Labour ?

Erm, sorry, it's not quite like that at all, as I'm sure we all know.

We can attend council meetings, as interested members of the public, but you're not really suggesting that all council decisions are made as a result of votes held publicly, surely?

 

 

HH, Timmo, et al, you do need to take into account the difference between criticism of local council officials, who make these bizarre decisions, and local council employees, who are tasked with carrying them out.

Wenger2015 posted:

My experience with local councils suggests to me quite strongly that by far the majority of employees are unprofessional, do they have the interests of the local community at heart, answer NO.

Will more funding help? Answer NO, because the monies will only go to lining their own pockets...

The wages that are paid to these unprofessional people is criminal.

The meaning expressed above is quite clear. Employees, not elected councillors, are accused of being unprofessional and paid too much. It is that remark that should, in my opinion, be withdrawn. I agree there are some elected councillors who act unprofessionally, it is not that sentiment with which I take issue.

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

In my view the services provided by the NHS need to be reviewed and pared back and services should be more localised and less subject to government and national interference.

Firstly, out of interest, what services do you think should be pared back from the NHS?

Secondly, I completely disagree with the bolded section (unless I am understanding your meaning wrong)... the National Health Service should be just that, national.  General decisions over what services are provided should be made nationally, but then micro decisions (I.e. What treatment is required for a particular patient) should be decided by individual doctors.  It should then be funded nationally.  Social care should equally be centrally funded.

I completely agree with Eloise. Strategic planning decisions should be national, this Govt hides behind localisation, avoiding big issues that need to be explicit and subject to a national debate about rationing of services in future. How many cycles of IVF are we going to fund, do we do hip replacements on overweight people? These questions should not be subject to postcode lottery and crisis decisions when the cash runs out in your locality.

That is different to saying it should be free of Govt interference. The NHS should be run apolitically by an independent national body in my view. Stop using it as a political football.

As for oft repeated claim that management are soaking up the money I can really only accurately speak for 'my' CCG. We have just over £200m budget. We spend less than 2% on management staff and admin costs, and all CCGs must not exceed 2%. I think that is pretty decent.

You can read exactly where every pound of your local CCG budget is spent if you want, they are a public body. It is your money after all. Our accounts are below. The NHS has become a lot more accountable, and less wasteful in recent years. I'm sure there is waste, but then it is a huge beast however the relentless pursuit of mandatory Govt 'efficiency savings' (or cuts to you and me) has trimmed a lot of this to the bone. Our budget has to achieve a 2% efficiency saving every year despite rising demand and demographic pressures plus medical cost inflation (which runs at about 8%). this is real term cut in resources but the Govt say our budgets are protected because we get the money at the start of the year, we just have to hand back 2% at the end. Smoke and mirrors for you-a real example

http://www.airedalewharfedalec...ORT-2015_16-V4.1.pdf

Bruce

PS I also have to say in my experience trying to integrate services locally that the professionalism of Local Authority staff, and their willingness to innovate falls far behind that of the NHS. This is a sweeping generalisation I know, and I can point to some good examples but there is a huge cultural difference between Health and Social Care at the moment. This appears to be national, see DevoManc for details

Timmo1341 posted:

I never expected to encounter readers of the Daily Mail and The Sun on this forum, but they are obviously the source and inspiration of some of the comments being made. Some of the analyses expressed are staggeringly infantile. Time to return to the Music Room and HiFi forum!

 

Oh my - if you really needed evidence as to why the "liberal elite" has taken a thumping your opening sentence  provides it.  And I don't read either newspaper.  

dave marshall posted:

Erm, sorry, it's not quite like that at all, as I'm sure we all know.

We can attend council meetings, as interested members of the public, but you're not really suggesting that all council decisions are made as a result of votes held publicly, surely?

Hi Dave, All I wanted to do was refute your suggestion that council officials make decisions. If you know otherwise you could let the Local Government Ombudsman know, the press, your MP etc.

C.

I  agree with Bruce, the NHS has become far too political and it stifles it... everyone starts treading on egg shells when needing to address NHS issues, and the sad fact is that in terms of performance in many areas  the NHS is  falling behind other countries as they evolve better.. Such badly needed  innovation is seen 'politically' by some as risking the NHS, where in my view it could be further from the truth and not changing is killing our NHS.

The demands placed on the NHS since the 1940s have significantly changed,  yet I feel the NHS hasn't often been able to reflection  those changes well putting those who fund it and those who work for it under increased stress.

There is so I am told by my doctor and nursing family members still far too much waste and inefficiency, often poor people resource management and structural management  ultimately leading to yet more stressed working environments, challenged budgets and compromises in people health care provision. The NHS is crying out for real change, and like the Bank of England it should be set free from the shackles of politicisation... but I bet no main stream political party is brave enough to say that... and sadly because of that our NHS will continue its genereal slow decline... with its constant supply of financial sticky plasters, ever growing budgets and politicisation.

Christopher_M posted:

dave marshall posted:

Erm, sorry, it's not quite like that at all, as I'm sure we all know.

We can attend council meetings, as interested members of the public, but you're not really suggesting that all council decisions are made as a result of votes held publicly, surely?

Hi Dave, All I wanted to do was refute your suggestion that council officials make decisions. If you know otherwise you could let the Local Government Ombudsman know, the press, your MP etc.

C.

It all depends on the Council's Scheme of Delegation, which has to be approved by full Council. A lot of decisions are made by officers, where the Scheme requires it. It would be impossible for Members to make a lot of the everyday decisions as they have neither the capacity not the knowledge - it's just not appropriate. Most Member decisions are made by Cabinet Members. Before decisions can come into force they are subject to call in by backbench Councillors and will then need to be considered by a Select Committee. This arrangement makes for much faster decision making than if everything had to go to full Council. Certain decisions do of course, such as setting the Council Tax, major planning decisions and a number of other things - as set out in the Scheme of Delegation. The Scheme will be published on a Council's website. 

Referring back to Wenger's post above, it really annoys me when people make these allegations about local authority officers. I've worked in local government since 1986 and of course I've come across a few people who are out for themselves. But those are a few amongst the many hundreds of highly professional staff who go well above and beyond the call of duty in order to get the best for the local residents, businesses, taxpayers and other customers. 

That has become harder as the government grants have been reduced and Council Tax increases capped. It's now an increasingly impossible balancing act to keep key services going. But everyone still soldiers on, working harder than ever. And accusations that the majority of them are unprofessional and don't have the interests of their communities at heart don't make their job any easier. It's just downright nasty. 

I know people at all levels, from the guy in the postroom, who ensures that letters only go first class where absolutely necessary, to the chief executive who carries the weight of a £1bn operation on his shoulders, to the social worker who has to come in the next day after being called out by the police in the middle of the night to take a one year old into care after she'd been raped by her father. Tell me these people aren't professional. 

Absolutely, in fact most people in all walks  of life and professions whether they be in the public, private or voluntary sector are 'professional' or more accurately dedicated to various degrees in what they do. Yes there are a few I am sure everywhere that are in it for only themselves, I am afraid that is human nature, but thankfully they are in my experience very much of a minority and satisfyingly sometimes get their just deserts.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I  agree with Bruce, the NHS has become far too political and it stifles it... everyone starts treading on egg shells when needing to address NHS issues, and the sad fact is that in terms of performance in many areas  the NHS is  falling behind other countries as they evolve better.. Such badly needed  innovation is seen 'politically' by some as risking the NHS, where in my view it could be further from the truth and not changing is killing our NHS.

The demands placed on the NHS since the 1940s have significantly changed,  yet I feel the NHS hasn't often been able to reflection  those changes well putting those who fund it and those who work for it under increased stress.

There is so I am told by my doctor and nursing family members still far too much waste and inefficiency, often poor people resource management and structural management  ultimately leading to yet more stressed working environments, challenged budgets and compromises in people health care provision. The NHS is crying out for real change, and like the Bank of England it should be set free from the shackles of politicisation... but I bet no main stream political party is brave enough to say that... and sadly because of that our NHS will continue its genereal slow decline... with its constant supply of financial sticky plasters, ever growing budgets and politicisation.

Whilst I agree with much of that, there is a change afoot in primary care provision.  There are a number of primary care practices throughout the country, who, by being allowed to take control of their own budgets, have been able to greatly increase their efficiency.  These are establishing a number of best practice models for other primary care providers to follow.  I'm lucky enough to be registered with one of these practices, and I also volunteer (including being a committee member) for one of the community 'outreach' efforts of this practice, so I come into direct contact with the administration of the practice and have knowledge of it.

There has been at least one successful political change in recent years:  Precisely the one to allow local budgetary control to be taken over by primary care providers who are large enough for this to be viable, freeing them from overbearing control by the PCTs and allowing them to adapt to local conditions and the requirement of their patients (who are, perforce, local).  Even this was opposed by Her Magesty's Opposition, who it appears take that role to mean that everything must be opposed!

Unfortunately that latter part applies no mater which party is in power and which parties are the opposition.  

I also thought that last night's Party Political Broadcast by the Labour party was particularly cynical.  The cost of provisioning their proposal would require a very significant tax rise or would significantly damage other services; and yet the broadcast was exclusively preying on an emotion response in the viewers by using children to present the "choices" to be made by the electorate.

I think Labour are cynical.  I can recall the quite horrid mis-representation of a young lady called Jennifer and treatment for her ear in the 1992 election.  Of course I know many fine individuals who support Labour but as a collective for a group who purports to have compassion at its core they are a nasty lot who thrive on dirty tricks.  

Of course, the Tory tactic of hitting the poorest hardest is not cynical at all. It's clearly in their best interests.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

I never expected to encounter readers of the Daily Mail and The Sun on this forum, but they are obviously the source and inspiration of some of the comments being made. Some of the analyses expressed are staggeringly infantile. Time to return to the Music Room and HiFi forum!

 

Oh my - if you really needed evidence as to why the "liberal elite" has taken a thumping your opening sentence  provides it.  And I don't read either newspaper.  

My apologies - I forgot to include the Express!

I don't see how a political party itself can be cynical.

Yes members of the party can be cynical, and when those cynical members are the party's controlling elite this can result in policies arising from a position of cynicism; but, in my opinion, the party itself isn't a construct to which the term cynical can be applied.

Huge posted:

I also thought that last night's Party Political Broadcast by the Labour party was particularly cynical.  The cost of provisioning their proposal would require a very significant tax rise or would significantly damage other services; and yet the broadcast was exclusively preying on an emotion response in the viewers by using children to present the "choices" to be made by the electorate.

Exactly - I cant help Labour's current approach in opposition will ultimately kill the NHS.. its not all about budgets and money but true reform and innovation in how health care services are provisioned and delivered... and in my opinion you need both in balance - and its too much of the former from [current] Labour.

Of course everyone would like something for nothing - but of course we all have to pay and contribute but currently there is a very unhealthy imbalance of contribution in the UK to the extent it undermines security of funding - yet another time bomb and I find alarming and [current] labour seem to be in complete denial  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I think Labour are cynical.  I can recall the quite horrid mis-representation of a young lady called Jennifer and treatment for her ear in the 1992 election.  Of course I know many fine individuals who support Labour but as a collective for a group who purports to have compassion at its core they are a nasty lot who thrive on dirty tricks.  

I find this to be a particularly staggering observation, along with continued references by some to a fictional evil 'Liberal Elite' who from most comments appear to come from the centre left of British and World politics.

The one pretty obvious fact (or personal observation if you like) that I would submit is that the true 'Elite' in respect of politics, personal income and privilege in the real world are those on the right wing of British or World politics. Many of these people have a vested interest in promoting policies and politics which will undoubtedly result in making them better off, and from past experience, often at the expense of those less privileged or further down the scale of affluence. I wonder just who coined the term 'Liberal Elite'?

On the other hand, those people (possibly the 'Champagne Socialists' amongst us) who work on the centre or left wing of politics, and who think it only fair to promote policies and politics that are designed to more fairly distribute some of the money (by means of tax rises for those who can afford it, or benefits for those genuinely in need) may be canvassing for changes that hit their own personal pockets.

Which of these camps is the more admirable or the more cynical?

Of course, you may feel that to make such a sweeping generalisation is ridiculous, and of course it is to some extent. I do so simply to make a point. There may be a whole host of other reasons why you might vote for a 'Right Wing' party as opposed to one from the 'Left' or 'Centre' of British politics, and many who do may genuinely feel that they do so out of a belief that it is for the benefit of the country as a whole. However, to portray the Labour party as "cynical" and "a nasty lot who thrive on dirty tricks" is simply outrageous.  

For the record, I have worked in the 'private' sector all my life (never in the Public Service sector), and am privileged enough to have earned more than the average salary throughout much of my working life. However, I have had to make use of the NHS and local council services on a number of occasions, and by and large I have felt (particularly in the case of the NHS) that they have provide me with exemplary service, often in difficult conditions and under great stress. I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of people who work in the NHS. I have little but contempt for those who aspire to drastically change the concept of our NHS.

Funny really, how so called professional people can only resort to abuse when criticised, cynical comments about the newspapers they may or may not read, could it be these so called professional people are just full of their own self importance . 

Apparently Mr Blair is campaigning for voters to support anyone but Labour.

Is he right to inflict even more damage to the Labour Party or is it all part of his plan to return as the Labour Savior sometime in the future ?? 

Alternately, he knows that 70's style militant style socialism is dead in the water and will never get Labour re-elected, also that the party can't win this election.  So, by getting Labour defeated very heavily this time, they'll loose nothing (the weren't going to win anyway) and the weight of the defeat will force the party to drop Mr Corbyn and move to a more moderate position.  This will enable Labour to recover in the future and once again become an effective party, either in power or in opposition.

wenger2015 posted:

Apparently Mr Blair is campaigning for voters to support anyone but Labour.

Any source for that? I had a quick Google and didn't see it mentioned.

Huge posted:

Alternately, he knows that 70's style militant style socialism is dead in the water and will never get Labour re-elected, also that the party can't win this election.  So, by getting Labour defeated very heavily this time, they'll loose nothing (the weren't going to win anyway) and the weight of the defeat will force the party to drop Mr Corbyn and move to a more moderate position.  This will enable Labour to recover in the future and once again become an effective party, either in power or in opposition.

I think your spot on with that assessment. 

Dave T

I caught a sound bite from a TV interview he did in the last couple of days...

Dave***t posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Apparently Mr Blair is campaigning for voters to support anyone but Labour.

Any source for that? I had a quick Google and didn't see it mentioned.

from https://www.theguardian.com/po...d-on-brexit#comments

In an interview on the BBC’s World This Weekend, Blair said that if Theresa May won a landslide, as the polls currently suggest, the Conservatives would read it as a mandate for “Brexit at any costs” – and voters concerned about the risks of leaving the EU should press every candidate to answer whether they had an open mind about whether the final deal was in Britain’s interests.

“The absolutely central question at this general election is less who is the prime minister on 9 June, and more what is the nature of the mandate, and in particular – because otherwise frankly this is a steamroller election – is it possible that we can return as many members of parliament as possible to parliament that are going to keep an open mind on this Brexit negotiation until we see the final terms?”

Asked if that could mean voting Lib Dem in a lot of cases, he said: “What I’m advocating may mean that. It may mean voting Labour. It may mean, by the way, that they vote Tory, for candidates who are prepared to give this commitment.”

He added: “This is something that’s bigger than party allegiance, in this particular election.” He said he would campaign to ensure that candidates in every constituency were put under pressure to answer the question: “Will you back Brexit at any costs, or are you prepared to say, this deal is not in the interests of the country?”

Eloise posted:

Dave***t posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Apparently Mr Blair is campaigning for voters to support anyone but Labour.

Any source for that? I had a quick Google and didn't see it mentioned.

from https://www.theguardian.com/po...d-on-brexit#comments

In an interview on the BBC’s World This Weekend, Blair said that if Theresa May won a landslide, as the polls currently suggest, the Conservatives would read it as a mandate for “Brexit at any costs” – and voters concerned about the risks of leaving the EU should press every candidate to answer whether they had an open mind about whether the final deal was in Britain’s interests.

“The absolutely central question at this general election is less who is the prime minister on 9 June, and more what is the nature of the mandate, and in particular – because otherwise frankly this is a steamroller election – is it possible that we can return as many members of parliament as possible to parliament that are going to keep an open mind on this Brexit negotiation until we see the final terms?”

Asked if that could mean voting Lib Dem in a lot of cases, he said: “What I’m advocating may mean that. It may mean voting Labour. It may mean, by the way, that they vote Tory, for candidates who are prepared to give this commitment.”

He added: “This is something that’s bigger than party allegiance, in this particular election.” He said he would campaign to ensure that candidates in every constituency were put under pressure to answer the question: “Will you back Brexit at any costs, or are you prepared to say, this deal is not in the interests of the country?”

Eloise,

That was the interview,  very impressive, I couldn't remember where I had heard it..

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

That's a very different thing than 'anyone but Labour', though.