Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

Your guess of the saving as a % of NHS Budget was a bit generous.

It's actually about a third of a percent

Just realised it's not even a third if a percent, it's 0.15%

 

[BoldonLad]

So, the point being, for our resident bellends, is that this is not really about money.

Even if the entire workforce of NHS England was made redundant, the saving would not be significant. There would be redundancy payments, job seekers. Allowance etc. it is just moving the £ into a different pocket.

 

[BoldonLad]

Just realised it's not even a third if a percent, it's 0.15%

A guess is a guess Being wrong by approximately 4 times is possibly more accurate that the typical Defense Department budget for any project, and/or the NHS budget, certainly for IT Projects

 

[multitool]

It's hilarious how CR leapt straight in with his standard 'Starmer is a Tory' comment followed by the predictable Orwell quote.

Even more hilarious is that CR doesn't even realise that he couldn't be more wrong. Starmer's move to abolish NHS England is the reversal of an actual Tory policy brought in during Cameron's administration in 2012 🤣🤣🤣

 

[BoldonLad]

It's hilarious how CR leapt straight in with his standard 'Starmer is a Tory' comment followed by the predictable Orwell quote.

Even more hilarious is that CR doesn't even realise that he couldn't be more wrong. Starmer's move to abolish NHS England is the reversal of an actual Tory policy brought in during Cameron's administration in 2012 🤣🤣🤣

I just try to keep “ball” and “man” in mind, and not get them mixed up. Old fashioned, perhaps, but, I am of 1947 vintage. 😊

 

[Ian H]

It's hilarious how CR leapt straight in with his standard 'Starmer is a Tory' comment followed by the predictable Orwell quote.

Even more hilarious is that CR doesn't even realise that he couldn't be more wrong. Starmer's move to abolish NHS England is the reversal of an actual Tory policy brought in during Cameron's administration in 2012 🤣🤣🤣

Okay, let's try 'Starmer is at least 50% Tory'. I could cite the refusal to make taxation more progressive and the declared attack on benefits (reform? - yes; vast cuts? - hugely problematic).

 

[multitool]

Okay, let's try 'Starmer is at least 50% Tory'. I could cite the refusal to make taxation more progressive and the declared attack on benefits (reform? - yes; vast cuts? - hugely problematic).

Sure, but let's stick to the topic in hand which is the removal of NHS England.

People like CR parrot right-wing media, which means we hear their talking points, and actual progress like Labour meeting their extra NHS appointments pledge 4 months early.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Starmer's move to abolish NHS England is the reversal of an actual Tory policy brought in during Cameron's administration in 2012

Which in itself isn't a bad thing.
Where are we going from here? Does anyone trust Streeting? More private sector anyone? After all the private sector has masses of capacity and brings huge efficiency savings, doesn't it.

 

[Psamathe]

So, the point being, for our resident bellends, is that this is not really about money.

Trouble is that the Gov. are including savings as part of the justification and unclarified most people consider that when Gov. talk about "savings" they mean saving money

eg

Changes to NHS England will reduce bureaucracy, make savings and empower NHS staff to deliver better care for patients.
...
The reforms to deliver a more efficient, leaner centre will also free up capacity and help deliver significant savings of hundreds of millions of pounds a year
(from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-scrapped-under-reforms-to-put-patients-first)

Ian

 

[monkers]

Sure, but let's stick to the topic in hand which is the removal of NHS England.

People like CR parrot right-wing media, which means we hear their talking points, and actual progress like Labour meeting their extra NHS appointments pledge 4 months early.

Actually I don't happen to think that a fair criticism.

There's a lot to be said to keeping political bias away from clinical decisions. The courts through their rulings have said as much.

The stated intention is to give ministers more control.

In Wes Streeting's case as the relevant minister, I don't necessarily view that as a good thing. In fact I think it a bad idea.

On a different track, I do understand that there needs to be a ratio of public sector workers and private sector workers to meet stated aims of productivity ambitions and maintaining public services and national infrastructure.

It needs to be remembered that cutting public sector jobs does not necessarily save money. Making a public sector worker redundant might have some beneficial effects if they can go to a private sector job. Otherwise there is no positive effect on GDP. An unemployed person becomes a financial liability to the state as a benefit claimant rather than an asset. The tax and NICs on their earnings is lost, the VAT on purchases they might otherwise make is lost.

Instead of a benefit to the state, it initiates a cycle of decline. Efficiency is something that needs careful management, but making large numbers of workers redundant en masse as Streeting proposes is straightforward Musk-style stupidity.

 

[multitool]

In reply to most of the above...

NHS England, created in 2012, has been pretty much planned as a failure by everyone except themselves.

And by everyone, I don't just mean doctors and the Labour party...even the conservative party, who created it, realise it was a mistake.

Given this, quite a few of the responses above have nothing to do with reality but are a dogmatic response based on the ideological position of the poster.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Given this, quite a few of the responses above have nothing to do with reality but are a dogmatic response based on the ideological position of the poster.

Out of interest, perhaps to nobody other than me, who are you arguing with?

 

[Psamathe]

As the Disability Benefit cuts proposals progress it will be interesting to see what is proposed compared to how the benefit payments are awarded.

I know of a disability benefit claimant, a young girl (mid 20s) who apparently suffers anxiety and can't easily leave the house. Except she's a football fan so whenever the team she supports is playing at home she attends the match to watch. Anecdotal and only a sinfgle case and I don't know her clinical assesment.

But her example made me wonder if cuts would be better made by tightening qualification criteria rather than across the board reductions given the across the board cuts will badly impact those already struggling.

(At this point I have no view as I have no real information to form a view from)

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

Actually I don't happen to think that a fair criticism.

There's a lot to be said to keeping political bias away from clinical decisions. The courts through their rulings have said as much.

The stated intention is to give ministers more control.

In Wes Streeting's case as the relevant minister, I don't necessarily view that as a good thing. In fact I think it a bad idea.

On a different track, I do understand that there needs to be a ratio of public sector workers and private sector workers to meet stated aims of productivity ambitions and maintaining public services and national infrastructure.

It needs to be remembered that cutting public sector jobs does not necessarily save money. Making a public sector worker redundant might have some beneficial effects if they can go to a private sector job. Otherwise there is no positive effect on GDP. An unemployed person becomes a financial liability to the state as a benefit claimant rather than an asset. The tax and NICs on their earnings is lost, the VAT on purchases they might otherwise make is lost.

Instead of a benefit to the state, it initiates a cycle of decline. Efficiency is something that needs careful management, but making large numbers of workers redundant en masse as Streeting proposes is straightforward Musk-style stupidity.

Too much Government (of all parties) meddling one of the reasons why the NHS is the mess it is IMHO.

Interesting that Amanda Pritchard decided to "step down" a few weeks before this announcement, I wonder if she had advance information, and/or has she just made a tactical error and missed out on a juicy payout?

 

[Psamathe]

Too much Government (of all parties) meddling one of the reasons why the NHS is the mess it is IMHO.

I think another issue is that it is challenging for the NHS to adapt to new organisational structures so whilst any given organisational structure might not be ideal, if the NHS has adapted and found ways it works then changing (again) is more negative than reorganisation (again).

And still little focus on Social Care which would help the NHS massively.

Ian