Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Gloster]

They'd never get away with outlawing strikes but minimum services requirement is more likely to be pushed through although it wouldn't apply to all sectors.

Wouldn’t they? I am not sure, particular if they put it out as a temporary measure that only acts in a ‘specific and limited way’. The government has a working majority of 67 (I am counting the two vacancies as being Labour). However, the 14 independents include five who were elected as Conservatives and could be expected to vote with them (Burns, Pincher, Roberts, Warburton and Hancock; the last might no longer care). There are also eight DUP MPs who might be ‘persuaded‘ (as May persuaded them) to support the government. This means that you have got have a substantrial rebellion of 35 or more, or an even more substantial slate of abstentions, to stop it. There would be a few, such as David Davies, who might vote against it on principle, or who might be leaving anyway and will stick to their principles, but I am afraid that most would be bought off by the whips.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

NHS Frontline, like, nurses?

I would imagine what he means is that money that's spent increasing nurses' wages is money that can't be spent improving care for patients.

 

[Thirteen]

Wouldn’t they? I am not sure, particular if they put it out as a temporary measure that only acts in a ‘specific and limited way’. The government has a working majority of 67 (I am counting the two vacancies as being Labour). However, the 14 independents include five who were elected as Conservatives and could be expected to vote with them (Burns, Pincher, Roberts, Warburton and Hancock; the last might no longer care). There are also eight DUP MPs who might be ‘persuaded‘ (as May persuaded them) to support the government. This means that you have got have a substantrial rebellion of 35 or more, or an even more substantial slate of abstentions, to stop it. There would be a few, such as David Davies, who might vote against it on principle, or who might be leaving anyway and will stick to their principles, but I am afraid that most would be bought off by the whips.

It's much easier to make it harder to strike and putting in extra measures than outlawing it completely.

 

[Busaholic]

Let's not forget the utterly bizare "Nurses need to drop their pay demands to send a message to Putin" angle

This from a man who, with his wife, was 'worth' approx £100 million according to the Daily Express at a time when he was a candidate for the Tory leadership, a sum only dwarfed by the Sunaks' fortune. I know people who live close to his London home, and others in his constituency, and they have always been insistent that he is widely disliked by those who come into contact with him on those occasions, including Conservative Party supporters. His 'errors' in claiming expenses, always innocent ones of course, are utterly par for the course. It would be interesting to if any Russian oligarchs were previously aided by the Zahawi property company from which he's made those millions.

 

[Gloster]

I would imagine what he means is that money that's spent increasing nurses' wages is money that can't be spent improving care for patients.

So maybe more money should be put into the NHS so that you can do both. I know that it is a revolutionary idea, but it might just work.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So maybe more money should be put into the NHS so that you can do both. I know that it is a revolutionary idea, but it might just work.

Where will this money come from?

 

[WizCastro197]

Where will this money come from?

Sunak and his 800 million.

Taxes? tax the rich more?

 

[Lost property]

According to the Observer/Grauniad, Zahawi told Sky News that the striking workers are playing into Putin’s hands. They should call off the strikes so we can all come together to show we are not divided. If this is a fair report, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be, this is just a further step away from rationality. My worry, only a small one, but it is there, is that the government is heading towards a situation where it will outlaw certain types of industrial action ‘during the current emergency in the national interest’, or similar. As I say, it is not likely, but it has moved from the impossible to the improbable.

(Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

Referring to Putin is a classical distraction technique really. Mention Putin / unions in the same sentence and Mail readers instinctively make a connection, well in their minds anyway, between Communism / and any other form of socialist "ism" you care to name...which is the intent after all.

Rational minds however will see this inane statement as, yet another, act of desperation intended to show this Gov't as being in control and capable of managing the various crisis....which they patently aren't given they've been responsible over the last 12 years for creating the very valid grievances now surfacing across an equally broad range of sectors.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sunak and his 800 million.

I realise you're joking, but to give an idea of the scale of the problem: According to https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...uly-2022/public-spending-statistics-july-2022 the health/social care budget is around £190 billion - which means it eats about a quarter of all Government spending. £800 million would be in increase of 0.4% - so basically, nothing. Also Sunak's fortune (actually on a quick Google looks like £730) is his wealth, not his income. So even if you could take it, that will only last one year, then it's gone.

What this shows is that any suggestion that we should solve the NHS crisis by just spending more money requires specifying where you can find an absolutely huge amount of money on a recurring, every-year, basis.

Taxes? tax the rich more?

So in other words, tax someone else, right?

 

[najaB]

I would imagine what he means is that money that's spent increasing nurses' wages is money that can't be spent improving care for patients.

Care that is largely provided by..

 

[WizCastro197]

I realise you're joking, but, according to https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...uly-2022/public-spending-statistics-july-2022 the health/social care budget is around £190 billion - which means it eats about a quarter of all Government spending. £800 million would be in increase of 0.4% - so basically, nothing. Also Sunak's fortune (actually on a quick Google looks like £730) is his wealth, not his income. So even if you could take it, that will only last one year, then it's gone.

What this shows is that any suggestion that we should solve the NHS crisis by just spending more money requires specifying where you can find an absolutely huge amount of money on a recurring, every-year, basis.



So in other words, tax someone else, right?

Someone else? What actually are you implying? I was aware that it isn't his income, he doesn't own any big money makers anymore, or at least I don't think he does.

How do you propose NHS be fixed? With money? And where from?

 

[brad465]

Where will this money come from?

Bring in mandatory euthanasia upon diagnosis of a terminal illness and/or reaching a set age around current life expectancy, whichever comes first.

The above would obviously be a political death wish, but my point here is maybe we need to start talking about whether a constant pursuit of living longer with a disregard for quality of life is sensible for one's own quality of life and the financial burden it has on the country? Personally if I ever get dementia or something of the sort, I would rather go to an "old man's friend party" and hope for the "worst", than spend several years not knowing who I am, what's going on, putting an emotional and physical strain on close friends and family, and exhausting the taxpayer and/or personal wealth to live like a zombie. I accept not everyone agrees, but others will no doubt.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Someone else? What actually are you implying?

What I was getting at with that comment was that 'tax the rich more' is very easy to say if you don't perceive yourself as rich, and therefore expect that you wouldn't have to pay any more yourself. 'Tax the rich' therefore amounts to 'get someone else to pay for it' (which I'm sure is one reason Labour and the LibDems like suggesting 'tax the rich' - it's a way to fool people into thinking there's some bottomless pit of money that can be had without 'normal' people having to contribute. In practice I don't think I need to repeat all the practical problems involved and all the reasons why there probably isn't much scope for getting more money by 'taxing the rich' (There aren't enough of them, some of them would just leave the country, plus HMRC have already for many years being playing a game of cat-and-mouse trying to remove loopholes that let some people/companies with clever accountants avoid tax, so all the low hanging fruit has probably long since already been taken)

How do you propose NHS be fixed? With money? And where from?

In the short term, it may need increased spending - which means we'd all have to pay more tax (and yes, personally I am willing to pay a bit more). In the long run I think you really start looking at why demand has risen so much over the last few decades - and I'm sure a lot of that comes down to people's lifestyle choices. And we need an open discussion about how much we are willing to pay through taxes for healthcare and what services can actually be afforded for whatever we're-willing-to-pay, and whether a single monolithic organisation is the most efficient way to provide healthcare. No easy answers I'm afraid.

 

[Lost property]

A question was posed about NHS funding....the irony cannot be understated really.

I'm personally directly affected by two industrial actions, and peripherally by a third.

And I fully support all those taking action.

The lighter side, if there is one, are reports the Met Office may also be taking action...the standby option of pine cones... and looking out of the window....may prove to be a strike breaker if they do...

Nicola Jennings on Brexit and the health crisis – cartoon

The ‘£350m for the NHS’ pledge on the Vote Leave bus looks further from becoming reality than ever

www.theguardian.com

 

[YorkshireBear]

Bring in mandatory euthanasia upon diagnosis of a terminal illness and/or reaching a set age around current life expectancy, whichever comes first.

The above would obviously be a political death wish, but my point here is maybe we need to start talking about whether a constant pursuit of living longer with a disregard for quality of life is sensible for one's own quality of life and the financial burden it has on the country? Personally if I ever get dementia or something of the sort, I would rather go to an "old man's friend party" and hope for the "worst", than spend several years not knowing who I am, what's going on, putting an emotional and physical strain on close friends and family, and exhausting the taxpayer and/or personal wealth to live like a zombie. I accept not everyone agrees, but others will no doubt.

Completely agree with you on dementia. Having watched the toll on the person, the family and friends, the stress etc. It's exactly how I would want to go as soon as I start forgetting who I am.

 

[takno]

What I was getting at with that comment was that 'tax the rich more' is very easy to say if you don't perceive yourself as rich, and therefore expect that you wouldn't have to pay any more yourself. 'Tax the rich' therefore amounts to 'get someone else to pay for it' (which I'm sure is one reason Labour and the LibDems like suggesting 'tax the rich' - it's a way to fool people into thinking there's some bottomless pit of money that can be had without 'normal' people having to contribute.

I realise that you genuinely believe this, but the fact of the matter is that the messaging from Labour and LibDems tends to be "tax the people who can most afford to pay". There are loads of people in their ranks of supporters who fully realise that they will personally have to pay a lot more tax, but also realise that that is simply the cost of having a health service which can keep them alive and social safety net that saves them wading through misery and being robbed on the regular.

 

[najaB]

I realise that you genuinely believe this, but the fact of the matter is that the messaging from Labour and LibDems tends to be "tax the people who can most afford to pay". There are loads of people in their ranks of supporters who fully realise that they will personally have to pay a lot more tax, but also realise that that is simply the cost of having a health service which can keep them alive and social safety net that saves them wading through misery and being robbed on the regular.

Indeed. I'm not a member of any political party, but if I was to join one it would most likely be the Liberal Democrats. I'm also not rich, but I have a little left at the end of each month. And while I recognise that there is a lot of scope for reducing waste in Government, I would happily have a little less left at the end of the month if that was was required to ensure that no parents were going to bed at night wondering if they will be able to afford to feed their children tomorrow and no cancer patient was having to crowdfund their treatment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

no cancer patient was having to crowdfund their treatment.

Within the UK most of the cases of that are things like flying people to a US university to try an experimental treatment that might not (read: probably won't) work. Hard though it feels it's probably not a good use of NHS money, nor indeed mine.

I would however be willing to pay more tax for a properly funded health system, but on the condition of massive reform. My health hasn't been great of late and so I've seen a lot of the NHS, and my impression of it is largely super-committed and underpaid staff (bar the likes of consultants who are very well paid) propping up a system that is fundamentally stuck in about 1972. It does work, but it's often despite the system, not because of it. Huge amounts of staff and patient time could be saved by simply improving processes and approaches.

The railway can be bad here too, of course, but it's nowhere near *as* bad.

 

[najaB]

Within the UK most of the cases of that are things like flying people to a US university to try an experimental treatment that might not (read: probably won't) work. Hard though it feels it's probably not a good use of NHS money, nor indeed mine.

The point being that, at present, that is a rarity in the UK but quite common in the USA. And our current government seems quite enamoured with the idea of a US takeover of the NHS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point being that, at present, that is a rarity in the UK but quite common in the USA. And our current government seems quite enamoured with the idea of a US takeover of the NHS.

I don't care who delivers the NHS provided it's free (or nominally charged*) at the point of use. The lowest cost option that delivers the best service (a balance) should be chosen for delivery. That's likely to be a mix, but not necessarily the mix we have now. There are railway parallels too - some of us (me included) are pro nationalisation, but that doesn't extend to the railway setting up its own factory to make bog rolls or light bulbs.

* For one thing if we're not making it totally free I favour a charge to start a course of treatment over prescription charges, as the latter are bizarrely arbitrary. £20K operation? Free. Packet of pills? A tenner. And that's without going near the mess that is NHS dental services.

 

[nw1]

Other than the large drop of labour voters from 27,082 in 2019 to 17,309 yesterday.

Shows that even the voters for the party of restrictions couldn't even be bothered to vote

Of course the Tories of Chester were even less inclined to vote than last time.

Nobody can spin this as a victory for the Tories in any shape or form.

And more generally, the outcome was much more predictable than that of Tiverton or North Shropshire. The above two were an opportunity to get the Tories out, which would have motivated more people to vote.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2022 ==

"...and just accept what we're offering, which we know many of you don't think is enough or fair"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63846865

Quite. "Unfair for the unions to ruin people's Christmas blah blah blah yada yada yada".

Have "I'm all right Jack" types like Zahawi ever considered that unions might actually have a reason for striking? Zahawi will never, for the rest of his life, need to worry about money, never have to worry about obtaining employment, and will never be forcibly over-worked. He is a wealthy and privileged individual seeking to divert blame onto anyone other than his own party. So, to be quite frank, he needs to shut up and stop the sanctimonious anti-union drivel.

 

[najaB]

I don't care who delivers the NHS provided it's free (or nominally charged*) at the point of use.

Which is most decidedly not the US model that we'd end up with!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is most decidedly not the US model that we'd end up with!

I don't think the US insurance based model is under consideration. Just subcontracting the operation of delivery to the US companies.

 

[JamesT]

I don't think the US insurance based model is under consideration. Just subcontracting the operation of delivery to the US companies.

Ah, but the standard strawman put up when changes to the NHS are suggested is that clearly the end goal is to wholesale move to a US system, no comparison with any other health system is considered.

 

[najaB]

I don't think the US insurance based model is under consideration. Just subcontracting the operation of delivery to the US companies.

And that's exactly the problem - we don't know what the end goal is. However I can't see the profit motive for US companies to move into health provision in the UK under the current funding model. They aren't charities, they are some of the largest corporations in the world and didn't get to be so by providing services at or close to cost.

Ah, but the standard strawman put up when changes to the NHS are suggested is that clearly the end goal is to wholesale move to a US system, no comparison with any other health system is considered.

Because that is what we have seen signs of happening. The US has made no bones about the fact that access to UK healthcare is going to be a major facet of any UK/US trade deal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that's exactly the problem - we don't know what the end goal is. However I can't see the profit motive for US companies to move into health provision in the UK under the current funding model. They aren't charities, they are some of the largest corporations in the world and didn't get to be so by providing services at or close to cost.

There's plenty of profit in consolidation of GP surgeries into large groups. Plus quite a number of other services e.g. walk-in centres are outsourced.

There is, as an aside, also a bit of the German model going on - Milton Keynes Walk In Centre, which was previously operated by I think Virgin Health, is now an independent CIC (Community Interest Company - effectively a non-charitable nonprofit).

There absolutely are Tories who believe in the abolition of free at the point of use healthcare, but that tends to be the more extreme end of the party even in its current form, simply because it's a massive vote loser. The risks of fiddling with the NHS too much are well known and would render a party that tried it unelectable for years if it went bad. That's one reason why the sort of reforms that are actually needed don't happen, e.g. as soon as someone says "insurance" people immediately start thinking of the mess in the USA rather than the various excellent social insurance based systems of Europe.

 

[najaB]

There's plenty of profit in consolidation of GP surgeries into large groups. Plus quite a number of other services e.g. walk-in centres are outsourced.

Which has been happening quite nicely without the large-scale involvement of US corporations.

That's one reason why the sort of reforms that are actually needed don't happen, e.g. as soon as someone says "insurance" people immediately start thinking of the mess in the USA rather than the various excellent social insurance based systems of Europe.

So don't call it health insurance.

 

[GS250]

. That's one reason why the sort of reforms that are actually needed don't happen, e.g. as soon as someone says "insurance" people immediately start thinking of the mess in the USA rather than the various excellent social insurance based systems of Europe.

The USA is always used to supress debate on restructuring UK healthcare. I don't think many, bar a few would want such a system in the UK. If anything was forthcoming then I think the current strikes would look like a tea party. However as you've pointed out, there are other viable alternatives to the NHS as demonstrated by European countries and a few others.

 

[RailWonderer]

The USA is always used to supress debate on restructuring UK healthcare. I don't think many, bar a few would want such a system in the UK. If anything was forthcoming then I think the current strikes would look like a tea party. However as you've pointed out, there are other viable alternatives to the NHS as demonstrated by European countries and a few others.

At this point I think there needs to be a big public inquiry into the NHS, its structure, where in the NHS the money goes, where costs can be saved, how they can be paid for and who pays most for what. Something is definitely wrong.

 

[GS250]

At this point I think there needs to be a big public inquiry into the NHS, its structure, where in the NHS the money goes, where costs can be saved, how they can be paid for and who pays most for what. Something is definitely wrong.

Considering how much money is thrown at it. Yes, you are probably right. Simply throwing yet more money as what may simply be utter inefficiency is daft.