Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trusty said:
There's a case to be had for certain privatisation though, for example, minor surgery recovery, people recovering from a broken wrist shouldn't be taking up a bed which could be better served to someone with cancer.

As soon as someone mentions privatisation though, people go barmy..
Click to expand...
Private companies paid paid from the public purse to provide public services have a long and varied history of being the worst of both worlds.

We see this in all sectors where private companies tender for public service contracts.

The private sector - detached completely from the public sector - is fine.
The public sector can be fine if the right people are in charge.

Private sector firms competing for public service contracts - these fail time and time and time again to provide antyhing *close* to good value for money.

Some of us here have 1st hand experience of that point.
 
Fubsy said:
They aren't mentioning it because they are just as bad. It's the main reason I have voted for the Lib Dems. Labour haven't come out and said they are against it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with that sort of legislation, its there and its staying there. Because you'd have to get past the mire of the media that'd be calling you terrorist traitors for making it "easier" for them.
 
Raikiri said:
You only have to look at American healthcare, they spend nearly 3x per person. It's simply introducing a middle man, making a profit.
Click to expand...

We already have middle men anyway, they're called suppliers, who charge well over what is rational for everyday items. I suppose they arent really middle men, but by far waste the public's purse the most.
 
yep the supplier contracts is one of the biggest cons in public companies, however that doesn't support going private, that just supports better governance.
 
Glaucus said:
yep the supplier contracts is one of the biggest cons in public companies, however that doesn't support going private, that just supports better governance.
Click to expand...
It does seem (from my anecdotal experience also) that public sector bodies are incapable of drawing up contracts with private sector suppliers (or service providers) that aren't completely one-sided, and end up screwing the taxpayer over for the enrichment of the supplier's shareholders.

There are so many examples of this.... where to start? How about the numerous attempts by authorities and up down the country to outsource their IT? Many of them going to BT.... and then - as happened here in Cornwall - seeing the project massively fail to deliver, wasting *millions* on outsourcing, then bringing services back in house?
 
FoxEye said:
It does seem (from my anecdotal experience also) that public sector bodies are incapable of drawing up contracts with private sector suppliers that aren't completely one-sided, and end up screwing the taxpayer over for the enrichment of the supplier's shareholders.

There are so many examples of this.... where to start? How about the numerous attempts by authorities and up down the country to outsource their IT? Many of them going to BT.... and then - as happened here in Cornwall - seeing the project massively fail to deliver, wasting *millions* on outsourcing, then bringing services back in house?
Click to expand...

they are but there's a reason for this and something easily changed. It is the back room staff like HR, like Legal which gets cut first. this means they employ at vastly under qualified people for the roles. This is very easy to overcome by employing qualified people. I know how bad it is there's been so many cockups in our small team due to contracts which has wasted 10s of millions.
 
Greebo said:
they are replacing the fully funded lunch with a 7p breakfast and you think thats a good idea?
Click to expand...

The actual change is fairly slight. The current policy is that all children, regardless of parental income, in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 get a free school meal. They are doing away with that, not the wider entitlement for free school meals that children from low income families get. Basically R, Y1 and Y2 will now match Y3-Y11.
 
Oh for goodness sakes, don't go introducing facts into the middle of a "won't someone please think of the starving children, only Jeremy can save our babies" drama... ;):D

So if i've read it correctly the tory policy it would mean ALL children get a free breakfast and those from low income families also (continue) get a free lunch. Presumably this would also provide 30mins or an hour of additional free child care for working parents in the mornings.

Given that I must be missing why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth... Have I missed something or is this another one of those labour throw away lines which looks good for a bit of drama and hand wringing as long as you don't bother to look at the actual suggestion?
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Private companies paid paid from the public purse to provide public services have a long and varied history of being the worst of both worlds.

We see this in all sectors where private companies tender for public service contracts.

The private sector - detached completely from the public sector - is fine.
The public sector can be fine if the right people are in charge.

Private sector firms competing for public service contracts - these fail time and time and time again to provide antyhing *close* to good value for money.

Some of us here have 1st hand experience of that point.
Click to expand...

It depends on the firm, just get good deals and don't get stuffed over like we did with the PFI deals.
 
Something I've never understood about our NHS and something that I never hear any of the parties mention, is why the NHS seems to completely ignore preventative medicine. For example, my son has been checked twice since he was born and both were before he was 6 months old. In Poland they do a full workup on children every year. The Mrs is visiting family there and has just taken him for all the tests. Her family were gobsmacked that we don't do routine health checks here. Surely catching things like cancer and heart disease early through routine checks would save the NHS money in the long run on fighting illnesses that are much further down the line. We only seem to engage the NHS once we are actually feeling ill.
I'd vote for routine health checks.
 
Rilot said:
Something I've never understood about our NHS and something that I never hear any of the parties mention, is why the NHS seems to completely ignore preventative medicine. For example, my son has been checked twice since he was born and both were before he was 6 months old. In Poland they do a full workup on children every year. The Mrs is visiting family there and has just taken him for all the tests. Her family were gobsmacked that we don't do routine health checks here. Surely catching things like cancer and heart disease early through routine checks would save the NHS money in the long run on fighting illnesses that are much further down the line. We only seem to engage the NHS once we are actually feeling ill.
I'd vote for routine health checks.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this, unfortunately it's offset due to our obesity, smoking and alcohol problems :/
 
StriderX said:
That's the problem with that sort of legislation, its there and its staying there. Because you'd have to get past the mire of the media that'd be calling you terrorist traitors for making it "easier" for them.
Click to expand...
If you don't want your browsing history public then you're a paedo.

No, you can't see mine.

That's as nuanced a discussion as you will see from our press.
 
Rilot said:
Something I've never understood about our NHS and something that I never hear any of the parties mention, is why the NHS seems to completely ignore preventative medicine. For example, my son has been checked twice since he was born and both were before he was 6 months old. In Poland they do a full workup on children every year. The Mrs is visiting family there and has just taken him for all the tests. Her family were gobsmacked that we don't do routine health checks here. Surely catching things like cancer and heart disease early through routine checks would save the NHS money in the long run on fighting illnesses that are much further down the line. We only seem to engage the NHS once we are actually feeling ill.
I'd vote for routine health checks.
Click to expand...

extremely costly to implement, but much cheaper in the long run. But governments are 5 year terms if we're lucky.
I relay thnk they should start in one small area and do genetic testing as well, and then use the already implemented Microsoft what ever it is which deep minds for information, combine that with yearly or two yearly checks. I mean they predict something like 30% of the nation is pre diabetic and don't know about it, it is something that is reversible and when it goes to diabeties costs the nation so much money.
 
Scrapping the meals for little kids is a seriously bad bad idea.

They get a decent balanced diet. Some of the food is better than what I get.

When you see the kids sat around, they all encourage each other to eat the vege or things they will normally fuss about. Gives them a chance in hell to get their taste buds right.

Now it's back to Chav parents and Greggs pasties at the school gates. Parents just can't be bothered.

The money side doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's the wider issue and longer term implications of it.
 
Rilot said:
Something I've never understood about our NHS and something that I never hear any of the parties mention, is why the NHS seems to completely ignore preventative medicine. For example, my son has been checked twice since he was born and both were before he was 6 months old. In Poland they do a full workup on children every year. The Mrs is visiting family there and has just taken him for all the tests. Her family were gobsmacked that we don't do routine health checks here. Surely catching things like cancer and heart disease early through routine checks would save the NHS money in the long run on fighting illnesses that are much further down the line. We only seem to engage the NHS once we are actually feeling ill.
I'd vote for routine health checks.
Click to expand...


What is the actual gain though?

Is there any figures for it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom