blandy Posted January 9, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, peterms said: Not at all. "Dismember" is where we are heading. If the Act had introduced, say, privatisation of one service only, you would have a point. As it is, there's a rolling programme, with new tenders happening all the time. As I have said more than once now, it's incremental. We might be discussing semantics, but I still believe that "extending the scope of creeping privatisation" is not the same thing as "dismembering". Dismembering to me means breaking up and killing. I'm not sure that allowing private business, or charity, or whatever to bid to be paid to perform some tasks under the umbrella of the NHS is the same thing at all. I'm not really in favour of it, all things considered, but not because it's "dismembering". If it remains universally available and free at the point of use, and as good as it can be, then in some ways that's the primary thing that matters. Experience tends to suggest that external companies operating for profit are unlikely to make things better, yet there are other nations where health care is better than what we're getting right now, where private companies are more involved, (though to be fair most of the rest of the developed world spends more on their health provision than does the UK in GDP percentage terms. Is building maintenance something that has to be done by the NHS? Aren't roofers and plasterers and glaziers and so on, y'know, private businesses who can do a perfectly adequate (or better) job? Same with heating and architecture. Should these people be direct employees of the state? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I used to work in part of the NHS that dealt with estates, new and maintained. That entire division from Architects to site clerk of works, civil engineering and heating engineers was privatised off. I'd put that under 'dismember'. Out of interest what year was that privitised off as it sounds like you are talking about NHS estates ( who became Inventure , who became capita Symonds in feb 2010 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 16 minutes ago, blandy said: We might be discussing semantics, but I still believe that "extending the scope of creeping privatisation" is not the same thing as "dismembering". Dismembering to me means breaking up and killing. I'm not sure that allowing private business, or charity, or whatever to bid to be paid to perform some tasks under the umbrella of the NHS is the same thing at all. I'm not really in favour of it, all things considered, but not because it's "dismembering". If it remains universally available and free at the point of use, and as good as it can be, then in some ways that's the primary thing that matters. Experience tends to suggest that external companies operating for profit are unlikely to make things better, yet there are other nations where health care is better than what we're getting right now, where private companies are more involved, (though to be fair most of the rest of the developed world spends more on their health provision than does the UK in GDP percentage terms. Is building maintenance something that has to be done by the NHS? Aren't roofers and plasterers and glaziers and so on, y'know, private businesses who can do a perfectly adequate (or better) job? Same with heating and architecture. Should these people be direct employees of the state? Dismembering is the destination, creeping privatisation the method. The objection to privatisation is about health services that the NHS can and should provide. I don't recall anyone arguing that the NHS should employ construction workers if there's a better alternative. Though looking at the practice of handing private firms design and build contracts under the PFI, it may very well be that direct public provision would have been a far better alternative on grounds of quality and cost. But you probably wouldn't have a construction arm run by medics, they would rather use a reliable and responsive alternative, I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 3 hours ago, wazzap24 said: My mum is currently in Good Hope. You only need to spend an hour in there to see just how bad it is. The Red Cross are not overplaying this. word removed Hunty and the rest will never have to suffer it though. Can you share more details of what you have witnessed mate and what your mom has gone through. Not just on here but write something up and share it on social media. I think one the issues with the problems in the NHS is that for a good proportion of the population unless they are directly affected by it or know people who have been they almost turn a blind eye and think it can't be that bad. The same can be said of all public services that are being decimated there is an I'm alright Jack attitude towards them and it won't be until people come to rely on these services and they are either not there or lacking that they will realise the mess they are in and it is too late. People need to hear of how people they know are being affected. Need to hear of what is happening at the local hospital. It feels more real then. There needs to be a real groundswell in this country and bit of an uprising to say enough is enough where the NHS and other public services are concerned and you and others sharing actual experiences can help in that. You sharing your story might seem insignificant but it isn't as it will make the penny drop for someone you know or someone for whom Good Hope is the local hospital. Also send details to your local councillors, local MP, and Andrew Mitchell the MP for Sutton Coldfield where Good Hope is based and the Sutton Observer etc. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 As strikes are political I'll put this in here THE London tube strike has ended abruptly after commuters stormed trains and instantly mastered the controls. The latest walk-out was prompted by concerns over the withdrawal of Quavers from London Underground canteen vending machines. But the action backfired when a group of frustrated travellers stole keys and entered train cabs to discover that tube driving mainly involves pressing a button. Civilian hijacker, Martin Bishop, said: “When we got in the cab we discovered there was just one button. A big, red button like a clown’s nose. “You press it once to stop, once to go. And the train itself is on rails, so you don’t have to worry about steering. “I thought to myself, ‘I can probably handle this’.” He added: “Basically, working a train is not that hard and if I was getting fifty grand a year to do it I’d probably keep my head down, perhaps even do cockney-style sing-a-longs over the PA to keep everyone sweet. “In Paris they don’t even have human drivers, it’s all automatic and inside the cabs there’s just a baguette with a cap stuck on it.” Meanwhile, other angry civilians broke into ticket offices and immediately began operating them in a friendly and polite manner. The email address for your complaints about lazy French stereotypes can be sent to ionlylaughwhenstewertleedoesit@thedailymash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 9, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2017 33 minutes ago, peterms said: Dismembering is the destination, creeping privatisation the method. ... I don't recall anyone arguing that the NHS should employ construction workers if there's a better alternative. . See Chris's comment just above mine Peter, for why I wrote about building maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: Out of interest what year was that privitised off as it sounds like you are talking about NHS estates ( who became Inventure , who became capita Symonds in feb 2010 ) @tonyh29from memory, early 90's under everyone's favourite moderate, John Major --- But that doesn't count under creeping privatisation, or what per cent is now privatised as it's long ago and far enough away to no longer even count in the base figures of what's being privatised. 1 hour ago, blandy said: Is building maintenance something that has to be done by the NHS? Aren't roofers and plasterers and glaziers and so on, y'know, private businesses who can do a perfectly adequate (or better) job? Same with heating and architecture. Should these people be direct employees of the state? No, it doesn't have to be done by the NHS. It should be done to an acceptable quality for the cheapest possible price. You'll have to take my anecdotal word on this, I've tendered with a white hat on, and with a black hat on. the white hats were always cheaper. So they were privatised out of the way. Strangely, this did not result in the private companies dropping their prices. With two consecutive ministerial jobs that got directly involved in the process, I won't accuse John Redwood on here of what I truly believe, I don't think Limpid would appreciate it. 1 hour ago, peterms said: I don't recall anyone arguing that the NHS should employ construction workers if there's a better alternative. Though looking at the practice of handing private firms design and build contracts under the PFI, it may very well be that direct public provision would have been a far better alternative on grounds of quality and cost. But you probably wouldn't have a construction arm run by medics, they would rather use a reliable and responsive alternative, I imagine. For NHS, you can also say Prison Service, MoD and Police Service and a host of others I'm sure. No need for them to have construction expertise either. Should be easy enough for SecuriCapi4S to get competent security and DBS cleared staff to fix things promptly and properly at a reasonable price. Shirley? Edited January 9, 2017 by chrisp65 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 34 minutes ago, blandy said: See Chris's comment just above mine Peter, for why I wrote about building maintenance. See Chris' comment just below yours, agreeing it doesn't necessarily have to be done by the NHS if it can be done to the right standard, cheaper. What we have found is that the private sector very often doesn't do that, despite all the propaganda about efficiencies and cost savings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Crapita, as we were colloquially known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 9, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 hours ago, peterms said: See Chris' comment just below yours, agreeing it doesn't necessarily have to be done by the NHS if it can be done to the right standard, cheaper. What we have found is that the private sector very often doesn't do that, despite all the propaganda about efficiencies and cost savings. 100% agree with that. That is exactly my view. Efficiencies and cost savings often mean lower wages for the people doing the work, higher pay for directors and then high staff turnover and deteriorating service. But not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 hours ago, blandy said: If it remains universally available and free at the point of use, and as good as it can be, then in some ways that's the primary thing that matters. Experience tends to suggest that external companies operating for profit are unlikely to make things better, yet there are other nations where health care is better than what we're getting right now, where private companies are more involved, (though to be fair most of the rest of the developed world spends more on their health provision than does the UK in GDP percentage terms. This is increasingly my view. I've found myself drifting rightwards over the NHS in recent years. There's an infuriating tendency to assume that just because the system we have is better than the developed world's worst system in the USA, that we've somehow hit upon the perfect solution and there's no need to discuss the issue further. Other countries manage to achieve much better health outcomes (which is, ultimately, the point) in systems with more private involvement that are nevertheless free at the point of use. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 If only people knew the extent to which private interests deliberately sabotage the NHS for their own ends These people profit from suffering, and it's not just the sick, their friends and families that are affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 The hidden agenda for some parties, is the gradual destruction of the NHS. Remember that, and a lot of what is happening to it, makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I wonder what the newly appointed head of the BBC can have said to the Leveson inquiry that it must be kept from us for 100 years? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Quote Home Secretary Amber Rudd's speech to the Conservative Party conference on foreign workers is being treated as a "hate incident" by police. In her speech in October 2016 the Tory minister proposed tougher rules on foreign workers to stop immigrants coming to the UK “taking jobs British people could do”. Her comments were reported to West Midlands Police by Joshua Silver, a physics professor at the University of Oxford, according to The Times. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-amber-rudd-hate-crime-incident-speech-foreign-workers-police-tory-party-conference-a7523626.html Delightful human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Quote Home Secretary Amber Rudd's speech to the Conservative Party conference on foreign workers is being treated as a "hate incident" by police. In her speech in October 2016 the Tory minister proposed tougher rules on foreign workers to stop immigrants coming to the UK “taking jobs British people could do”. Her comments were reported to West Midlands Police by Joshua Silver, a physics professor at the University of Oxford, according to The Times. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-amber-rudd-hate-crime-incident-speech-foreign-workers-police-tory-party-conference-a7523626.html That is stupid and an utter waste of police time and resources - though maybe slightly amusing if they send the new PC off to take a statement from her. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Yeah I'm not entirely sure I agree, but for the ruling party's home secretary to even be investigated is hilarious and damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 12, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, snowychap said: maybe slightly amusing if they send the new PC off to take a statement from her The new PC is off sick with mental health issues. Bluntly speaking, PC's gone mad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 One for darrenm : Quote The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, has been accused of showing “an astonishing lack of knowledge” of his brief after arguing in the House of Commons that cyclists do not count as road users. Grayling, shown in a video last month knocking a rider off his bike by suddenly opening the door to his ministerial car outside Westminster, made the comment on Thursday morning. Grayling was questioned by the Labour MP Daniel Zeichner about an interview he gave late last year warning that London’s new protected cycle lanes “perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users”. Were cyclists not also road users, Ziechner asked. “What I would say to him, of course, is where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes,” Grayling responded. “And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users, the users of the roads. It’s fairly straightforward, to be honest.” The explanation prompted concern and bafflement from cycling groups and others, as well as Zeichner, who later retweeted a section of the 1888 Local Government Act, which formalised the status of “bicycle, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines” as what were then still known as “carriages”. ...more on link 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Par for the course with the Tories. Put someone in charge of something they have absolutely no idea about. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts