this country to leave money in trust. Most families I know leave wills which are subject to inhertance tax, so whats wrong with Osbourne leaving a will?

They haven't bothered to look into tax planning and Osborne snr has?

Just a guess...

W1

Dirtydog11 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Dirtydog11 wrote:

Tax Dodger!

Apparently his father is leaving him several million in trust. By leaving it in trust Mr Osbourne junior stands to make an extra couple of million by avoiding inhertance tax.

Whilst the practice is perfectly legal it once again raises doubts as to the integrity and moral standing of our leaders.

Do as we say not as we do.

It's perfectly legal, as you say. Should politicians and their families pay more in tax than they are obliged to? Should anyone? Do you?

In fact there's nothing to stop others doing as he is doing.....

No they should pay the same as everyone else, but from a moral standpoint its wrong when tens of thousands of people are going to get their jobs sacrificed in order help cut the deficit.

It is not standard practice for families in this country to leave money in trust. Most families I know leave wills which are subject to inhertance tax, so whats wrong with Osbourne leaving a will?

No moral integrity! Sorry but a lot of them in it just for themselves.

Sorry, I don't understand why it's wrong?

And it's not as though the trust structure is exclusively for politicians - so if other families don't make use of it, that's up to them - that's their choice, isn't it?

I agree that a lot of them are just in it for themselves (Labour were hot at that) but I don't think this is a great example.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

OK, so it's NOT a FACT that "if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that". So why state that it is?

Oh yeah, sorry, that's a FACT too.

Pretty obvious that one I'd have thought.

What? I thought we'd established that that isn't a FACT at all?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Do you know that no other European Country (or any Country) doesn't? Do you, as a starting point, have an understanding of how technology to provide better treatment and services is developed? Do you have a grasp of how many services are provided and the staff needed to perform, say, a life saving operation?

If other countries don't undertake as much as the NHS - why not? Why do we?

If other countries do undertake as much as the NHS do - why aren't their health services as large, if not bigger, than the NHS?

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Less altruistically, we have rather made a mess of quite a few places, and from a security point of view, it's in our own interest to try and clear up that mess.

Yes... I have to admit that I've never been able to swallow the whole "evil Imperialist power that ruined large tracts of the world" line. I rather think that the Empire did quite a lot of good (esp if compared to other global empires of the last 2000 years).

Some good, some bad. I was thinking more recently of Iraq and Afghanistan, where I would imagine a lot of the money is heading. People are generally less likely to go off and join some militia or terrorist group if they are usefully employed and can put food on the table (although that's obviously vastly oversimplified).

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Less altruistically, we have rather made a mess of quite a few places, and from a security point of view, it's in our own interest to try and clear up that mess.

Yes... I have to admit that I've never been able to swallow the whole "evil Imperialist power that ruined large tracts of the world" line. I rather think that the Empire did quite a lot of good (esp if compared to other global empires of the last 2000 years).

Some good, some bad. I was thinking more recently of Iraq and Afghanistan, where I would imagine a lot of the money is heading. People are generally less likely to go off and join some militia or terrorist group if they are usefully employed and can put food on the table (although that's obviously vastly oversimplified).

True, but in countries such as those (and there are many others) I've never really understood how we ensure that the funds we send go to the "right" people, and not into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Heaven forfend such politicians actually existing, obviously.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.

It's not a FACT at all.

If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.

There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.

I find it very bizarre that your automatic reasoning for the NHS being such a large employer is "mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff". Even after DDD briefly explained ways in which efficiency is improved and budgets reduced, you ignore everything he said and then just went back to the "Lazy Public Sector Criticism" script...

I find it equally bizarre that you are such a public sector apologist - that's a "script" too I suoppose. It's your tax money that is being wasted, surely you object to that?

It is logical to conclude that if other countries do not require such a large health service then there is something going wrong with ours. My experience of the public sector would point the finger at mismanagement, inefficiency and an inability to fire useless staff. There may well be other factors, such as abuse by overuse (which is why I would agree fothat small charges should be levied to put off the time-wasters and those who don't show up) but that still doesn't justify the enormous size of the NHS for our relatively small, developed country.

Out of interest, do you have an example of a health service/system that you do think is the 'right' size and provides a good service? I'm guessing that you have another western European country in mind (I'm pretty sure you don't mean the U.S.)

In my experience the Australian system is a good example of how to deal with a national health case system without it becoming an oversized burden.

Although from what I've heard, life expectancy in some aboriginal communities is pretty disastrous, so maybe its not as universal as the NHS (granted that the NHS is not as universal as it should be). Without wanting to get in to Australian politics (of which I know very little), I think one measure of how good a health care system is how it deals with those who can't afford to contribute to it.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Less altruistically, we have rather made a mess of quite a few places, and from a security point of view, it's in our own interest to try and clear up that mess.

Yes... I have to admit that I've never been able to swallow the whole "evil Imperialist power that ruined large tracts of the world" line. I rather think that the Empire did quite a lot of good (esp if compared to other global empires of the last 2000 years).

Some good, some bad. I was thinking more recently of Iraq and Afghanistan, where I would imagine a lot of the money is heading. People are generally less likely to go off and join some militia or terrorist group if they are usefully employed and can put food on the table (although that's obviously vastly oversimplified).

True, but in countries such as those (and there are many others) I've never really understood how we ensure that the funds we send go to the "right" people, and not into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Heaven forfend such politicians actually existing, obviously.

I once had a fairly heated argument with someone who refused to give anything to charity on the basis that it 'all' went to middle men/corrupt politicians/etc. I think you have to be realistic about it, but hope that at least some of it gets through even if a proportion has to be written off to corruption. Looked at another way, if you are offering a chap with an RPG and an AK47 £1,000 to become a farmer instead, is he the 'right' person or not? No easy answers.

jamesco

W1 wrote:

It's also the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese army and the Indian Railway! If that isn't a great example of a bloated government department ripe for a cull I don't know what is...

If that isn't a great example of a load of bollocks, I don't know what is...

The UK spends 8.2% of GDP on healthcare; by comparison, the US spends 15.9% and gets worse outcomes.

About 14,000,000 people are employed in healthcare in the US, which means that proportionally the UK has a lot fewer people employed in healthcare. Just because they're employed in the same "government department" doesn't make it inefficient, quite the opposite.

tailwindhome

notsoblue wrote:

We're all in this together.

You really believe that?

W1

jamesco wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's also the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese army and the Indian Railway! If that isn't a great example of a bloated government department ripe for a cull I don't know what is...

If that isn't a great example of a load of bollocks, I don't know what is...

The UK spends 8.2% of GDP on healthcare; by comparison, the US spends 15.9% and gets worse outcomes.

About 14,000,000 people are employed in healthcare in the US, which means that proportionally the UK has a lot fewer people employed in healthcare. Just because they're employed in the same "government department" doesn't make it inefficient, quite the opposite.

I think you've just answered your own question!

Just because the US is worse, the NHS is a beacon of efficiency then?

Ball-cocks.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

We're all in this together.

You really believe that?

Unless you can emigrate (and Gordo having devalued sterling by about 20% over the last couple of years has made that a more expensive proposition - nothing like a captive audience when you were planning to tax and spend your way out of [sic] trouble, eh?), yes.

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But seriously what's your thoughts?

...That I think it was wrong to protect the NHS...

Hell yes. Utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, the poor and the sick get on my nerves too

Let them die

See, that's the problem. Argue that the NHS should face some cuts and the response is barely above the level of "won't somebody think of the children!?"

Some of the crap that the NHS spends money on is ridiculous.

Hmmmm

On the other hand those who advocate cuts start talking about consultants, middle managers and homeopathic medicine.

I don't see your point. Your initial post owed more to emotion than to reason. I put forward a number of areas which could be considered ripe for a culling. Are you saying the amount of cash the NHS spends on consultants, middle managers and homeopathy is appropriate? If not, what?

My initial post was uneducated, ill informed, regurgitiated bollocks.

There's a lot of it about.

jamesco

W1 wrote:

I think you've just answered your own question!

Just because the US is worse, the NHS is a beacon of efficiency then?

Ball-cocks.

W1, you've said that the NHS is "ripe for a cull" based on the number of employees, but haven't justified this - go ahead, explain.

Turns out that the UK has the most efficient health care system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877

Sure, there's gonna be inefficiencies, and the 4 million or so spent on homeopathy is one example. But that's only 0.0036% of the NHS budget - where else would your axe swing?

shouldbeinbed

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

We're all in this together.

You really believe that?

God no. I would have thought the absurdity of the phrase would have made the sarcasm clear :P

cjcp

shouldbeinbed wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

France seems to have dealt with it a lot better, while Germany have supposedly put their recession behind him. Didn't Brown kick Prudence into touch? Yes, the financial strife would have affected the UK, but a bit more caution over spending from Brown would have been a good idea.

Clever Pun

My 'inside' view of the NHS

Having spoken to computer contractors there(earning 350-600per day) saying that its a gold mine porly managed projects going way over budget with systems designed on the back of a fag packet.

these guys are there for the long haul (+2years) permies could do the same job easily enough costing significantly less

so yeah there's quite a lot of wasteage that's even before you get to levels of management

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think that

*Education

*Health

*Police and related services

Should have been largely protected. Those for me are the key things that help maintain and keep a healthy society.

You forgot Defence. Security of the nation and all that.

See, it's a lot easier to play the game of protecting things than it is to cut...

Without proper understanding of what each service does, how they are run, constraints, resources and proper scrutiny of how they are managed and performance vs targets vs quality....

As a core ideological principle I would protect health, education and police and look, initially, to cut the rest. (with more clarity, that might change).

What you have to consider is that when/where I was growing up, I perceived those as much needed.

coopster_the_1st

shouldbeinbed wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

I'll counter that with Canada and Australia. Why are these two of the best countries at the moment and neither having been affected in anyway like the UK?

If a different road had been taken rather than the 'spend your way out of debt' approach, we would be looking at a completely different budget today...

W1

jamesco wrote:

W1 wrote:

I think you've just answered your own question!

Just because the US is worse, the NHS is a beacon of efficiency then?

Ball-cocks.

W1, you've said that the NHS is "ripe for a cull" based on the number of employees, but haven't justified this - go ahead, explain.

Turns out that the UK has the most efficient health care system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877

Sure, there's gonna be inefficiencies, and the 4 million or so spent on homeopathy is one example. But that's only 0.0036% of the NHS budget - where else would your axe swing?

Oh, I don't know - somewhere like here perhaps:

Clever Pun wrote:

My 'inside' view of the NHS

Having spoken to computer contractors there(earning 350-600per day) saying that its a gold mine porly managed projects going way over budget with systems designed on the back of a fag packet.

these guys are there for the long haul (+2years) permies could do the same job easily enough costing significantly less

so yeah there's quite a lot of wasteage that's even before you get to levels of management

Did you read that artuicle? There are significant issues with the accuracy of the report, as the authors of it state.

W1

So, it turns out that all this government is doing is returning government spending to the long term average - in other words, all that's being "cut" is Labours excessive and reckless over-spending.

Good.

mickbrown

How much did they enjoy it though? Announcing massive cuts, people being thrown out of work and they are a whooping and a hollering.

Feckers, one and all.

That's Labour's next election campaign video sewn up. Jobless figures next to images of Cameron and Clegg slapping Gideon on the back.

tailwindhome

I believe in a National Health Service free at the point of delivery, paid for by the tax contributions of those who can afford to contribute and provided to all citizens irrespective of their ability to paid and based soley on clinical need.

This health service won't be cheap to run, so it must be run as efficiently as possible.

Here's the problem though:

If the health service provides 20,000 operations at £1000 each that costs £20 million

Now say I want to make savings of 25% on this budget (cutting to £15 million)

It would be terribly naive to believe that the NHS will suddenly be able to reduce the cost of an operation to £750. The more likely scenario is that only 15,000 ops will be performed.

(I don't really expect an answer to this post. I'm just thinking out loud really)

simonaspinall

Yes we have an increasing and growing population, however people are less fit, eat a worse diet, drink more and are less active + are kept alive longer on drugs.

The NHS can't go on being a crutch for people who don't take the responsibility for their own lifestyle and demand healthcare despite their foolish behaviour.

More focus on the prevention (hard bit) and less on treating people.

waddlie

TailWindHome wrote:

I believe in a National Health Service free at the point of delivery, paid for by the tax contributions of those who can afford to contribute and provided to all citizens irrespective of their ability to paid and based soley on clinical need.

This health service won't be cheap to run, so it must be run as efficiently as possible.

Agreed.

TailWindHome wrote:

Here's the problem though:

If the health service provides 20,000 operations at £1000 each that costs £20 million

Now say I want to make savings of 25% on this budget (cutting to £15 million)

It would be terribly naive to believe that the NHS will suddenly be able to reduce the cost of an operation to £750. The more likely scenario is that only 15,000 ops will be performed.

(I don't really expect an answer to this post. I'm just thinking out loud really)

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6259718.ece

...and less of this...

http://www.recruiter.co.uk/news/nao-poor-management-causes-nhs-overspend/331451.article

...and this...

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/health/s/1242023_nhs_wastes_26m_in_operations_gaffe

...and you may find that you've saved £15 million and can still carry out all your operations. And I haven't even mentioned PFI yet..

simonaspinall

Coopster the 1st wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

I'll counter that with Canada and Australia. Why are these two of the best countries at the moment and neither having been affected in anyway like the UK?

If a different road had been taken rather than the 'spend your way out of debt' approach, we would be looking at a completely different budget today...

They are resource and extraction based economy (particularly Canada) with large areas available for mining and extraction with a much smaller population to support in relation to the resources available than say the US/UK.

rjsterry

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I believe in a National Health Service free at the point of delivery, paid for by the tax contributions of those who can afford to contribute and provided to all citizens irrespective of their ability to paid and based soley on clinical need.

This health service won't be cheap to run, so it must be run as efficiently as possible.

Agreed.

TailWindHome wrote:

Here's the problem though:

If the health service provides 20,000 operations at £1000 each that costs £20 million

Now say I want to make savings of 25% on this budget (cutting to £15 million)

It would be terribly naive to believe that the NHS will suddenly be able to reduce the cost of an operation to £750. The more likely scenario is that only 15,000 ops will be performed.

(I don't really expect an answer to this post. I'm just thinking out loud really)

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6259718.ece

...and less of this...

http://www.recruiter.co.uk/news/nao-poor-management-causes-nhs-overspend/331451.article

...and this...

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/health/s/1242023_nhs_wastes_26m_in_operations_gaffe

...and you may find that you've saved £15 million and can still carry out all your operations. And I haven't even mentioned PFI yet..

From what I've seen of PFI, it is colossally inefficient. Each bidder has to spend vast sums (10s of millions) on preparing it's tender, and for every successful tender, there will be 5 or 6 unsuccessful tenders. Because it's the same consortia bidding again and again, they all add on a margin to cover the bids they don't win, and the whole thing becomes much more expensive than it should be.