General strike/protest

[Bruce Wayne]

David Cameron drops bombshell privatisation ... - The Canary

Call me Dave not wanted back in the UK.

Petition to ban David Cameron re-entering the UK reaches 1 ...

I've asked you several times previously, could you please link to the actual sources of your articles rather than the Google searches for them?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I have a close friend who heads up a PCT. Most companies are non British, some have little to no experience in healthcare.

Do we have names and what their involvement is (or will be)?

 

[Seanjd]

I'm not sure enforced anything is a good idea to be honest, although I am in favour of academies as a concept. Diversity is good in most ways after all.

I don't think it's a good idea to ask businesses to be responsible for the improvement of schools. Vested interests?

 

[magicjuan]

Do we have names and what their involvement is (or will be)?

I do. And you will no doubt know better than to ask me to put them forward, this being a forum.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't think it's a good idea to ask businesses to be responsible for the improvement of schools. Vested interests?

I'd be happy if improvements came from whatever quarter to be honest. The most important thing is that improvements come, not who delivers them (imo). Whether that's a charity, a business, or a government doesn't really matter, just so long as the education is good.

I do. And you will no doubt know better than to ask me to put them forward, this being a forum.

Fair dos, but I'm sure you appreciate it's difficult to discuss things when accusations are so general in form. Unknown companies are coming to buy up unknown bits of the NHS to do unknown things is tough to really discuss

 

[Clem Fandango]

I'm not sure enforced anything is a good idea to be honest, although I am in favour of academies as a concept. Diversity is good in most ways after all.

If all schools are academies, that's the opposite of diverse though.

There is a cost to conversion, about £25,000 for a primary school. That's money going into the pockets of solicitors rather than into the education of our children, and in a time when there is less money available already despite there being no credible argument for this policy.

 

[oldblue]

I hear this 'companies/vultures are waiting to snaffle up the NHS' line a lot. Who are these companies and what lends you to think they have such capricious intent?

I think maybe on the surface companies like Virgin, Boots and Lloyds are qualified enough to run aspects of delivery of the service in some way, but they'll come under huge pressure to run it 'efficiently'. And these aren't services that lend themselves to this in any way.

If you look at pharmaceuticals, the one area in which profits have always undermined the notion of a free service in this country, marketing and short term profit have always meant massive exploitation of people. Increasingly we'll see applied research and equal distribution of the service disappear as pressures to make money mean the profitable areas of health become the main focus. How you sell the idea of health will dominate, which always mean fear factors and short term solutions. This tends to be when the very worst of companies step in.

The idea of healthcare that's free for all and publicly funded is something that should have even been expanding into quality of life and palliative care. These are the things that immediately disappear when incomes are squeezed but are highly profitable if delivered to people on higher incomes. And this is where private companies will focus at the expense of funds elsewhere.

Even with the NHS we have a very poor quality of life and life expectancy compared to most wealthy nations except the US. If you don't pay attention to the health and wellbeing of your population then beyond the sheer cynicism you will damage it's productivity in the long term. Unless you just allow people to rot you've created a completely false economy.

The NHS was very cheap and efficient so privatisation is highly unlikely to improve these areas. All it can do is provide a way for people to cut in the short term with long term effects that will only see asset strippers and snake oil sellers benefiting.

Apologies if this is all over the show and ranting but a generation, my parents, saw their lives made bearable by the NHS and if we care about the generations to come then it's THE battleground with this government. I don't think this is about stopping privatisation as much as winning the NHS back, updating it's objectives, raising our quality of life in every way possible And if the junior doctors go on strike I'll happily give full support in any way possible.

 

[Clint Planet]

Academy status is nothing less than stealth privatisation. Talking to friends who have friends in academies they say that staff morale has collapsed, there is a climate of fear and/or workplace bullying, saving money seems more important than educating the children and, troublngly, pupil attainment data iseems to be sometimes being massaged to make them appear better than they truthfully are.

I will say again, a massive recruitment crisis is on the horizon and academies will only worsen matters.

The whole thing is going to be an unmitigated disaster. It breaks my heart.

 

[magicjuan]

I'd be happy if improvements came from whatever quarter to be honest. The most important thing is that improvements come, not who delivers them (imo). Whether that's a charity, a business, or a government doesn't really matter, just so long as the education is good.



Fair dos, but I'm sure you appreciate it's difficult to discuss things when accusations are so general in form. Unknown companies are coming to buy up unknown bits of the NHS to do unknown things is tough to really discuss

I'd be happy if improvements came from whatever quarter to be honest. The most important thing is that improvements come, not who delivers them (imo). Whether that's a charity, a business, or a government doesn't really matter, just so long as the education is good.



Fair dos, but I'm sure you appreciate it's difficult to discuss things when accusations are so general in form. Unknown companies are coming to buy up unknown bits of the NHS to do unknown things is tough to really discuss

The weather is difficult to discuss on a forum.

So, if the privatising, more wholesale than present, of the NHS is a top policy of the current incumbents, we could, if not party to absolute information, summise that with the lobbying, think tanks, working connections, shared board membership and employment there is between parliament and business, that vested interests are already lining up proposals, wish lists and influence.

You know well enough how this works. Research is done on profitability in sectors by business and legislation activated to maximise earnings. Jeebus, they're even privatising the land registry now, selling off the country itself.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If all schools are academies, that's the opposite of diverse though.

There is a cost to conversion, about £25,000 for a primary school. That's money going into the pockets of solicitors rather than into the education of our children, and in a time when there is less money available already despite there being no credible argument for this policy.

That isn't really what I meant by diversity though. It's a bit like saying all humans are humans, therefore there's no diversity. The diversity benefit comes when you have a variety of ways of doing things rather than one single way of doing things. Having a range of people providing the service would hopefully do that.

Regarding the cost of conversion, what is that currently spent on? Legal documentation and so on?

Academy status is nothing less than stealth privatisation. Talking to friends who have friends in academies they say that staff morale has collapsed, there is a climate of fear and/or workplace bullying, saving money seems more important than educating the children and, troublngly, pupil attainment data iseems to be sometimes being massaged to make them appear better than they truthfully are.

I will say again, a massive recruitment crisis is on the horizon and academies will only worsen matters.

The whole thing is going to be an unmitigated disaster. It breaks my heart.

With respect though Clint, whilst I'd certainly not wish to dispute the claims of your friends, they are anecdotal. Has there not been an unbiased, peer reviewed study done of this issue?

The weather is difficult to discuss on a forum.

So, if the privatising, more wholesale than present, of the NHS is a top policy of the current incumbents, we could, if not party to absolute information, summise that with the lobbying, think tanks, working connections, shared board membership and employment there is between parliament and business, that vested interests are already lining up proposals, wish lists and influence.

You know well enough how this works. Research is done on profitability in sectors by business and legislation activated to maximise earnings. Jeebus, they're even privatising the land registry now, selling off the country itself.

This is kind of what I was getting at though. What you've said there is very generic and un-specific. Even if you can't provide company names, a bit of flesh on the bones as to how you believe this privatisation is occuring would be useful as we may be talking about the same thing from very different perspectives.

For instance, I know there is a big effort to try and make the NHS better at spotting, testing and then disseminating new innovations in healthcare, whether that's through the AHSNs or projects such as the Test Bed or more local projects such as this - http://digitalhealth.london/ - run by the South London AHSN.

Now I may look at these things and think it's an attempt to ensure the NHS has access to the best thinking and the best technology to ensure patients get the best treatment. You may be looking at these things and thinking its an example of private enterprise weedling its way into the NHS. You see what I mean?

 

[magicjuan]

That isn't really what I meant by diversity though. It's a bit like saying all humans are humans, therefore there's no diversity. The diversity benefit comes when you have a variety of ways of doing things rather than one single way of doing things. Having a range of people providing the service would hopefully do that.

Regarding the cost of conversion, what is that currently spent on? Legal documentation and so on?



With respect though Clint, whilst I'd certainly not wish to dispute the claims of your friends, they are anecdotal. Has there not been an unbiased, peer reviewed study done of this issue?



This is kind of what I was getting at though. What you've said there is very generic and un-specific. Even if you can't provide company names, a bit of flesh on the bones as to how you believe this privatisation is occuring would be useful as we may be talking about the same thing from very different perspectives.

For instance, I know there is a big effort to try and make the NHS better at spotting, testing and then disseminating new innovations in healthcare, whether that's through the AHSNs or projects such as the Test Bed or more local projects such as this - http://digitalhealth.london/ - run by the South London AHSN.

Now I may look at these things and think it's an attempt to ensure the NHS has access to the best thinking and the best technology to ensure patients get the best treatment. You may be looking at these things and thinking its an example of private enterprise weedling its way into the NHS. You see what I mean?

Completely. And I would err that innovation is a driver, as long as there is access to a market to create that profitability.

However, it is an understood fundamental that access to healthcare in this country should be on a needs basis, decided by trained medical staff, not determined by profitable outcomes and applied principally in areas of shareholder benefit.

You appreciate a business drive better than I so would I assume accept that philanthropy in healthcare wouldn't be a primary purpose for businesses to enter this particular market, they would need confidence that constraints on profiterring would be loosened at the least to the point of their dictating areas of care. To the detriment of other areas selective healthcare would become the norm and then the introduction of a US style insurance scheme, which strangely is what I always believed NI was for, to fund this social fabric, though huge swathes of NI contributions find their way to ther areas as an alternative taxation.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Academy status is nothing less than stealth privatisation. Talking to friends who have friends in academies they say that staff morale has collapsed, there is a climate of fear and/or workplace bullying, saving money seems more important than educating the children and, troublngly, pupil attainment data iseems to be sometimes being massaged to make them appear better than they truthfully are.

I will say again, a massive recruitment crisis is on the horizon and academies will only worsen matters.

The whole thing is going to be an unmitigated disaster. It breaks my heart.

My daughter works as a secretary/PA to the head of an Academy. It is in an area that is not considered to be the most salubrious part of the country. The previous achievements of the school pre-academy were not worth mentioning. In summer 2015, it achieved the milestone of one of its pupils being offered a place at one of the OxBridge Universities. It has moved from being in the OFSTED 'special measures' marking under local authority control to being out of that and moving upwards in OFSTED results under Academy status.

I say this to point out that not all work carried out at Academies is worse than state run schools. What I have been told is that the Acadamy, having control of its own budget, can focus directly on correct recruitment, can focus on the core subjects to be taught (without local council interference and driving them in the wrong direction), and can strive towards better results overall. Whether this is 100% across the board of all Academies is another thing, but I believe it is incorrect to simply dismiss them with broad, sweeping, statements without any evidence to back up such statements...

 

[Clem Fandango]

The costs are essentially legal costs, transfer of property, employees contracts etc. We have a diverse system now Bruce, this policy removes that. In my experience people in education, in schools, are not per se against academies. The issue is it is being forced upon them without any proof that this will benefit our children and in the process, removing a system that for some, is currently providing a better than good service.

 

[Tubey]

Fully understand why teachers and doctors in particular will want to strike, as they are being disgustingly treated by the Tories.

However, a general strike would be an extremely stupid thing to do. Public support for targeted strikes would be the way to go instead.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Completely. And I would err that innovation is a driver, as long as there is access to a market to create that profitability.

However, it is an understood fundamental that access to healthcare in this country should be on a needs basis, decided by trained medical staff, not determined by profitable outcomes and applied principally in areas of shareholder benefit.

You appreciate a business drive better than I so would I assume accept that philanthropy in healthcare wouldn't be a primary purpose for businesses to enter this particular market, they would need confidence that constraints on profiterring would be loosened at the least to the point of their dictating areas of care. To the detriment of other areas selective healthcare would become the norm and then the introduction of a US style insurance scheme, which strangely is what I always believed NI was for, to fund this social fabric, though huge swathes of NI contributions find their way to ther areas as an alternative taxation.

It's a sensible approach by the NHS really, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it accepts that they don't have, and likely never will have, access to all of the brains and ideas in this field. There are a great many people working on health related innovations that it makes infinite sense to tap into them. To use a popular recent example. Deep Mind (a Google company) are widely believed to have the finest minds in the world in terms of artificial intelligence. They recently launched a health division, and are working with the Royal Free Hospital on some bits and bobs in the field of kidney diagnosis.

That the NHS can tap into this level of expertise is great. What's more, it's more efficient to do it this way. There are literally thousands of startups and more established companies developing products and services for the health market. It's probably fair to say that many of these won't survive. In its current form, the startups themselves bare the financial risk, so them failing doesn't cost the NHS anything. If the innovation took place within the NHS by NHS scientists and NHS funding, then that would represent a lot of money spent on products that don't work as hoped for.

Of course, the companies that do develop a viable product will be looking for a return on that, but the lack of R&D costs for the NHS + the possible efficiency savings would make things probably beneficial to the finances of the NHS in the long-term.

To be honest, I can very much see an environment whereby the NHS becomes a marketplace whereby the state foot the bill but the delivery of care is open to anyone to provide. So it might be that Babylon offer GP/primary care services, or Aravind offer eye care or various things, just as existing centres of excellence such as King's neuroscience capabilities or Guy's cancer care continue to deliver great care that is (crucially) free at the point of delivery to the patient.