Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Happyhooker]

Because we've given up on economic growth as a policy objective and cancel or scrimp on every possible infrastructure project proposed outside of London. It's scandalous.

All this bluster of "we'll make sure everywhere has comparable public transport systems to London " misses one very vital point.

Tfl is currently being massively underfunded, deliberately, and is very close to collapsing. Its called managed decline. The board have described this as 'inevitable'

And as if by magic.......


https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/02/london-t ... -16032468/

[petej]

Because we've given up on economic growth as a policy objective and cancel or scrimp on every possible infrastructure project proposed outside of London. It's scandalous.

All this bluster of "we'll make sure everywhere has comparable public transport systems to London " misses one very vital point.

Tfl is currently being massively underfunded, deliberately, and is very close to collapsing. Its called managed decline. The board have described this as 'inevitable'

And as if by magic.......


https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/02/london-t ... -16032468/

Levelling down London to the rest of the country is one way of achieving regional equality. A managed decline.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

No conflict of interest here then...

Tensions between Priti Patel and No 10 over Met Commissioner Cressida Dick

There was tension between the home secretary and Downing Street over whether to try to recruit a successor for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick in the wake of the controversy over the Sarah Everard case, multiple sources have told the BBC.

Priti Patel and No 10 both had concerns about leadership at the Met, and discussed whether or not to try to find a new commissioner.

There was widespread anger over the force's handling of the case and the treatment of female protestors holding a vigil for Ms Everard, who was killed by a former Met officer Wayne Couzens.

But it's understood that both Ms Patel and Boris Johnson were unenthusiastic about the likely internal candidate, senior Met officer Neil Basu, who had previously criticised the PM's comments and was seen in No 10 as "too political", sources say.

However, the home secretary did consider going through the recruitment process where a civil service panel interviews candidates, before recommending the candidate to her.

Two sources familiar with the discussions said Ms Patel was "overruled" by Downing Street, and the decision was taken to extend Dame Cressida's contract for two years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60229473

Not sure if it's in the article, but Patel has speculated on going outside the police to hire someone with the perceived benefits of working in private industry.

[Torquemada 1420]

Bigger salaries doesn't remove any power from the electorate in this, even in a daft FPP system.

The job itself is deserving of good pay, if it's then not staffed suitably then that's on the electorate. We shouldn't be looking for them to make do, we should want them to be comfortably off, to have a nice home, nice wardrobes, be able to attend a variety of events, and that takes money. Clearly it's not just about the money else we'd be wanting to pay them a huge amount more and that would be unsustainable, but we could pay them more reasonably than we currently do

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

[fishfoodie]

Bigger salaries doesn't remove any power from the electorate in this, even in a daft FPP system.

The job itself is deserving of good pay, if it's then not staffed suitably then that's on the electorate. We shouldn't be looking for them to make do, we should want them to be comfortably off, to have a nice home, nice wardrobes, be able to attend a variety of events, and that takes money. Clearly it's not just about the money else we'd be wanting to pay them a huge amount more and that would be unsustainable, but we could pay them more reasonably than we currently do

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Boaty McBoatface

[Torquemada 1420]

Because we've given up on economic growth as a policy objective and cancel or scrimp on every possible infrastructure project proposed outside of London. It's scandalous.

All this bluster of "we'll make sure everywhere has comparable public transport systems to London " misses one very vital point.

Tfl is currently being massively underfunded, deliberately, and is very close to collapsing. Its called managed decline. The board have described this as 'inevitable'

And as if by magic.......


https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/02/london-t ... -16032468/

Sorry, but I can't help being reminded of

[Happyhooker]

Bigger salaries doesn't remove any power from the electorate in this, even in a daft FPP system.

The job itself is deserving of good pay, if it's then not staffed suitably then that's on the electorate. We shouldn't be looking for them to make do, we should want them to be comfortably off, to have a nice home, nice wardrobes, be able to attend a variety of events, and that takes money. Clearly it's not just about the money else we'd be wanting to pay them a huge amount more and that would be unsustainable, but we could pay them more reasonably than we currently do

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Boaty McBoatface

Brexit

[Torquemada 1420]

Bigger salaries doesn't remove any power from the electorate in this, even in a daft FPP system.

The job itself is deserving of good pay, if it's then not staffed suitably then that's on the electorate. We shouldn't be looking for them to make do, we should want them to be comfortably off, to have a nice home, nice wardrobes, be able to attend a variety of events, and that takes money. Clearly it's not just about the money else we'd be wanting to pay them a huge amount more and that would be unsustainable, but we could pay them more reasonably than we currently do

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Boaty McBoatface

Hey. I agree. Hitler was probably right when he said the masses were incapable of making any rational decision (ergo he should do it for them) but if you want democracy, my solution is infinitely better than the joke system masquerading as it.

[Torquemada 1420]

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Boaty McBoatface

Brexit

The Tory Party. Trump. Hitler. We could go on forever. See above ^^^

I'm with Slavoj Zizek on this one. In reality the best solution is a beneficial dictator. But..........

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Bigger salaries doesn't remove any power from the electorate in this, even in a daft FPP system.

The job itself is deserving of good pay, if it's then not staffed suitably then that's on the electorate. We shouldn't be looking for them to make do, we should want them to be comfortably off, to have a nice home, nice wardrobes, be able to attend a variety of events, and that takes money. Clearly it's not just about the money else we'd be wanting to pay them a huge amount more and that would be unsustainable, but we could pay them more reasonably than we currently do

Whilst I often quote Joseph de Maistre, the reality is the system is a failed one which encourages the electorate to disengage. A PR system might change that but neither major party wants that.

"We shouldn't be looking for them to make do" Cry me a river.

IMHO, in this technology age, the whole notion of MPs is redundant. As I pointed out earlier, since they pretty much toe the party line anyway, their use is limited. We should switch to the electorate voting on every issue. It's easy enough to do in this age of mobile phones and internet connected PCs. Whoever is in power proposes something e.g. NI increase. We all vote. That's a real democracy and accountability. No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Boaty McBoatface

Do you want lower taxes? Yes
Do you want more public spending? Yes

And then someone gets to implement how? This notion which crops up more often than you'd hope of an agreeable anarchy is just so daft even before one gets to practicalities

[Mahoney]

No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

I'm with Slavoj Zizek on this one. In reality the best solution is a beneficial dictator. But..........

It's not clear to me why a lifetime's free pass to do whatever the f**k you like is preferable to a 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

[Torquemada 1420]

No 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

I'm with Slavoj Zizek on this one. In reality the best solution is a beneficial dictator. But..........

It's not clear to me why a lifetime's free pass to do whatever the f**k you like is preferable to a 5 year free pass to do whatever the f**k you like.

Because the 5 year system provides an illusion which allows for the Boris and Trumps to serve only themselves. How many dim ***ts in Britain trot out "If you don't like it, go and live in Russia"?

Everyone is aware of what a dictatorship is and abusers eventually reach a bloody end. Now, if the democracy system had built into it an end of term evaluation on pain of the guillotine, then we might be cooking.

I did make it clear a beneficial dictator is a long reach.

[Torquemada 1420]

Do you want lower taxes? Yes
Do you want more public spending? Yes

And then someone gets to implement how? This notion which crops up more often than you'd hope of an agreeable anarchy is just so daft even before one gets to practicalities

You see, this p*sses me off. Because it is possible for this scenario to exist. Note, I am not saying it's the optimal solution (that would involve making Boris's crooked cronies the banks, Amazon, Vodafone etc pay some taxes). The real possibility is that the public sector (including the NHS) jizzes so much money up the wall....... well, you get it.

Instead, that 1D thinking comment has us locked in a perpetual cycle of throwing more good money after bad. Who said "How much money would it take to fix the NHS? Think of any number and add a few zeroes."?

[fishfoodie]

Why didn't they ask where; "Leadership of The Government", ranked in the pareto of shit ?

It seems to me that that is a significant factor in all the other options !

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Do you want lower taxes? Yes
Do you want more public spending? Yes

And then someone gets to implement how? This notion which crops up more often than you'd hope of an agreeable anarchy is just so daft even before one gets to practicalities

You see, this p*sses me off. Because it is possible for this scenario to exist. Note, I am not saying it's the optimal solution (that would involve making Boris's crooked cronies the banks, Amazon, Vodafone etc pay some taxes). The real possibility is that the public sector (including the NHS) jizzes so much money up the wall....... well, you get it.

Instead, that 1D thinking comment has us locked in a perpetual cycle of throwing more good money after bad. Who said "How much money would it take to fix the NHS? Think of any number and add a few zeroes."?

You cannot fix the NHS, but merely accept it will spend what you give it. So you need to decide what it is you want it to do, and there are reasonable limitations, or at least there are reasonably limitations and quite a lot of reasoned and unreasoned debate about what those should be

If starting with the premise you need to 'fix' the NHS we're off to a rocky start

[Insane_Homer]

[Torquemada 1420]

You cannot fix the NHS, but merely accept it will spend what you give it. So you need to decide what it is you want it to do, and there are reasonable limitations, or at least there are reasonably limitations and quite a lot of reasoned and unreasoned debate about what those should be

If starting with the premise you need to 'fix' the NHS we're off to a rocky start

I'd agree if your line was "you need to perfectly 'fix' the NHS". It's a public sector organisation and so will always have relative inefficiencies compared with a private institution. The real point here is that the inefficiencies are unacceptably huge and by blindly throwing more money at it, you simply encourage and perpetuate the problem.

[JM2K6]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

[yermum]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

If you want to see inefficient healthcare go to the USA.

[GogLais]

You cannot fix the NHS, but merely accept it will spend what you give it. So you need to decide what it is you want it to do, and there are reasonable limitations, or at least there are reasonably limitations and quite a lot of reasoned and unreasoned debate about what those should be

If starting with the premise you need to 'fix' the NHS we're off to a rocky start

I'd agree if your line was "you need to perfectly 'fix' the NHS". It's a public sector organisation and so will always have relative inefficiencies compared with a private institution. The real point here is that the inefficiencies are unacceptably huge and by blindly throwing more money at it, you simply encourage and perpetuate the problem.

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

[Biffer]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

If you want to see inefficient healthcare go to the USA.

Exactly. They spend nearly 17% of their GDP on healthcare. UK is just 10.2%. The countries you'd expect to compare the UK against, Germany and France, pay 11.7% and 11.2% respectively.

[Torquemada 1420]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

So, there are a few things here.
1) When a private sector company f**ks up
- it's with its own money (or shareholder money) and NOT the public's money. I'm parking up public sector procurements here (see 2).
- there is the possibility of accountability to shareholders. There is zero accountability in the public sector. Absolutely none.
- survival is not mandatory. You keep fouling up in the private sector and you go bust or get swallowed. Again, the public sector has no such threat and so those running the organisations can continue paying zero heed to improvement.
As "shareholders" in the public sector, we do not get to to say "I'm not paying any more. I'm going elsewhere".

2) " Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste". That is not the same thing. We are now in a world of worst outcome: the public sector procuring from the private sector. Basically some grunt in the NHS went from one day procuring paper clips to the next, the ambulance services for a county. And guess what? The private firms saw an opportunity to bleed these idiots dry...... well, bleed us dry actually...... because Mrs Miggins in NHS procurement gets to keep her job and final salary pension. The waste is incredible because it can be and is exactly what we should have expected. Not helped by the addition to their plain incompetence of public sector corruption: PPE contracts anyone? If we go one step further out, we have private sector profits but the public paying for losses i.e. in the so called "privatised" services such as rail or even the banks post 2008.

[Torquemada 1420]

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

You have to be sh*tting me?

[Torquemada 1420]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

If you want to see inefficient healthcare go to the USA.

No. If you want to see even greater inefficient healthcare, go to the USA. We should temper that partly by the fact they are a a bunch of lard arsed ****s although the Brits are working terribly hard to bridge that gap. Shadenfreude is not an excuse.

{EDIT} Just had a thought on this. Not sure GDP is the correct benchmark for comparison. In the US, health spending is a mix of state and private with a much higher % (any basis) private than the UK. Of course, in the UK, most of it is public money via Govt i.e. % of the Govt budget/spending (which is a function of taxes loosely correlated to GDP). That's the real measure. And it's a mental number and out of control, heading towards 40% of of Govt spending:
https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-t ... c-spending

Spending on the Department of Health and Social Care has increased at twice the rate of overall spending, while other departments have seen their budgets remain below pre-2010 levels

[GogLais]

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

You have to be sh*tting me?

I’ve never got round to doing links, blame either age or inertia, but there’s stuff published by the ONS and the Kings Fund that backs that up. If you can point me to something else then fine.

[JM2K6]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

So, there are a few things here.
1) When a private sector company f**ks up
- it's with its own money (or shareholder money) and NOT the public's money. I'm parking up public sector procurements here (see 2).
- there is the possibility of accountability to shareholders. There is zero accountability in the public sector. Absolutely none.
- survival is not mandatory. You keep fouling up in the private sector and you go bust or get swallowed. Again, the public sector has no such threat and so those running the organisations can continue paying zero heed to improvement.
As "shareholders" in the public sector, we do not get to to say "I'm not paying any more. I'm going elsewhere".

2) " Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste". That is not the same thing. We are now in a world of worst outcome: the public sector procuring from the private sector. Basically some grunt in the NHS went from one day procuring paper clips to the next, the ambulance services for a county. And guess what? The private firms saw an opportunity to bleed these idiots dry...... well, bleed us dry actually...... because Mrs Miggins in NHS procurement gets to keep her job and final salary pension. The waste is incredible because it can be and is exactly what we should have expected. Not helped by the addition to their plain incompetence of public sector corruption: PPE contracts anyone? If we go one step further out, we have private sector profits but the public paying for losses i.e. in the so called "privatised" services such as rail or even the banks post 2008.

PPE contracts where... private companies were given billions and provided very little in return?

[petej]

You cannot fix the NHS, but merely accept it will spend what you give it. So you need to decide what it is you want it to do, and there are reasonable limitations, or at least there are reasonably limitations and quite a lot of reasoned and unreasoned debate about what those should be

If starting with the premise you need to 'fix' the NHS we're off to a rocky start

I'd agree if your line was "you need to perfectly 'fix' the NHS". It's a public sector organisation and so will always have relative inefficiencies compared with a private institution. The real point here is that the inefficiencies are unacceptably huge and by blindly throwing more money at it, you simply encourage and perpetuate the problem.

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

In terms of treatment delivered at cost it is very very efficient.
The American system is very efficient at cash extraction by delivering the minimum the amount of treatment at maximum cost.

[robmatic]

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

You have to be sh*tting me?

This isn't controversial, the NHS has massive systemic advantages if you compare it to US healthcare, which is intensely bureaucratic. In the US, you have a large proportion of the healthcare workforce engaged in (probably efficiently) doing things that simply aren't required when insurance companies aren't paying for the care.

[robmatic]

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

You have to be sh*tting me?

This isn't controversial, the NHS has massive systemic advantages if you compare it to US healthcare, which is intensely bureaucratic. In the US, you have a large proportion of the healthcare workforce engaged in (probably efficiently) doing things that simply aren't required when insurance companies aren't paying for the care.

Basically it's better to do the right thing with public sector inefficiency than it is to do the wrong thing with private sector efficiency.

[C T]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

So, there are a few things here.
1) When a private sector company f**ks up
- it's with its own money (or shareholder money) and NOT the public's money. I'm parking up public sector procurements here (see 2).
- there is the possibility of accountability to shareholders. There is zero accountability in the public sector. Absolutely none.
- survival is not mandatory. You keep fouling up in the private sector and you go bust or get swallowed. Again, the public sector has no such threat and so those running the organisations can continue paying zero heed to improvement.
As "shareholders" in the public sector, we do not get to to say "I'm not paying any more. I'm going elsewhere".

2) " Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste". That is not the same thing. We are now in a world of worst outcome: the public sector procuring from the private sector. Basically some grunt in the NHS went from one day procuring paper clips to the next, the ambulance services for a county. And guess what? The private firms saw an opportunity to bleed these idiots dry...... well, bleed us dry actually...... because Mrs Miggins in NHS procurement gets to keep her job and final salary pension. The waste is incredible because it can be and is exactly what we should have expected. Not helped by the addition to their plain incompetence of public sector corruption: PPE contracts anyone? If we go one step further out, we have private sector profits but the public paying for losses i.e. in the so called "privatised" services such as rail or even the banks post 2008.

PPE contracts where... private companies were given billions and provided very little in return?

Yes, in fairness. However due diligence wasn't really as possible or as legally required as you'd normally expect. Something the Tories fully realised of course, getting money to their mates was far more important that actually delivering PPE.

[dpedin]

I'd agree if your line was "you need to perfectly 'fix' the NHS". It's a public sector organisation and so will always have relative inefficiencies compared with a private institution. The real point here is that the inefficiencies are unacceptably huge and by blindly throwing more money at it, you simply encourage and perpetuate the problem.

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

In terms of treatment delivered at cost it is very very efficient.
The American system is very efficient at cash extraction by delivering the minimum the amount of treatment at maximum cost.

The NHS is relatively efficient when compared to similar high income countries according to the Commonwealth Fund. the NHS inefficiency myth is often used by detractors but without any supporting evidence or measures to demonstrate their point. Usually end up using personal anecdotal stories to try and justify this claim.

There are many problems with the NHS, in particular where it interfaces with other services ie social care, education, housing, etc. It also has a range of unrealistic demands placed on it which are often amplified and used as examples of where it is broken ie cosmetic type surgery, IVF, etc. Its major problem is the ongoing focus on treatment as opposed to prevention but this would demand a more coherent PH strategy from Gov looking at deprivation, food industry, alcohol and drugs, housing, etc which scares the shit out of Gov and the powerful lobbies some of these sectors have.

Demand for healthcare is increasing partly due to our demographics and the baby boom in post WW2 50s and 60s and also due to the rising levels of deprivation over the last 10 years. Demand will never be met and we use waiting lists based on clinical need to balance supply and demand, however when covid struck this meant supply was dramatically reduced and as a result ever increasing waiting lists. The NHS was already working at full capacity prior to covid, 95%+ bed occupancy levels means it was full, 85% is the universally agreed max for efficient working. At the end of the day you get what you pay for - bring the % of GDP spent in the NHS to the average of G7 countries (ignoring the US because their system is mad) would probably ensure the NHS gets back onto an even keel.

[Biffer]

Sorting out the care situation would be the best thing that could happen to the NHS. At the moment the boundary between care and the health service is very cloudy and it ends up, usually, being the NHS that takes up the slack.

[Slick]

Sorting out the care situation would be the best thing that could happen to the NHS. At the moment the boundary between care and the health service is very cloudy and it ends up, usually, being the NHS that takes up the slack.

Or the police.

[Torquemada 1420]

The private sector blows money constantly. Large corporations are incredibly ineffecient. Big projects have costs that spiral wildly out of control on a regular basis. Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste. It amazes me that people still think that "public = wasted money, private = efficient"

So, there are a few things here.
1) When a private sector company f**ks up
- it's with its own money (or shareholder money) and NOT the public's money. I'm parking up public sector procurements here (see 2).
- there is the possibility of accountability to shareholders. There is zero accountability in the public sector. Absolutely none.
- survival is not mandatory. You keep fouling up in the private sector and you go bust or get swallowed. Again, the public sector has no such threat and so those running the organisations can continue paying zero heed to improvement.
As "shareholders" in the public sector, we do not get to to say "I'm not paying any more. I'm going elsewhere".

2) " Privatisation of services in the UK has seen incredible waste". That is not the same thing. We are now in a world of worst outcome: the public sector procuring from the private sector. Basically some grunt in the NHS went from one day procuring paper clips to the next, the ambulance services for a county. And guess what? The private firms saw an opportunity to bleed these idiots dry...... well, bleed us dry actually...... because Mrs Miggins in NHS procurement gets to keep her job and final salary pension. The waste is incredible because it can be and is exactly what we should have expected. Not helped by the addition to their plain incompetence of public sector corruption: PPE contracts anyone? If we go one step further out, we have private sector profits but the public paying for losses i.e. in the so called "privatised" services such as rail or even the banks post 2008.

PPE contracts where... private companies were given billions and provided very little in return?

What part of 2) were you struggling to understand? If you put idiots in charge of the public purse, they are either going to get conned or bribed. I have the whole 349 page Department of Health and Social Care Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21. On page 199 in that document, of the £12.1bn spent on PPE, £8.7bn has effectively been flushed down the toilet.... or made its way into the pockets of his various Boris cronies who delivered, as you point out, very little.

If anything, this counters your argument over private sector inefficiencies. They've made £bns with zero outlay. How much more efficient can you be than that?

[Torquemada 1420]

I thought the NHS was relatively efficient, at least in terms of management and administration costs. The well-known problem is that it is now expected to spend money on a load of things that were inconceivable when it was originally set up as a free at the point of delivery service.

You have to be sh*tting me?

I’ve never got round to doing links, blame either age or inertia, but there’s stuff published by the ONS and the Kings Fund that backs that up. If you can point me to something else then fine.

Okay, I'll start with the £8.7bn lost out of the £12.1bn spent on PPE. Efficient management or not?

[I like neeps]

You have to be sh*tting me?

I’ve never got round to doing links, blame either age or inertia, but there’s stuff published by the ONS and the Kings Fund that backs that up. If you can point me to something else then fine.

Okay, I'll start with the £8.7bn lost out of the £12.1bn spent on PPE. Efficient management or not?

How much of that was NHS procurement and how much was that govt procurement? I don't know the answer. But the Tories did regularly be giving out PPE contracts.

[Happyhooker]

"1) When a private sector company f**ks up
- it's with its own money (or shareholder money) and NOT the public's money"

Yea, all those banks went to the wall and didn't see any public money.

Cf southeastern trains
Cf forgemaster steel

[I like neeps]

Bad for the economy Tories strike again.

[Happyhooker]

You have to be sh*tting me?

I’ve never got round to doing links, blame either age or inertia, but there’s stuff published by the ONS and the Kings Fund that backs that up. If you can point me to something else then fine.

Okay, I'll start with the £8.7bn lost out of the £12.1bn spent on PPE. Efficient management or not?

Was that the nhs or the government?

[Paddington Bear]

A double whammy of the parties and a major fall in living standards/incomes could send Boris to poll ratings that finish him off