Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[NilSatisOptimum]

To right the NHS and social care are political footballs people will die unnecessarily because of decisions made by government.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I would have thought that 'key targets' were an important indicator Bruce. Pointing out that they have not been met doesn't strike me as particularly political, just a statement of fact.

In and of itself though it's not especially helpful. The value is in understanding why they haven't been met, as only when you know that can you try and make things better. As it is, few of the comments I see around this seem bothered to find that out, it's just used to score points for whatever cause they care about (or whichever party they support).

With flu alone, it could be that the vaccine wasn't as effective as usual, or not enough people took it (which in turn could be because not enough was ordered, not enough people went to get it etc.), it could be that demographic changes to the population make more people vulnerable, it could be that care homes have fallen in quality/quantity, it could be that A&E is stretched.

Some of those are funding issues, some of them are the way services are managed. At the moment, not only is the NHS funding governed differently in each region of the UK, but each trust run its affairs largely independently. That's why there's a fair amount of variance across the country. It's not as simple as input= output.

 

[roydo]

In and of itself though it's not especially helpful. The value is in understanding why they haven't been met, as only when you know that can you try and make things better. As it is, few of the comments I see around this seem bothered to find that out, it's just used to score points for whatever cause they care about (or whichever party they support).

With flu alone, it could be that the vaccine wasn't as effective as usual, or not enough people took it (which in turn could be because not enough was ordered, not enough people went to get it etc.), it could be that demographic changes to the population make more people vulnerable, it could be that care homes have fallen in quality/quantity, it could be that A&E is stretched.

Some of those are funding issues, some of them are the way services are managed. At the moment, not only is the NHS funding governed differently in each region of the UK, but each trust run its affairs largely independently. That's why there's a fair amount of variance across the country. It's not as simple as input= output.

Quite. Well put.

 

[orchard]

Obviously the causes need to be ascertained, but I wasn't speculating upon them either. The metrics are there for a reason, and i,like yourself, am fully aware that they won't be perfect. But the time to contest them isn't when things are going badly as the temptation may be to explain away a critical failing.

In and of itself though it's not especially helpful. The value is in understanding why they haven't been met, as only when you know that can you try and make things better. As it is, few of the comments I see around this seem bothered to find that out, it's just used to score points for whatever cause they care about (or whichever party they support).

With flu alone, it could be that the vaccine wasn't as effective as usual, or not enough people took it (which in turn could be because not enough was ordered, not enough people went to get it etc.), it could be that demographic changes to the population make more people vulnerable, it could be that care homes have fallen in quality/quantity, it could be that A&E is stretched.

Some of those are funding issues, some of them are the way services are managed. At the moment, not only is the NHS funding governed differently in each region of the UK, but each trust run its affairs largely independently. That's why there's a fair amount of variance across the country. It's not as simple as input= output.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

In and of itself though it's not especially helpful. The value is in understanding why they haven't been met, as only when you know that can you try and make things better. As it is, few of the comments I see around this seem bothered to find that out, it's just used to score points for whatever cause they care about (or whichever party they support).

With flu alone, it could be that the vaccine wasn't as effective as usual, or not enough people took it (which in turn could be because not enough was ordered, not enough people went to get it etc.), it could be that demographic changes to the population make more people vulnerable, it could be that care homes have fallen in quality/quantity, it could be that A&E is stretched.

Some of those are funding issues, some of them are the way services are managed. At the moment, not only is the NHS funding governed differently in each region of the UK, but each trust run its affairs largely independently. That's why there's a fair amount of variance across the country. It's not as simple as input= output.

They chose the wrong vaccination for whatever reason, first time in years I declined flu vaccination and that was in October, might as well been a placebo for the good it will do this year.

Anyway flu is only part of the problem Cancer services in parts of England could be reduced because of a lack of suitably qualified staff and that is nothing to do with flu that is staff shortages because they cant employ or retain. And the NHS has gone through the Conservative Governments restructuring, it’s like Andrew Lansley and his NHS reforms never existed?

The Tory governments have been winging this for several years now and had countless warnings from various health professionals and political opponents and now the chickens have come home to roost.

Besides if this was another party presiding over this shambles the Tories would be all over it like a rash, if they don’t like it at the crease they can always call it a day.

 

[orchard]

If this lot did, it would most likely be night.

They chose the wrong vaccination for whatever reason, first time in years I declined flu vaccination and that was in October, might as well been a placebo for the good it will do this year.

Anyway flu is only part of the problem Cancer services in parts of England could be reduced because of a lack of suitably qualified staff and that is nothing to do with flu that is staff shortages because they cant employ or retain. And the NHS has gone through the Conservative Governments restructuring, it’s like Andrew Lansley and his NHS reforms never existed?

The Tory governments have been winging this for several years now and had countless warnings from various health professionals and political opponents and now the chickens have come home to roost.

Besides if this was another party presiding over this shambles the Tories would be all over it like a rash, if they don’t like it at the crease they can always call it a day.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Obviously the causes need to be ascertained, but I wasn't speculating upon them either. The metrics are there for a reason, and i,like yourself, am fully aware that they won't be perfect. But the time to contest them isn't when things are going badly as the temptation may be to explain away a critical failing.

No of course, but it's pretty rare for a year to pass without the NHS being in some sort of crisis or other. It'd be nice if we stopped arsing about with it.

They chose the wrong vaccination for whatever reason, first time in years I declined flu vaccination and that was in October, might as well been a placebo for the good it will do this year.

Anyway flu is only part of the problem Cancer services in parts of England could be reduced because of a lack of suitably qualified staff and that is nothing to do with flu that is staff shortages because they cant employ or retain. And the NHS has gone through the Conservative Governments restructuring, it’s like Andrew Lansley and his NHS reforms never existed?

The Tory governments have been winging this for several years now and had countless warnings from various health professionals and political opponents and now the chickens have come home to roost.

Besides if this was another party presiding over this shambles the Tories would be all over it like a rash, if they don’t like it at the crease they can always call it a day.

The flu thing was just an example. Things are rarely straightforward with the NHS, and it doesn't help when any party uses it to score political points. It doesn't matter if that's Tory, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems or whomever.

 

[Walken]

In a time of outstanding political hypocrisy, fair play to boris johnson for taking it to a new level

 

[peteblue]

I would have thought that 'key targets' were an important indicator Bruce. Pointing out that they have not been met doesn't strike me as particularly political, just a statement of fact.

No ‘key targets’ have ever been met by any government of any colour..........whoever is not in power always quote ‘targets ‘ that haven’t been met..........Political football......

 

[tsubaki]

I'd be amazed if people don't end up in court over the collapse of Carillion:

The main lobby group representing UK bosses has savaged the “highly inappropriate” pay packets awarded to directors running the now-collapsed construction giant Carillion.

The Institute of Directors also accused directors and shareholders of the stricken firm of failing to provide “appropriate oversight” of the company, which is involved in a host of major government projects and vital public services and slumped into compulsory liquidation on Monday.

Roger Barker, head of corporate governance at the Institute of Directors, said the collapse of the company “suggests that effective governance was lacking at Carillion”. He added: “We must now consider if the board and shareholders have exercised appropriate oversight prior to the collapse.

“There are some worrying signs. The relaxation of clawback conditions for executive bonuses in 2016 appears in retrospect to be highly inappropriate. It does no good to the reputation of UK business when top managers appear to benefit in spite of the collapse of the organisations that they are responsible for.”

His comments on clawback refer to a change in the company’s pay policy made in 2016 that limited the criteria under which the company could demand the repayment of executive bonuses. Previously the firm could ask for cash back if the business went bust but the revised policy said it could only do so in the event of gross misconduct or if the financial results had been misstated.

The chair of the remuneration committee, which sets the pay policy and made the change, is the non-executive Carillion director Alison Horner, head of human resources at Tesco.

Much of the criticism has centred on Richard Howson, Carillion’s former chief executive from 2012 until a shock profit warning last July resulted in his stepping down.

Howson earned £1.5m in 2016, including £591,000 in bonuses. He continued to work for the firm until last autumn after stepping down as chief executive and is due to stay on the payroll, receiving his £660,000 salary and £28,000 benefits for another year, until October 2018.

Howson’s replacement, the interim chief executive, Keith Cochrane, was a Carillion non-executive director who joined the company in July 2015. He was due to step aside in favour of a new permanent chief executive next week – but Cochrane is also set to keep on receiving his £750,000 base salary until July.

The former finance director Zafar Khan, who stepped down last September from his £425,000 a year job, is also due be paid until July.

... we live in times of austerity, mind. Bloody thieves.

 

[abelard]

I'd be amazed if people don't end up in court over the collapse of Carillion:

... we live in times of austerity, mind. Bloody thieves.

Quite the omnishambles.

660,000 quid/year to the CEO who now clearly ran in into the ground, even after he left the firm.

600 million in pension debt (though they never missed a dividend payment).

And yet:

The NHS is a wonderful organisation, but the waste and overstaffing in certain areas would not be tolerated in the private sector.

The faithful still see what they believe

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Once again a privatised public service fails and its directors no doubt paid stratospheric salaries, just to get bailed out by us taxpayers this time by fulfilling their commitments. And Bernard Jenkins reckons a majority of electorate confidence will be low in Private Companies running public services, a man who likes state the bleeding obvious.

I can with a degree of certainty predict those at the very top of the Carillon who have presided over it demise will never have to worry over their pensions or paying the mortgage unlike many of its hard working ground staff.

Four Seasons next...

 

[zzr45]

Probably won't be the disaster that seems to be being preached in terms of public services. These contracts change hands pretty much on a daily basis between different companies and the big FM companies have already, most likely, been circling for a while ready to swoop in.

Corbyn's out with the rallying call that it shows Public Services should be run by the Government, but if Carillion were losing money on some contracts, why should I as a taxpayer feel secure that these services aren't going to become an even bigger sinkhole on the economy and end up bumping up the tax I pay?

 

[tsubaki]

Probably won't be the disaster that seems to be being preached in terms of public services. These contracts change hands pretty much on a daily basis between different companies and the big FM companies have already, most likely, been circling for a while ready to swoop in.

Corbyn's out with the rallying call that it shows Public Services should be run by the Government, but if Carillion were losing money on some contracts, why should I as a taxpayer feel secure that these services aren't going to become an even bigger sinkhole on the economy and end up bumping up the tax I pay?

Because of where the money goes.

Under public ownership, you pay your taxes, the Government spends it on people to do a job, and then those people pay taxes. The money usually stays within the system and there is usually good control on spending (ie: money is actually spent where its needed).

Under the British model of outsourcing, you pay your taxes, the Government hires a firm to do a job, they pay the minimum required to do the job and keep as much as possible for themselves. This means that the service is usually worse, the people providing the service are paid less (and therefore more likely to require help themselves from the state, like tax credits and housing benefit), and the money goes out of the system - either to foreign owners, to shareholders, into directors' bank accounts or just moved offshore.

The thing that baffles me about the British model of outsourcing is that our ruling class are supposedly educated in the Classics; what we are doing now is exactly what the Roman tax farmers used to do - and they used to provoke actual wars on a regular basis by doing it.

 

[Big_nev]

Can't help but generalise anybody who votes Tory as an utter utter selfish self serving cnut of a person but hey politics and all that.