Labour ?

The 'average' wage in the UK is in the mid twenties. Because of how that average works, around two thirds of people earn less than that. Rich is not an absolute term, it's comparative. In this case, it's a national comparison, not a home counties comparison, since taxes aren't regional in that way. Earning around three times what most people earn justifies the use of a comparative term.

Thus 70k a year is, to a moderate extent, rich. If you don't like it, or earn that much and don't see why  a the word rich should apply to you, unfortunately that doesn't change the numbers or the meanings of the words used.

Regardless, why would anyone with that much money who nonetheless feels hard done by expect Labour to play to them? That's what the Tories are for. 'Twas ever thus.

I'm with you on this one, Lindsay.

We seem to be stuck in an endless cycle of "more money needed", whether it's the oft quoted example of the NHS, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, local government.

Over the last couple of years, I've taken a closer interest in my local town council's affairs, and it soon became apparent that several projects, for which the locals had no enthusiasm , or worse still, opposed, went ahead anyway.

These vanity projects have swallowed up substantial amounts of revenue, and yet we are being told that council tax bills will continue to rise due to shortfalls in funding.

As far as the NHS is concerned, I agree that it's difficult to find out the true picture as regards funding, year on year.

Yet, Governments of whichever political hue, have consistently claimed that they have increased the amount available, "to record levels", apparently.

Surely, it's time for some accountability, with a closer look at where the money actually is spent .............. frontline medical provision, or, I fear, into the coffers of the ever increasing number of outside contractors, seemingly necessary to provide the service.

dave marshall posted:

We seem to be stuck in an endless cycle of "more money needed", whether it's the oft quoted example of the NHS, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, local government.

[...]

As far as the NHS is concerned, I agree that it's difficult to find out the true picture as regards funding, year on year.

Yet, Governments of whichever political hue, have consistently claimed that they have increased the amount available, "to record levels", apparently.

Surely, it's time for some accountability, with a closer look at where the money actually is spent .............. frontline medical provision, or, I fear, into the coffers of the ever increasing number of outside contractors, seemingly necessary to provide the service.

The problem is that there needs to be a HUGE (almost) one time (well over a few years) injection of cash (much more than anyone considers).  That is needed because of successive failures to fund properly.

Hospitals are underfunded and in some cases crumbing, yet all that happens is that the cracks are papered over.  There are insufficient doctors, and all that happens is they are told to work longer hours or "agency" staff are brought in; the same with nurses.  And thats just for starters.

You are right, that a lot of money is probably "wasted" but that is because there is not enough money to do the job properly.

The other problem (with the NHS) is that social care is not integrated.  Because social care isn't funded properly, someone goes into hospital for an operation; because everyone is on tight budgets, the person's place in their home is stopped being funded as soon as they go into home.  That place is then given to a new paying resident.  So now when the patient is ready to be discharged, they no longer have a place to goto and so have to remain in hospital for days, sometimes weeks or even months longer than necessary.

And there are more people living longer.  And the way we live has changed.  How many people think an old person should sell their home to pay for their own social (not medical) care when they need support are in their later years?  The collapse of the extended family has made the need for social care increase - yet descendent still feel they are entitled to benefit from their parents assets.

Then at the end of the day there is the question of what is funded and how.  You also can't (or shouldn't morally) start at a point of "we have x to spend, how many people can we help" you have to say "y number of people need this help, therefore it will cost x".

Its like the man and his shoes.  A poor man pays £25 on a pair of shoes that lasts him a year, next year he can afford another pair of shoes at £25, and another the year after, and another the year after.  A rich man has the money to spend £50 on pair of shoes ... that last him 4 years.  As a result the rich man spends less and so becomes richer.

Dave***t posted:

The 'average' wage in the UK is in the mid twenties. Because of how that average works, around two thirds of people earn less than that. Rich is not an absolute term, it's comparative. In this case, it's a national comparison, not a home counties comparison, since taxes aren't regional in that way. Earning around three times what most people earn justifies the use of a comparative term.

Thus 70k a year is, to a moderate extent, rich. If you don't like it, or earn that much and don't see why  a the word rich should apply to you, unfortunately that doesn't change the numbers or the meanings of the words used.

Regardless, why would anyone with that much money who nonetheless feels hard done by expect Labour to play to them? That's what the Tories are for. 'Twas ever thus.

If you earn 70k a year you are in the top 5% of tax payers.

Now depending where you live 70k might not make you feel rich ... but that's due to the broken economics of the housing market.

Eloise,

I can't disagree with any of your reasoning, but I do feel the time is long overdue for some insight as to where the money actually goes, otherwise, we're all just repeating the "more funding needed" mantra.

Equally, I'm not drawing any direct parallels between national NHS funding, and the very local town council scenario I painted above, though some investigation might reveal whether the media soundbites, we're all fed, actually do stand up.

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. 

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

wenger2015 posted:

unprofessional

Please define.

C.

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. 

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

You really do talk a lot of bollocks sometimes. 

Eloise posted:

......... How many people think an old person should sell their home to pay for their own social (not medical) care when they need support are in their later years?  The collapse of the extended family has made the need for social care increase - yet descendent still feel they are entitled to benefit from their parents assets........

 

Here's one that absolutely believes homes should be sold to fund the social care that children of the elderly are no longer prepared to provide. Why on earth should we, the tax payers, pick up an extremely expensive tab in order to fund and safeguard the offspring's inheritance?

Tim

Hungryhalibut posted:

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. 

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

You really do talk a lot of bollocks sometimes. 

Unless evidence to substantiate this outrageous accusation can be produced, Wenger really could do to withdraw his comments. Being entitled to hold and express an opinion is one thing, but this insult to many thousands of hard working, dedicated public employees (of whom I was one for 35 years) is preposterous.

Tim

Unprofessional = a inability to work out what is in the best interests of the community ....I unfortunately know a number of members of the local council, they collectively  remind me of someone  who knows the capital of Mexico but does not know how to change a light bulb ....

dave marshall posted:

I'm with you on this one, Lindsay.

We seem to be stuck in an endless cycle of "more money needed", whether it's the oft quoted example of the NHS, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, local government.

Over the last couple of years, I've taken a closer interest in my local town council's affairs, and it soon became apparent that several projects, for which the locals had no enthusiasm , or worse still, opposed, went ahead anyway.

These vanity projects have swallowed up substantial amounts of revenue, and yet we are being told that council tax bills will continue to rise due to shortfalls in funding.

As far as the NHS is concerned, I agree that it's difficult to find out the true picture as regards funding, year on year.

Yet, Governments of whichever political hue, have consistently claimed that they have increased the amount available, "to record levels", apparently.

Surely, it's time for some accountability, with a closer look at where the money actually is spent .............. frontline medical provision, or, I fear, into the coffers of the ever increasing number of outside contractors, seemingly necessary to provide the service.

We had an interesting one a few years ago.  The council proposed spending £1.2M on a foot bridge that, whilst the design was aesthertically good, was inappropriate for the location.  A community sponsored project proposed a much lower profile design that would have cost £350k.  The council rejected the community proposal and went ahead with preparing the ground for their proposed design.  At the last minute they were 'persuaded' that public vote was in order.

The ballot: Their design or no bridge at all - the community proposed design wasn't even offered on the ballot as the councillors didn't like the design - it just wasn't fancy enough to suit their egos.  The communities verdict: The councillors vanity bridge was rejected... We voted for no bridge rather than a waste of £850k and cuts to services (which we got anyway as punishment for rebelling against our masters).

This was the same council who changed their constitution so that the Oversight and Standards Committee couldn't overrule a decision of the council cabinet, no matter how atrocious, immoral  or even illegal that decision was.

wenger2015 posted:

Unprofessional = a inability to work out what is in the best interests of the community ....I unfortunately know a number of members of the local council, they collectively  remind me of someone  who knows the capital of Mexico but does not know how to change a light bulb ....

Anecdotal tosh.

C.

The local council that receive  my hard earned cash, are  in the process of going bankrupt...  

Inappropriate use of funds is the official explanation... 

What's required to salvage the situation?

A deal to join forces with the neighbouring council,  and not unsurprisingly a hike in council tax...

wenger2015 posted:

The local council that receive  my hard earned cash, are  in the process of going bankrupt...  

Inappropriate use of funds is the official explanation... 

What's required to salvage the situation?

A deal to join forces with the neighbouring council,  and not unsurprisingly a hike in council tax...

So apart from whingeing on a social media platform, what are you doing about it?

C.

The local council offices in the town, used to be a very grand building,  it had to be sold off to developers to fund the vast hole in the public finances

If you go to the local council offices now, you go to a small room at the back of  the town library....sitting their is one person and a computer... 

And the town library seems to be next on the list of assets to be sold off...

Christopher_M posted:

wenger2015 posted:

The local council that receive  my hard earned cash, are  in the process of going bankrupt...  

Inappropriate use of funds is the official explanation... 

What's required to salvage the situation?

A deal to join forces with the neighbouring council,  and not unsurprisingly a hike in council tax...

So apart from whingeing on a social media platform, what are you doing about it?

C.

Nothing obviously,  because I'm apparently talking bollocks....

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!

wenger2015 posted:

Christopher_M posted:

wenger2015 posted:

The local council that receive  my hard earned cash, are  in the process of going bankrupt...  

Inappropriate use of funds is the official explanation... 

What's required to salvage the situation?

A deal to join forces with the neighbouring council,  and not unsurprisingly a hike in council tax...

So apart from whingeing on a social media platform, what are you doing about it?

C.

Nothing obviously,  because I'm apparently talking bollocks....

Can you at least tell us which council you are talking about?

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. 

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

Not much down for me then as, in addition to working in the private sector, I've also worked in local government and in the NHS for many years of my working life.  My experience would suggest that your description is based on a severe lack of knowledge and too much reading of the wrong type of newspaper.  There is waste in both the NHS and local government (although less so now in the latter) but by and large the staff are well qualified, committed, very professional workers who could probably make more money lining the pockets of share holders in the private sector.  Much of the waste in local government comes from the decisions made by elected politicians rather than employees, and in the NHS the sheer size of the organisation, and the strategies employed by governments of all types means that waste is inevitable.  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.

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.

wenger2015 posted:

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

Who is the system being abused by?

Well, a veritable hornets nest seems to have been disturbed, now that the topic has opened up to some mention of our local authorities.

I would suggest that, for most of us, our knowledge of matters national, is largely informed by, as mentioned earlier, media soundbites, whereas, if we can spare the time, attendance at town council meetings, can be most enlightening.

Sparing you all the details, my local town council was determined to sell off some land, gifted to them in the first place, for a project which was hugely opposed by the majority of local residents.

They  pursued several planning refusals, all the way to the Supreme Court, to be ultimately turned down, at a cost to local residents of £1.2 million in legal fees.

Having attended many meetings, both before, and since this fiasco, I have yet to hear any councillor admit to their folly.

Not surprisingly, a good friend, who is secretary to the council, has confirmed to me that this was privately viewed as a "vanity", or, to use current vernacular, "legacy" project.

So no, I have little faith in the commonly reported view that we must continue to pour ever increasing amounts of tax revenue into the NHS, Education, or whatever flavour of the month happens to be, without some evidence of where the present funding is being spent.

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.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

It's exactly the same with the NHS, the wage bill is staggering,  if the high wages, were only given to doctors, surgeons, ect and not Administrators, and if the system was not abused by ..............!!!!, then their would be enough monies available for those that are truly in need.

Who is the system being abused by?

If I said, that would probably be somewhat controversial,  but I have worked in the NHS for many years.....spoken to many doctors, surgeons, administrators, nurses, would be 'whistle blowers' ..

No doubt we all reach our conclusions based on the experiences we have had....and of course if are opinions differ, ' that can only be down to the newspapers we ready' apparently!!!! 

dave marshall posted:

......local council officials, who make these bizarre decisions, ....

No they don't, councillors whom we elect make the decisions. The decisions are made at council meetings which we are free to attend. If we can't make it, we can easily make our view known to our ward councillor who can then make our views known at the council meeting.

Council staff then carry out the instructions of the Council which were voted on at the meeting. If it's not obvious by now, Council decision making and subsequent action is ultimately down to us.

C.