Oh I know this is the case even in the U.K. Even the marketing acknowledged it is 50:50 I’m just pretty sure it is a long way from 50:50 in Europe. Especially places known for high quality food like france and Italy What I am not sure about it whether Vegemite is 50:50 in Australia. I think Australians defend it out of national pride even if they don’t like it
Some simple ideas for changes which would make the political system better: - Localised policies having more impact. At the moment local councils have almost no power and are at the whims of the ruling party. - Tracking of our tax money. Even something simple like “this month your tax money was used to save someone’s life in the NHS”. Could help engender a more positive attitude to the tax burden. - Maybe an ability to vote for how our tax money is actually used? - Ministers have to have at least five years of experience in the industry that they look after. For example; the minister for health has to have been a doctor or a nurse and have experience on the front line of the NHS - Accountablity. We are at the point where all politicians both local and national receive almost no consequences for their actions. I don’t have a recommendation for how to change this, but it has to happen somehow. The voting system currently doesn’t work.
Partly, yes. Stonewall is a lobbying group campaigning to change the law, not an impartial advice service helping to support inclusion. It has also been accused of giving advice that misinterprets the Equality Act 2010, claiming it includes protection for ‘gender identity’, and using its Diversity Champions scheme to push employers to adopt pro-trans policies that some are concerned would negatively impact other groups – for example giving trans women access to women-only spaces or enforcing the use of gender-neutral language. The Reindorf Report shows that following Stonewall guidance, which is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, can be problematic for employers. Stonewall represents the law as it would like the law to be, not as it is. This can contribute to an environment of fear for staff that hold views about sex and gender that do not align with Stonewall’s. https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-workplace/the-reindorf-review-a-wake-up-call-for-universities/ On BBC Sounds-Nolan Investigates: Stonewall, Nolan, 'Blows the lid off the controversial lobby group Stonewall and its influence on public institutions across the UK. It’s not about the rights and wrongs of what Stonewall are doing. They’re entitled to lobby. It’s about the process. And is it right that in a democracy, a lobby group can have so much influence within Government on Government policy?” Nolan discusses the 'Diversity Champions' programme a service Stonewall provides for an annual fee, to advise on diversity and inclusion and the Workplace Equality Index, a public ranking of organisations, which is scored by Stonewall, and does not require a fee to enter By joining the Diversity Champions scheme an employer has access to advice and training (at additional cost) from Stonewall. Submitting to the Workplace Equality Index will entitle the employer to prepare and submit an extensive report detailing how well or otherwise it has implemented Stonewall’s recommendations, in return for which Stonewall will provide feedback and a grading and ranking. So not only are our public bodies paying a lobby group to be marked by a lobby group, but then this lobby group is also saying, well, you’re not doing well enough. Pay us some money and we’ll tell you how to get up higher up our league table next year. The BBC along with other organisations have left Stonewall and the Government’s Insolvency Service is the latest organisation to leave, stating in its internal communications: “Unfortunately, there are concerns around impartiality and upon review, we found that the contract did not represent value for money.” The Insolvency Service joins a growing list of companies and organisations who have realised that membership of Stonewall creates risks. Many organisations are questioning whether outsourcing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies to a lobby group is a good idea. https://sex-matters.org/posts/updat...ll-over-concerns-about-impartiality-and-cost/
I am not sure giving loads of power to councils is great. There a lot of very entrenched blue councils who if they had their way would do absolutely nothing. Proper die hard “small government” types Positive reinforcement of tax is not a bad idea I guess many would argue we technically do vote for how our tax is spent via an election and manifesto. Obviously this doesn’t play out like that because parties can seemingly ignore their manifesto policies at will I’d even settle for indirect experience. For example someone who has worked in a professional services firm (especially something like internal audit) for something like the nhs - where reviews cover the whole range of what they do - is infinitely more qualified than the likes of Hunt and Hancock or bankers like Javid. I still can’t get over how Osbourne was given the chancellor gig over Cable - the economics professor. The guy’s only previous job was folding towels in a posh hotel. I understand “why” he actually got it. It still doesn’t make it make any sense Our elections are too infrequent for starters. But americas are too frequent so I’m not sure. Fixed term parliaments was supposed to be a coalition security measure. It shouldn’t still be in place
If gender identify isn’t covered by the EA then I can certainly see why they and other LGBT groups are seemingly far more vocal about the “T” than the other three. But weirdly it seems to not be calling for the act to be changed (although I have never looked out for that). It seems to be closer to what you suggest - pretending that is what it says / means Does that explain why the lady who JKR spoke out in defence of (Maya something) actually won her appeal?
The chronic underfunding of the NHS and current unattainable mandate from the government is the subject of the Guardian article linked https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/05/tories-nhs-crisis-sajid-javid-targets. Totally agree about the voting system and more power for local government. The ERS has been campaigning for years https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/?s=local government I find the work of parliamentary committees worth a look. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/
I'd argue the NHS is chronically inefficient rather than chronically underfunded. Certainly wouldn't advocate more money thrown at it until that is addressed.
I'm not arguing for cuts or privatisation. Just offering my view, based on my experiences working in a large (ish) Trust over the past 6 years, that a colossal amount of money is wasted within the service. I genuinely find it infuriating and it has decreased my confidence in the organisation. I believe this is one of the better performing Trust's too so I dread to think how bad it is elsewhere. A lot of it is culture sadly and it's probably too far gone for any meaningful change to happen.
Believe me, I know about waste and inefficiency in the NHS, based on my nearly 40 years working for it. I agree there are areas, IT being the one that immediately springs to mind, where billions have been flushed down the sluice. Paying agency and bank staff because of poor recruitment and training policies over decades and decades is another one. So yes, let’s look at all those examples, but don’t do what has always, in my experience, happened, and just remove the funding but redirect it to where it’s actually being used effectively. One of my biggest gripes, and things may have changed since I retired 8 years ago, is the removal of decision making over policy and finance from the healthcare professionals.
I worked for 33 years in the NHS retiring in 2006 as a clinician and as a manager. Chilco highlights much of the waste that I would agree happened. Here are some more: The purchaser provider split multiplied bureaurocracy. Private Finance Initiatives crippled longterm clinical planning, spending on outside management consultants was a gravy train. From my perspective the worst was the lack of ongoing meaningful audit that allowed senior managers who often had no clinical understanding, let alone expertise to play fast and loose with very large budgets. All of these issues resulted because of political decisions. One only has to look at the response of this present government to the Pandemic to understand that most of the waste is generated by politicians.
Yep agree with pretty much all of that. And as I say I'm not discussing the removal of funding but there seems to be this perception that the problems it faces is purely down to lack of funds when that simply isn't the case. The area which is underfunded is social care (which has a direct impact) but nobody seems interested in paying for that. I think non-clinical services should be managed centrally rather than by each individual Trust. Using your IT example, it would be much more cost efficient for every Trust to be using the same software and for it to be procured on a national level, compared to different Trust's always competing with each other and rushing into contracts which become useless within a year. I find it baffling that in the current age of technology that there is no single system of storing medical records which can be accessed nationally. As I say though I think culture is one of the biggest problems and in particular this 'jobs for the boys' mentality. Seems to be fairly common practice that if someone is really good at their job and deemed to be worthy of promotion then it doesn't matter whether a position is available or not as the budget holder will just pull a band 6 post out of their arse. This is how you end up with some departments having five managers doing the work of two.
I note all of the above comments regarding mismanagement throughout the NHS. The IT in particular is a horror story that shouldn't happen in this day and age.
An interesting piece on housing, that highlights the lack of investment in building council houses, especially in comparison to Atlee’s government, post war and high rents. Got me thinking about the first place I rented, with my wife, in 1975. The top floor of a house, 1 bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom all for the princely sum of £5 a week - £260 per annum. You can’t even get a single room, in a house share, for £260 a month now. https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/04/th...3UVErcdAMTP90XMKwLpKSKREeHpad_ibharHP66AXbV_8
