Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
When the Conservative party removes the 40% plus of its members who have a problem with a Muslim PM then we can have a discussion about the 0.01% of anti Semites in Labour.
New Labour Leader (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shmmeee
- Start date
When the Conservative party removes the 40% plus of its members who have a problem with a Muslim PM then we can have a discussion about the 0.01% of anti Semites in Labour.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
My biggest issue with school academisation is that vastly unqualified people are in positions of crucial decision making which ultimately has a massively negative impact on kids lives. Would that be the same with privatised NHS services?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Vastly unqualified people are running the country never mind those in your nearest hospital
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I can’t believe they attempted to divert funds away from marginals to those in safe seats on the right of the party in 2017. If they were in any way successful given how close the result was they could have genuinely stopped a labour government.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ive not seen any evidence academisation has any long term impact on performance TBH. Generally speaking trying to make public services run as competitive businesses doesn’t work. You need the system as a whole working for the benefit of everyone and don’t have the luxury of failure to root out poor performance.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not saying privatisation is the answer but how does one then account for the prolonged poor performance of certain hospitals and health trusts?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
When you get power it’s more important to keep it rather than help those who gave it to you
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
There’s not enough good people to go around. Same as there’s not enough good teachers or anything else. Accountability and improvement is possible outside of private industry and I’d argue more likely with a public service ethos than cost cutting.
Id want to see evidence that the profit motive is what’s missing here TBH. Seems like snake oil solutions otherwise. I’ve seen no evidence profit based medical services elsewhere run better or more efficiently. We have some of the best value for money around.
My personal experience with academisation was after the initial funding bump ran out the school was back where it started with the same kids and mostly the same staff. Just now someone was taking money that wasn’t before.
The idea that some random businessman has the answer to education, health, or policing when experts in the field don’t is frankly insulting. Just standard rich man worship.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We do indeed-and I think it’s clear that Tory support for privatisation is because they want to go even further than that into a US style system. But the 1945 model does need at least some tweaks
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Talk about tweaks if you want, though I’ve yet to meet someone from a country with an insurance based model for example that would trade theirs for the NHS. Eventually everyone meets the issue of not being insured and having to raise money.
I honesty think the “tweak” that’s needed is people need to pay a little more tax and we fund it properly. But I still feel it’s a solution looking for a problem. The NHS is great and generally fit for purpose as IMO this pandemic has shown. We’ve more than held our own against other systems worldwide.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
You're not talking about anyone form the states though surely?
People I've spoke to their would definitely trade for the NHS.
But while not knowing a great deal about them I know some of the European models are very successful so if you've spoken to Europeans who prefer their model then not surprised but which route do you think we'd get pushed down?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Sorry I misspoke. I meant they wouldn’t have theirs over the NHS. Mostly going off my misuses experiences being Dutch and working in the NHS TBF. But met Yanks and Canadians who have said similar.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Oh right. I know some of the European models are rated.
The impression I get in the States is that even when you've got cover they're always trawling the small print to try and stiff you. Who'd have thought it of an insurance company?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You need to think through the logical implications of privately run services though which are accumulated loss of expertise from public institutions which eventually lead to hostage pricing from the private entities, lack of collaboration between providers (as they are commercial competitors) etc.
Some interesting stuff in the German funding model though which I think sounds OK, a fixed percentage employee / employer contribution to healthcare makes sense. Private insurance on top for higher earners sounds OK too
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
My two main concerns with an insurance based system would be people getting denied treatment they’d currently get and the unemployed losing out. If they can be fixed then fine, but I don’t logically see a way you get more for the same per capita spend under any system. Any competition adds to the cost (replication, marketing, etc).
Ultimately care has to be paid for and Id rather a fair taxation system got more from the richest than an insurance mode that’d do the same thing.
Ultimately care has to be paid for and Id rather a fair taxation system got more from the richest than an insurance mode that’d do the same thing.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
A lot of the issues with the funding of NHS comes down to having the enormous millstone of debt known as PFI, where they are having to pay over the odds for privately- and shoddily-built premises (which was a scheme introduced under Blair).
The NHS is still a VERY "flabby" organisation, not helped by having to adhere to unrealistic targets. A consultant i know said he had 4 people employed simply to ascertain whether the waiting time target for his surgical team was being met.
The bigger issue is the Care Act 2014, which moved adult social care from the NHS to county councils' budgets and managements. In Worcestershire, social care accounts for close to SEVENTY PERCENT of the entire budget. It is unsustainable and unfair, and leads to a vast amount of the bed-blocking that causes such huge problems with care capacity in hospitals.
The NHS is still a VERY "flabby" organisation, not helped by having to adhere to unrealistic targets. A consultant i know said he had 4 people employed simply to ascertain whether the waiting time target for his surgical team was being met.
The bigger issue is the Care Act 2014, which moved adult social care from the NHS to county councils' budgets and managements. In Worcestershire, social care accounts for close to SEVENTY PERCENT of the entire budget. It is unsustainable and unfair, and leads to a vast amount of the bed-blocking that causes such huge problems with care capacity in hospitals.
SkyBlueCharlie9
Well-Known Member
Majority of right wingers I've had the misfortune to come across (inc. father in law and brother in law) hate the Scots, Welsh, Irish ,Asians, northerners, esp. scousers, french, GERMANs, most of Europe, travelling community, Councils, gay people, climate change, BBC, trade unions, Muslims, Islam, labour, liberals, vegetarians/vegans but love farmers, Christianity, ITV, the war, Thatcher (Jimmy Saville by default) the armed forces, and Freemasonry
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Honestly of all of that liking ITV is the least excusable.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Local councils have always had responsibility for social care and the budgets for it, it was in the initial design of the health service back in 1948, lots of political argument then and ever since. The Care Act 2014 just put greater obligations on them (at the same time as their budgets were being slashed).
Some councils are pooling budgets with the local commissioning groups to try and ensure capacity is in the right places, the problems being that councils' decision making processes can be more political and not well aligned with those of the NHS.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Think this is a key takeaway from the leak. The idea that it was far left or even Corbyn personally factions in Labour objected to is out the window. Seems anything to the left of Blair was seen as too much.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Under Kennedy most definitely!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I left the party early 2000s over civil liberties and joined the Lib Dem’s until I left in 2010. Thing I realised is they’ll say anything to pick up disaffected Labour or Tory voters.
Both sides need to stop. The right and the left. The left has been calling standard soft left people Blairites for ages.
It’s all so depressing TBH. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and try and get us elected. We know the Cameronites hate the Thatcherites in the Tories, yet they always seem to manage to pull together.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
They were indeed!
(I also voted Lib Dem once or twice - it's where their later betrayal with the Tories bit especially hard... and probably hasn't helped the Remain campaign either.)
I work in a hospital and I would say that if we could have more care homes and rehabilitation hospitals to discharge patients too, bed blocking would virtually disappear. The lack of rehabilitation facilities for elderly people is a scandal, especially in North Warwickshire. As a consequence they get discharged home (eventually) to either fall over again and come back into hospital or die (eventually). When the cost cutting started about ten years ago, rehabilitation was an easy target and as a consequence rehab hospitals, hydro pools and community rehab teams were closed down and done away with. The knock on effect is that discharging elderly people from hospital becomes virtually impossible unless they can go home and have family members look after them. How did it get to this, we have gone backwards and its a scandal.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There has to be some way that the free for all mantra is honoured but more money actually comes in - wherever people are politically there has to be a recognition the system is very good at offering care to everyone but the exponential growth of “customers” means it’s initial concept is now unworkable
Higher earners should pay more into a form of system that would put more money in
There would have to be a cross party committee to get away the political football it’s become that agreed on proposals for future generations
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s easy to say “get a cross party committee”, but if we could do that we wouldn’t need politics full stop. One side believes in general taxation as the fairest way and the other doesn’t. You won’t convince a right winger government can be effective nor a left winger the private sector won’t cherry pick patients. You won’t convince a right winger to pay an appropriate level of tax, nor a left winger to allow people to die because “invisible hand”.
There’s not an exponential growth but there is a significant growth, especially if you factor in social care. The real answer is that’s the trade off we’ve made for longer life expectancy: you won’t die at 60, but we probably need to take more of your money when you’re earning cos you’ll cost more when you’re not.
What we need IMO are politicians with balls, but they are in seriously short supply these days. They all want to be liked and pretend we can have everything and never have to pay for it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
To be honest the cross committee point is because the NHS is a political football. If the Tories suggested an insurance scheme Labour would refer to privatisation and I don’t blame them as it’s their one area of perceived superior trust
The growth since inception and it’s original ideals is huge and you can’t continue to fund out of a block of indeterminate tax revenue when an aging population is coming
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But if the private sector do run it more 'efficiently' (usually meaning cut corners to cut costs and thus a poorer service) then the cost savings are lost to private sector profits. So instead of a better health service you get richer rich people.
If it's NFP then that could be fine. But it needs to be led by the experts not the moneymen which is what inevitably happens. SERVICE comes first.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
if that's Starmers doing then he should let it be known that he's forced his hand in my opinion. Let people know he's serious about sorting this mess out.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
thought he did OK, not as well as some on the right of the party are making out and not as badly as some on the left are saying.
My one concern, as someone who has wanted him to go on the attack from the off, was did he have a go at the government because today was his first opportunity to do so in PMQs or was it because Alistair Campbell was critical of him not having done so in this mornings Guardian?
Hopefully the former and we haven't got Campbell back seat driving.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The way we have seen some of the MP’s behave at PMQ’s over the last 4/5 years is an embarrassment.
