Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Biggest cowboys in town with a profit warning

 

Shares in UK government contractor Capita plunge 40% after profit warning

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/31/shares-in-uk-government-contractor-capita-plunge-40-after-profit-warning?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

Not surprised at this at all.

 

Ended up “working for” Capita for a period when they took over the ‘admin’ side for the financial services partner I was working with. 

 

This is typical of a lot of companies really, but it was top down management with no room for considered positions along the way or thought about ‘best practice’. It was purely a ‘numbers’ game, to the extent you felt obliged to massage them.

 

They ended up pissing off a lot of highly skilled and salfied staff who left - possibly on purpose, but found replacing those with cheaper newbies doesn’t quite in a skilled job = work pipelines ballooned, service goes down hill, etc, etc, etc - Client fines Capita several times over for their failings to the service contract.

 

In my mind, pricing a contract for ‘service’ provision over a significant period of time is nigh on impossible - to many invariables that are likely to go up.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm sure there are some but many are caused by pfis and other contracts. That's where you lose £300 for changing a lightbulb. In house costs less. 

 

I can only tell you that I've seen nhs trusts having to cut all sorts to stay afloat. They're having to sell off the family silver even when the savings are non-recurrent. It's nonsense. You can't just keep spending less and less (in real terms). 

 

If you don't keep maintaining and improving schools and hospitals they crumble.

If you keep cutting salaries you lose workers.

If you don't invest you don't stay ahead of the tech curve. If you don't have the best tech you are keeping inefficiencies in the system.

 

Continuing as we are is simply overseeing the gradual decline of our country.

If these things are costing this much then it should be stopped immediately absolutely. There are also many management inefficiencies across the public sector I have seen it first hand.

 

NHS Trusts now have a CEO on £200,000 a year? Why? Teams of Directors on £100,000s Why? PAs for them why? Senior Management teams? Why? Tonnes of Office Staff in support of the management why? None of this stuff used to exist in the 502/60/70s why does it exist now? They are making these cuts to self serve themselves and keep the status quo most of these people serve little or no purpose. Hospitals used to run perfectly fine without all these people why did we suddenly develop the need for them in the 1990s?

 

The front line in the public sector is being decimated by idiotic management protecting their own roles, I know this I have worked with it and seen it. I worked with a senior management team who had an option of taking a 5% cut themselves or making redundant 2 members of staff on 15k, they chose the latter to protect themselves. This happens up and down the country. in hospital, councils and schools

 

We need a serious high level review of what these managers are delivering.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its not a myth its a fact. But we will not get into that loop again. I disagree fundamentally on your views on debt and it supposedly triggering extra growth. I am yet to see examples of this working long term before a country falls into a massive debt spiral and untold poverty.

 

Of course the public sector is perfect (must remember) thou shalt not criticise the perfect sector! Of course there are inefficiencies, there are many! there have been many examples given previously of needless job roles, bad management, waste within the NHS, bad procurement, private companies costing more than doing it in house. We need a serious independent review across the board of services offered.

 

My feeling is that spending more money on it wont help unless we reform services and understand how they need to work to deliver the best service. If somebody somewhere in politics could come out and admit this it would be good. We have a whole host of services designed in the 1950s that need modernisation and reform to exist and say relevant. It hardly surprising we are bottom in productivity given our love for legacy.

 

What I am saying here is we need to review the services we offer, if we need more of them or to nationalise them, if it means they offer abetter more cost effective service to the tax payer then so be it but creating more debt whatever your views on it is not the solution here.

 

By all means if you want more public service and inefficient public service pay more tax but not take on debt that will take generations to repay.

 

 

The Tories have had 8 years of reviews, efficiency savings and reorganisations. You think this can go on indefinitely? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

If these things are costing this much then it should be stopped immediately absolutely. There are also many management inefficiencies across the public sector I have seen it first hand.

 

NHS Trusts now have a CEO on £200,000 a year? Why? Teams of Directors on £100,000s Why? PAs for them why? Senior Management teams? Why? Tonnes of Office Staff in support of the management why? None of this stuff used to exist in the 502/60/70s why does it exist now? They are making these cuts to self serve themselves and keep the status quo most of these people serve little or no purpose. Hospitals used to run perfectly fine without all these people why did we suddenly develop the need for them in the 1990s?

 

The front line in the public sector is being decimated by idiotic management protecting their own roles, I know this I have worked with it and seen it. I worked with a senior management team who had an option of taking a 5% cut themselves or making redundant 2 members of staff on 15k, they chose the latter to protect themselves. This happens up and down the country. in hospital, councils and schools

 

We need a serious high level review of what these managers are delivering.

It all exists because somebody thought it was a great idea to introduce a fake market into the NHS. Hundreds of trusts competing, each with their own directors. 

 

The tories were still at it this time around, removing of pcts and replacing with dozens more ccgs, each with their own management structures.

 

And up and down the country middle management had been hollowed out, not the ground floor staff. 

 

As it is there's a lot more value in somebody running a hospital trust on £200k than their private sector equivalents.

 

It's irrelevant.

You put the money in to fund the service THEN look for efficiencies. Doing it the other way around has led to deaths.

Edited 31 January 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Not surprised at this at all.

 

Ended up “working for” Capita for a period when they took over the ‘admin’ side for the financial services partner I was working with. 

 

This is typical of a lot of companies really, but it was top down management with no room for considered positions along the way or thought about ‘best practice’. It was purely a ‘numbers’ game, to the extent you felt obliged to massage them.

 

They ended up pissing off a lot of highly skilled and salfied staff who left - possibly on purpose, but found replacing those with cheaper newbies doesn’t quite in a skilled job = work pipelines ballooned, service goes down hill, etc, etc, etc - Client fines Capita several times over for their failings to the service contract.

 

In my mind, pricing a contract for ‘service’ provision over a significant period of time is nigh on impossible - to many invariables that are likely to go up.

 

 

Similar to my experience in the world of outsourcing. I didn't stay long.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@MattP

 

suprised you picked an Aug 2017 graph - there is a later one than that (just checking how late). Think survey has only just gone out to obtain results post reshuffle.

 

But I also came across this;

 

 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-as-last-month-rees-mogg-leads-and-gove-is-second.html

 

Of course eagle eyed observers will note ‘Other’ wins! 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Here we are, December 2017 ratings

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Compare and contrast

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Imagine being part of a party where Liam Fox is considered the 4th best leadership option 

Diane Abbott Toddy.

 

You have Diane Abbott in the one of the great four offices of state.

 

DIANE ABBOTT.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Interesting charts, Matt, this and the previous one.

 

Interesting:

- That Corbyn is the only Labour name on the other list, showing how secure he now is

- That 2 of the 3 with negative ratings on this list were sacked in the recent reshuffle (May paying attention to members?)

- Surprising that Fallon is rated so highly (though he's gone now, too)

- I'd imagine that Davis' rating will slide down unless he gets a surprisingly good deal out of the EU

- Interesting that Gove is rated higher than Boris; as a Lab supporter, he could be a difficult opponent as he's shrewd - but can he get over the Robin Cook problem ("too ugly to be PM")?

- Ruth Davidson would be a nightmare opponent for Labour, but presumably unlikely to get leadership any time soon, as not an MP and too pro-Remain?

- How would the electorate react to Rees-Mogg if he wanted and got the leadership? Massive risk for the Tories as he could be seen as ridiculous, but politics is now partly about entertainment for some voters...

I posted the wrong one but the results are still similar with those still in the cabinet.

 

It shows just how much regard Davidson is held in that she is up there with the leaders despite being overtly pro-remain, she would certainly stand a chance if she wanted it. Gove is as bright as anything but he doesn't have a great reputation among the electorate, he'd win every week at PMQ's but Hague won most weeks and it didn't do him any good, how the electorate would react to JRM is anyone's guess, he's certainly done well in North East Somerset - That was a Labour seat in 2005 and he now holds a 10,000 majority. I think he would be hugely popular with middle England but could repulse Labour working class voters and students.

 

P.S On the Bog with Jacon Rees Mogg @Izzy Muzzett I can't rep it as I've ran out but my word, brilliant!

 

9 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

suprised you picked an Aug 2017 graph - there is a later one than that (just checking how late). Think survey has only just gone out to obtain results post reshuffle.

 

But I also came across this;

 

 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-as-last-month-rees-mogg-leads-and-gove-is-second.html

 

Of course eagle eyed observers will note ‘Other’ wins! 

Thanks, I do apologise, I was in a rush to get to the dentist and selected the wrong one, I thought I had done the one with the new cabinet and didn't check.

 

Hammond's rating

[Guest MattP]

David Lidington at the despatch box today, impressive. (fun fact about him, he's the only person to have captained two teams to the series trophy in University Challenge)

 

Lovely to see a Tory looking good at it rather than May trying to be funny and mumbling through answers.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The Tories have had 8 years of reviews, efficiency savings and reorganisations. You think this can go on indefinitely? 

They haven't done enough. They should have done more, more quickly but they haven't. I do not think they have been hard enough the senior managers have an interest in saving their own roles, unfortunately the top roles are where the waste lies someone higher needs to cut them. The savings made by the government have in my opinion been useless. It needs to be done properly perhaps by an independent body.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

49 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It all exists because somebody thought it was a great idea to introduce a fake market into the NHS. Hundreds of trusts competing, each with their own directors. 

 

The tories were still at it this time around, removing of pcts and replacing with dozens more ccgs, each with their own management structures.

 

And up and down the country middle management had been hollowed out, not the ground floor staff. 

 

As it is there's a lot more value in somebody running a hospital trust on £200k than their private sector equivalents.

 

It's irrelevant.

You put the money in to fund the service THEN look for efficiencies. Doing it the other way around has led to deaths.

All of the top part is wrong I agree who ever set it up got it wrong definitely, it should be reversed.

 

Ground floor staff have been hollowed out, many organisations are still top heavy I would argue many had to many senior and middle managers.

 

In my Opinion there is only value of someone being on 200k if they are doing a good job, wherever they are just because they are public sector doesn't mean they are automatically more worthwhile, how much impact do you think a hospital CEO actually has on the day to day running of a hospital? We jut don't need them.

 

The final sentence is the problem with Labour politics. We will throw money at it now and sort the problems later, problem is problems never get sorted they just become bigger and have been for years and will continue to do so until someone does a proper job of reform. Again I would feel very confident that 10 billion extra funding or whatever would make little or no difference to the NHS right now.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

They haven't done enough. They should have done more, more quickly but they haven't. I do not think they have been hard enough the senior managers have an interest in saving their own roles, unfortunately the top roles are where the waste lies someone higher needs to cut them. The savings made by the government have in my opinion been useless. It needs to be done properly perhaps by an independent body.

 Fundamentally disagree that you can do without the leadership of NHS trusts and council's. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

 Fundamentally disagree that you can do without the leadership of NHS trusts and council's. 

When the NHS was set up we didn't have them, why do we need them now?

Edited 31 January 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

All of the top part is wrong I agree who ever set it up got it wrong definitely, it should be reversed.

 

Ground floor staff have been hollowed out, many organisations are still top heavy I would argue many had to many senior and middle managers.

 

In my Opinion there is only value of someone being on 200k if they are doing a good job, wherever they are just because they are public sector doesn't mean they are automatically more worthwhile, how much impact do you think a hospital CEO actually has on the day to day running of a hospital? We jut don't need them.

 

The final sentence is the problem with Labour politics. We will throw money at it now and sort the problems later, problem is problems never get sorted they just become bigger and have been for years and will continue to do so until someone does a proper job of reform. Again I would feel very confident that 10 billion extra funding or whatever would make little or no difference to the NHS right now.

You can't simply cut money before you've worked out where the cuts are thing to come from. You've admitted that's what's happened in your answers above. That's precisely why schools are shutting early and people are dying in ambulances. It's a nuts approach. By all means work out how to save money, then save the money.

 

You being confident ten billion should make no difference holds little sway against the experts who all say it's what is needed. More people are using the nhs, it's funding needs to rise faster than inflation to handle that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

When the NHS was set up we didn't have them, why do we need them now?

You don't think there were people managing hospitals?

The NHS is huge. Each trust is huge and complicated. Leicester hospitals employ over 15,000 staff serving a multitude of acute care needs. How on earth do you think the operation can run, implementing government quality, governance, procurement rules etc without a senior management team? You're talking complete nonsense.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Money hasn't been cut, it has increased. The examples you give are due to bad management, the management of these organisations are incompetent and should not be trusted with any more money they have a proven track record of not delivering.

 

I have seen no experts say that extra money is what is needed to solve problems in the NHS. I have seen plenty of politically motivated people say that, what is needed is better management.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You don't think there were people managing hospitals?

The NHS is huge. Each trust is huge and complicated. Leicester hospitals employ over 15,000 staff serving a multitude of acute care needs. How on earth do you think the operation can run, implementing government quality, governance, procurement rules etc without a senior management team? You're talking complete nonsense.

Of course there were but the management structure has been made unnecessarily complicated. Most of the management was more central and ironically that would have made the issues of quality, governance, procurement easier to manage and maintain sight of.

 

I am certain back in the day there were something like 14 hospital boards nationally, run by a relatively small number of guvnors. Locally there would be a hospital manager and matrons. The cost now is absolutely astronomical, I have to question whether there needs to be as many management as there are in NHS Trusts and Councils, why do we have so many with replicated jobs, so many differences in operations different people doing different things.

 

The more complicated you make something the more time you spend with sorting the issues you mention.

 

You give Leicester as an example: so that has a CEO, a CFO etc etc, the same for Notts, the Same for Derbyshire why not rationalise them 3 into one for example saving already potentially c £1million do that across the country and the savings are huge.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Of course there were but the management structure has been made unnecessarily complicated. Most of the management was more central and ironically that would have made the issues of quality, governance, procurement easier to manage and maintain sight of.

 

I am certain back in the day there were something like 14 hospital boards nationally, run by a relatively small number of guvnors. Locally there would be a hospital manager and matrons. The cost now is absolutely astronomical, I have to question whether there needs to be as many management as there are in NHS Trusts and Councils, why do we have so many with replicated jobs, so many differences in operations different people doing different things.

 

The more complicated you make something the more time you spend with sorting the issues you mention.

 

You give Leicester as an example: so that has a CEO, a CFO etc etc, the same for Notts, the Same for Derbyshire why not rationalise them 3 into one for example saving already potentially c £1million do that across the country and the savings are huge.

Which is fine. But you can't cut the money before you make the changes. The Tories have, with disastrous consequences.

[Wymsey]

Feel that May is pushing the boat out a bit more currently and trying to attain rapport from various groups etc, perhaps in desperation in response to the number of critics she has had.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

They have not cut though, they just haven't pumped in larger amounts of money, which honestly would change little except drive it to be yet more inefficient.

 

Somebody needs to take control of the whole of the public sector and get a grasp on what is going on.

 

The Tories have made a complete hash of this government in many ways but things like the NHS have been a ticking time bomb for years, I think until someone gets a proper grasp of the situation we will keep bumbling along trying quick fixes.

 

We could make sure the money is delivered if it is necessary by holding a review, maybe provided emergency funding for now and make sure the real issues are tackled to protect the future.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

50 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

They have not cut though, they just haven't pumped in larger amounts of money, which honestly would change little except drive it to be yet more inefficient.

 

Somebody needs to take control of the whole of the public sector and get a grasp on what is going on.

 

The Tories have made a complete hash of this government in many ways but things like the NHS have been a ticking time bomb for years, I think until someone gets a proper grasp of the situation we will keep bumbling along trying quick fixes.

 

We could make sure the money is delivered if it is necessary by holding a review, maybe provided emergency funding for now and make sure the real issues are tackled to protect the future.

 

You have to be careful with what you’re considering here in money terms.

 

More cash has gone into the NHS in simple terms, yes - but the demands on it have also increased and I would argue on a purely observational basis that those expenses outweigh the investment going in.

 

Many NHS trusts in deficit would suggest that’s likely a true observation in most parts. And although there are trusts which can boast a surplus, I would suggest there exceptions not the rule.

 

And then questioning layering of management and its inefficiency - it’s an easy stick for politicians to point to, given its a faceles victim, we’re never told exactly what management they want to do away with.

 

But if we consider how complex running a hospital is and how to run efficiently it will need several managers controlling and overseeing individual parts, then various areas of management above them as well to cater for other areas and demands - I’m not so sure just getting rid of these roles would make things better.

 

Quite often, management roles will twin with other work anyway - and I consider it unlikely that there’s actually any managers in the NHS currently sat at a desk twiddling thumbs and having a right laugh that they’re getting paid to do sod all. So what are we actually getting rid off and does that mean the work these managers do get passed onto someone else to pick up?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

30 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

You have to be careful with what you’re considering here in money terms.

 

More cash has gone into the NHS in simple terms, yes - but the demands on it have also increased and I would argue on a purely observational basis that those expenses outweigh the investment going in.

 

Many NHS trusts in deficit would suggest that’s likely a true observation in most parts. And although there are trusts which can boast a surplus, I would suggest there exceptions not the rule.

 

And then questioning layering of management and its inefficiency - it’s an easy stick for politicians to point to, given its a faceles victim, we’re never told exactly what management they want to do away with.

 

But if we consider how complex running a hospital is and how to run efficiently it will need several managers controlling and overseeing individual parts, then various areas of management above them as well to cater for other areas and demands - I’m not so sure just getting rid of these roles would make things better.

 

Quite often, management roles will twin with other work anyway - and I consider it unlikely that there’s actually any managers in the NHS currently sat at a desk twiddling thumbs and having a right laugh that they’re getting paid to do sod all. So what are we actually getting rid off and does that mean the work these managers do get passed onto someone else to pick up?

Yes the demands have increased on the NHS and there are a number of very complex reasons for that. Essentially it has been mismanaged for a long time and the needs of the demographic they serve have changed considerably.

 

Without looking in detail at the trusts with deficits and the trusts without deficits I couldn't say whether one is better run that the other or just has less complex demands.

 

I am not certain the level of management structures we have today in all sectors  (not just public sector) is really necessary. I am sure unfortunately that there are some very privileged senior managers in some NHS trusts that are doing very little to help day to day operations. For example: I know of a nurse in a local hospital who is quite senior worked in the NHS for many years, they used to have a matron running the ward or wards now they have a management team who cause nothing but chaos; as they absolutely no clinical knowledge they have a degree in business management but they have no idea how to run a hospital ward. This is the kind of nonsense replicated across the board.

 

Yes there are pressures, yes there could be a need for more funding but we need to find out exactly what is going on, on the ground.

[Guest]

MoD could face budget shortfall of more than £20bn, report finds

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/31/mod-budget-shortfall-more-than-20bn-report-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Yes the demands have increased on the NHS and there are a number of very complex reasons for that. Essentially it has been mismanaged for a long time and the needs of the demographic they serve have changed considerably.

 

Without looking in detail at the trusts with deficits and the trusts without deficits I couldn't say whether one is better run that the other or just has less complex demands.

 

I am not certain the level of management structures we have today in all sectors  (not just public sector) is really necessary. I am sure unfortunately that there are some very privileged senior managers in some NHS trusts that are doing very little to help day to day operations. For example: I know of a nurse in a local hospital who is quite senior worked in the NHS for many years, they used to have a matron running the ward or wards now they have a management team who cause nothing but chaos; as they absolutely no clinical knowledge they have a degree in business management but they have no idea how to run a hospital ward. This is the kind of nonsense replicated across the board.

 

Yes there are pressures, yes there could be a need for more funding but we need to find out exactly what is going on, on the ground.

Almost every trust is in the red. The handful that aren't have eaten into reserves very heavily and will be very soon. Using reserves is not finding savings.

I sat in on a meeting discussing accounts at one of the countries largest trusts a couple of years ago and they knew it would be impossible to meet the financial targets, whatever they did.

 

I've sat in many meetings like this are different trusts. They've found millions in savings but it is getting harder and harder. There isn't a discussion that isn't about value for money or quality improvement planning or cost savings. The entire management of the NHS for years had just been about saving money on any possible way for years. Everybody knows it can't be done. Every single year nhs providers can't meet the targets because they aren't possible.

 

I'm fed up of reading foxes bilge which just harks back to the 50s and 60s. I've actually sat in these meetings with top level management and know the reality is they are doing everything to keep patient care high whilst making savings.

 

They aren't faceless beaurocrats, they genuinely care about providing our country with the best possible care but they are unable to keep doing it with this government's policies in place. 

 

The NHS is consistently found to be the most efficient in the world. Time to stop moaning and fund it properly.

Edited 31 January 2018 by Guest