[Politics] The state of things

[Wardy's twin]

This is a typical trick of politicians - quote figures in absolute numbers, rather than relative - "we're spending more on the NHS than any government in history" - you'd bloody well hope that's true for every government.

These graphs demonstrate why yours is meaningless, other than to show that things raise in value over time:
View attachment 154733
View attachment 154734

what that wages graph doesn't show is that for a large number of public services people wages did not go up anywhere near that rate...

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

My taxes didn’t end up paying for... the ERG,

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure Russian oil money pays for that.

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

Yeah, it would be interesting if money was being thrown about in the NHS, ministers would conveniently have friends, family and local landlords well positioned to take the contracts on (obviously for no personal gain).

I’d be all for paying higher taxes if;

Wages were higher to start with.
The services were run properly.
And
My taxes didn’t end up paying for private jets, endless lunches, duck houses, new kitchens, fleets of cars with one passenger, shagging mistresses in hotel rooms, illegal parties, hair appointments, personal shoppers, fourth homes, beanos abroad, entertaining Saudi billionaires, opening f***ing coal mines, the ERG, etc etc etc

 

[rogersix]

Ideally, get your mates to write the history books for you.

you mean the swot at prep school that you used to crib off in the dorm!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

It’s significantly underfunded so more money will play a part in improving things. But the NHS does need a serious overhaul, it’s not fit for many of it purposes. It’s quite simple though, just pick one of the many National public health care models which work, there’s plenty to chose from, work out how much it will cost, and tax accordingly; you can still call it the NHS. Job done and move onto eduction.

 

[B-right-on]

I look at the amount of money wasted and spunked away by Govt and the NHS by self interest, dodgy mate contracts, I'm important self aggrandising projects and just plain dumb idiotic fuckwhitery, and I can't help but think that a hell of a lot more can be done with what we've got already.

I think I pay more than enough taxes already, both directly and stealthely, but would not object to paying more IF I thought it'd do some good. But you know that it'd be spunked away by the morons in Westminster and other places. And I'm not just referring to the shower of shite currently in charge.

It's a long term problem.

As an example, 5.2% of the total spend of the UK Govt is interest on loans. Mainly to the banks we bailed out 14 years ago. This is years of overspending by successive prats in power. I don't know the answer, but right there you have almost a 50% increase in the NHS budget (12%).

 

[Nobby]

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

I suppose you could buy your own ambulance

 

[The Clamp]

I was listening to a chap on the radio who argued that for such a huge organisation, the NHS is run rather well. It’s just under-funded.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I was listening to a chap on the radio who argued that for such a huge organisation, the NHS is run rather well. It’s just under-funded.

I sometimes listen to Radio 4 comedy programmes as well.

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

I look at the amount of money wasted and spunked away by Govt and the NHS by self interest, dodgy mate contracts, I'm important self aggrandising projects and just plain dumb idiotic fuckwhitery, and I can't help but think that a hell of a lot more can be done with what we've got already.

I think I pay more than enough taxes already, both directly and stealthely, but would not object to paying more IF I thought it'd do some good. But you know that it'd be spunked away by the morons in Westminster and other places. And I'm not just referring to the shower of shite currently in charge.

It's a long term problem.

As an example, 5.2% of the total spend of the UK Govt is interest on loans. Mainly to the banks we bailed out 14 years ago. This is years of overspending by successive prats in power. I don't know the answer, but right there you have almost a 50% increase in the NHS budget (12%).

What I’d do for a bit of competence at the top.

Rishi Sunak accused of wasting £11bn by paying too much interest on government debt

The director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said the chancellor's actions had left the country with "an enormous bill", while Labour said the losses were "astronomical" and accused the government of playing "fast and loose" with public finances.

news.sky.com

 

[rogersix]

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

Is it sack the middle managers and pay the front line staff a reasonable wage?

Quids in!

 

[Stat Brother]

And yet you continuously railed against Corbyn. Weird.

He was our only hope and the only opportunity we've had for radical change in donkeys. We've missed that opportunity unfortunately.

Not getting Corbyn is still a bullet dodged - but not for the reasons you think.

Had Jezza beaten de Piffel his government would have been dealt a really rough hand.
As was Bojo.
Now sure Jezza may well have not shat on every single aspect of 'strong and stable, like the Tories, but by Christ that's the impression the opposition Tories and non dom media billionaires will have us believe.

At least from the next election going forward, we all know exactly what the Tories.

Wed definitely be looking down the barrel of 20 years of Tory government.


(Sadly though cos we is idiots - that might still happen!)

 

[beorhthelm]

I hope no party taxes Tony too much, we may end up in deep shit if they do.

probably all off shore.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

I agree its not all about money as anyone who has spent time in hospital/doctors over the last few years will attest to. However if the service requires £200 billion then that is what it needs and quoting figures that greatly show a big rise but still miss the target substantially are proving nothing.

 

[The Clamp]

I sometimes listen to Radio 4 comedy programmes as well.

It pays to listen to differing opinions, when they are expressed intelligently and without agenda.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

On it's own, no. It will take at least three years to train new nurses, for starters. Recruiting from overseas is not working (meaning either we don't pay enough to attract people from richer nations, such as India, Jamaica and parts of Africa, or our barriers to immigration have become too onerous - you decide).

And then there is the internal market, the departments of procurement, the departments of admissions (we have this here - I kid you not; the doctors doing the treating are not connected with the people doing the booking - which meant me being put under the care of two different consult surgeons a few years ago, both planning to independently do the same surgery on me on different days). Bureaucracy, paper clip counting, risk assessment, some of which is useful but most of which is implemented in a clunky and expensive manner.

None of this detracts from my thesis that there is an important contingent among tories who don't want an NHS, and want to see it go (albeit while carefully avoiding being seen as responsible). It is important to remember how fundamentally opposed many are to any sort of public ownership. Do you imagine Jacob Rees Mogg wants a strong NHS 'for all'? Does he back investment in state education? Or does he think we need to be free to get rich so we can fend for ourselves? Answers on a postcard please.

It is the direction of travel that concerns me, and I'm not interested in nit picking over exceptions that 'prove the rule'.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

View attachment 154740
An interesting Chart on Health and Social Care spending.
By the way, this is in no way linked to Tax revenues or GDP

But looking at how much spending is made by respective Governments, for example 2000 onwards and then 2010 onwards, it isn't very hard to work out which party has not kept pace with funding our wonderful NHS and Care system.

Yes. It is certainly the case that it is fundamentally more expensive to deliver health care. Several NSC posters have had an MRI scan, been diagnosed with a tumor, had surgery, and given targetted chemo. Others have been treated for IBD and related autoimmune diseases using monoclonals. All new in the last 40 years, and expensive. Do we want this, or should we go back to being told to pull ourselves together and take a couple of aspirin?

And yet....it isn't just new diagnostics and treatment that adds to costs. Not even mostly. It is the infrastructure and bureaucracy. And we now have the NHS dipping into the private market, paying far more to hire private doctors and nurses (via agencies) than they would to their own employees for the same services. I was recently sent by the NHS to a private hospital for a scan. This is as grotesque as Derek Hatton sending staff out in taxies to deliver redundancy notices, as allegedly happened when Liverpool was run by lunatics.

But this is nit picking. As I said, it is the direction of travel that matters. And that direction is hell, with some among the tories making and lowering the handcart.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I feel like I'm about to add a sort of cliche, 6th Form politics style contribution, but reading the OP it didn't seem to factor in the position that some people have with tax where it is about how it is spent. Using the NHS as an example, there are those that believe too much money is being spent on consultants and office people, rather than being spent on the service.

Perhaps this is factoring somehow - people not eager to pay more tax because of how it's spent (or how they perceive it is spent) and how the extra would be wasted. Or perhaps used as an example of how bad the government is at running things etc.

A significant point.

I am yet to see any recognised report of a publicly funded function that has been commended for the manner it has be run to an effective level.

I know a few NHS workers, some front line and some management and the level of decision making / strategy / budgeting smacks of incompetence and generally a shrug of the shoulders as they won’t be fired from their positions, if it gets really bad they simply get moved on somewhere “quieter” on the same pay band.

Then of course you have the outsourcing arrangements where appropriate KPI’s are not monitored effectively and breach of contract / service isn’t acted upon to avoid a culpability of the issue. Outstanding is also tainted obviously by third party involvement, normally politically aligned and typically f***ing useless without any measurable benefit.

There are plenty of good people in the public services who are more than capable of steering the ship and improving on the funding they have already but the “system” doesn’t allow them to progress and often carded as “disruptive” for having the audacity to challenge failure and a lack of lessons learned

Unfortunately these fuckwits steering this mess give the entire function a bad name and almost an acceptance by the general public.

My sole view we need a wholesale “zero base” (sounds like management talk which I know you hate David) of these public functions to become more efficient without the detriment to working conditions. The only problem is the people assigned to these roles over and over again are often the f***ing idiots who have just come back from a “quiet holiday” to justify their remuneration.

What chance have we got with the machine running as it is?

Feel free to offer alternative public sector experiences.

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

A significant point.

I am yet to see any recognised report of a publicly funded function that has been commended for the manner it has be run to an effective level.

I know a few NHS workers, some front line and some management and the level of decision making / strategy / budgeting smacks of incompetence and generally a shrug of the shoulders as they won’t be fired from their positions, if it gets really bad they simply get moved on somewhere “quieter” on the same pay band.

My experience of management in the NHS is somewhat similar. Generalising somewhat, I’ve found 2 types.
1: Managers sourced from the private sector, often with no experience in healthcare. They make the majority of decisions in line with budget restrictions with absolutely no idea on how that would affect patient care. Their decisions can be short sighted (eg this dressing is £1 cheaper, failing to understand that it could lead to longer healing times and increased nursing input in the longer term) a very short sighted approach.

2: managers who have been promoted from clinical positions. This type have often lack any sort of management skills and have often been promoted to the role without any management training and struggle with the day to day management due to this.

Personally I’ve found that management don’t last very long and are often moved between positions, incompetence is rife between both types and is often excused.
There is no long term approach to anything at present and the service is a reactive service with no long term strategy in place.
I’ve often discussed this with managers of both types and they know they won’t be in the role long enough for it to matter.
It’s often very frustrating when you identify long term problems and you’re ignored/palmed off by managers.
Obviously healthcare is difficult as any decision will impact patients at the point of service, which makes comparisons to other industries difficult.

 

[brightn'ove]

I’d be all for paying higher taxes if;

Wages were higher to start with.
The services were run properly.
And
My taxes didn’t end up paying for private jets, endless lunches, duck houses, new kitchens, fleets of cars with one passenger, shagging mistresses in hotel rooms, illegal parties, hair appointments, personal shoppers, fourth homes, beanos abroad, entertaining Saudi billionaires, opening f***ing coal mines, the ERG, etc etc etc

nail on head. no problem paying more taxes, just not to those ****s.