Of course, shutting down the economy was going to damage it, that's not exactly a revelation is it lol. But to complain about the cost of furlough is ridiculous when compared to the cost of not providing furlough.
Junior doctor strike: Union's pay demands unrealistic, says Steve Barclay
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- doctor doctor strike
Of course, shutting down the economy was going to damage it, that's not exactly a revelation is it lol. But to complain about the cost of furlough is ridiculous when compared to the cost of not providing furlough.
Soldato
The Cons certainly didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. It was the lesser of two evils.
Soldato
As much furlough as was given out could have been lower if lockdowns had been more sensible or the support more targeted. There's lots of possible scenarios that could have played out.
Not just furlough either - stamp duty holiday?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,711
I admit I have no idea how to fix the NHS, and having had friends back in the day work for the water board explain to me how badly mismanaged it was with wasted money, as well as people in the NHS who also complain of almost criminal wastage I am not so blinkered to say that all was perfect with nationalised services.
however look at what has happened with rail, energy, and water privatisation. All of it is worse than it was before so why do you think privatising NHS would be different.
IMO all essential services need to be nationalised because unlike other private business they cannot be allowed to fail so one-way or another the public have to pay to bail them out anyway..... privatised we just dont get the benefits.
I refuse to believe that there is some inherant law that means nationalised services have to be run poorly. Is it so naive to want a well run national service which is competent, pays fairly, rewards good service and also doesnt reward incompetence or dead wood.
nationalised services don't need to make a profit, which is why I think ultimately it is better for us, and any profit which was made can go back into the system to improve it more.... not into share holders pockets.
Soldato
The problem with this continued lack of settlement is that there will be people needing the money now. My sister is a teacher and she needed the £1000 one off payment offered in the latest round. It was voted down so now she's not got anything for the immediate future. I know she may benefit more in the longer term but it's right now that costs are high and she needed something now.
Soldato
The problem is not privatisation per se, its privatisation with shareholders/investors taking the profits. Welsh Water are a private company but it's a not for profit model. This means that no one creams off the top, but they secure finance through the same mechanisms as a private company does, and are regulated in the same way as the rest of the private companies in England are, able to continue to invest in the right places. The issue with full nationalisation is that investment needs/budgets then get prioritised in with the rest of the public purse and become political choices, getting cut when something else shouts louder.
The problem is the ability of investors to take money out of the system, load up on debt leverage and asset strip an essential sector. That can be solved without full nationalisation.
Last edited:
Very much so.
Soldato
Down to where you live, the North and South divide, 30k up North is a lot easier to live on than London etc, that's why a lot of people are fleeing London etc and heading to Manchester and supply and demand is blown through the roof.
I don't think many junior doctors in Grimsby will be complaining about having to live on 30k a year put it that way, nice one bedroom modern flat in a 'decent' quiet area, and a grand a month to spend on whatever you want lol.
I don't think many junior doctors in Grimsby will be complaining about having to live on 30k a year put it that way, nice one bedroom modern flat in a 'decent' quiet area, and a grand a month to spend on whatever you want lol.
Last edited:
Yep, we have the worst of both worlds atm. Privatise the profits and socialise the losses.
Exactly, and its not like just because its a private company its run well either. And with any large organisation, Private or Public, you are going to get find large amounts of waste. Anyway, I thought one metric the NHS did well on was efficiency, when compared to other health care systems?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,711
I don't have experience myself but just repeating what my mates mum said who was a life long recently retired NHS nurse. she is obviously hugely supportive of NHS but was very critical of inefficiency and money waste and also claims despite what many would tell you there was a lot of laziness where she worked.
Like i say, you'll find waste an inefficiency in any large organisation, that does seem an immutable law of nature!
This is an article from 2011, and tbf I dont know all the ins and outs of the study, I'm sure it can be critiqued, but
NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study
Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness
www.google.co.uk
Probably because we pay our staff relatively bugger all
Yea, that doesn't surprise me one bit and reflects plenty of my own experienced, and heard, anecdotal evidence.
Soldato
As I get older I realise that people cant operate at 100% all the time. Realistically the figure is probably 25% or maybe even less, and the more senior a job is the more it's about what you know rather than what you do.
I wonder if this is worse these days compared to the days before technology was what we have now?
Whole western world is down on productivity i believe.
Case in point - it's 930 and I haven't started work yet. Fed dog, will now get changed and fire up the laptop, see who wants me for anything.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,711
I totally agree you can't work 100% all the time (I know I don't so would not expect it of anyone else) but I am talking about nurses chatting to each other whilst close to end of life patients are begging to be helped have a drink....
or 1 fella begging for help to get to a commode and being told to wait and then told he is filthy and stinks after he messes himself .
she did say it was the younger ones [nurses] who are the worst. and there was only so much she could do trying to spin plates .
or 1 fella begging for help to get to a commode and being told to wait and then told he is filthy and stinks after he messes himself .
she did say it was the younger ones [nurses] who are the worst. and there was only so much she could do trying to spin plates .
Last edited:
Its the thing we don't like to talk about. Let our old people rot in care homes or hospitals. Said it before, we don't treat our pets like this we put them out of their misery so they don't suffer.
Like all things it's multifaceted. If you look back through history we "work" more hours now than at nearly any other time.
A main difference with pre-industrial revolution, is work was physically hard and you did it to survive, so the consequences of not doing it were severe. But even with hunter gatherers or peasants in the middle ages, they worked a lot less over the year and had far more leisure time than we do now.
What happened with the industrial revolution, is now people monetised work, and peoples time, far more than previously. This is where the pernicious and ubiquitous measurement of "productivity" started.
Nowadays, with the level of technology we have, survival isn't an issue and it's now just work for works sake [and being programmed from a young age that you should measure your lifes worth in a monetary way and how much you are able to consume] and the focus is on "productivity", but people have been realising (especially after the pandemic) that there's more to life than just working for the sake of it.
This is a different aspect to some people just being lazy whilst in work, as we were talking about though.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,711
is this true? I know it's OT for this thread but back in the day the come of age time was still young kids (sweeping chimneys, making matches etc) and I thought work was pretty much a solid 6 long days a week (then forced to church on your down time).
I am totally going from memory and not gonna cheat with Google but I thought it was not until late Victorian times that the 5 days on 2 days off with 8hrs work in a week day was proposed to improve quality of life.
Yep, though it's looking at the thousands of years of human history. It has been the time you are talking about, the last 2-300 hundred since the industrial revolution that things pretty much became their worst (there have always been odd periods of exception though) though as you note, they are better now than at the start of the I.R.
There's plenty of easily found articles about it, here's just one
Soldato
They also get a better pension scheme than most in the private sector.
Permabanned
Good for them. When it’s ‘poorer’ people criticising ‘wealthier’ people for what they are earning/getting, it’s called the politics of envy, when it’s the private sector criticising the public sector for what they are earning/getting, what does that make it?
Last edited: