Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No, they shouldn't work like private firms do. The lack of profit as a motive is precisely why they don't run cheaper.
This is pretty much basic economics.
I some cases this may be so. I can only reflect on the bits of the NHS I saw tendered out of public service control. Almost universally ending up over budget or in debt and often being rescued at further cost. Expertise, experience and morale not being valued was common.
The NHS may be a special case as many staff are (still amazingly considering how they are treated) often motivated by a need to do good, This was often eroded by private sector management who didn't understand how much of the service depends on work outside of contract terms, and indeed hours.
Not universal by any means. I met a few greedy, grasping types in the Health Service, but far more good people just trying to do a good job. As I learned, motivation is a strange, complicated thing at times and not just governed by profit.
No that is a simplistic summary. Why can state owned organisations not streamline things and be cost effective? That is where the problems start. I am not talking cost cutting. I would bet a lot of the most successful firms don;t really do that much cost cutting and short cuts. they ensure that they get value for money.
The failings of state owned organisations is not because private firms cut corners as such. It is because the state organisations end up not getting value for money because the whole concept of protecting all spending as necessary without self auditing properly because they become political tools.
Private companies want to make profit. We understand that. They want to pay as little for everything as possible. We also get that. There is a compromise in the centre between the 2 that both parties in the state (and in private) need to make but the state side's people (workers/unions) never concede and governments/the state are unwilling to meet at.
If a private version makes 10% profit then there quite literally the state should be anything up to 10% cheaper because they don;t need to make profit. The state has shareholders as well..the people.
I accept it doesn't work like private firms do. I would even accept if you said it couldn't work as private firms do. However you can't say it shouldn't because it should.
For a start the state has much more purchasing power than any private firm and anything the state buys should be working out cheaper than private quite simply because of the purchasing volumes involved. That is just one part that is failing massively especially in the NHS where we are paying over the odds on chummy deals with Big Pharma rather than utilising that purchasing power to get the best prices.
It isn't basic economics at all. It is a basic assumption that "it is what it is and won;t change do we'll assess things on the assumption that it is what it is."
The problem as always is not with the model it is with the system in the way that the 2 parties don't compromise and don't play with the rules. Capitalism or Socialism the people always push for more of the pot and business/rich always want to put less in.
Like the Rush song - The Trees. Both sides want more, the little people demand they are being mistreated and the result is axes and saws to keep everything equal. A drastic measure because no-one could agree so everything gets ruled without compassion. Yes, everyone is equal now but it stifles progression. Any tree that succeeds is chopped level again:
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
And they're quite convinced they're right
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'oppression!'
And the oaks, just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw
Last edited:
When people like me question money going into the NHS we aren't questioning the workers, despite being sceptical of some strike motives. It is the grasping hands and the "preferred partner" deals with the private sector that are what is in question. I daresay that the NHS DOES need to work with some private sector deals however if they are anything like the rest of the deals for state like the "decent homes initiative" it just becomes a no questions asked free flow of money to the private sector where the policy title and motive is used as a protection.
With the decent homes initiative it is noble. Not every house needs doing though and that is what happens. In the NHS there is undoubtedly good use of private sector however while the one side screams about the evils of privatisation and the other promotes privatisation as a good thing no-one seems to be monitoring what happens at the moment and the tap is left running whether water is needed or not while the private sector just keeps the buckets rolling.
Last edited:
Yes. Don't get me wrong, I worked in the NHS under the old regional structure, well before Trusts were created. There was waste and poor use of taxpayers money then. The shame was improvements that could, and shold've, been made were tainted by an almost indecent rush for power/money/status by some individuals.
The housing initiatives are pretty much proven now to benefit a large number of people who really didn't need it while having a very modest positive effect at the poorer end.
Just as an aside did anyone hear the government spokespersion on the Today programme this morning?
Claiming if you'd been in continuous employment during the last 5 yrs your standard of living and income would've improved beyond inflation. Pshaw, tell that to the frozen and 1% public sector workers I thought. Regardless of politics I do wish these sweeping generalisations (?lies) were challenged by journalists more.
I didn't hear that but I would agree with it. Life was much harder 5 years ago in my experience and I have more money available to me now but then I have no credit at all on my back so everything I get I keep after the bills have been paid.
Low income get much more housing benefit now than they did. As well as much more Council tax benefit. Housing is a big cost to low earners. My energy supplier owes me money and always does these days because I switch each year and I don't waste anything. LED bulbs are only £1 in poundland (surprise, surprise) and 3W LED globes are better than 15W CFLs are better than 60W incandescents etc. Lots of this sort of thing.
Credit is the killer IMO and financial advisors would be more help in the low earning area than throwing more benefits at people for them to take on more credit.
While pay has been frozen you have to take into account that welfare for in work has risen through this period.
Of course this is my experience so I can't speak for others but for me my standard of living is as good as it was 5 years ago and I actually have more money left over than I did 5 years ago because of the increases in welfare. IF you want to class the more money left over as my standard of living improving then my standard of living has improved.
Last edited:
Not enough humour on this thread!
You must log in or register to see media
I'm on duolingo learning Portuguese. That will make some of you laugh. And no it it not so I can tell them to go home
are you off to Brazil?I'm on duolingo learning Portuguese. That will make some of you laugh. And no it it not so I can tell them to go home
You should learn Serbian, nice little country, just outside the EU, rejected the left wing, now has right wing politicians, press that only supports the Prime Minister and there's no way that the Germans want them in the EU! Ideal!I'm on duolingo learning Portuguese. That will make some of you laugh. And no it it not so I can tell them to go home
Ok dude, your points to me are total bollocks as well, how do imagine to kill 4 foxes a day when each male has a territory of 2 square miles? Helicopter ? Hot air balloon? Let's just call it quits as hunting with hounds is illegal anyway and will never be introduced
you can't reply and then call it quits! You can shoot 4 foxes a day because foxes live in a den and it's not hard to find out where they are! you don't need a hot air balloon! Shall we call it quits now?
you can't reply and then call it quits! You can shoot 4 foxes a day because foxes live in a den and it's not hard to find out where they are! you don't need a hot air balloon! Shall we call it quits now?
Ok, but you only want to shoot the old or sick right ? Not the healthy foxes that are breeding
no you won't call it quits! personally I don't want to kill any foxes! fox hunting doesn't kill the old and sick, it kills the fit ones that can run and run until they're ripped to pieces! I now QUIT!
If it isn't, it should be. Let's go tomorrow morning. You get the balloon and the guns, I'll bring the vodka, cocaine and hookers.
Vin
Don't be silly, it's only the healthy ones which provide fine 'sport' for our betters. A point studiously ignored by those who claim it's the only way to control the population.
Fox population I mean, don't want to give May any more ideas.
Got to be one messed up sick **** to ransom ware hospitals.