The other area is where rich former tory pms go and make millions on the speaking circuits.
And where socialist true labour former pms also make millions on the same circuits.
1 Like
Those who can afford to pay for private education usually make the excuse that the local state schools are not good enough and they want to give their children the best possible educationâŚ
Here is a good example of thatâŚ
He does seem to have done well mind you. âHe is a diplomat for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is based in King Charles Street, Westminster, after graduating from Cambridge Universityâ.
Sounds like the guy has huge mental health issues now sadly.
I read somewhere that 1 in 5 current Labour MPs have sent or are sending kids to private schools.
2 Likes
Very diplomatic behaviour, not!
I can understand why, particularly in populous areas, MPs would privilege âpublicâ schools. In a small town itâs bad enough being a GPs son.
Good to see Reform are putting themselves forward as a group of serious people ready to govern the country.
Fucking deadshits.
3 Likes
I canât be arsed with him anymore.
2 Likes
On that very subjectâŚ
The problem is that the people who should read this article wonât.
5 Likes
There hasnât been a socialist Labour PM since Gordon Brown and he wasnât allowed to stay for too long
1 Like
Has he been on the speaking circuits much?
No idea. Even focusing on speaking circuits is a waste of time. It has precisely zero bearing on the problems of the country.
Labour do realise that they werenât voted in on the basis of being Tories, right?
The more they try to chase the right-wing vote, the more theyâre going to haemorrhage vote share.
Idiots donât seem to listen that the more you pander to the bullshit on the far-right, the more people would vote for them anyway since thereâs no point voting for you when they could just get the original. Scholz and Merz should have been warnings to Labour, but it seems like their much lauded âcompetenceâ is just yet another act.
3 Likes
It simply makes absolutely no sense to me.
They didnât arrive at the job cut number after a comprehensive review of the roles and responsibilities within the respective structures of DHSC and NHS England.
They literally conjured a number out of nowhere and decided to target that.
If people wanted the Conservatives in power, they would have voted for them.
This Labour government is already dead.
EDIT: edited to reflect that itâs specifically NHS England, the body within the DHSC that, I quote (from Wikipedia unfortunately) " oversees the budget, planning, delivery and day-to-day operation of the commissioning side of the National Health Service in England as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012".
My point still stands. The idea of the restructuring makes sense, the targeting of a specific number without a comprehensive review makes none.
2 Likes
We went after Jeremy Hunt and rightly so. Streeting is no better.
1 Like
I canât quite work out what they are doing. NHS England was set up by the Cameron government and it has been responsible for the increase in private sector involvement.
Is centralising it a precursor to establishing national bodies or just increasing the privatisation? If itâs the former, then it could well provide savings as there is literally no way that private bodies can compete with a nationalised one.
1 Like
I edited my post to reflect that, actually.
I just donât understand whatâs the point of targeting job cuts specifically instead of organisational goals, if not for the political optics of it.
1 Like
Isnât this just a management tool for out sourcing?
If such cuts allowed for more beds, nurses and doctors then great.
Number punchers donât make for a better national health. Thatcher found that out for us when the NHS was flooded with middle management to âsaveâ money. It âworkedâ in the short term however not in the medium term as hospitals closed, care degraded and health care workers deminished. Long term it was a disaster as the middle management was deminished hospitals didnât reopen and health workers were not increased.
3 Likes
The central claim is that NHS England (an organisation that oversees the NHS in England) is bloated because of duplication of responsibilities between itself and the DHSC, which it is a part of.
Iâm fine with the general idea of removing that duplication and streamlining the organisations with the caveat of no loss in output.
Iâm not cool with the arbitrary decision to cut half the jobs without a comprehensive review to see what should be cut.
1 Like
I have a nasty feeling that the dreaded phrase âmanagement consultantâ is behind it somewhere.
1 Like
Which would be deeply ironic since the Reddit thread I found on this is generally in favour of this because the sentiment is that there are too many consultants in NHS England⌠Go figure.
1 Like
I saw this in the guardian yesterday, and Iâm really in two minds about this.
It looks at first glance horrific for a Labour Government to be using Trumpian language of efficiency savings, job cuts and cut to the NHS and Civil Service workforces.
However, I know a lot of people who work for both institutions, and all of them speak about an extensive and wide ranging culture of piss-taking.
They talk about people rarely doing their work, working a couple of months to justify going on extended sick leave for years. People refusing to do basically anything because of mental health excuses and stress. People get punted from department to department, because itâs easier that starting performance or exit strategies.
It really feels like there is an industrial level issue of piss taking that is costing the tax payer a lot of money.
Edit: Sorry - the discussion moved on a bit, but obviously there is a clinical and administrative side to the NHS, and itâs the latter where people I know talk about absenteeism and piss taking problems being rife.h
4 Likes
In a similar veinâŚ
The article highlights an increase prevalence amongst younger generations declaring themselves unable to work because of relatively minor mental health circumstances.
I get that frustration, and as I grew up in a world where mental health wasnât discussed, Iâve never felt the need or opportunity to claim out of work benefits due to mental health issues. I see younger people continually taking time off due to their mental health, and think âreally - you couldnât come to work today?â
But beyond the clumsy, brute force of Labour saying âletâs just get people back to workâ there is a deeper, and much more interesting conversation that needs to be had. A conversation about why younger generations feel so lacking in resilience and ambition, and has to go beyond âyouâre all just fucking lazyâ.