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.
Provided it remains free at the point of service I’m not opposed to things being privately run but what we have seen with academisation of schools is that it would be better in some places and worse in others. But it is already inconsistent in the first place-so I’m not sure what the best way forward is for it
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?
Provided it remains free at the point of service I’m not opposed to things being privately run but what we have seen with academisation of schools is that it would be better in some places and worse in others. But it is already inconsistent in the first place-so I’m not sure what the best way forward is for it
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.
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.
Not saying privatisation is the answer but how does one then account for the prolonged poor performance of certain hospitals and health trusts?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Provided it remains free at the point of service I’m not opposed to things being privately run but what we have seen with academisation of schools is that it would be better in some places and worse in others. But it is already inconsistent in the first place-so I’m not sure what the best way forward is for it
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 FreemasonryWhen 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.
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
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.
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.Reply to @shmmeee
My biggest concern in the bits I've read so far, apart from the weaponisation of antisemitism which was obvious any way is the resistance to Andy Burnhams plans for the NHS.
For me the NHS is a sacred cow and to see people within the party opposed to it's total public ownership rings alarm bells for me
Incidentally @shmmeee regarding your earlier post, during the Blair years, i voted LibDem - their policies were far more Socialist (and, it could be argued, left-wing!)
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.
They were indeed!Incidentally @shmmeee regarding your earlier post, during the Blair years, i voted LibDem - their policies were far more Socialist (and, it could be argued, left-wing!)
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.
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.
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
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.
Provided it remains free at the point of service I’m not opposed to things being privately run but what we have seen with academisation of schools is that it would be better in some places and worse in others. But it is already inconsistent in the first place-so I’m not sure what the best way forward is for it
I see McNicol has stood down from the Lords... should have been suspended before he had the chance but it’s a start.
Not bad from Starmer in his first PMQs. No sign of Johnson so he was up against Raab who is a pretty easy opponent.
Not having many MPs in parliament makes it a lot easier for the opposition leader as well, can't just shout him down.
Not bad from Starmer in his first PMQs. No sign of Johnson so he was up against Raab who is a pretty easy opponent.
Not having many MPs in parliament makes it a lot easier for the opposition leader as well, can't just shout him down.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?