Would you scalp George Osborne

cjcp

simonaspinall wrote:

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.

But, esp. with Canada, they seem to have more conservative banks. Also, I thought Germany didn't have a huge supply of natural resources (could be wrong, though).

notsoblue

cjcp wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

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.

But, esp. with Canada, they seem to have more conservative banks. Also, I thought Germany didn't have a huge supply of natural resources (could be wrong, though).

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

cjcp

notsoblue wrote:

cjcp wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

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.

But, esp. with Canada, they seem to have more conservative banks. Also, I thought Germany didn't have a huge supply of natural resources (could be wrong, though).

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

Yup, but I was commenting on the resource bit specifically.

As we don't seem to make much stuff anyone wants, all the more reason to watch our spending, I reckon,/

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

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

0.5% of a organisations budget on outside consultancy doesn't seem like reckless spending to me. I have nothing to cut and paste to prove this, but I would have thought that %age spend would be typical of large organisations in the private sector also.

I wouldn't be suprised if that figure went up.

notsoblue

cjcp wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

Yup, but I was commenting on the resource bit specifically.

As we don't seem to make much stuff anyone wants, all the more reason to watch our spending, I reckon,/

Yep. One of the main criticisms I have of New Labour was this drive to make everyone middle class. The "50% of School Leavers to go to University" effort was a very bad idea in my opinion. It seemed to be an engine to generate middle managers. But it just devalued having a degree, encouraged young people to get heavily into debt, and gave them a sense of entitlement that the economy just can't satisfy in many cases.

Also, from my lay perspective, service industry focused economies are far less resilient than those more balanced by manufacturing or resource exploitation. As we can see now.

waddlie

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

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

0.5% of a organisations budget on outside consultancy doesn't seem like reckless spending to me. I have nothing to cut and paste to prove this, but I would have thought that %age spend would be typical of large organisations in the private sector also.

I wouldn't be suprised if that figure went up.

Surely it depends on what outside consultancy is for. If the money directly contributed to patient care, you could indeed argue that it was money well spent. However, from the report I linked to...

The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today...

...About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care, said Peter Carter, the RCN chief executive, who obtained the figures through freedom of information legislation.

The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

cjcp wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

Yup, but I was commenting on the resource bit specifically.

As we don't seem to make much stuff anyone wants, all the more reason to watch our spending, I reckon,/

Yep. One of the main criticisms I have of New Labour was this drive to make everyone middle class. The "50% of School Leavers to go to University" effort was a very bad idea in my opinion. It seemed to be an engine to generate middle managers. But it just devalued having a degree, encouraged young people to get heavily into debt, and gave them a sense of entitlement that the economy just can't satisfy in many cases.

Also, from my lay perspective, service industry focused economies are far less resilient than those more balanced by manufacturing or resource exploitation. As we can see now.

I agree - but what that target also did was appear to devalue the "skills" and trades meaning that there is an assumption that you must have a dregree, and if you have a degree you can't become a plumber. There should have been much more support, and much more value, placed on trades, skills and apprentices (plus other vocational qualifications) rather than degrees.

notsoblue

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.

I totally agree with this, and I'd be interested to know what W1 thinks of it.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

cjcp wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

Yup, but I was commenting on the resource bit specifically.

As we don't seem to make much stuff anyone wants, all the more reason to watch our spending, I reckon,/

Yep. One of the main criticisms I have of New Labour was this drive to make everyone middle class. The "50% of School Leavers to go to University" effort was a very bad idea in my opinion. It seemed to be an engine to generate middle managers. But it just devalued having a degree, encouraged young people to get heavily into debt, and gave them a sense of entitlement that the economy just can't satisfy in many cases.

Also, from my lay perspective, service industry focused economies are far less resilient than those more balanced by manufacturing or resource exploitation. As we can see now.

I agree - but what that target also did was appear to devalue the "skills" and trades meaning that there is an assumption that you must have a dregree, and if you have a degree you can't become a plumber. There should have been much more support, and much more value, placed on trades, skills and apprentices (plus other vocational qualifications) rather than degrees.

Yep, absolutely. I honestly feel that New Labour caused damage through doing this. The sad thing is that now many apprenticeship schemes are being abandoned due to cuts that the new government is bringing in. So things aren't going to get better with the Coalition in power. Actually I have first hand experience of this as I've been pushing to get IT apprentices into my department recently. Finally managed to get it all sorted out, and the first apprentice is starting soon. However the scheme we're using is being stopped in April of next year due to their funding being removed by the government. A real shame imo.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

cjcp wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

Yup, but I was commenting on the resource bit specifically.

As we don't seem to make much stuff anyone wants, all the more reason to watch our spending, I reckon,/

Yep. One of the main criticisms I have of New Labour was this drive to make everyone middle class. The "50% of School Leavers to go to University" effort was a very bad idea in my opinion. It seemed to be an engine to generate middle managers. But it just devalued having a degree, encouraged young people to get heavily into debt, and gave them a sense of entitlement that the economy just can't satisfy in many cases.

Also, from my lay perspective, service industry focused economies are far less resilient than those more balanced by manufacturing or resource exploitation. As we can see now.

I agree - but what that target also did was appear to devalue the "skills" and trades meaning that there is an assumption that you must have a dregree, and if you have a degree you can't become a plumber. There should have been much more support, and much more value, placed on trades, skills and apprentices (plus other vocational qualifications) rather than degrees.

Now *this* we can agree on. It's not surprising so many skilled tradesmen from the rest of the EU come over to the UK for work; not only are they prepared to work for less, but they can often do a better job.

W1

notsoblue 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.

I totally agree with this, and I'd be interested to know what W1 thinks of it.

The problem with being free at the point of delivery is that, like everything which is free, there is a risk of abuse of that service.

Introducing a small charge will deter the time-wasters, the bored, the lonely, the "professionally" ill and will also deter people from missing appointments (which in 2004 was costing the NHS £160m a year http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3591156.stm). That will increase efficiency and free up resources. It already happens with prescriptions, so I don't see why it shouldn't happen with appointments (or do you think that there shouldn't be prescription charges either?)

Of course there should be no charge for those who cannot afford it, and I appreciate that there is a risk that those who are genuinely ill may be deterred from seeing their doctor. Both of these need to be kept in mind. But making something free means there is no disincentive to abusing that service, to the detriment of those who genuinely need it.

I am all in favour of the welfare state (much as you may consider me to be a facist, I am far from it) but it is there for those who need, rather than simply want, to use it. And it must be as efficient as possible, because taxation is not voluntary and there is therefore a responsibility not to waste money which peope are legally obliged to pay (and off for 30 pages of argument about the public sector....)

asprilla

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

Finding permies is easier said than done. My IT function is currently about 50% contractor and the new CTO wants to bring that down to 25%. Unfortunately, since almost all work is funded on a per project basis you simply can't get perm people in.

Also a large percentage of IT workers are contract only and are unwilling to become perm.

simonaspinall

Whether you hate the Tories or not, whoever you blame for this crisis...

Labour did some very positive things, but then they also pissed a lot of money up the wall. Like, properly wasted lots of money.

It's unfortunate that there are a lot of people losing their jobs.I sincerely believe this is because they were hired by a government that couldn't afford them and they are paying the consequences of making employment decisions based on political decisions rather than realistic and sustainable service provision backed by inland revenue income.

Yes, after the Tories the country needed to re-build its public services but there are ways and means and the Labour government may have had good intentions, but awful implementation.

Those public sector workers will pay the price of short-term ministerial thinking.

The only option is to eitehr raise a lot more tax which I think many of the population would disagree with and wouldn't see the value in keeping the status quo and feel that the government plans didn't represent taxpayer value for money or privatise the services and privatise any profit that is made.

Could be very relevant to the road infrastructure in the future - a regulated industry providing roads, tolls and enforcement cameras with the profits going to the management companies. In fact, I think the government has earmarked about £75bn over 5 -10 years to do this. Maybe then with decent modern speed cameras people really will be caught and evidence of bad driving will end up in court with the guilty being appropriately sentenced.

W1

simonaspinall wrote:

Could be very relevant to the road infrastructure in the future - a regulated industry providing roads, tolls and enforcement cameras with the profits going to the management companies. In fact, I think the government has earmarked about £75bn over 5 -10 years to do this. Maybe then with decent modern speed cameras people really will be caught and evidence of bad driving will end up in court with the guilty being appropriately sentenced.

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

simonaspinall

W1 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Could be very relevant to the road infrastructure in the future - a regulated industry providing roads, tolls and enforcement cameras with the profits going to the management companies. In fact, I think the government has earmarked about £75bn over 5 -10 years to do this. Maybe then with decent modern speed cameras people really will be caught and evidence of bad driving will end up in court with the guilty being appropriately sentenced.

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

Well, the latest generation of video analytic and 3G Digital camera technology has ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) which can capture an accurate pic, read the number plate, cross-ref against a database held by the DVLA and check insurance, VED details etc.

Admittedly it can't catch drunk drivers etc but they never claimed that could happen. What analytics can do is record movement and detect if a car is conducting illegal manouveres, the extent to which they are breaking the speed limit. The 3G technology can stream to a central system and can automate a lot of the manual processes which occurred previously - Making this a lot more attractive in cost terms to a private company.

So speed cameras don't catch catastrophically bad drivers but they can get a lot more intelligent - and manage traffic flow and monitor incredible trends.

The only restriction will be the approval by the DfT and the DVLA as it takes about 5 years to get any technology through. It is the way of the future for camera technology though. More processing power, more software and more accurate collection and processing of data on traffic.

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

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

0.5% of a organisations budget on outside consultancy doesn't seem like reckless spending to me. I have nothing to cut and paste to prove this, but I would have thought that %age spend would be typical of large organisations in the private sector also.

I wouldn't be suprised if that figure went up.

Surely it depends on what outside consultancy is for. If the money directly contributed to patient care, you could indeed argue that it was money well spent. However, from the report I linked to...

The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today...

...About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care, said Peter Carter, the RCN chief executive, who obtained the figures through freedom of information legislation.

The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

Of course it depends on what the money was spent on.

If you want the NHS to be run on 'business' lines then spending money on 'outside' expertise seems inevitable and it will be spend in areas not directly related to patient care such as procurement, IT, audit, management etc etc.

To comment on the 'effectiveness' of the £273 million spent "increasing competition and support bids for foundation status' would require knowledge I don't possess. Did these initiatives improve efficiency?

However I'm sure the vast majority of those commentating share this lack of in depth knowledge. Their analysis is along the lines of <splutter>£350 milliion.....Management Consultants?....What a waste"<splutter>

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue 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.

I totally agree with this, and I'd be interested to know what W1 thinks of it.

The problem with being free at the point of delivery is that, like everything which is free, there is a risk of abuse of that service.

Introducing a small charge will deter the time-wasters, the bored, the lonely, the "professionally" ill and will also deter people from missing appointments (which in 2004 was costing the NHS £160m a year http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3591156.stm). That will increase efficiency and free up resources. It already happens with prescriptions, so I don't see why it shouldn't happen with appointments (or do you think that there shouldn't be prescription charges either?)

Of course there should be no charge for those who cannot afford it, and I appreciate that there is a risk that those who are genuinely ill may be deterred from seeing their doctor. Both of these need to be kept in mind. But making something free means there is no disincentive to abusing that service, to the detriment of those who genuinely need it.

I am all in favour of the welfare state (much as you may consider me to be a facist, I am far from it) but it is there for those who need, rather than simply want, to use it. And it must be as efficient as possible, because taxation is not voluntary and there is therefore a responsibility not to waste money which peope are legally obliged to pay (and off for 30 pages of argument about the public sector....)

All the above is pretty sensible. I think where my view differs is with your opinion the abuse of services. I'm pragmatic about that. There will always be a very small proportion of the people using a system like welfare, or finance that will be exploiting loopholes or trying to get something for nothing. Abuse of systems just happens, you can't avoid it. The answer imo is not to abandon the system, or put in such measures to prevent abuse by a tiny minority that it affects how useful it is for the vast majority. Tighten up regulation so that the system is achieving what it is designed to do. But you won't ever be able to totally rid the NHS of hypochondriacs or people unjustly after sicknotes for disability living allowance. And gearing all reform to try and do that is a waste of time, and will affect the service for people who need it the most.

W1

simonaspinall wrote:

W1 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Could be very relevant to the road infrastructure in the future - a regulated industry providing roads, tolls and enforcement cameras with the profits going to the management companies. In fact, I think the government has earmarked about £75bn over 5 -10 years to do this. Maybe then with decent modern speed cameras people really will be caught and evidence of bad driving will end up in court with the guilty being appropriately sentenced.

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

Well, the latest generation of video analytic and 3G Digital camera technology has ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) which can capture an accurate pic, read the number plate, cross-ref against a database held by the DVLA and check insurance, VED details etc.

Admittedly it can't catch drunk drivers etc but they never claimed that could happen. What analytics can do is record movement and detect if a car is conducting illegal manouveres, the extent to which they are breaking the speed limit. The 3G technology can stream to a central system and can automate a lot of the manual processes which occurred previously - Making this a lot more attractive in cost terms to a private company.

So speed cameras don't catch catastrophically bad drivers but they can get a lot more intelligent - and manage traffic flow and monitor incredible trends.

The only restriction will be the approval by the DfT and the DVLA as it takes about 5 years to get any technology through. It is the way of the future for camera technology though. More processing power, more software and more accurate collection and processing of data on traffic.

But you still then need to deal with those people. You need to find out who they are (car not registered to anyone?) find out where they live, send them a summons, take them to court and then get them to pay up.

I'd rather have £75bn pumped in to having more police who can actually target bad driving/no insurance/no licence drivers, taken them off the roads and take their cars away... That seems much more effective to me!

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

If you want the NHS to be run on 'business' lines then spending money on 'outside' expertise seems inevitable and it will be spend in areas not directly related to patient care such as procurement, IT, audit, management etc etc.

^This

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue 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.

I totally agree with this, and I'd be interested to know what W1 thinks of it.

The problem with being free at the point of delivery is that, like everything which is free, there is a risk of abuse of that service.

Introducing a small charge will deter the time-wasters, the bored, the lonely, the "professionally" ill and will also deter people from missing appointments (which in 2004 was costing the NHS £160m a year http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3591156.stm). That will increase efficiency and free up resources. It already happens with prescriptions, so I don't see why it shouldn't happen with appointments (or do you think that there shouldn't be prescription charges either?)

Of course there should be no charge for those who cannot afford it, and I appreciate that there is a risk that those who are genuinely ill may be deterred from seeing their doctor. Both of these need to be kept in mind. But making something free means there is no disincentive to abusing that service, to the detriment of those who genuinely need it.

I am all in favour of the welfare state (much as you may consider me to be a facist, I am far from it) but it is there for those who need, rather than simply want, to use it. And it must be as efficient as possible, because taxation is not voluntary and there is therefore a responsibility not to waste money which peope are legally obliged to pay (and off for 30 pages of argument about the public sector....)

All the above is pretty sensible. I think where my view differs is with your opinion the abuse of services. I'm pragmatic about that. There will always be a very small proportion of the people using a system like welfare, or finance that will be exploiting loopholes or trying to get something for nothing. Abuse of systems just happens, you can't avoid it. The answer imo is not to abandon the system, or put in such measures to prevent abuse by a tiny minority that it affects how useful it is for the vast majority. Tighten up regulation so that the system is achieving what it is designed to do. But you won't ever be able to totally rid the NHS of hypochondriacs or people unjustly after sicknotes for disability living allowance. And gearing all reform to try and do that is a waste of time, and will affect the service for people who need it the most.

I agree that there will always be some abuse - the key is to mitigate it as far as possible. I would suggest (albeit with no proof at hand) that even a small charge would deter much of the abuse of NHS resources without reducing the proper use. That seems to be where we differ, btu that system is in place in Australia for example.

I don't think that we should abandon the NHS. I don't think that the US system is right either (at all!). But there is a duty to bring in measures to mitigate costs, and I don't see why the NHS is ring-fenced from these necessary cuts.

rjsterry

I'm not sure it really has been ring-fenced. The distribution of the cuts through the various departments is partly down to how well they have lobbied the Chancellor, and partly down to how politically palatable the cuts will be. I'm sure there's a bit of smoke and mirrors so that they can claim that they haven't reduced health spending, while GPs may still find that they have to manage with less money.

A large part of the cuts for example is in the grants to local authorities - passing the cuts down to a local level, so that central government can avoid the blame.

il_principe

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

Spot on. My uncle worked on the ill fated NHS network and said it was a disaster almost from day 1. Rightly or wrongly he was trousering plenty of cash whilst sitting around twiddling his thumbs. They changed one of his manager's 3 times in 1 year and each new person moved the goalposts and set things back by months. Desperately inefficient, and they were paying lots of consultants like my uncle, lots and lots of money. He ended up quitting as he got so frustrated. Whole project was a colossal waste of time and money I'm afraid, and I'd imagine that this sort of thing happens too often in organisations where commerciality isn't as high a priority as it should be.

Whoever won was gonna cut, and it's very easy for Labour to say too fast too much, especially when they resided over the bloat.

waddlie

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

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

0.5% of a organisations budget on outside consultancy doesn't seem like reckless spending to me. I have nothing to cut and paste to prove this, but I would have thought that %age spend would be typical of large organisations in the private sector also.

I wouldn't be suprised if that figure went up.

Surely it depends on what outside consultancy is for. If the money directly contributed to patient care, you could indeed argue that it was money well spent. However, from the report I linked to...

The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today...

...About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care, said Peter Carter, the RCN chief executive, who obtained the figures through freedom of information legislation.

The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

Of course it depends on what the money was spent on.

If you want the NHS to be run on 'business' lines then spending money on 'outside' expertise seems inevitable and it will be spend in areas not directly related to patient care such as procurement, IT, audit, management etc etc.

To comment on the 'effectiveness' of the £273 million spent "increasing competition and support bids for foundation status' would require knowledge I don't possess. Did these initiatives improve efficiency?

{snip}

You tell me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/24/brown-wants-hospital-managers-answers

A devastating report by Robert Francis QC, who was commissioned by the health secretary, Andy Burnham, to undertake an independent inquiry, revealed that the needs of often elderly patients were systematically neglected as the trust focused on its bid to win foundation status, with the extra money and freedom from government control that entailed.

clanton

Waddlie wrote:

notsoblue 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.

Why?

The NHS budget is enormous; apparently larger than defence and education combined (I'm sure I read this today but can't find the link. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.) We like to think of it being spent on doctors, nurses, drugs and hospitals. Sadly, it is also spent on layer upon layer of management, consultants, homeopaths and complete nonsense. Homeopaths, for God's sake. Have a look at Connecting For Health, how much it has cost and what it's achieved. To set the NHS aside and pretend there isn't a substantial amount of fat that could be trimmed from it is ludicrous.

Agreed. WHy should the NHS be exempt from cuts? It is an enormous, unwieldly and innefficient strucutre and should be first amongst the cuts. I agree with the NHS as a principle but it needs modernising and trimming.

coopster_the_1st

simonaspinall wrote:

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.

Or did they just plan their spending better based on predicted revenues???

How many consecutive years did the UK spend money in year 1 based on the tax revenues of 3 years ahead? With the assumption that future revenues would grow and pay back the overspend?

How much of the growth we experienced was down to this spending?

Hindsight is now telling us what happens when the party stops!!!

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Here's a possible solution then.

A little less of this:

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

0.5% of a organisations budget on outside consultancy doesn't seem like reckless spending to me. I have nothing to cut and paste to prove this, but I would have thought that %age spend would be typical of large organisations in the private sector also.

I wouldn't be suprised if that figure went up.

Surely it depends on what outside consultancy is for. If the money directly contributed to patient care, you could indeed argue that it was money well spent. However, from the report I linked to...

The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today...

...About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care, said Peter Carter, the RCN chief executive, who obtained the figures through freedom of information legislation.

The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

Of course it depends on what the money was spent on.

If you want the NHS to be run on 'business' lines then spending money on 'outside' expertise seems inevitable and it will be spend in areas not directly related to patient care such as procurement, IT, audit, management etc etc.

To comment on the 'effectiveness' of the £273 million spent "increasing competition and support bids for foundation status' would require knowledge I don't possess. Did these initiatives improve efficiency?

{snip}

You tell me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/24/brown-wants-hospital-managers-answers

A devastating report by Robert Francis QC, who was commissioned by the health secretary, Andy Burnham, to undertake an independent inquiry, revealed that the needs of often elderly patients were systematically neglected as the trust focused on its bid to win foundation status, with the extra money and freedom from government control that entailed.

To be honest I'm probably not going to bother reading the article, internet cut and pastes get boring after a while.

However I do appreciate the irony in the phrase in bold

waddlie

Aye, just continue with your willfully uninformed nonsense then...

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I agree that there will always be some abuse - the key is to mitigate it as far as possible. I would suggest (albeit with no proof at hand) that even a small charge would deter much of the abuse of NHS resources without reducing the proper use. That seems to be where we differ, btu that system is in place in Australia for example.

I don't think that we should abandon the NHS. I don't think that the US system is right either (at all!). But there is a duty to bring in measures to mitigate costs, and I don't see why the NHS is ring-fenced from these necessary cuts.

You're right, the key is to mitigate abuse as much as possible. I suppose our opinion will differ about what sensible measures of mitigation are. But luckily neither of us are qualified or knowledgeable enough about the subject to run with that

UpTheWall

Asprilla wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

cjcp wrote:

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

Thats what you're meant to think.

I thin Darling's 'comedy' note saying 'Sorry, there's no money left....' that he left on his desk for Osborne kinda makes you think that was his opinion too.

As for who the Greggs are; either bakers or bankers, I always get them confused. Either way they are likely to do ok out of this.

Bollocks. I wish people would stop quoting that tory line that it was the previous administration. Such patent arse. Global financial crisis anyone?

bigmat

W1 wrote:

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with your position on red light jumping - aren't red lights just "arbitrarily placed traffic priority signs"? Surely speeding drivers are bad drivers, unless you think in that particular case adherence to the law of the land should be optional?!