The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[MakemineVanilla]

The media are playing the usual game of throwing huge numbers at the public and failing to put those amounts into perspective, so we all freak out.

With £117bn already budgeted for the NHS in 15/16 (as opposed to £113bn 14/15) a deficit of less than 2% does not look like the end of the world as we know it and a budget is just a budget and the government has no choice but find the money.

 

 

Isn't the problem that a big % of that £117bn is going on agency staff  and making these agencies a fortune in commissions  ...  throwing headline grabbing money at the NHS isn't enough , they need to address some of this wastage ... I saw a hospital in Essex was advertising for a Reiki consultant , so there's a saving to be made at the stroke of a pen ..I'm sure there are others

Our doctors are the best paid in Europe and as a sector medical professional is the best paid of all.

There are 50 000 more doctors and nurses in the NHS compared with 2004.

The NHS employs 1.3 million people.

No doubt the managers attempt to run a 'just in time' system which aims to anticipate and meet demand and keep within budget.

So I think you have to make the comparison between the cost of having a large over-capacity in staff at all the time, and the cost of hiring temporary staff to deal with absenteeism or increase in demand.

Bearing that in mind I don't think getting within less than 2% of the budget is as bad as we are encouraged to believe

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[Xann]

Wind power now UK's cheapest source of electricity – but the Government continues to resist onshore turbines

Independent

Remember this?

Greenest government ever?

Maybe we're misunderstanding the green bit?

[bickster]

The media are playing the usual game of throwing huge numbers at the public and failing to put those amounts into perspective, so we all freak out.

With £117bn already budgeted for the NHS in 15/16 (as opposed to £113bn 14/15) a deficit of less than 2% does not look like the end of the world as we know it and a budget is just a budget and the government has no choice but find the money.

 

 

Isn't the problem that a big % of that £117bn is going on agency staff  and making these agencies a fortune in commissions  ...  throwing headline grabbing money at the NHS isn't enough , they need to address some of this wastage ... I saw a hospital in Essex was advertising for a Reiki consultant , so there's a saving to be made at the stroke of a pen ..I'm sure there are others

All homeopathy crap can go too, proven to be utter nonsense. There between £4mil - £12mil saved a year. Small potatoes… 

The only way to get rid of agency staff is to increase nhs wages so people don't need to work for agencies in the first place, its underfunding that has caused the huge spread in agency staff, that and nonsensical budgeting that allows the culture to exist in the first place.

[blandy]

Agreed. The tories cutting nurse training places to "save" money (by almost 6000 a year hasn't exactly helped matters). Especially when theres' a shortage of nurses.

[bickster]

Agreed. The tories cutting nurse training places to "save" money (by almost 6000 a year hasn't exactly helped matters). Especially when theres' a shortage of nurses.

 

There's only two reasons for that. 1) Gross incompetence or 2) Your mates own the agencies

[MakemineVanilla]

Agreed. The tories cutting nurse training places to "save" money (by almost 6000 a year hasn't exactly helped matters). Especially when theres' a shortage of nurses.

It seems unlikely that there will ever be enough nurses and every government will fail to solve the problem of spending millions on agency nurses.

Here's a quote from 2004:

Dr Liam Fox, shadow health secretary, said: "Many of the report's conclusions bear out concerns which the Conservative Party has been expressing for a considerable time.
"We have repeatedly called on the Government to take urgent steps to restore the attractiveness of nursing as a profession.
"In particular, we have stressed the importance of retaining existing staff. It is all well and good for the Government to trumpet increases in nurse recruitment. But until ministers change their ways - by creating an environment in which nurses can provide care in the way they were trained to do - many of the benefits, which this brings, will continue to be frittered away."
Commenting on statistics showing an increase in the level of spending on agency nurses in the NHS over recent years, Dr Fox said: "These statistics reveal a staggering increase in spending on agency nurses under Labour, and make a nonsense of ministers' claims to be successfully tackling the crisis in nursing.
"In 1997-98, NHS hospitals in England spent £216 million on agency nurses. This represented 0.89% of total operating expenses.
"During the period 1999-2000, those figures had risen to £360 million - almost a 75% increase in just three years - and 1.21% of total operating expenses.
"The picture is worse still at individual Trust level. Today's RCN report on the state of the nursing labour market highlighted the crisis in nurse retention, which has resulted from the Government's failure to create an environment in which nurses can practice in the way they were trained.
The report - Behind the Headlines - was commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing and produced by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.

 

The link: http://tinyurl.com/pkmunzv

 

[TrentVilla]

A shortage of nurses? Oh that's simple get them in from oversea's..... Oh I forgot we can't do that as it would be taking British jobs from British people.

There is also a looming teacher shortage due to increased birth rates, declining numbers of new Teachers and increasing numbers leaving the proffession. (Or due immigrants if you read the Daily Mail)

The Government's inaction on this area suggests a underlying strategy to see a less qualified and less unionised education work force.

 

Edited October 14, 2015 by TrentVilla

[El Zen]

The Government's in action on this area suggests a underlying strategy to see a less qualified and less unionised education work force.

 

Now hang on just a minute! This would lead to a poorer quality of schools  which in turn would lead to a less independent-thinking and less knowledgeable electorate. And why on earth would a Tory gvmt want that? 

Excuse me while I run to the cupboard to fetch the tinfoil

 

Edited October 13, 2015 by Michelsen

[blandy]

Agreed. The tories cutting nurse training places to "save" money (by almost 6000 a year hasn't exactly helped matters). Especially when theres' a shortage of nurses.

It seems unlikely that there will ever be enough nurses and every government will fail to solve the problem of spending millions on agency nurses.

Here's a quote from 2004:

Dr Liam Fox, shadow health secretary, said: "Many of the report's conclusions bear out concerns which the Conservative Party has been expressing for a considerable time.
"We have repeatedly called on the Government to take urgent steps to restore the attractiveness of nursing as a profession.
"In particular, we have stressed the importance of retaining existing staff. It is all well and good for the Government to trumpet increases in nurse recruitment. But until ministers change their ways - by creating an environment in which nurses can provide care in the way they were trained to do - many of the benefits, which this brings, will continue to be frittered away."
Commenting on statistics showing an increase in the level of spending on agency nurses in the NHS over recent years, Dr Fox said: "These statistics reveal a staggering increase in spending on agency nurses under Labour, and make a nonsense of ministers' claims to be successfully tackling the crisis in nursing.
"In 1997-98, NHS hospitals in England spent £216 million on agency nurses. This represented 0.89% of total operating expenses.
"During the period 1999-2000, those figures had risen to £360 million - almost a 75% increase in just three years - and 1.21% of total operating expenses.
"The picture is worse still at individual Trust level. Today's RCN report on the state of the nursing labour market highlighted the crisis in nurse retention, which has resulted from the Government's failure to create an environment in which nurses can practice in the way they were trained.
The report - Behind the Headlines - was commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing and produced by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.

 

The link: http://tinyurl.com/pkmunzv

 

So the tories recognised, in their own words that there was a crisis in nurse retention, and the way they have addressed that is to train fewer nurses. The shortfall is now around 20,000 nurses, and the consequential costs of agency staff make up 2/3rds of the overspend.

You maybe right in saying it seems unlikely that there will ever be enough nurses, but as trent says, their idiotic approach to immigration plus the involvement of so many tories in private medical providers guarantees they will fail to address the problem at all. It's deliberate and deceitful. And Liam Fox is a word removed, as well.

[MakemineVanilla]

Agreed. The tories cutting nurse training places to "save" money (by almost 6000 a year hasn't exactly helped matters). Especially when theres' a shortage of nurses.

It seems unlikely that there will ever be enough nurses and every government will fail to solve the problem of spending millions on agency nurses.

Here's a quote from 2004:

Dr Liam Fox, shadow health secretary, said: "Many of the report's conclusions bear out concerns which the Conservative Party has been expressing for a considerable time.
"We have repeatedly called on the Government to take urgent steps to restore the attractiveness of nursing as a profession.
"In particular, we have stressed the importance of retaining existing staff. It is all well and good for the Government to trumpet increases in nurse recruitment. But until ministers change their ways - by creating an environment in which nurses can provide care in the way they were trained to do - many of the benefits, which this brings, will continue to be frittered away."
Commenting on statistics showing an increase in the level of spending on agency nurses in the NHS over recent years, Dr Fox said: "These statistics reveal a staggering increase in spending on agency nurses under Labour, and make a nonsense of ministers' claims to be successfully tackling the crisis in nursing.
"In 1997-98, NHS hospitals in England spent £216 million on agency nurses. This represented 0.89% of total operating expenses.
"During the period 1999-2000, those figures had risen to £360 million - almost a 75% increase in just three years - and 1.21% of total operating expenses.
"The picture is worse still at individual Trust level. Today's RCN report on the state of the nursing labour market highlighted the crisis in nurse retention, which has resulted from the Government's failure to create an environment in which nurses can practice in the way they were trained.
The report - Behind the Headlines - was commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing and produced by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.

 

The link: http://tinyurl.com/pkmunzv

 

So the tories recognised, in their own words that there was a crisis in nurse retention, and the way they have addressed that is to train fewer nurses. The shortfall is now around 20,000 nurses, and the consequential costs of agency staff make up 2/3rds of the overspend.

You maybe right in saying it seems unlikely that there will ever be enough nurses, but as trent says, their idiotic approach to immigration plus the involvement of so many tories in private medical providers guarantees they will fail to address the problem at all. It's deliberate and deceitful. And Liam Fox is a word removed, as well.

According to that article 20000 nurses were added by Labour and according to other sources (NHS Confederation) 18000 have been added since 2004.

So since 1997 38000 nurses have been added, which suggests that despite that increase the nurses are still lobbying for more.

For me it shows how things remain the same: the NHS are still spending 2% of their budget on agency staff, the opposition make an issue of it and the Royal College of Nursing (a trade union) lobbies for more money to be spent on nurses.

So whether Labour or Tory, it is business as usual.

 

Edited October 13, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[blandy]

 

According to that article 20000 nurses were added by Labour and according to other sources (NHS Confederation) 18000 have been added since 2004.

So since 1997 38000 nurses have been added, which suggests that despite that increase the nurses are still lobbying for more.

For me it shows how things remain the same: the NHS are still spending 2% of their budget on agency staff, the opposition make an issue of it and the Royal College of Nursing (a trade union) lobbies for more money to be spent on nurses.

That article in the Heil is over 10 years old. I don't think the maths is relevant. The number of nurses added between 1997 and 2005 is kind of by the by. Also it doesn't say how many have left.

Surely the issue is about now, 2015. We know that the NHS is spending over its budget and that 2/3rds of the overspend is on agency staff. We know that thee are currently massive shortages of nurses. We know that the overspend in 3 months is more than all of last years overspend. We know that nurse training places have been cut. We know that Doctors are hugely upset with the Gov't over planned contract changes. It doesn't look to me like the NHS is being properly dealt with by this Gov't. It looks like they are making a particular mess of it.

[Davkaus]

http://www.lancashire.police.uk/campaigns/changes-to-police-funding/chief-constable-steve-finnigan-s-full-message-to-the-people-of-lancashire-about-the-proposed-cuts-and-what-they-will-mean-for-residents.aspx

 

It isn't just the NHS. It's hard not to suspect that this is a deliberate dismantling of essential services, so that the Tories can show they're no longer fit for purpose before privatising as much of them as possible.

[HanoiVillan]

That is exactly the plan. PJ O'Rourke: 'Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it'. Ours have learned from the best. 

[snowychap]

I see the fiscal charter thing is being 'debated' (guffaw) tonight.

What a shambles of a (Tory majority) parliament.

90 minutes of a political snowball fight as a prelude to legislation that this government hopes will bind future governments/parliaments (don't they get parliamentary supremacy?)  to behave like drone-like arses.

Edited October 14, 2015 by snowychap
supremacy rather than sovereignty

[Davkaus]

It should be impossible for any government to bind future governments. It's essentially saying "we're better informed than any government that will ever be elected in future". It's a **** affront to democracy that they'd try to bind the electorate of future generations to their wishes.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Davkaus

[snowychap]

It should be impossible for any government to bind future governments. It's essentially saying "we're better informed than any government than will ever be elected in future". It's a **** affront to democracy that they'd try to bind the electorate of future generations to their wishes.

Indeed, it's a nonsense. There may be many arguments to be had on parliamentary supremacy (rather than sovereignty as I put in my earlier post and duly edited) but things can only really be binding on future parliaments in as much as they become convention or until a future parliament decides that the legislation of a previous one no longer apply (so, actually, they never are binding).

This particular thing is about normalizing a political standpoint/opinion. It's about creating illusory binds for the purposes of political posturing and gameplaying. I'm sure it's the kind of thing that Osborne will wank himself to sleep over but it isn't the kind of thing that should be taking up parliamentary time or that should be going in to legislation.

Edited October 14, 2015 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

 

According to that article 20000 nurses were added by Labour and according to other sources (NHS Confederation) 18000 have been added since 2004.

So since 1997 38000 nurses have been added, which suggests that despite that increase the nurses are still lobbying for more.

For me it shows how things remain the same: the NHS are still spending 2% of their budget on agency staff, the opposition make an issue of it and the Royal College of Nursing (a trade union) lobbies for more money to be spent on nurses.

That article in the Heil is over 10 years old. I don't think the maths is relevant. The number of nurses added between 1997 and 2005 is kind of by the by. Also it doesn't say how many have left.

 

Both sources actually say more nurses, I apologise for the ambiguity of my statement.

Surely the issue is about now, 2015. We know that the NHS is spending over its budget and that 2/3rds of the overspend is on agency staff. We know that thee are currently massive shortages of nurses. We know that the overspend in 3 months is more than all of last years overspend. We know that nurse training places have been cut. We know that Doctors are hugely upset with the Gov't over planned contract changes. It doesn't look to me like the NHS is being properly dealt with by this Gov't. It looks like they are making a particular mess of it.

I was merely pointing out that after more than a decade and an increase of an extra £80bn (ukpublicspending.co.uk) to the NHS budget (2015) the nurses' union is still making the exact same complaint. 

As Milton Friedman points out in the video below, one of the strategies unions use to increase their members' pay is to reduce the number of workers who enter their sector by creating barriers, and the nursing profession have achieved this by ending nursing diplomas and insisting that all nurses should have a degree since 2013. So the pool of workers who can apply to become nurses has become smaller.

So we have the paradox of nurses raising barriers and then using the fact that there is a shortage of nurses as a lever to negotiate higher pay.

This is not a criticism of nurses but just an illustration that they are pursuing the exact same self-interest which motivates the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

[snowychap]

The old Samoan sidestep.

[blandy]

Thanks for the extra info MMV (not quoted). I've learnt something and take the point that there are now more nurses than there were (though I guess there are also more people in the country and more poorly sick folk, so there needs to be more nurses, hospitals, doctors, schools, police and all the rest.)

I'm not sure that Milton Freedman's free market doctrine and anti unions stuff really fairly explains the nursing unions actions and motivations. Nurses pay is not high to start with, they have had Gov't imposed limits on wage rises, they're not a militant bunch  - you'd kind of think the nurses would be justified in taking action to raise their pay. And I'm not really sure that a change from a diploma to a degree makes that case or difference anyway. If anything if the degree does raise standards, that's a good thing. I confess to ignorance as to whether it was nursing unions anyway who determined that to be employed as a nurse you have to have a nursing degree - wouldn't that be a NHS or Hospital Trust or Gov't decision?

Edited October 15, 2015 by blandy