Cameron to slash welfare

[buctootim]

But it's not the real problem in my opinion. Cameron has played a blinder here by getting everyone talking about welfare reform which, although worthwhile, has little to no impact on the economic crisis we're facing. Proper investment in infrastructure and new industries is needed so there are jobs to fill. Taking a tough stance on tax avoidance would be much more effective than cutting a few quid off the welfare budget. But it is much easier to shift the focus onto the 'scroungers' than work hard to fix the problem.

 

I can't decide whether Cameron is talking tough about welfare cheats in order to appease those in his party who have doubts about a crack down on tax evasion, or whether its a cynical attempt to pull public anger and attention away from tax evasion and allow him to do nothing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

For the record though, do you agree with removing housing benefits from the under 25s?

 

It depends on the situation. There should be an assesment made on indivdual's circumstances. Certainly the son of a previous poster should not be able to up and leave a decent family that are trying to do the right thing and teach him the right behaviours, to go and live with his mates at our expense.You can't put the genie back into the bottle, but you can certainly tighten future housing benefit qualifications for the under 25's.

 

 

 

 

Unlike you, I do actually read the Daily Mail from time to time. Bit of balance is always appropriate, I feel. You may not read it yourself, but you probably should. They like banging on about a lot of the same things as you do. In a bit of an upgrade from the standard Lord D position - they actually have the balls to be critical of the party they support when it warrants it.

 

Jumping to conclusions again. I am certainly no supporter of the present Tory Party. Just happen to think they're the least worst option at present.

 

 

 

Besides, you're starting from the idiotic point of truth that "it is the way it is". Numerous posters on here have come up with better solutions than "spend more money". Rent control, land tax, flat tax, investment - none of those ideas a go-er for you then?

I think you'll find that when I posted " a % is a %, earlier in this thread, or maybe it was the Jimmy Carr one, that was an endorsement of a flat tax rate. When it comes to tax, I would merge NI & PAYE. I would raise the threshold that people start paying it, ending the stupid senerio we have at present where we tax people and then give them welfare back in the form of WFTC. I would not pay millionaires or people who live in Spain (or anywhere else outside the UK for that matter) Winter fuel allowence. I would abolish child benefit, why should non parents pay a benefit for people on the basis that they have children, it's so 1950's (and I speak as a father of 4). I would get rid of the BBC poll tax. So I have plenty of beliefs regarding the tax system, the main one being that tax should be set in such a way that it is based on getting the most into the revenue and not based on punishing the rich, or driving certain behaviours.

 

 

 

At the end of all that, your two solutions are increasing wages and/or cutting benefits. And neither is really a solution. I say again, career in politics perhaps?

How else would you make work more attractive than benefits in a way that doesn't cost the rest of us poor saps more money?

 

 

Can I count on your Vote?

[bridge too far]

I can't decide whether Cameron is talking tough about welfare cheats in order to appease those in his party who have doubts about a crack down on tax evasion, or whether its a cycnical attempt to pull public anger and attention away from tax evasion.

 

I think it's a bit of both actually. The right wing of his party is unhappy at the kowtowing to the Liberals so he's trying to keep them happy by 'cracking down' on benefits. However his proposals are for after the next election and, in all honesty, I can't see them getting into power on their own. The Liberals wouldn't tolerate these measures if they were to be in coalition again after the next election.

 

I think he's also trying to deflect the whole tax evasion issue (chances are some members of his front bench engage in these matters) and to get people talking about things other than the omnishambles and constant U turns.

[pap]

 

Can I count on your Vote?

 

You actually lost me when you said that the Conservatives were the least worst option.

[Crisp]

I can't decide whether Cameron is talking tough about welfare cheats in order to appease those in his party who have doubts about a crack down on tax evasion, or whether its a cynical attempt to pull public anger and attention away from tax evasion and allow him to do nothing.

 

A bit of both I think.

[pap]

I think it's a bit of both actually. The right wing of his party is unhappy at the kowtowing to the Liberals so he's trying to keep them happy by 'cracking down' on benefits. However his proposals are for after the next election and, in all honesty, I can't see them getting into power on their own. The Liberals wouldn't tolerate these measures if they were to be in coalition again after the next election.

 

I think he's also trying to deflect the whole tax evasion issue (chances are some members of his front bench engage in these matters) and to get people talking about things other than the omnishambles and constant U turns.

 

I'd add:-

 

Plans to rebuild broken Britain completely f*cked.

 

Two billion over budget this month.

 

EDIT: It's actually three billion (more than we spent in the same month last year)

[Saintandy666]

I'd add:-

 

Plans to rebuild broken Britain completely f*cked.

 

Two billion over budget this month.

 

EDIT: It's actually three billion (more than we spent in the same month last year)

 

In fairness to Osborne, we can't judge him on one month and the BBC did seem to indicate there are some extenuating circumstances.

 

I'll judge him year by year, and last year he did manage to bring the deficit down a percentage point. But to be honest, they are doing all the easy cuts at the moment and there are more difficult decisions to be made. And I think they will struggle to get the deficit below £100bn without a good bit of growth.

[pap]

You're right. We can't judge him on one month.

 

We borrowed £150bn more than budgeted in 2011, unemployment has sky-rocketed under his economic vision, the country is in recession and things look to be getting worse.

[Thedelldays]

You're right. We can't judge him on one month.

 

We borrowed £150bn more than budgeted in 2011, unemployment has sky-rocketed under his economic vision, the country is in recession and things look to be getting worse.

 

And yet, the high streets are packed. Sky subscriptions are trough the roof, attendances in football are still on the up and saints and will continue to pack out SMS

[Lord Duckhunter]

And yet, the high streets are packed. Sky subscriptions are trough the roof, attendances in football are still on the up and saints and will continue to pack out SMS

 

Dont spout such nonsense. The Country is in the middle of a 1930's depression that has nothing to do with the previous Labour administration, or the beloved Euro.it is all to do with "out of touch rich boys, looking out for the wrong type of people", the Daily Mail readership, and that dasterdly duo the Murdoch's. Things would be so much better with those lovely comprehensive working class boys Ed & Ed.

 

You know Ed & Ed, the ones that advised that genius Gordon Brown..........

[Verbal]

Dont spout such nonsense. The Country is in the middle of a 1930's depression that has nothing to do with the previous Labour administration, or the beloved Euro, and is all to do with "out of touch rich boys, looking out for the wrong type of people", the Daily Mail readership, and that dasterdly duo the Murdoch's. Things would be so much better with those lovely comprehensive working class boys Ed & Ed.

 

You know Ed & Ed, the ones that advised that genius Gordon Brown..........

 

Bang on, Ducky! There's hope for you yet.

[badgerx16]

I know of a girl that slept about in order to get pregnant just to claim benefits. I doubt she even knows which bloke was the father.

 

Jeremy Kyle could help her find out.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bang on, Ducky! There's hope for you yet.

 

Power to the people Comrade.............

[pap]

Dont spout such nonsense. The Country is in the middle of a 1930's depression that has nothing to do with the previous Labour administration, or the beloved Euro.it is all to do with "out of touch rich boys, looking out for the wrong type of people", the Daily Mail readership, and that dasterdly duo the Murdoch's. Things would be so much better with those lovely comprehensive working class boys Ed & Ed.

 

You know Ed & Ed, the ones that advised that genius Gordon Brown..........

 

I'm not quite sure why you continue to try the Labour Party angle, Lord D.

 

Don't you find it a bit limiting? Don't get me wrong - you might get a few card-carrying Labour members to froth at the mouth a little, but it is really an effective defence of your ideas when you're debating with someone like myself, who essentially believes that all three parties are ineffective neo-liberals who put artificial concepts like the financial system ahead of the welfare of its citizens.

 

You fittingly made a football analogy earlier on. Allow me to reciprocate. You're trying to taunt me with the poor performance of a "team" I do not support. Even better, the "last Labour government", surely your biggest stick in any politics debate, are a government I have strongly criticised. One of their leaders is a war criminal. The other was a two-faced bully who spent too much of his time trying to get the war criminal out, and may have been complicit in war crimes himself. I'm not entirely sure you can call that unqualified support, Lord D.

 

Whatever. If you want to distil politics down to three neo-liberal parties replete with career politicians, that's your business. Personally, I think politics is a bit broader than that. You do yourself a disservice with the oft-repeated "what about Labour" routine. I know trousers is a fond advocate of this particular tactic, but I get the sense he (ahem) gets caught up in the heady brew of SWF banter and is not always offering it up as the coup de grace in a crushing victory over the lefties.

 

If we continue to view politics through the prism of different coloured neo-liberal glasses, we're f**ked. All of them believe in a financial system that leaves countries in perpetual debt. All of them prioritise the management of those debts and/or big business over the rights of their citizens. Is it any wonder that people are apathetic about politics when their choices essentially boil down to what colour tie the PM wears and no matter who gets in, we're f**ked anyway?

[Thedelldays]

If we continue to view politics through the prism of different coloured neo-liberal glasses, we're f**ked. All of them believe in a financial system that leaves countries in perpetual debt. All of them prioritise the management of those debts and/or big business over the rights of their citizens. Is it any wonder that people are apathetic about politics when their choices essentially boil down to what colour tie the PM wears and no matter who gets in, we're f**ked anyway?

 

what the hell are you on about....a hugely vast majority of this earth would love to be fuked over in the UK.

you make out we live in some 3rd world country and have to sacrifice our first born just to get a bit of bread..

[Nolan]

here's Cameron's speech in full:- http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2012/06/David_Cameron_Welfare_Speech.aspx

 

if you can't be bothered to read it the most important bit is:-

 

I want to stress that a lot of these young people will genuinely need a roof over their head. Like those leaving foster care, or those with a terrible, destructive home life and we must always be there for them.

 

and other extracts

 

Take a couple living outside London. He’s a hospital porter, she’s a care-worker. They’re both working full-time and together they take home £24,000 after tax.

 

They’d love to start having children – and they know they’d get some help from the state if they did so. But with the mortgage and the bills to pay, they feel they should keep saving up for a few more years.

 

But the couple down the road, who have four children, haven’t worked for a number of years.

 

Each week they get £112 in income support, £61 in child benefit, £217 in tax credits and £141 in housing benefit – more than £27,000 a year.

 

Even after the £26,000 benefit cap is introduced, they’ll still take home more than their neighbours who go out to work every day.

 

Can we really say that’s fair?

 

here’s the situation with young people who want to leave home. Take two young women living on the same street in London.

 

One studied hard at college for three years and found herself a full-time job – say as a receptionist – on £18,000 a year, or about £1200 take-home pay a month.

 

She’d love to get her own place with a friend – but with high rents in her area, the petrol to get to work and all the bills, she just can’t afford it. So she’s living at home with her mum and dad and is saving up desperately to move out.

 

Then there’s another woman living down the street. She’s only 19 years-old and doesn’t have a job but is already living in a house with her friends.

 

How? Because when she left college and went down to the Job Centre to sign on for Job Seeker’s Allowance, she found out that if she moved out of her parents’ place, she was automatically entitled to Housing Benefit.

 

So that’s exactly what she did. Again, is this really fair?

 

 

Reading the whole thing. I think they've got it spot on this time.

[pap]

what the hell are you on about....a hugely vast majority of this earth would love to be fuked over in the UK.

you make out we live in some 3rd world country and have to sacrifice our first born just to get a bit of bread..

 

I'm not making that out at all, and you've pulled this line before. I agreed that perspective was important.

 

That said, someone else also made the point that everything is relative. Most people will not be comparing the quality of their life to malnourished Africans. They'll be comparing it to how it was before. Aside from those benefiting from the 50% tax cut and they-who-must-be-paid, who else has the government helped out? What have they done to make things better?

 

People aren't going to go the polls in 2015 and announce "I am not a starving African, therefore I'll vote Conservative". The government will be assessed on their performance here.

[pap]

here's Cameron's speech in full:- http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2012/06/David_Cameron_Welfare_Speech.aspx

 

if you can't be bothered to read it the most important bit is:-

 

 

 

and other extracts

 

Reading the whole thing. I think they've got it spot on this time.

 

They would have it spot on if:-

 

1) there were jobs to go to

2) those jobs paid people enough to live independently

3) they weren't already paying Housing Benefit to working people under 25

4) they have a decent and well run assessment scheme to determine whether someone is at risk by returning home (wonder how much that'll cost)

5) that there is even a family room available ( according to the Guardian article, this government legislated to force parents in council accommodation to downsize after their kids have left the roost ). Loads of other families downsize for different reasons.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

 

You fittingly made a football analogy earlier on. Allow me to reciprocate. You're trying to taunt me with the poor performance of a "team" I do not support. Even better, the "last Labour government", surely your biggest stick in any politics debate, are a government I have strongly criticised. One of their leaders is a war criminal. The other was a two-faced bully who spent too much of his time trying to get the war criminal out, and may have been complicit in war crimes himself. I'm not entirely sure you can call that unqualified support, Lord D.

 

Whatever. If you want to distil politics down to three neo-liberal parties replete with career politicians, that's your business. Personally, I think politics is a bit broader than that. You do yourself a disservice with the oft-repeated "what about Labour" routine. I know trousers is a fond advocate of this particular tactic, but I get the sense he (ahem) gets caught up in the heady brew of SWF banter and is not always offering it up as the coup de grace in a crushing victory over the lefties.

 

If we continue to view politics through the prism of different coloured neo-liberal glasses, we're f**ked. All of them believe in a financial system that leaves countries in perpetual debt. All of them prioritise the management of those debts and/or big business over the rights of their citizens. Is it any wonder that people are apathetic about politics when their choices essentially boil down to what colour tie the PM wears and no matter who gets in, we're f**ked anyway?

 

Whether you or I like it, politics IS down to 3 parties in this Country.

 

My earlier post of the "least worst option" is how I vote. Despite Cameron being the worst leader of the Tory's since Grocer Heath, I would still have them in power rather than Labour. I do not trust Labour to clear up this mess, they will just kick the can down the road. I do not want my generation's debts weighing down my 11 & 12 year old children's generation. I object to all the attacks on the Government, when all they are trying to do is get our finances under control. And by under control, they dont mean down to a sensible level. They are not trying to pay off large amounts of the Mortgage, all they are trying to do is get our spending down so we can afford the repayments. Even the title of this thread is bollards. We need to "slash" welfare, but if anyone thinks Cameron is trying to, or is going to they must have been smoking with Willie Nelson.

 

My Father's generation owed their very freedom to their fathers and grandfathers sacrifices. We are handing a massive bill to our children and for what? So toe rags can live on benefits for years.

 

You can not turn on a TV, read a forum without someone banging on about "I didn't cause the crash", or "what about me and my benefits Blah blah blah". We have become a ntion of people whose first instict is to turn to Government and ask "what are you doing about this"? What about people doing something for themselves, with a safety net under them in the event of unforeseen temp hardship?

[Special K]

So why not take the next logical step and sterilise anyone who fails their SATs?

 

Expected reaction. Do grow up a little bit.

[pap]

Expected reaction. Do grow up a little bit.

 

Ah, you'll have to forgive me. I was giving the ol' "terse sniping without really contributing" a go.

 

I quite like it. Think you may be onto something here

[buctootim]

My Father's generation owed their very freedom to their fathers and grandfathers sacrifices. We are handing a massive bill to our children and for what? So toe rags can live on benefits for years.

 

There is undoubtedly some benefits abuse and that should be halted. However the bogeyman story doesnt really work. By far and away the biggest drain on government expenditure is old people - you know those who saved you from the hun and who you laud. Welfare and health (70% of which goes on the elderly) are more than half of all government expenditure. The next biggie is education. Benefits for the unemployed is relatively small beer, and abuse is a small slice of that.

 

Even if you were able to totally eliminate all benefit fraud (variously estimated at £1bn to £5bn) it would make only a tiny impact on the £650bn pa government budget.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by buctootim

[Window Cleaner]

Mandatory euthanasia at 65 would save maybe 30 times what you would save from totally eliminating benefit fraud (c£4bn pa)

 

Why not 32 or whatever it is in Logan's Run then :rolleyes:Crystal turns to red..onto the Carousel

[buctootim]

Why not 32 or whatever it is in Logan's Run then :rolleyes:Crystal turns to red..onto the Carousel

 

Obviously Im not advocating that - and changed the sentence accordingly because it was clumsily put in trying to draw a comparison with the demonisation of the 'scroungers' .

[aintforever]

My Father's generation owed their very freedom to their fathers and grandfathers sacrifices. We are handing a massive bill to our children and for what? So toe rags can live on benefits for years.

 

Whilst I despise scrongers I don't think it's anywhere near just their problem, the problem is just greed.

 

You have people on 40K a year in uproar at the suggestion that they don't receive child benefit handouts. Doctors due an absolute fortune in pensions who cry like babies at the idea it could be cut. Business who moan and threaten to move abroad rather than pay the amount of tax needed.

 

It goes from the benefit cheats at the bottom to the bankers and big business at the top. Greed is just the accepted norm in today's world.

[pap]

Whether you or I like it, politics IS down to 3 parties in this Country.

 

What an entirely depressing prospect. I can see why you might think so. The two largest parties have no interest in changing the voting system to allow new parties a chance to flourish. On a very practical level, you might be right.

 

Still, that is a far cry from saying that those three parties represent the universal set of of politics in this country. We've got UKIP, we've got proper socialists, far right racial purists, etc. Some might argue that it's a good thing that these parties are kept out of power by the system. Personally, I think it's counterproductive. It perpetuates the continuum of the big three parties, leaves people that they have very little choice and don't have a voice, which goes some way to explaining the apathy we see today.

 

The truth is that under any sort of proportional electoral system, majority governments would probably be a rare thing. You can't take the composition of Parliament as an accurate indicator of public opinion. You need a popular vote for that. If you divided those votes up proportionately, UKIP would have 20 seats in Parliament. Right now, they have zero.

 

If these parties are the only game in town, the game is rigged.

 

My earlier post of the "least worst option" is how I vote. Despite Cameron being the worst leader of the Tory's since Grocer Heath, I would still have them in power rather than Labour. I do not trust Labour to clear up this mess, they will just kick the can down the road. I do not want my generation's debts weighing down my 11 & 12 year old children's generation. I object to all the attacks on the Government, when all they are trying to do is get our finances under control. And by under control, they dont mean down to a sensible level. They are not trying to pay off large amounts of the Mortgage, all they are trying to do is get our spending down so we can afford the repayments. Even the title of this thread is bollards. We need to "slash" welfare, but if anyone thinks Cameron is trying to, or is going to they must have been smoking with Willie Nelson.

 

My Father's generation owed their very freedom to their fathers and grandfathers sacrifices. We are handing a massive bill to our children and for what? So toe rags can live on benefits for years.

 

You can not turn on a TV, read a forum without someone banging on about "I didn't cause the crash", or "what about me and my benefits Blah blah blah". We have become a ntion of people whose first instict is to turn to Government and ask "what are you doing about this"? What about people doing something for themselves, with a safety net under them in the event of unforeseen temp hardship?

 

I don't trust the inner core of the Conservative Party at all, Lord D. I was honestly prepared to give them a go out of a sense of grudging acceptance and the hope that the coalition might achieve something. Two years on, and they're failing on all fronts. For the first year, all "coalition" meant to the Tories was having some Lib Dems to take the brunt of public opinion after unpopular decisions. The Lib Dems certainly didn't help themselves by promising every man and his dog the moon on a stick.

 

They have broken pre-election promises such as no top down reorganisation of the NHS. They are now pursuing this despite this being the very opposite of their manifesto. I believe that they are looking to privatise the NHS on the quiet. They've been in with the Murdochs from the start, laid off a load of public sector workers, forced benefit claimants to work for nowt at TESCO. They've also missed their economic targets continuously, and safeguards like the "Office for Budget Responsibility" are just convenient excuses to get out of criticism. "Don't blame us. The independent ORB forecasted these figures".

 

I've watched his performances on PMQs. They're alright in a "bloke down the pub does a bit of quippery", but nasty asides have increasingly become his get-out for too many difficult questions. Entirely absent during the UK riots too. He does know how to play to a crowd. A demagogue sans the violence, but fear and resentment are the tools he's choosing to employ. This dragnet approach will undoubtedly catch some people who are genuinely taking the michael, but it'll also create massive social problems and a generation of kids that are ruined because their old dear made a bad decision at a young age.

 

I'm not against welfare reform, but it needs to be a whole lot smarter than this. Arbitrary rules like "no housing benefit for under 25s" might be easy for Joe Public to understand, but its pretty grim news for the 23 year old that has worked his whole life and falls on hard times. Plus there are loads of other areas the government could be looking at outside welfare reform or within it, such as where their housing benefit money is really going, and how they might prevent that.

[Whitey Grandad]

Whilst I despise scrongers I don't think it's anywhere near just their problem, the problem is just greed.

 

You have people on 40K a year in uproar at the suggestion that they don't receive child benefit handouts. Doctors due an absolute fortune in pensions who cry like babies at the idea it could be cut. Business who moan and threaten to move abroad rather than pay the amount of tax needed.

 

It goes from the benefit cheats at the bottom to the bankers and big business at the top. Greed is just the accepted norm in today's world.

 

Greed? What, wanting to keep more than half of what you earn? We are beyond the tax levels at which putting up the rates brings in more money

[Thedelldays]

If we continue to view politics through the prism of different coloured neo-liberal glasses, we're f**ked.

 

fair point....

 

 

I don't trust the inner core of the Conservative Party at all, Lord D.

 

 

ah, good while it lasted

[bridge too far]

Greed? What, wanting to keep more than half of what you earn? We are beyond the tax levels at which putting up the rates brings in more money

 

Going round in circles again, aren't we. If people paid their due taxes we WOULD bring in more money. But it's far more convenient to apportion blame elsewhere instead of dealing with an issue that would hit Dave and Georgie's buddies hardest.

[aintforever]

Greed? What, wanting to keep more than half of what you earn? We are beyond the tax levels at which putting up the rates brings in more money

 

It is greed, if someone is a higher rate tax payer they have more than enough money. Like I said, greed is the accepted norm in today's society, and I include myself in that. I earn a higher than average salary but don't like not having a pay rise in the last couple of years.

[buctootim]

It is greed, if someone is a higher rate tax payer they have more than enough money. Like I said, greed is the accepted norm in today's society, and I include myself in that. I earn a higher than average salary but don't like not having a pay rise in the last couple of years.

 

Its the same old story. People want less taxation and better public services and definitely no cuts that impact on them or their families. Luckily this circle can always be squared simply by targetting the limitless pool of 'cheats' and 'waste'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Its the same old story. People want less taxation and better public services and definitely no cuts that impact on them or their families. Luckily this circle can always be squared simply by targetting the limitless pool of 'cheats' and 'waste'.

 

That's a fair summary, except that public services should be far, far better than they are for the amount that we're spending on them.

[bridge too far]

That's a fair summary, except that public services should be far, far better than they are for the amount that we're spending on them.

 

How are you benchmarking this? Especially when we remember that, until recently, our NHS for example ranked in the highest bracket for efficiency, outcome and value for money as well as patient satisfaction

 

Every service, public or private, can improve (think RBS computer glitch this week). But quite how you measure 'far far better' I'm not sure.

[buctootim]

That's a fair summary, except that public services should be far, far better than they are for the amount that we're spending on them.

 

 

Not really. We spend about the same on healthcare as Spain or Hungary - if you want services as good as Switzerland or Germany, you need to stump up 30% more. What most people who have never worked in health don't realise is : the internal market creates bureaucracy, and destroys efficiency, not improves it.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

That's a fair summary, except that public services should be far, far better than they are for the amount that we're spending on them.

 

If ministers stopped interfering and allowed the Public Sector to actually get on with their jobs it would help. They have to be 'seen to be doing something' or be judged ineffectual, so we get a continuous merry-go-round of policy changes or the latest 'initiative' thought up by some bright young thing, or ivory tower ensonced intellectual with no experience of the real world. Huge amounts of money are wasted in closing down or reversing current practice or projects, especially in ICT. ( And that's a jibe aimed at ALL politicos, not just the current melange ).

 

Also, look at the amounts being spunked out for over valued PFI arrangements, - to the extent that we are about to see an NHS Trust go into liquidation.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by badgerx16

[Thedelldays]

If ministers stopped interfering and allowed the Public Sector to actually get on with their jobs it would help. They have to be 'seen to be doing something' or be judged ineffectual, so we get a continuous merry-go-round of policy changes or the latest 'initiative' thought up by some bright young thing, or ivory tower ensonced intellectual with no experience of the real world. ( And that's a jibe aimed at ALL politicos, not just the current melange ).

but when it is proposed that GPs/medical types have more control....they also moan

[bridge too far]

but when it is proposed that GPs/medical types have more control....they also moan

 

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Most GPs don't want more control. A few weeks ago there was a lot of coverage of my GP practice, falling as it does in Dave's constituency, as the partners absolutely don't want this 'control'. And it certainly won't make the service more efficient and cheaper. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

What Tim said about the internal market is absolutely spot on and this transfer of control will only exacerbate the situation.

[pap]

If ministers stopped interfering and allowed the Public Sector to actually get on with their jobs it would help. They have to be 'seen to be doing something' or be judged ineffectual, so we get a continuous merry-go-round of policy changes or the latest 'initiative' thought up by some bright young thing, or ivory tower ensonced intellectual with no experience of the real world. Huge amounts of money are wasted in closing down or reversing current practice or projects, especially in ICT. ( And that's a jibe aimed at ALL politicos, not just the current melange ).

 

Also, look at the amounts being spunked out for PFI arrangements, - to the extent that we are about to see an NHS Trust go into liquidation.

 

Spot on, and perhaps its a case of my profession informing my opinion here, but I like to change one thing at a time and seeing if it works. These buggers sweep to power and change everything. A good piece of advice for anyone starting a new job is to initially stfu, learn the lay of the land and then make constructive suggestions for improvement where you can demonstrate it'll work. If only ministers followed that advice, eh? Again, aimed at the lot of them.

[Thedelldays]

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Most GPs don't want more control. A few weeks ago there was a lot of coverage of my GP practice, falling as it does in Dave's constituency, as the partners absolutely don't want this 'control'. And it certainly won't make the service more efficient and cheaper. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

What Tim said about the internal market is absolutely spot on and this transfer of control will only exacerbate the situation.

it was in response to the post above..if the medical people don't want more control then it is left to the suits

[buctootim]

but when it is proposed that GPs/medical types have more control....they also moan

 

The difficulty with managing the health service is that the treatment program for almost every patient is different - every package of care is tailored. The nature of healthcare means it is both managerially and technically complex. Producing and selling a range of standard products which are made the same week in week out really is much easier. That isnt a gibe at Whitey just an honest observation.

[bridge too far]

it was in response to the post above..if the medical people don't want more control then it is left to the suits

 

You know as much about the NHS as you do about tennis, methinks

 

The 'medical people' would rather use their highly qualified resources and training to treat people rather than push pens. Much better value for money that way.

[Whitey Grandad]

I was thinking of the doubling of spending on the NHS (for one example) for around 30% improvement in services. Please don't ask me for a source, these figures come from 3 or 4 years ago. The problems all started with pollock Brown, thinking that you could make things better by throwing money at them.

[badgerx16]

I was thinking of the doubling of spending on the NHS (for one example) for around 30% improvement in services. Please don't ask me for a source, these figures come from 3 or 4 years ago. The problems all started with pollock Brown, thinking that you could make things better by throwing money at them.

 

As opposed to Dave & Georgie Porgy who think you can improve them with less ?

[badgerx16]

it was in response to the post above..if the medical people don't want more control then it is left to the suits

 

It's not the 'suits' in the NHS that are the problem, it's the pillocks in Whitehall and Westminster.

[buctootim]

I was thinking of the doubling of spending on the NHS (for one example) for around 30% improvement in services. Please don't ask me for a source, these figures come from 3 or 4 years ago. The problems all started with pollock Brown, thinking that you could make things better by throwing money at them.

 

Theres some truth in that. Too much expansion too quickly mostly being consumed in increased salaries for doctors and dentists - who are now overpaid compared with European counterparts. The reason it mostly went in salaries for doctors? because of the populist clamour to give more power to doctors and get rid of the 'waste of space' (and cheap) managers... The money should have been fed in more slowly and linked directly to additional capacity. Another major change was the ending of the traditional culture of junior doctors working 100 hour weeks - requiring more bodies to do the same work.

 

Too high salaries is not really what I think of as waste though (uneccessary loops, people stood around or doing non jobs)

Edited 26 June, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

fair point....

 

ah, good while it lasted

 

To be fair, I at least qualified my opinion me ol' mucker.

 

Do me the honour of yours. Do you trust David Cameron, and if so, why?

[Thedelldays]

To be fair, I at least qualified my opinion me ol' mucker.

 

Do me the honour of yours. Do you trust David Cameron, and if so, why?

because they at least have a plan of action....I believe no matter who was in power this term...nothing would be much different.

 

the response from the other lot is to pretty much disagree with everything that is going on..and when asked what would they do the response is...

"wait till 2015 when you see our plans"......oh, thanks for that

 

reason wait till 2015 as nothing really would be much different and they have no real plans..so yeah, I trust him as much as they have a plan of action..no matter how much many people don't like it...which would have been the case anyway...

my area of public service has been decimated.......yet we just crack on. we too have had our pensions changed dramatically....money cut, charges gone up...yet we just crack on

[badgerx16]

money cut, charges gone up...yet we just crack on

 

Like the rest of us in the Public Sector. If you could strike, or otherwise protest in an attempt to protect your Ts & Cs, would you ?

[Thedelldays]

Like the rest of us in the Public Sector. If you could strike, or otherwise protest in an attempt to protect your Ts & Cs, would you ?

probably not....we can't strike..but we can moan..still don't hear MUCH from my lot...you get the odd gold brassed type banging the drum but not a great deal from the troops

 

just get on with it...I know I am lucky really, have a very well paid job and get looked after really. In an ideal whorl I would have left by now as I have done the magical 12 years but such is life, times are hard so just crack on

[doddisalegend]

So whats wrong with making people work for their benefits? Surely the unemployed could spare three or four days a week (leave them a couple of days for job hunting) doing useful community projects like litter picking, cleaning up chewing gum, sweeping up fag butts and so on. Maybe a labour orginization, like Germany's RAD of the 30s, might be a good way to make the unemployed work for their benefits and help the country out at the same time.

 

I imagine if benefits came with compulsary community service it might make getting a better paid job a more attractive option.