The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Aye they were out from the beginning, was a big sticking point when the NHS was being set up. Don't think many of those GPs are still around, mind.

But like dentists they're now in a free market when it comes to costs, but they can't just open their doors, and treat more people to earn more money, and the public funding hasn't caught up.

The whole kick the can down the road thing has been a fundamental issue for the whole of the last govt. Countless examples. One being the eye-watering figures being paid in consultancy fees so they could keep civil service head count down. And to cover massive issues retention issues due to a decade of stagnant pay. But whichever rock you turn over it's the same story.

[Worthy4England]

It does feel (along with the civil service thing), that there has to be a balance across all elements. That in part is why you earn more private than civil service. I've worked in both sectors and whilst you don't get paid as well inside CS, there are some benefits. My mate grumbles if he's working late, points to long hours and lower pay then private, next thing he tells me he's on a "flexi-leave" week. I'm happy to point out that you don't typically get them in private. Working for a global private business, they pretty happy to ring me at 02:00, have calls over the weekend we're working or whilst we're on holiday and on one occasion I had to send the family home on their tod coz they'd booked me to work in the States, the day I was due to fly back to the UK. There is no problem with them telling me on a weekend I need to fly to a different country for Monday as a generality. No one is doing contracted hours, ever. If we have to deliver something on Wednesday and we eventually get it done by 04:00, Thursday generally still starts on time (albeit they might leave you over the weekend). It's not untypical to do over 3000 hours in a year. Not a grumble, it's my pick.

So if you're expecting the upsides of competitive private, I think that shit comes with it, alongside things like reviewing any employer pension contributions, but clearly we need to pay enough to stop the attrition and fully cover NHS costs in a non-profit sense. We should pay towards facilities/utilities etc. 100% if they're exclusively NHS providing. Pro rata if they're both.

I have less sympathy for GPs than nurses but it might not be all their fault.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

And to AT, I've long been of the opinion that we need to help smaller businesses by stopping kickbacks and funding for the massive ones and transferring some of the savings. The amount we bail out utilities, banks, global corporates and subsidise their investments is truly shocking.

All of that too

An another fing is the stranglehold the multinationals have over the grocery market. This is further exacerbated by the wholesalers (many owned by the big supermarkets) who are effectively controlled by the multinationals. I'm trying to switch to a new main wholesaler and the terms are so anti-competitive I'm shocked it is even legal. Most wholesalers wont entertain my location, so I'm very restricted. I have 5 options, 2 are basically the same and the other 2 would restrict my range by around 60% and mean raising prices. The nub of it is...

They want to lock you in for 3 years
Be exclusive
Insist on 6 months notice or 10s of thousands to exit
Change any of the contract terms any time they like (including new fees they dream up)
Change prices as they wish
I'm not allowed to vary the volume of my orders downwards (by very much). Even if I'm significantly above agreed minimums
I have to take allocations of stock I don't want or need
I have to attend their trade show and seminars

All I want to do is buy stock, involving me spending 100s of thousands of pounds to their bank account. The result of the above is less choice and higher prices for consumers. It reduces my ability to shop around and get better prices and choice for my customers.

[Worthy4England]

Feels a bit trite posting something so short in response, but we know (as if we didn't 40 years ago), that "free markets" are mainly benefitting the monopolies, peopke at the top and shareholders that run 'em and when they don't work, don't reinvest or need bailout, it's "hey Johnny Taxpayer."

We don't intervene in markets, because they know best. This is true, they know best how to protect themsleves and retain dominance. Busted flush.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm just ranting. Trying to offer an alternative to the big boys as there is a piss poor choice for the locals. Despite the odds we are succeeding to an extent, but its like trying to swim through treacle.

[BWFC_Insane]

It does feel (along with the civil service thing), that there has to be a balance across all elements. That in part is why you earn more private than civil service. I've worked in both sectors and whilst you don't get paid as well inside CS, there are some benefits. My mate grumbles if he's working late, points to long hours and lower pay then private, next thing he tells me he's on a "flexi-leave" week. I'm happy to point out that you don't typically get them in private. Working for a global private business, they pretty happy to ring me at 02:00, have calls over the weekend we're working or whilst we're on holiday and on one occasion I had to send the family home on their tod coz they'd booked me to work in the States, the day I was due to fly back to the UK. There is no problem with them telling me on a weekend I need to fly to a different country for Monday as a generality. No one is doing contracted hours, ever. If we have to deliver something on Wednesday and we eventually get it done by 04:00, Thursday generally still starts on time (albeit they might leave you over the weekend). It's not untypical to do over 3000 hours in a year. Not a grumble, it's my pick.

So if you're expecting the upsides of competitive private, I think that shit comes with it, alongside things like reviewing any employer pension contributions, but clearly we need to pay enough to stop the attrition and fully cover NHS costs in a non-profit sense. We should pay towards facilities/utilities etc. 100% if they're exclusively NHS providing. Pro rata if they're both.

I have less sympathy for GPs than nurses but it might not be all their fault.

This isn’t about private vs public. GPs have to sign a contract based on service provision, data provision eg …essentially what they are required to deliver. At the same time they get a financial settlement to do so. They have been getting sub inflationary settlements for a while. And all of that is the budget to run their practice. So to pay for all the tests, buy all the kit, pay their staff etc…the last government was pushing them to stop hiring GPs and instead hire cheaper options to get around the real terms cuts they were having.

But the thing is that no private sector organisation would exist on this basis. One where their costs increase but they can’t up their prices to match. Unable to retain GP and other staff.

It is a completely false economy because what has happened as a result of GP issues is increases in those going to hospital which ends up costing around about 10 times as much as if they walked in the door of the GP. Yes clearly that average will reduce as some who attend their GP still end up in hospital but it’s still a complete false economy to starve GPs of resources.

[Prufrock]

I'm not as down I think as others on "capitalism" (a term which seems to have expanded way beyond it's orbit but hey ho).

Rightists have some obsession with the free market as a quasi-spiritual force, it's their equivalent of the NHS on the left. I think markets are good, but there's no universal force that leads markets to be free as long as governments stay out. Human nature tends towards monopolies and cartels and self interest. Anti-trust laws are literal to the operation of markets, but clearly aren't "free" in that religious sense.

The supermarkets have gone something similar to farmers over the years. Enter contracts for huge amounts meaning big capital outlays and then drop the price massively knowing they have no-one else to still that volume to.

[Prufrock]

It does feel (along with the civil service thing), that there has to be a balance across all elements. That in part is why you earn more private than civil service. I've worked in both sectors and whilst you don't get paid as well inside CS, there are some benefits. My mate grumbles if he's working late, points to long hours and lower pay then private, next thing he tells me he's on a "flexi-leave" week. I'm happy to point out that you don't typically get them in private. Working for a global private business, they pretty happy to ring me at 02:00, have calls over the weekend we're working or whilst we're on holiday and on one occasion I had to send the family home on their tod coz they'd booked me to work in the States, the day I was due to fly back to the UK. There is no problem with them telling me on a weekend I need to fly to a different country for Monday as a generality. No one is doing contracted hours, ever. If we have to deliver something on Wednesday and we eventually get it done by 04:00, Thursday generally still starts on time (albeit they might leave you over the weekend). It's not untypical to do over 3000 hours in a year. Not a grumble, it's my pick.

So if you're expecting the upsides of competitive private, I think that shit comes with it, alongside things like reviewing any employer pension contributions, but clearly we need to pay enough to stop the attrition and fully cover NHS costs in a non-profit sense. We should pay towards facilities/utilities etc. 100% if they're exclusively NHS providing. Pro rata if they're both.

I have less sympathy for GPs than nurses but it might not be all their fault.

This isn’t about private vs public. GPs have to sign a contract based on service provision, data provision eg …essentially what they are required to deliver. At the same time they get a financial settlement to do so. They have been getting sub inflationary settlements for a while. And all of that is the budget to run their practice. So to pay for all the tests, buy all the kit, pay their staff etc…the last government was pushing them to stop hiring GPs and instead hire cheaper options to get around the real terms cuts they were having.

But the thing is that no private sector organisation would exist on this basis. One where their costs increase but they can’t up their prices to match. Unable to retain GP and other staff.

It is a completely false economy because what has happened as a result of GP issues is increases in those going to hospital which ends up costing around about 10 times as much as if they walked in the door of the GP. Yes clearly that average will reduce as some who attend their GP still end up in hospital but it’s still a complete false economy to starve GPs of resources.

And an analogous point re: the civil service.

Don't particularly disagree with what worthy says, obviously in the public sector you get less pay, but you get other things. As it ever was. But a decade plus of pay freezes have tipped the balance of that settlement and frankly it isn't as attractive and so lots of the good people leave to go private.

Add in an ideological, political mission to cut the headline headcount and they were having to cover work with contractors and consultants costing orders of magnitude more.

It's legitimate for any government to want more or less from the CS, but what is v fecked is pretending you want less, but actually having to pay far more to get the work you want doing. If you'd employed CS on that, you'd have saved money and been able to retain better staff. It's a vicious cycle of shit.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not as down I think as others on "capitalism" (a term which seems to have expanded way beyond it's orbit but hey ho).

Rightists have some obsession with the free market as a quasi-spiritual force, it's their equivalent of the NHS on the left. I think markets are good, but there's no universal force that leads markets to be free as long as governments stay out. Human nature tends towards monopolies and cartels and self interest. Anti-trust laws are literal to the operation of markets, but clearly aren't "free" in that religious sense.

The supermarkets have gone something similar to farmers over the years. Enter contracts for huge amounts meaning big capital outlays and then drop the price massively knowing they have no-one else to still that volume to.

I not actually as "down" on capitalism either - although that might not come through in my posts - But I think it's tough to just let it run as it is, because whilst it's working for some cartels, it's prejudicing others and trickle down doesn't seem to be doing it's job very well. So I think it need some rebalancing, rather than moving us all to a kibbutz.

[BWFC_Insane]

It does feel (along with the civil service thing), that there has to be a balance across all elements. That in part is why you earn more private than civil service. I've worked in both sectors and whilst you don't get paid as well inside CS, there are some benefits. My mate grumbles if he's working late, points to long hours and lower pay then private, next thing he tells me he's on a "flexi-leave" week. I'm happy to point out that you don't typically get them in private. Working for a global private business, they pretty happy to ring me at 02:00, have calls over the weekend we're working or whilst we're on holiday and on one occasion I had to send the family home on their tod coz they'd booked me to work in the States, the day I was due to fly back to the UK. There is no problem with them telling me on a weekend I need to fly to a different country for Monday as a generality. No one is doing contracted hours, ever. If we have to deliver something on Wednesday and we eventually get it done by 04:00, Thursday generally still starts on time (albeit they might leave you over the weekend). It's not untypical to do over 3000 hours in a year. Not a grumble, it's my pick.

So if you're expecting the upsides of competitive private, I think that shit comes with it, alongside things like reviewing any employer pension contributions, but clearly we need to pay enough to stop the attrition and fully cover NHS costs in a non-profit sense. We should pay towards facilities/utilities etc. 100% if they're exclusively NHS providing. Pro rata if they're both.

I have less sympathy for GPs than nurses but it might not be all their fault.

This isn’t about private vs public. GPs have to sign a contract based on service provision, data provision eg …essentially what they are required to deliver. At the same time they get a financial settlement to do so. They have been getting sub inflationary settlements for a while. And all of that is the budget to run their practice. So to pay for all the tests, buy all the kit, pay their staff etc…the last government was pushing them to stop hiring GPs and instead hire cheaper options to get around the real terms cuts they were having.

But the thing is that no private sector organisation would exist on this basis. One where their costs increase but they can’t up their prices to match. Unable to retain GP and other staff.

It is a completely false economy because what has happened as a result of GP issues is increases in those going to hospital which ends up costing around about 10 times as much as if they walked in the door of the GP. Yes clearly that average will reduce as some who attend their GP still end up in hospital but it’s still a complete false economy to starve GPs of resources.

And an analogous point re: the civil service.

Don't particularly disagree with what worthy says, obviously in the public sector you get less pay, but you get other things. As it ever was. But a decade plus of pay freezes have tipped the balance of that settlement and frankly it isn't as attractive and so lots of the good people leave to go private.

Add in an ideological, political mission to cut the headline headcount and they were having to cover work with contractors and consultants costing orders of magnitude more.

It's legitimate for any government to want more or less from the CS, but what is v fecked is pretending you want less, but actually having to pay far more to get the work you want doing. If you'd employed CS on that, you'd have saved money and been able to retain better staff. It's a vicious cycle of shit.

Quite - I listened to Gus O’Donnell former head of the civil service say that now the only time we pay top civil servants comparatively to the roles they could get in the private sector is when they stop working. And even then it’s not as close to as good as it was before.

He was saying that as an example procurement specialists might be on a salary of £85K in the civil service and their job is simply to save a lot of money by negotiation. But the private sector knows the best people are worth way more so will offer the £200K plus salaries and they all go. Because they will pay back the salary with one negotiated contract.

It’s clear that the old balance of ‘benefits beyond salary’ has been eroded and it’s hard to see much of the top talent wanting to stay in the public sector unless things change.

[Worthy4England]

I suspect the best procurement people earning more than £200k as a perm isn't a huge number and getting paid probably as much for who they know as what they know. Government procurement folks are generally pretty shit in my sector (they're not great in private) and I've worked with some of the best they've had to offer. The notion that they pay back with on negotiated contract is somewhat belied by all the cost overruns and many, many failures. The Fuji Horizon contract is a pretty decent example. I suspect Fuji have largely delivered what they were contracted to do, they typically understand "price" and generally have no clue about "value" - so they sign-up for a shit load of contracts that ultimately deliver neither.

[Worthy4England]

It does feel (along with the civil service thing), that there has to be a balance across all elements. That in part is why you earn more private than civil service. I've worked in both sectors and whilst you don't get paid as well inside CS, there are some benefits. My mate grumbles if he's working late, points to long hours and lower pay then private, next thing he tells me he's on a "flexi-leave" week. I'm happy to point out that you don't typically get them in private. Working for a global private business, they pretty happy to ring me at 02:00, have calls over the weekend we're working or whilst we're on holiday and on one occasion I had to send the family home on their tod coz they'd booked me to work in the States, the day I was due to fly back to the UK. There is no problem with them telling me on a weekend I need to fly to a different country for Monday as a generality. No one is doing contracted hours, ever. If we have to deliver something on Wednesday and we eventually get it done by 04:00, Thursday generally still starts on time (albeit they might leave you over the weekend). It's not untypical to do over 3000 hours in a year. Not a grumble, it's my pick.

So if you're expecting the upsides of competitive private, I think that shit comes with it, alongside things like reviewing any employer pension contributions, but clearly we need to pay enough to stop the attrition and fully cover NHS costs in a non-profit sense. We should pay towards facilities/utilities etc. 100% if they're exclusively NHS providing. Pro rata if they're both.

I have less sympathy for GPs than nurses but it might not be all their fault.

This isn’t about private vs public. GPs have to sign a contract based on service provision, data provision eg …essentially what they are required to deliver. At the same time they get a financial settlement to do so. They have been getting sub inflationary settlements for a while. And all of that is the budget to run their practice. So to pay for all the tests, buy all the kit, pay their staff etc…the last government was pushing them to stop hiring GPs and instead hire cheaper options to get around the real terms cuts they were having.

But the thing is that no private sector organisation would exist on this basis. One where their costs increase but they can’t up their prices to match. Unable to retain GP and other staff.

It is a completely false economy because what has happened as a result of GP issues is increases in those going to hospital which ends up costing around about 10 times as much as if they walked in the door of the GP. Yes clearly that average will reduce as some who attend their GP still end up in hospital but it’s still a complete false economy to starve GPs of resources.

I agree (and have done a few times) that they should absolutely have their costs covered and that it needs looking at. Lots of private businesses can't just increase their prices to match, they'd go out of business, so often have to look elsewhere to make savings - typically in the form of redundancies and restructuring, cutting other things out.

I'm also not suggesting it's a good approach to starve GP's of resources - I'm sure most people you (and I) know will have at one point or another have rocked up at A&E, because it was last man standing. It actually only costs 10 times more, if they employ 10 times the staff type of thing which is a wooden dollars argument. They don't do that they work them harder.

I'm all for a fair deal for folks, but that has expectations from the taxpayer as well as the GP. I'm just pointing out, that if after everything's been paid, they're still taking home average £130k-£200k, then that isn't a bad tally. The highest paid GP in 2017 was bagging £700k - I know that's an outlier and not the norm, but how the fcuk? There were 200 over £200k in 2017. The norm for locum's today is £170k. So the question is "how much is reasonable" - I'm just pointing out that for those sorts of figures, I'm not expecting to work 9-5 and if I'm "inconvenienced" by clunky systems, I just gotta suck it up.

[BWFC_Insane]

I suspect the best procurement people earning more than £200k as a perm isn't a huge number and getting paid probably as much for who they know as what they know. Government procurement folks are generally pretty shit in my sector (they're not great in private) and I've worked with some of the best they've had to offer. The notion that they pay back with on negotiated contract is somewhat belied by all the cost overruns and many, many failures. The Fuji Horizon contract is a pretty decent example. I suspect Fuji have largely delivered what they were contracted to do, they typically understand "price" and generally have no clue about "value" - so they sign-up for a shit load of contracts that ultimately deliver neither.

I think this was his point about why public sector procurement is poor. If they ever get someone who knows what they are doing they are gone very quickly.

But it is just one example. There are a ton of roles in the public sector that, especially for the more senior variants, the difference makers you will be paid a ton more elsewhere and the other benefits have eroded far enough that there isn’t a compensation anymore for the pay gap.

[Worthy4England]

Don't disagree with that, but it tends to be specific individuals for sometimes specific reasons...with the level of difference you mention. We often recruit ex-mid to high ranking ex-Govt, but quite often for a very specific purpose. The headline salary looks eye-watering, but sometimes we're not looking at paying them that forever. And sometimes it can be really short term.

[Worthy4England]

When the rubber hits the road.

We were told that Brexit would solve all problems including immigration to the UK. It's gone up.
We were told that the reason it hadn't worked was weak almost left wing and frightened government, despite it being Tory.
We were told to applaud that some countries were shifting to the right - that would absolutely sort it.

One such was Italy and Meloni promising an uncompromising stance - since which migration without permission has increased and she's had to increase the volume of visas issued, just to keep the economy from stagnating.

When will people learn. If your primary growth drivers are from an influx of labour and labour flexibility, then picking an irrelevant number to try and hit, isn't going to cut it without some tanking in the economy.

Where's Hobes when you need him?

[Hoboh]

When the rubber hits the road.

We were told that Brexit would solve all problems including immigration to the UK. It's gone up.
We were told that the reason it hadn't worked was weak almost left wing and frightened government, despite it being Tory.
We were told to applaud that some countries were shifting to the right - that would absolutely sort it.

One such was Italy and Meloni promising an uncompromising stance - since which migration without permission has increased and she's had to increase the volume of visas issued, just to keep the economy from stagnating.

When will people learn. If your primary growth drivers are from an influx of labour and labour flexibility, then picking an irrelevant number to try and hit, isn't going to cut it without some tanking in the economy.

Where's Hobes when you need him?

I see the Germans differ from that and by default it will be the EU. Still keep spinning the yarn, massive population good, small manageable bad.

[Hoboh]

Well what a suprise! Labour, via the treasury are hiding where this 'black hole' is exactly coming from. Now't to do with paying off their pals, is it?

[Worthy4England]

When the rubber hits the road.

We were told that Brexit would solve all problems including immigration to the UK. It's gone up.
We were told that the reason it hadn't worked was weak almost left wing and frightened government, despite it being Tory.
We were told to applaud that some countries were shifting to the right - that would absolutely sort it.

One such was Italy and Meloni promising an uncompromising stance - since which migration without permission has increased and she's had to increase the volume of visas issued, just to keep the economy from stagnating.

When will people learn. If your primary growth drivers are from an influx of labour and labour flexibility, then picking an irrelevant number to try and hit, isn't going to cut it without some tanking in the economy.

Where's Hobes when you need him?

I see the Germans differ from that and by default it will be the EU. Still keep spinning the yarn, massive population good, small manageable bad.

Dunno where to go with your usual sidestep. Germany have introduced border controls. I don't have a problem with border controls, albeit they're expensive to operate and good luck to them building a 4,000 KM wall. I don't need to "look at Germany," because we took control of our own borders. We've had the ability to control our borders since Brexit and the result? We've let in more than ever before in recent history...Meloni thought it was simple, found out it isn't quite that easy.

Nor am I spinning any sort of yarn that massive population is good. I've said lots of times, I don't think it is, but that just turning off the crack pipe, needs to be done, understanding the outcomes. To "sort out immigration" they need to sort out the economic plan behind it and how to support an aging population etc.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well what a suprise! Labour, via the treasury are hiding where this 'black hole' is exactly coming from. Now't to do with paying off their pals, is it?

You mean millions of working people getting a pay rise after suffering a decade plus of real term wage cuts?

And we know where most of the overspend was - it was housing migrants in hotels who either could have been sent back to their country of origin but weren't or granted asylum and contributing taxes here instead of wholly costing the state.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

We've had the ability to control our borders since Brexit

Point of order. We had control of our borders prior to Brexit. We simply chose not to control them