Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
From my perspective, you left out "the EU" on the list of people who get blamed for the Tories' political issues. I've said it before, but it's going to be interesting to see who's going to get blamed for all the woes in the world when you can't blame the EU anymore.

I suspect Scotland will probably get the blame, and there will be calls to rebuild Hadrian's wall, thus cutting off the North of England from the rest of the country.

That'd be stupid. We'd be ceding a big chunk of northern england!

Herzlos wrote:

I don't know, Tories being pre-disposed to privatization and tory donors making money from the privatization seems to be enough to conclude that it's quite likely the tories want to privatize the NHS. Since there'd be outrage at the suggestion, it's standard operating procedure to run it into the ground and claim privatization will make it better.

Just to flip that thinking around slightly, I would postulate that the Tory inclination towards privatisation is what makes certain people fund them. In other words, the donors are not controlling them as much as they are supporting them. There's some give and take on that of course, but the image of the Tories on donor puppet strings is inaccurate.

When you fit the NHS debacle around the Tories wanting to privatize it, it makes a lot more sense than them just being incompetent (which they are).

Truthfully? There's enough people crammed into cabinet right now who come from less well off backgrounds that I actually am far more inclined to question the assertion that they're trying to sell it all off for them and their rich mates.

And the debacle really comes down to one thing; money. Namely, there isn't enough of it. And the people who'll pillory the Tories for not fixing the NHS (see Mad Doc above) are the same people who will lambast them for spending too much money (see Mad Doc a few pages back). They're really between a rock and a hard place on that one, and it's only going to keep getting worse with an aging population regardless of what they do.

Put it this way, if you were in charge, and I'd offered you a directorship with a 7-digit salary to sell me the NHS, how would you do it? How is that any different from what the Tories are doing now?

I'd tell you I was on a decent salary already as the Minister for Health and to get lost. Because I'm not a scumbag who'll sell my integrity and country for a few quid.

However, if I offered you the same position on the basis that you fixed the NHS, how would you do it and how does that differ from what the Tories are doing?

I'd be torn because there is no way to 'fix' the NHS without either

a) selling it,
b) depleting other departments of all their resources to fund it (just causing problems elsewhere) or,
c) trying to cost cut and get accused to sabotaging it to sell it off.

d) Raise taxes to properly fund it
e) Stop large companies avoiding/evading tax.

Here's some money stuff to think on.

Planned NHS expenditure in 2016/2017? £120.611bn.

Estimated cost of corporate tax avoidance? In 2014, £119.4bn.

THE MONEY IS THERE. We just need to get serious about making them cough it up. No more dodgy deals for the like of Vodafone (£84bn.....not a typoe).

But no. The Tories find it easer to defund and destroy, so it can be sold off.

The answers are obvious. But we can't possibly ask the wealthy to actually pay their dues now, can we?

Herzlos wrote:

We've got no problem finding money to give MP's a pay rise,

Comparing MP pay rises to the NHS is lik ecomparing the Ministry of Defence pen expenditure to Trident.

or to bomb the gak out of somewhere.

This one has more teeth to it. The answer is that our last batch of PM's have cared more about bombing the crap out of foreign countries and swanning about looking important then they have paying for another batch of cancer drugs.

I would postulate (on the side) that their PPE education may be the reason for that, the Guardian did an interesting article on the mentality it bestows upon people who take it recently. Dig it up if you can, it's an interesting read.

What's the simpler conclusion? That people who just happen to know people who want to privatise the NHS just happen to be letting it fail? Just like happened with the Royal Mail?

The flaw there is that they're 'letting' it fail. The truth is, it's failing for a multitude of reasons, none due to the Tory party, and nobody is willing to announce the tax increases which are the only solution to fixing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's plenty of money out there. Trident, anyone? We can afford that it seems. And it also seems we can do without evaded/avoided tax from multinationals. We can 'afford' tax cuts for the wealthiest.

If you really don't believe it's all part of an obvious plan to privatise and sell off the NHS (parts are already done) then I'd suggest you're being wilfully ignorant.

Yeah. They prioritise Trident ahead of more money for the NHS. But that doesn't really substantiate your giant conspiracy theory, does it?

You can call me what you like, but you still haven't addressed the points I keep showing. You need to substantiate the following in order for it to work.

It requires us to believe that:-

-All extraneous factors that might contribute towards a degradation of NHS services, such as a lack of liquidity generally within public funding, health scandals, an aging population placing greater strain on the system, and so forth, are all either directly the result of Tory actions, or things that could easily be fixed but a Tory Government refuses to do so deliberately.

- That there is a well thought out and entrenched plan that pervades the entire upper branch of the Conservative political hierarchy. What's more, that this plan has been discussed and is being enacted with no substantial leaks or dissension.

-That top ranking Tories are all motivated by and expect to benefit financially from the privatisation that will occur, because they are all extremely wealthy buggers who hold large shares specifically in the private (usually American) healthcare companies expected to fill the gap, or occupy senior positions within them after government.

-That not one of the buggers has considered the obvious gaping flaw that they could be voted out before they've succeeded in 'running it down', and a new government could turn around and undo everything they've done.

-That all senior Tories are complete and utter selfish grasping bastards determined to do what is best for them and not the country.

If you cannot do so to a reasonable degree, you don't have sufficient evidential grounds to believe what you do beyond the more commonplace religious style belief. Which is great for you, but don't blame me for not blithely going along with it.

Dude.

Seriously.

Head out your hole time.

THE TORY PARTY ARE REFUSING TO PROPERLY FUND THE NHS WHEN THE MONEY IS THERE.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-real-reason-nigel-farage-hates-douglas-carswell/

You can see it with Farage in America. There he is, this man who failed seven times to even become an MP, going on talk shows and basking in the vague presumption over there that he’s probably, like, the Limey prime minister or something. At Trump’s elbow, he gets to consider himself a statesman, a potential ambassador. Likewise Banks, a man who was once so piqued when William Hague didn’t remember his name that he immediately gave Ukip a million quid. These people do not want to smash the establishment. They want to be the establishment. This is why they keep fighting the referendum even though the referendum is won, because they bristle with resentment at their lack of recognition, the lack of a ticker-tape parade for having won it. This is also, I suppose, why Paul Nuttall wears tweed, even though it makes him look like a skinhead Rupert Bear.

These people don’t hate the establishment. They only hate the fact that they aren’t quite in it. They want respect. They want to be grandees, with clubs in St James’s, House of Lords stationery and invitations to the royal garden party. They want, damn it, a goddamn knighthood. I bet they thought they’d have all these things by now. And yet somehow still they don’t. Bummer, eh?

ouch !

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dude.

Seriously.

Head out your hole time.

THE TORY PARTY ARE REFUSING TO PROPERLY FUND THE NHS WHEN THE MONEY IS THERE.

Cor. I had no idea that our deficit was so easy to solve. One wave of your magic wand, right? And all complex issues are eliminated and money produced from nowhere.

Mate, I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion. Throwing insults does not qualify.

No amount of money will ever be enough for the NHS. Its a never ending black hole.

Head out your hole time.

.. we can probably turn it down a wee bit eh ?

Ta.



meanwhile :







... christ almighty, how many bags was she eating !?

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dude.

Seriously.

Head out your hole time.

THE TORY PARTY ARE REFUSING TO PROPERLY FUND THE NHS WHEN THE MONEY IS THERE.

Cor. I had no idea that our deficit was so easy to solve. One wave of your magic wand, right? And all complex issues are eliminated and money produced from nowhere.

Mate, I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion. Throwing insults does not qualify.

Go and look at the figures. Seriously.

Corporate Tax Avoidance, which the Tories refuse to do anything about (like, I dunno, overhauling our expansive and loophole filled tax laws, perhaps this time without getting input from those who ensure the loopholes are there so they can then exploit them) is massive. The benefit fraud the Tories do so love to focus on in a literal fraction of Corporate Tax Avoidance.

The Tories keep on about austerity, time and time again. They blame Labour. They blame the poor. Yet, Government borrowing is higher than it's ever been - where's that money going? Ah yes. Tax breaks for the wealthy.

We can properly fund the NHS. The money is there. They won't, because as I've covered their mantra is Defund, Destroy, Sell, Profit.

 reds8n wrote:

... christ almighty, how many bags was she eating !?

That made me laugh. Have an exalt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Go and look at the figures. Seriously.

Corporate Tax Avoidance, which the Tories refuse to do anything about (like, I dunno, overhauling our expansive and loophole filled tax laws, perhaps this time without getting input from those who ensure the loopholes are there so they can then exploit them) is massive. The benefit fraud the Tories do so love to focus on in a literal fraction of Corporate Tax Avoidance.

I agree it's something they should sort out. I agree that they've failed to do so. I suspect it's because they regularly get briefings from the likes of Deloitte and PWC telling them how the economy will collapse if they do it, combined with the fact that a good chunk of EU legislation tied them down until very recently (it was international tax laws that let companies funnel money to Luxembourg and Ireland).

The Tories keep on about austerity, time and time again. They blame Labour. They blame the poor. Yet, Government borrowing is higher than it's ever been - where's that money going? Ah yes. Tax breaks for the wealthy.

You realise none of the above has anything to do with substantiating the points that need substantiating for your conspiracy theory, right? Just in case you missed them, here they are again. At best, you're addressing a third of point 1. You need to produce reasonable (not complete, I accept that would be impossible) evidence for each of these for the concept to be plausible.

-All extraneous factors that might contribute towards a degradation of NHS services, such as a lack of liquidity generally within public funding, health scandals, an aging population placing greater strain on the system, and so forth, are all either directly the result of Tory actions, or things that could easily be fixed but a Tory Government refuses to do so deliberately.

- That there is a well thought out and entrenched plan that pervades the entire upper branch of the Conservative political hierarchy. What's more, that this plan has been discussed and is being enacted with no substantial leaks or dissension.

-That top ranking Tories are all motivated by and expect to benefit financially from the privatisation that will occur, because they are all extremely wealthy buggers who hold large shares specifically in the private (usually American) healthcare companies expected to fill the gap, or occupy senior positions within them after government.

-That not one of the buggers has considered the obvious gaping flaw that they could be voted out before they've succeeded in 'running it down', and a new government could turn around and undo everything they've done.

-That all senior Tories are complete and utter selfish grasping bastards determined to do what is best for them and not the country.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-real-reason-nigel-farage-hates-douglas-carswell

That's actually a really fun article. Well worth the read.

EDIT:- I just poked around and looked at the tax dodging stats a bit closer. Because it's only an estimate, it varies between about 7 and 18 billion pounds (which is a pretty big difference). It also mashes Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion together, which are very different things.

The Uk deficit at the moment stands at about 67.6 billion. So even if we collected every penny from tax dodging and assume it was as bad as it could be, we'd still need to find cash equivalent to it twice over again before we could start looking at increasing NHS funding.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No amount of money will ever be enough for the NHS. Its a never ending black hole.

A 'black hole' that has kept millions of people alive and which provides world class healthcare to everyone.

What the NHS really needs is a completely restructured and properly funded social care system.


I don't think that the Tories have a plan to nationalise the NHS, although I am sure that most of them want to and would leap at the prospect of selling even more of it off (to the potential enrichment of themselves obviously) although the NHS is so well loved they would have to be very sure of their position before they even thought of doing something so deeply unpopular. They are much more likely to simply keep quietly selling parts of it off.

There is already a kind of semi-privatisation in two respects. The first is the contracting out from the NHS of various types of medical services to private companies, the second is the widespread use of private medical agency staff to cover for the lack of NHS staff.

Having seen how the system works in Japan, where there is national health insurance plus a "per visit" charge and you can go to any doctor or hospital you want, I don't think it is necessarily a bad system, a private-public partnership.

My brother-in-law, for instance, was free to seek a second and third opinion for surgery on his parotid gland tumour, and found a hospital that provided the most modern keyhole kind of treatment. In the NHS you would be stuck with whatever your local unit trust commissioning group (or whatever they are called this month) provides.

The current NHS organisation, its culture, management and infrastructure built up over 60 years is probably very difficult if not impossible to change the Japanese model. However, General Practices have always been private partnerships or companies who are contracted by the NHS to provide their services, so the concept exists in a basic form even now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No amount of money will ever be enough for the NHS. Its a never ending black hole.

I dunno, a proper overhaul and decent investment could keep it going quite well. It's already largely world class, and about the only thing we as a society can actually be proud of.

We're just in a situation where excessive cuts and poor management mean that things cost more whilst a poor job is being done. Take all the elderly people that now need to stay in hospitals because their careers allowances have been cut, meaning their care costs easily 10x more whilst taking up a bed. Or the lack of early treatment for stuff due to massive waiting lists, which means when people are seeing they need more intensive care and rehabilitation.

It could very easily be fixed, if a government with a spine wanted to actually fix it. But as said, all the money is going elsewhere, and quite often benefiting those that are already rich via tax breaks and subsidies.

I get the impression that a lot of the Tory party members don't actually use the NHS, Hunt has certainly made statements about weekend closures that imply he's never been in one. So they presumably see it is a waste of money at best, or an asset to make money off at worst. I mean, why can't the poor just earn more and use a private company if they are so concerned about the state of health care?

Ketara -- sorry if I oversimplified. I don't quite mean to imply a secretive conspiracy between Tories and NHS-privatisation-buyers. But privatisation is their MO; they believe as a doctrinal matter (without evidence) that everything is best run as a business. And they are certainly very happy for capitalism to buy up state assets on that basis. Referring to those who would own what was the NHS as "their mates" was possible a stretch too far, though of course that's what the party is set up to be, these days: the best friend of capitalism, however rapacious that capitalism might be.

The old-school Tories who believed in stewarding resources and land for the benefit of all... they have mostly died out. It's all about taking from the poor for the benefit of the rich, these days.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Ketara -- sorry if I oversimplified. I don't quite mean to imply a secretive conspiracy between Tories and NHS-privatisation-buyers.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to jump on you specifically, it's just a generalistic claim I hear/read a lot.

The core problem the NHS has is the same as pensions, the cost keeps going up.

Every year, there are more old people who are living longer requiring care. There are new drugs, procedures, and prosthetics available to treat people which are inevitably more expensive, by virtue of being more pricey, requiring new machinery, or protected by IP law. Meanwhile, mental health care has gone from being something never bothered with to being a pressing matter.

What we expect from the NHS keeps increasing, but there's only so much money in the pot. Inefficiency savings, quantitative easing, and casting the tax evasion net wider only works so far. Vetinari said it best:-

Lord Vetinari wrote:"Taxation, gentlemen, is very much like dairy farming. The task is to extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum of moo. And I am afraid to say that these days all I get is moo."

That means that we as a nation, need to start making some choices. Namely, do we pay for what we expect? Most of those little Nordic countries that everyone use as the role models tend to spend virtually nothing on defence, and have much higher all around taxation levels.But nobody wants to do it here.

In the case of the government right now, any sweeping increase in taxation will nail the government's ratings and voterbase, so they won't do it. They're committed to improving the lot of the middle and upper class generally, and they're tied too much to free market political ideology. So what do they do?

They try and outsource whatever parts of it they reckon can be done cheaper by the private sector. Not as 'cash for me and my mates', but to try and institute savings. If Crapita can do their office work for 25% cheaper, than that's 25% worth of office work savings achieved (in their minds). There's a general belief that the private sector can generally achieve better results for cheaper in the Tory party. It's not malicious, it's just their ideology. They think that if they stick a few ringfences around it to guarantee quality, everyone wins.

Sometimes they're even right. Public sector services do tend to suffer from horrendous bloat and inefficiency once they're going for a few decades, and private sector organisations are far more likely to pay careful attention to the bottom line than civil servants.

The problem is that they're often wrong. All the private sector watches for at the end of the day, is the cash flow. Accordingly, if they can spot a way to save a few quid without drastically impacting on their service, they do. And sometimes they mistake whether that thing will drastically impact on their service, resulting in an almighty feth up in a critical service. They also often underbid (aka lie) to get the contract, resulting in either higher charges, or a far poorer service than was promised (see half a dozen contracts by Serco, Capita, G4S, and so on...)

If the cash was there to pay for it all without outsourcing, I suspect the Tories would be far less keen to push through most kind of privatisation. But it isn't. So they try and do what they think will allow them to make savings and keep the place ticking over without actually spending any money or raising taxes; namely privatisation.


I don't like the Tories much, but I do understand them. They're often little rich boys who have a very broad but shallow knowledge base, and don't understand much outside of their little gilded world. They spend all their time allowing the little people to make noble sacrifices 'for the Greater Good' (like some strange mix of the Tau and Lord Farquad). Sometimes that is what's needed (ruthlessness can be necessary in effective government) and sometimes it is not (and they look/are right bastards). Because they often are businessmen, or associate with them, they adopt a businessman like approach to economics; namely minimal interference by the state, watch the bottom line, and generally know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 Ketara wrote:
and generally know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The most accurate descriptor of the Tories I have heard in a ling while. One of them at least

Regarding the NHS lets not forget that Dementia patients, care and treatment will be a critical drain on NHS resources. It is now ranks above heart disease and we still know next to nothing about it (relatively speaking).

Mental Health is trouble all over and is vying for its share of resources.

Lifestyle is also a factor in how stretched the NHS will become and has become.

Even assuming no Trident replacement and everyone pays their taxes on time resources are still finite. Whilst the demands on the NHS and other services will continue to grow.

Also, I just looked at an (independent) report regarding spending on Criminal Justice and policing from 1997 to 2007, where spending increased and there were some successes there was grave concern that some major funding of schemes actually yielded negative results.

I would expect the same from the NHS side of things. You can't cut to the bone the same way you cannot hand the service a blank cheque.

Quite all right! I didn't take offence -- you made a fair criticism of my (and others') tendency to oversimplify.

In my work I regularly see the problems that come with treating something originally intended to serve the public good (in my case, universities), as a business that can be made more efficient by cost-cutting. It just doesn't happen. The inefficiencies don't go away; they just move around a little. And new ones get introduced, like treating university Vice-Chancellors like they were the heads of banks, and giving them massive bonuses and pay rises while the rest of us struggle along on an effective pay cut because "pay rises" that don't keep pace with inflation.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Quite all right! I didn't take offence -- you made a fair criticism of my (and others') tendency to oversimplify.

In my work I regularly see the problems that come with treating something originally intended to serve the public good (in my case, universities), as a business that can be made more efficient by cost-cutting. It just doesn't happen. The inefficiencies don't go away; they just move around a little. And new ones get introduced, like treating university Vice-Chancellors like they were the heads of banks, and giving them massive bonuses and pay rises while the rest of us struggle along on an effective pay cut because "pay rises" that don't keep pace with inflation.

I agree. The University I work at recently outsourced their receptionist and security staff, and it's not been great. Whilst I'm sure they're saving a pile, the turnover rate is now so high most of them don't stay long enough to actually learn their jobs. I'd estimate there's been about a 15-20% reduction in efficiency in those positions due to them making mistakes that they or someone else then has to rectify.

I voted today. Everyone except the DUP. Please God save us from the DUP.

 r_squared wrote:
In other news, did anyone watch this...

Meet the Lords

I'm planning on watching it a bit later.

Finally got to watch the first episode today, and I found it very interesting. If you haven't watched it, and you're the least interested in politics it's well worth it. It does, if nothing else highlight how essential it is to have a second, "advisory" house. I think any replacement for the Lords would have to be very carefully considered.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

Gibraltar is still British because Gibraltar wants to be British. You know, democracy and all that. As an American, I would have thought that's something you would understand?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

Gibraltar is still British because Gibraltar wants to be British. You know, democracy and all that. As an American, I would have thought that's something you would understand?

You think as a British person, Humor would be something you could understand.



(case in point == joke)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

The Barbary Apes actually control Gibraltar.

The evilest primates on the face of the planet.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

Gibraltar is still British because Gibraltar wants to be British. You know, democracy and all that. As an American, I would have thought that's something you would understand?

You think as a British person, Humor would be something you could understand.



(case in point == joke)

You fail to grasp the nuances of British humour. He was being slightly sarcastic yet still smiting you down simultaneously.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

Always handy to keep hold of the odd bit and piece, gateway to the Mediterranean, strategic parts of southern cyprus, and a handful of islands around Bermuda so we can keep an eye on you troublesome yanks.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain would be the country to watch out for.

We don't get on with them a lot, what with Gibraltar. They literally said they wanted dual control over it the day after the referendum took place.

Wait, the UK still controls Gibaltar? You guys just don't know how to let territory go, do you?

Nah, it's more like the people of Gibraltar took one look at other countries that rebelled against the crown and said to themselves "feth that."

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No amount of money will ever be enough for the NHS. Its a never ending black hole.

Maybe if the government legislated to stop companies overcharging the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39150672
NHS 'overcharged' by drug makers' non-compete deal, says CMA

The regulator accused Actavis in December of raising the price for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets by 12,000% in eight years, from 70p to £88.

 Ketara wrote:
I agree. The University I work at recently outsourced their receptionist and security staff, and it's not been great. Whilst I'm sure they're saving a pile, the turnover rate is now so high most of them don't stay long enough to actually learn their jobs. I'd estimate there's been about a 15-20% reduction in efficiency in those positions due to them making mistakes that they or someone else then has to rectify.

That tends to be the case.

I just don't entirely grasp how it's cheaper for a hospital to pay someone to pay minimum wage staff to do minimum wage staff stuff. Ours uses Serco for all of the catering and cleaning, which still presumably means they have shift managers and stuff on pay roll, and Serco must be making a profit out of it as well. The service is pretty decent, but it seems like an odd thing to outsource.

I mean, outsourcing is handy if you're not big enough to justify doing it in-house, like payroll or IT for a 3-man company, but for one of the largest employers in the country? It seems wasteful.

We've dabbled with outsourcing and we usually get bitten by it.