Search results

Like the NHS own workforce statistics that states 52% of its 1.4 million headcount is professionally qualified clinical staff... So the original claim of about half the NHS staff being managers, administrators and non-clinical was right?

How ignorant. I wouldn’t dismiss something out hand because The Guardian said something I disagreed with. Prove it wrong. Both parties agree that the current system is unsustainable so by all means, pretend that all is well. We’ve got a few parliaments to ‘fix’ the NHS before there’s a serious...

Yes, and about half of people employed by the NHS are managers, administrators and non-medical professionals. To me, a 50:50 split of medical and non-medical seems disproportionate. Yes, you obviously need a bureaucracy to keep things ticking over but not 50:50.

Its main expenditure is on staffing, 40% of its entire budget… The NHS is the biggest employer not just in the UK, but the whole of Europe.

How do you do that without massively increasing government expenditure? On this thread, we’ve got to better fund; the NHS, state schools, universities, pensions and housing. We have the highest tax burden since WW2, stagnating wages, a budget deficit, an aging population and on top of that...

No you’re not paying the government at all… You take a loan from SFE which is privatised and the government is the guarantor of the loan. Individuals pay the unis which are essentially private entities which is why universities rely on wealthy international students to increase their tuition...

State schools do have a similar status to charitable status but they don’t need to register with the Charity Commission. They register directly with the DoE. Most educational materials are VAT exempt too. Universities too, are ‘exempt charities’ so the next logical step would be to charge...

I don’t disagree at all. You’re making this argument whilst simultaneously holding the view that this VAT increase won’t force people out private education. To put one child through private education you’re looking at £3k per year. Secondary school is between 5-7 years so that’s a commitment...

Is that equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Would you rather lower standards of educational outcomes if it meant more equity than higher standards across the board at the cost of more inequality? The two go hand in hand unfortunately. This policy is regressive, not progressive.

I’m curious, why?

You may have missed the point… Well, £3,000 per child, per year is a steeper increase than the energy bills. It’s a 5-7 year commitment for most families if it’s just secondary school.

By making private education more unaffordable for upper working and middle class families? If anything, a policy should be looking to make private education more affordable or accessible for working class families. If @SIR ERNIE’s case study is replicated up and down the country, it’s a policy...

The principle being envy.

My purchasing power was reduced. Inflation and wages are two independent issues. It’s a sleight of hand of term to frame things as cuts that aren’t. Back on track, the private sector doesn’t increase its spending in line with inflation because it’s not always necessary to do. Successful private...

Nope, you and your daughter are wrong. @skybluetony176 says the impact will be a % of a percentage. That’s an £88,000 cost the taxpayer versus a VAT tax take of £57,000 for the remainder of the class. That’s a net gain of -£31,000…

Why? Because the post I quoted stated the finding for the NHS had been reduced, the opposite is true. The funding hasn’t kept up with inflation - it’s not the same. I got a 3% pay raise the year inflation was at 10%. My pay wasn’t reduced by 7%.

It’s mean spirited and punishes aspirational people. If you’re raising a levy to increase funding for state education and then you fuel increase demand for the state sector, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. If the private sector responds by getting wealthy foreign students, all...

Reduced? YoY the spending has increased roughly 2.8%. The only ‘cuts’ are ‘real terms’. Even Labour accepts (in theory) it can’t just give the NHS major cash without reform. Again, PFI was an attempt by the Blair government to privatise the day-to-day spending of the NHS - a clever balance...

Agreed and the demand for health and social care services is only increasing. The NHS is a really interesting ‘issue’ and if Labour cannot ‘fix’ or at least improve things, it will be the start of a v difficult national conversation around how we fund healthcare. A process that even Tony Blair...

Yes 😂