Dispatches - NHS in Crisis

[mickythefish]

Legacywr said:

You could be in for some disappointment...

nearly 3 trillion in debt
stagnated economic growth
printing money at levels never see before
nhs crumbling with massive waiting lists, and massive underfunding
massive immigration issues
nhs dentist issues
nhs doctor issues
poverty rising
massive inflation, due to printing money
100 billion wasted, plus 1.4 billion ppe wasted. billions wasted on CV stupid schemes.
prisons failing
schools failing

I think i'll take my chances

Lots of billionaires and millionaires have done well though.

people ain't voting labour becuase they like the party, they are voting because the Tories are absolutely hated by the vast majority for their failing the country,

Edited by mickythefish on Monday 1st July 10:43

[Legacywr]

Covid certainly plays a big part in the mess we're in, unfortunatley, we have no idea how it would have looked under any other party. It would have cost us a lot of money, though.

[Zaichik]

mickythefish said:

nearly 3 trillion in debt
stagnated economic growth
printing money at levels never see before
nhs crumbling with massive waiting lists, and massive underfunding
massive immigration issues
nhs dentist issues
nhs doctor issues
poverty rising
massive inflation, due to printing money
100 billion wasted, plus 1.4 billion ppe wasted. billions wasted on CV stupid schemes.
prisons failing
schools failing

I think i'll take my chances

Lots of billionaires and millionaires have done well though.

people ain't voting labour becuase they like the party, they are voting because the Tories are absolutely hated by the vast majority for their failing the country,

Edited by mickythefish on Monday 1st July 10:43

I really don't think any of these would have been materially different had Labour been in office through the years following the financial crash and then covid. Indeed based on what they pushed for in opposition, several may have been considerably worse.

The reality we face today is no different from most other western democracies and the incumbent gov will pay the price. Whether Labour can improve things with out salting the earth for future generations is another matter - I hope they can

[740EVTORQUES]

Zaichik said:

mickythefish said:

nearly 3 trillion in debt
stagnated economic growth
printing money at levels never see before
nhs crumbling with massive waiting lists, and massive underfunding
massive immigration issues
nhs dentist issues
nhs doctor issues
poverty rising
massive inflation, due to printing money
100 billion wasted, plus 1.4 billion ppe wasted. billions wasted on CV stupid schemes.
prisons failing
schools failing

I think i'll take my chances

Lots of billionaires and millionaires have done well though.

people ain't voting labour becuase they like the party, they are voting because the Tories are absolutely hated by the vast majority for their failing the country,

Edited by mickythefish on Monday 1st July 10:43

I really don't think any of these would have been materially different had Labour been in office through the years following the financial crash and then covid. Indeed based on what they pushed for in opposition, several may have been considerably worse.

The reality we face today is no different from most other western democracies and the incumbent gov will pay the price. Whether Labour can improve things with out salting the earth for future generations is another matter - I hope they can

I suspect the attitudes of the two parties to various parts of out economy are part of the problem.

Look how the Conservatives lapped up the wealth creation trickle down economics of Liz Truss, and clearly see spending on things such as social care as a necessary evil, rather than a force for good. A force for good which benefits us all, unlike the rather narrower groups that benefit from traditional economic success.

Just look how when teachers or nurses or doctors ask for more pay, in the context of a recruitment and retention crisis, the talk of retaining talent somehow is not relevant, whereas in the city it's a valid reason for increasing pay and lifting caps on bonuses?

A nurse or a care home worker generate wealth through their activities, it's just not measured in the same way as a hedge fund manager. I doubt many Tory politicians would agree with that statement. But it's true and until it is reflected in policy nothing will improve. I think Labour get that.

[mickythefish]

One thing.

Bankrupt NHS trust and councils.

They still give money away in pension packages , golden handshakes etc

Who pays for this, the government and tax payers. All whilst servicing cuts. Sone councils pay more in debt repayments than actual services to the community.

There is a system government to trust loans which is essence is pointless.

Cutback massively needed on these sort of things. Civil service will have to change to stop the country going under

[Vasco]

740EVTORQUES said:

Legacywr said:

mickythefish said:

Legacywr said:

It's all too easy to blame it on the Tories, however we'd be in the same position no matter who had been in charge.

14 years lol, you are proper deluded. The only good thing this train wreck of a party has sealed its own fate, maybe things will change for the better.

You could be in for some disappointment...

Theres a very simple chart showing the correlation between labourer conservative governments and waiting lists. now obviously there are lots of other external events to cloud the issue and correlation is not causation, however as someone who has (and still does) worked in the NHS on the front line for the past 35 years or so, I can vouch for the fact that this is backed up by the real world experience.


Healthcare systems of all varieties whether public, insurance based, part private, are all under immense stress. The NHS is however failing more severely than most. Relative underfunding is definitely part of the problem, it reaches a point where the wheels just fall off, and that is where we are now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul to balance budgets, an almost complete lack of maintenance in favour of fire fighting, etc.

Remember that healthcare brings some economic benefits, restoring working people to health and preventing or lessening the cost of treating conditions and reducing the cost of long term care in some circumstance.

It also keeps people alive and healthier albeit sometimes at great cost, which is only, to put it bluntly, delaying more costly ill health that affects nearly all of us eventually.

Add in the ageing population, increasingly expensive interventions and greater expectations and it just costs more, that's the reality.


We either need to pay more, or decide to limit the scope of services, but it's clear from the past 14 years (and the 15 before that) which party has the better record of acquiring this circle.


July 4th can't come soon enough for most of us that work in healthcare.

While I broadly agree with your summary, it would have read better if you'd included 'More efficient working'.
The blatant chaos around wasted NHS staffing really does require a few hundred sledgehammers to crack the whole issue into the constituent parts - so that it can be rebuilt for future years.
It's not the usual solution of just chucking more money at it that will resolve fundamental problems.

[740EVTORQUES]

Vasco said:

740EVTORQUES said:

Legacywr said:

mickythefish said:

Legacywr said:

It's all too easy to blame it on the Tories, however we'd be in the same position no matter who had been in charge.

14 years lol, you are proper deluded. The only good thing this train wreck of a party has sealed its own fate, maybe things will change for the better.

You could be in for some disappointment...

Theres a very simple chart showing the correlation between labourer conservative governments and waiting lists. now obviously there are lots of other external events to cloud the issue and correlation is not causation, however as someone who has (and still does) worked in the NHS on the front line for the past 35 years or so, I can vouch for the fact that this is backed up by the real world experience.


Healthcare systems of all varieties whether public, insurance based, part private, are all under immense stress. The NHS is however failing more severely than most. Relative underfunding is definitely part of the problem, it reaches a point where the wheels just fall off, and that is where we are now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul to balance budgets, an almost complete lack of maintenance in favour of fire fighting, etc.

Remember that healthcare brings some economic benefits, restoring working people to health and preventing or lessening the cost of treating conditions and reducing the cost of long term care in some circumstance.

It also keeps people alive and healthier albeit sometimes at great cost, which is only, to put it bluntly, delaying more costly ill health that affects nearly all of us eventually.

Add in the ageing population, increasingly expensive interventions and greater expectations and it just costs more, that's the reality.


We either need to pay more, or decide to limit the scope of services, but it's clear from the past 14 years (and the 15 before that) which party has the better record of acquiring this circle.


July 4th can't come soon enough for most of us that work in healthcare.

While I broadly agree with your summary, it would have read better if you'd included 'More efficient working'.
The blatant chaos around wasted NHS staffing really does require a few hundred sledgehammers to crack the whole issue into the constituent parts - so that it can be rebuilt for future years.
It's not the usual solution of just chucking more money at it that will resolve fundamental problems.

Yes, as wages are the biggest single part of the bill that has to play a part, and by and large staff want to work more efficiently. The trouble is that so much time is spent just fire fighting and dealing with whichever priority is the political flavour of the month, that it's very hard to effect meaningful long term change.

eg 'solve' access to GP's by employing a bunch of PA's and devalue and demoralise GP's who are desperately needed.

'solve' the waiting list problem by using the private sector for the easy low risk elective stuff that it can handle, and wreck training the next generation of consultants who are desperately needed as seniors retire.

it needs a broad, cross party approach. Maybe this will be possible once there is s stable 'supermajority', although it would has been better to be a genuine cross party discussion before the government decided to self -destruct.

[mickythefish]

politicians arguing whilst people die

[Downward]

mickythefish said:

One thing.

Bankrupt NHS trust and councils.

They still give money away in pension packages , golden handshakes etc

Who pays for this, the government and tax payers. All whilst servicing cuts. Sone councils pay more in debt repayments than actual services to the community.

There is a system government to trust loans which is essence is pointless.

Cutback massively needed on these sort of things. Civil service will have to change to stop the country going under

The UK has become a service industry though.
1 million folks work in the NHS.
But yeah pensions are a massive one and a vote killer.
You can’t tell me millionaires need a state pension too as well as their hefty public/private pension.

[Zaichik]

740EVTORQUES said:

I suspect the attitudes of the two parties to various parts of out economy are part of the problem.

Look how the Conservatives lapped up the wealth creation trickle down economics of Liz Truss, and clearly see spending on things such as social care as a necessary evil, rather than a force for good. A force for good which benefits us all, unlike the rather narrower groups that benefit from traditional economic success.

Just look how when teachers or nurses or doctors ask for more pay, in the context of a recruitment and retention crisis, the talk of retaining talent somehow is not relevant, whereas in the city it's a valid reason for increasing pay and lifting caps on bonuses?

A nurse or a care home worker generate wealth through their activities, it's just not measured in the same way as a hedge fund manager. I doubt many Tory politicians would agree with that statement. But it's true and until it is reflected in policy nothing will improve. I think Labour get that.

It is curious that the narrative on the Truss budget is one of trickle down (afaik a term only used by the left) when the most expensive part of her budget was the Energy Price Guarantee - a policy mainly benefitting the poor.

When teachers/doctors/nurses or any other large group on the public payroll pushes for pay rises it can have a high cost and has to be balanced by what the gov/taxpayers can afford - rightly on wrongly that is how it is.
When the city looks to increase pay or remove arbitrary gov limits on pay then so be it - they are the ones who have to pay for it, not us.

Most workers generate wealth in one form or another even if only for themselves. All workers on the public payroll are a cost to tax payers.

[740EVTORQUES]

Zaichik said:

740EVTORQUES said:

I suspect the attitudes of the two parties to various parts of out economy are part of the problem.

Look how the Conservatives lapped up the wealth creation trickle down economics of Liz Truss, and clearly see spending on things such as social care as a necessary evil, rather than a force for good. A force for good which benefits us all, unlike the rather narrower groups that benefit from traditional economic success.

Just look how when teachers or nurses or doctors ask for more pay, in the context of a recruitment and retention crisis, the talk of retaining talent somehow is not relevant, whereas in the city it's a valid reason for increasing pay and lifting caps on bonuses?

A nurse or a care home worker generate wealth through their activities, it's just not measured in the same way as a hedge fund manager. I doubt many Tory politicians would agree with that statement. But it's true and until it is reflected in policy nothing will improve. I think Labour get that.

It is curious that the narrative on the Truss budget is one of trickle down (afaik a term only used by the left) when the most expensive part of her budget was the Energy Price Guarantee - a policy mainly benefitting the poor.

When teachers/doctors/nurses or any other large group on the public payroll pushes for pay rises it can have a high cost and has to be balanced by what the gov/taxpayers can afford - rightly on wrongly that is how it is.
When the city looks to increase pay or remove arbitrary gov limits on pay then so be it - they are the ones who have to pay for it, not us.

Most workers generate wealth in one form or another even if only for themselves. All workers on the public payroll are a cost to tax payers.

This is the point where we fundamentally disagree.

The argument that the private sector generates wealth that pays for the public sector is only tenable if your definition of wealth is purely financial. If you fail to recognise the value of non-transactional activities such as teaching, healthcare, policing, armed forces etc, then the natural result is to run these essential services into the ground on the mantra of efficiency.

A banker generates wealth in terms of profit on the balance sheet.

An industrialist (and equally important their workers) generate wealth in terms of goods.

A teacher generates wealth in terms of growing the capacity of the next generation.

A nurse, doctor or care worker generate wealth in terms of relief from pain, disability and suffering and social cohesion.

They are all wealth and all deserve to be recognised.

To separate them and treat one as more worthy than the other is a big part of the problem.

One end result is to monetise healthcare and look how upset people are when healthcare staff start bargaining (striking) for better pay and condition in exactly the same way as private sector workers? Sauce for the Goose, but unfortunately (depending on your point of view) that genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

[mickythefish]

The biggest issue is constantly printing money, then giving money away, that has driven this cost of living crisis, and is proper moronic, again only serves to really help people higher up the chain. Tesco made massive profits whilst people are struggling for example .

[pavarotti1980]

mickythefish said:

The biggest issue is constantly printing money, then giving money away, that has driven this cost of living crisis, and is proper moronic, again only serves to really help people higher up the chain. Tesco made massive profits whilst people are struggling for example .

A rather simplistic view.

[KAgantua]

pavarotti1980 said:

mickythefish said:

The biggest issue is constantly printing money, then giving money away, that has driven this cost of living crisis, and is proper moronic, again only serves to really help people higher up the chain. Tesco made massive profits whilst people are struggling for example .

A rather simplistic view.

Is it a particularly wrong view?

[Zaichik]

Downward said:

You can’t tell me millionaires need a state pension too as well as their hefty public/private pension.

Millionaires are not allowed to have hefty private pensions because the amount they can contribute is limited by tapering and the maximum investment (until now) has been restricted.

The state pension could be means tested in the future but you need to then allow more substantial contributions to private pensions and warn people ahead of this change so they can adapt their private contributions appropriately - therefore to intro this change now it shouldn't become effective until 30+ years in the future or you are effectively stealing from todays (nearly) pensioners.

[Salted_Peanut]

740EVTORQUES said:

Wealth that pays for the public sector is only tenable if your definition of wealth is purely financial.

We should differentiate between value and financial wealth. The NHS contributes to our well-being, publicly funded arts contribute to our culture, and so on. These things have significant value. In contrast, our financial wealth pays for these things—we wouldn't have public services without the wealth to pay for them.

Zaichik said:

All workers on the public payroll are a cost to tax payers.

The NHS keeps many people healthy and, therefore, in work. Education and infrastructure (including their staff on the public payroll) are among the investments a government can make to improve economic growth in the long term. University research in science and technology can drive our national competitiveness. In short, some public payroll costs can improve our economy. That's not to say they can't be more efficient!

[Salted_Peanut]

Zaichik said:

The state pension could be means tested in the future but you need to then allow more substantial contributions to private pensions and warn people ahead of this change so they can adapt their private contributions appropriately - therefore to intro this change now it shouldn't become effective until 30+ years in the future or you are effectively stealing from todays (nearly) pensioners.

Indeed.

[740EVTORQUES]

Salted_Peanut said:

740EVTORQUES said:

Wealth that pays for the public sector is only tenable if your definition of wealth is purely financial.

We should differentiate between value and financial wealth.

Zaichik said:

My point is that we shouldn’t, they’re complimentary and both necessary for the other to thrive. Maintaining this false distinction is a distraction from both sectors being supported properly.

[mickythefish]

for me, a NHS and carehome home system should be like Germany.

A separate clear tax, that is used only for that.

The problem with all these taxes you just know where they end up. it makes the whole system much more transparent and accountable.

[Vasco]

mickythefish said:

for me, a NHS and carehome home system should be like Germany.

A separate clear tax, that is used only for that.

The problem with all these taxes you just know where they end up. it makes the whole system much more transparent and accountable.

So how does Germany keep it separate ?