CornwallFox

The moment anybody pushes post on something containing the letters "xG" they should be immediately banned. Admittedly I'd be in trouble for this post.

Some of the examples there - the lunch and pjs for example - may be due to it ending up being far more costly to have to get a fresh dinner and pjs if you haven't gone, and the nurses being well aware things don't tend to work to schedules in healthcare. The dinner is already paid for whether you have it or not. They haven't made one specially for you. It's already there and paid for, you realise that? The pjs does seem more wasteful and if it was still wrapped I'm less inclined to think it would be thrown away? Beds and occupancy is always an issue but the issue in healthcare is you might need one signature but you've no way of knowing what issue might befall another patient or patients that lowers your priority level. Parafox has suggested possible changes to process - these are looked at regularly. The need to move elderly patients on into care homes or community care is a big one, freeing up other parts of the system before the acute trust can send patients home quicker. Clinical issues leading to more appointments - hard to go against clinical judgement on this one. It goes wrong too often, but still a tiny amount relatively. The system is so complex, so changeable, so gargantuan, that you may see individual examples, and yes they may be replicated, but they are still minute costs in the grand scheme. The kinds of costs you're talking about would fund the NHS for about fifteen seconds. It's immaterial to an organisation on this scale. Every single business on earth has these costs but very few are as complex as a national health system.

Without specific, recent examples it's kinda hard to respond to that

If you run a company of 20,000 people, with a million customers, would you think sometimes you might want to look at potential changes? And can you imagine that sometimes after doing some initial work it becomes apparent that they won't have the outcome you hoped, or effectiveness, or there's some other issue.... So that initial study was beneficial in that it's stopped you completely a major project only to then find it failed.... Why do you think of that as a negative? Public services are not the private sector. There's very close control of everything in the centre. There's far more governance around what happens because senior managers have to be able to account for things. The idea you can't ever try anything or test an idea really is crazy.

When did you last build out convert into a medical records room?

What do you think they've been doing for 14 straight years? Every NHS trust has had fully audited schemes running the entire time to cut costs. It absolutely drives me nuts when people with zero knowledge just say there's loads of waste, or lots to go at, with literally no idea what's actually been happening in the NHS.

Ok I'll bite. There'll never be any system anywhere where you couldn't find tiny savings due to human errors. None But the idea that there's huge waste in the NHS, or anywhere else in the public sector, after 14 years of cuts and cost improvement programmes, is really just silly at this point. The one thing you could look at if you want the public sector to spend less is the private sector companies that overcharge to the public sector because they can, and because the other companies doing the same work are also playing that game.

I suppose this depends on whether you're trying to quit smoking or if you like vaping, but the only thing that got me to quit was patches. Plus they end up cheap when you work out you can keep buying the biggest ones and cut them down in half then quarters, rather than buy the lesser mg versions which are literally just smaller patches. Maybe not for you/everyone but just a thought.

Was just thinking exactly this. Brilliant for a couple of years, let's be fair, but the way it fell apart and his role in that awful.

Is that since the initial change was backtracked on though? Recall there being a bit of a u turn but don't know the detail of what it was, when implemented etc. I thought the original plan, which I assume to be the point being made by Tommy, was WFP would only be for those receiving pension credit.

You're a lot more enthusiastic and believing than I am

Ok sorry, I know I shouldn't be this pedantic, but I keep reading this saying. But it's not true. A fish doesn't rot from the head.

This is a really interesting point. There is a real issue in this country of young, white men being left behind. Tends not to be talked about on the left but it's something that I think drives quite a bit of what happens on the right. I don't understand why the left don't talk about inequality in a way that brings that group in, rather than making them feel outside. I think that's really at the heart of why labour and the left are seen as having abandoned the working class - they've stopped talking to them. The left should want to eradicate all forms of inequality and factors that can remove opportunity. That could be colour, sexuality, gender etc. But it could also be engrained economic hardship and low expectation, and that's something felt right across society, and particularly in relation to the group mentioned. There's got to be a better way of talking to ordinary people so they don't see other groups being singled out as needing help, when they also need help but aren't mentioned. I think that's basically the issue.

Not many labour voters would say his policies are from the left. Disability benefits have been cut and cut under the Tories yet only now their supporters have grown hearts.... Seriously though, are you up for an honest discussion on the winter fuel payment? Like what's the issue there? It stayed in place for the poorest and went for the rest. I would agree that the level chosen as the cut off could have been higher, but it was fairly obviously chosen at pension credit level so that administration would cost zero. Do you think WFP should have stayed for all? Is there anything that we're allowed to not give pensioners or are they untouchable? Genuinely interested in your views and whether there's a middle ground that would work or not.

I think it's a little different. As a rabid left winger, I would say what's common in the left is to believe everybody should be treated equally no matter who they are. Ideas of stuff like what a real woman is, exactly what pronouns to use etc, aren't really left wing. They are a very small group that is indeed on the left, but which gets huge amounts of airtime to create the controversy the media wants. The right, certainly online, seems very 'as one' in there beliefs. See all the outrage over theb ethnic make up of ads these days currently - what an absolute non issue but it seems like 95% of the right are aligned and will find excuses for the reform racism that's gone with it. If I've got this wrong, and the right isn't as together as that, then I'd be interested to hear from somebody on the other side.

You hope that's the ambition.

Did the box have a lid? That would be proper middle class.

The entire right is like this at the moment. Absolutely against cancel culture yet no longer paying the TV licence, hounding linekar out the job and going bezerk every time a non white actor appears as a major character in a Disney film. It must be a miserable life to be so permanently angry at everybody else for everything.

On the upside Daka has exactly how many I'd expected

I would absolutely take bamford over any of our current options

The outside world and rest of FT doesn't exist beyond the confines of this thread. Close your eyes, breath deep, drift off.

As this thread has reappeared, shout out for this reference that went unheralded.

Absolutely no idea what our tactics actually are

Yes please also 🙏🏻

I don't know enough about her beyond she's more to the left than starmar. What do you mean?