The UK political parties - what's going on?? thread.

[winjim]

I'm not an employment lawyer but I imagine it would be possible to make it a contract condition for clinical staff working in the NHS that they didn't moonlight in the private sector. Why is that a bad idea?

Brain drain. You lose staff experienced in eg certain procedures. You thereby lose the ability to carry out those procedures.

 

[newfhouse]

Brain drain. You lose staff experienced in eg certain procedures. You thereby lose the ability to carry out those procedures.

Would the private sector be capable of supporting them on a full time basis?

 

[theclaud]

Another pledge that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Assuming there's such a thing left in the wild as a Starmer admirer, or at least someone who thinks that a Starmer government offers some hope beyond a bit of breathing space from Tory criminality, what's the thinking on the issue of his lack of integrity when it comes to spelling out his intentions, politics, values (assume he has any to speak of)? Is the hope that his chauvinistic and authoritarian posturing, once it's won him a few racist votes, will be as fake as his socialist-friendly pledges, and that he'll drop the flag-shagging as fast as he dropped refugees' rights and settle somewhere in the officious-but-humane middle, for example? It's a possibility, I suppose, but what does having completely opaque political intentions and setting no store by his own promises, pledges or policy commitments do for our already threadbare democracy and faith in the entire political process? Would a Starmer premiership change things for the better, safeguard those changes beyond the electoral term, and undo some of the damage - or would it just perpetuate the alienation of the last four decades and usher in the next grotesque stage of Tory extremism?

 

[Deleted member 49]

View attachment 517

Another pledge that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Assuming there's such a thing left in the wild as a Starmer admirer, or at least someone who thinks that a Starmer government offers some hope beyond a bit of breathing space from Tory criminality, what's the thinking on the issue of his lack of integrity when it comes to spelling out his intentions, politics, values (assume he has any to speak of)? Is the hope that his chauvinistic and authoritarian posturing, once it's won him a few racist votes, will be as fake as his socialist-friendly pledges, and that he'll drop the flag-shagging as fast as he dropped refugees' rights and settle somewhere in the officious-but-humane middle, for example? It's a possibility, I suppose, but what does having completely opaque political intentions and setting no store by his own promises, pledges or policy commitments do for our already threadbare democracy and faith in the entire political process? Would a Starmer premiership change things for the better, safeguard those changes beyond the electoral term, and undo some of the damage - or would it just perpetuate the alienation of the last four decades and usher in the next grotesque stage of Tory extremism?

But we have to get the Tories out ffs

 

[winjim]

Would the private sector be capable of supporting them on a full time basis?

That wouldn't be support though that would just be privatisation.

Private sector takes all the easy stuff, poaches the experienced staff, which the NHS has paid to train. NHS mortality increases, because they're only doing difficult procedures now. NHS declared unfit for purpose, further privatisation ensues, NHS is unavailable to fall back on, no option remains but complete privatisation. No more NHS.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think the fear is that many politicians are owned by the private healthcare companies.

Understood. But, wherever there is lots of £ sloshing around, there is scope for patronage. The “old” Publically owned industries were not immune. Jobs for the boys and all that, just different boys.

 

[newfhouse]

That wouldn't be support though that would just be privatisation.

I take your point but I was really asking whether doctors or nurses with a foot in each camp might have to choose one or the other, and whether there would be sufficient business in the private sector to pay their wages full time.

I'm just thinking out loud and asking simpleton questions as a consequence.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm not an employment lawyer but I imagine it would be possible to make it a contract condition for clinical staff working in the NHS that they didn't moonlight in the private sector. Why is that a bad idea?

I suggest you ask a few Consultants. I think it may have something to do with the lure of money.

 

[newfhouse]

I suggest you ask a few Consultants. I think it may have something to do with the lure of money.

I was trying to approach it from the point of view of someone that recognises the financial rewards of playing for both teams but sees public good as more important.

 

[BoldonLad]

I was trying to approach it from the point of view of someone that recognises the financial rewards of playing for both teams but sees public good as more important.

Ok. But, I think you need to leave the Medical Profession out of it, in that case.

 

[winjim]

I take your point but I was really asking whether doctors or nurses with a foot in each camp might have to choose one or the other, and whether there would be sufficient business in the private sector to pay their wages full time.

I'm just thinking out loud and asking simpleton questions as a consequence.

I am equally a simpleton. I suspect the answer is 'it depends'.

 

[BoldonLad]

I take your point but I was really asking whether doctors or nurses with a foot in each camp might have to choose one or the other, and whether there would be sufficient business in the private sector to pay their wages full time.

I'm just thinking out loud and asking simpleton questions as a consequence.

Leaving aside the ideological aspects of healcare, and rhe NHS, isn’t demand for healthcare independant of fulfillment. Ie people do not cease needing/wanting healthcare just because it is private. There may be a few marginal considerations (ie more self medication, better lifestyle choices, etc,) if payment is at the point of use, but, IMHO, not enough to make a material difference to demand. Whatever we may like to tell ourselves, the NHS is not, and, never has been “free”, it is paid for out of taxation (I count NHI as taxation).

So, in short, I don’t see that a fully NHS system or a fully Private system, or, something in between, would make a difference to demand for clinical staff.

Other challenges, such as training, would have to be addressed of course.

I say all this from a similar level of expertise in this area, as your good self, ie I am a simpleton.

 

[slowmotion]

I'm not an employment lawyer but I imagine it would be possible to make it a contract condition for clinical staff working in the NHS that they didn't moonlight in the private sector. Why is that a bad idea?

I think that you are underestimating how much highly qualified clinicians sacrifice financially by actually working for the NHS. They can earn far more elsewhere either here or abroad. If they were presented with the type of contract that you are suggesting, I suspect that the NHS would grind to a complete standstill due to a lack of expertise.

 

[farfromtheland]

It might not be how I'd ideally want to do things. File it under AOB and we'll look at it once we've seen to GTTO.

This has been the argument of the Labour right-wing since Thatcher though. Every Labour interlude has opened up a bit more of the NHS for the market. Then the next Tories pick on the problems, substantially caused by inefficiency and partiality of all the contract bidding, and take another step towards a US insurance model, corrupt to the core.

I agree but we deserve a better choice than that. I wish I knew how to get what we deserve. You only have to look to the US to see the disappointments that arise from a Trump-notTrump choice.

Vote for the party or candidate that best matches your own views, accepting that nothing will be an exact fit.
Or vote for the party or candidate most likely to keep your least appealing option out of power.
Or don’t vote, or spoil your ballot (which has the same effect).

What other options are there?

There is a grass roots Democrat resurgence in the US, since the credit crunch and 'Demand Progress' initiatives. They tend to concentrate on getting and keeping principled people in positions of power, based on their voting records together with public statements. They mobilise on marginal votes and issues, and put local pressure on politicians in one pocket or another by exposing them.

Labour could do this here, it would be less defeatist than accepting Starmer reneging on his manifesto.

Dangerous lol...I'll tell you what I find dangerous is voting for someone/party that has nothing to do with your values!

Yes. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Yes. It's a slippery slope.

One which I've no intention of going down.