Private sector is not as good as many like to think

[Hookit]

First I am not saying the public sector is perfect but then nor is the private sector.
Let’s look at a few area which have gone to the private sector which I felt were much better within the public sector. Public transport is terrible I live on the out skirts of a major city and can no longer get public transport into the city. When it was public transport the buses were used and I could get a bus twice an hour into the city and an extra one per hour from 6-30am to 9-30am and these buses were used so I cannot tell you why the private sector stopped them?
Railways now stop if there is a leaf on the line when it was BR the railways did not stop for a bit of ice or a leaf.
Now let’s move onto an area that many blame for the super bugs in our hospitals? Cleaners were far better under the control of the NHS most public sector offices are now cleaned by the private sector and everything has been cut back and offices are no longer as clean as they should be including their toilets.
The public sector is scrutinised unlike the private sector and we only hear about their failings when the administrators are called in. Unlike the public sector that is under the watchful eyes of everyone and political parties use and abuse them most of the waste within the public sector is due to the government of the day. Remember most ministers do not last 18 months but they want to make their mark hence they push stuff through for that reason and do not care if it fails in the long term.
This has been what has happened in the public sector from the 1960’s at least and with every government. But let’s take a look at the public sector they could be your relatives and friends they are those that risk their lives for us in all weathers fighting fires tackling angry mops or football thugs or risking their lives to pull you out of a burning car and putting their lives on the line to save yours then we have our brave armed forces who we hear of far too often as giving their lives and loosing limbs.
There are I am sure better ways to run the public sector and I feel the best way is to stop governments interference and let the public sector do the job they are paid for.

[Midas]

First I am not saying the public sector is perfect but then nor is the private sector.

Quite agreed, but when the broad picture is viewed the private sector is almost always more efficient and less wasteful than the public sector.

Let’s look at a few area which have gone to the private sector which I felt were much better within the public sector. Public transport is terrible I live on the out skirts of a major city and can no longer get public transport into the city. When it was public transport the buses were used and I could get a bus twice an hour into the city and an extra one per hour from 6-30am to 9-30am and these buses were used so I cannot tell you why the private sector stopped them?
Railways now stop if there is a leaf on the line when it was BR the railways did not stop for a bit of ice or a leaf.

I agree that many privatised industries, including public transport, could be far better, however you can't just say ".....were much better within the public sector" without some major qualifications. One of, if not the, major issues with public transport comes down to the way in which licences were initially issued and what their terms and conditions are; too many were given in certain areas resulting in over-supply, not enough in others resulting in the less profitable routes suffering because government subsidies are not enough to warrant decent services. There's also the cost and duration of the licences to consider. With very few exceptions these are too expensive and not long enough in duration to warrant private companies making the sometimes huge investments needed, particularly in the rail infrastructure, where decades of mis-management and under-investment under the nationalised British Rail resulted in the privatised industries inheriting sub-standard equipment and properties. The government also failed to set up any national transport co-ordination scheme for privatised transport services, which would have meant a far greater degree of efficiency when moving from region to region. Basically it was a botched job to start with and to a considerable degree the hands of the privatised transport companies are still tied by far too much and too onerous regulation.

Now let’s move onto an area that many blame for the super bugs in our hospitals? Cleaners were far better under the control of the NHS most public sector offices are now cleaned by the private sector and everything has been cut back and offices are no longer as clean as they should be including their toilets.

Have you not considered that much of this is down to the fact that cleaning budgets for most hospitals and many other public buildings are tiny and their administration over-bureaucratic, resulting in the cheapest possible tenders being accepted? Pay peanuts, get monkeys to do the job; that's largely what this boils down to. Cutting staffing levels and increasing efficiency would release far more cash for things like cleaning.

The public sector is scrutinised unlike the private sector and we only hear about their failings when the administrators are called in. Unlike the public sector that is under the watchful eyes of everyone and political parties use and abuse them most of the waste within the public sector is due to the government of the day. Remember most ministers do not last 18 months but they want to make their mark hence they push stuff through for that reason and do not care if it fails in the long term.
This has been what has happened in the public sector from the 1960’s at least and with every government. But let’s take a look at the public sector they could be your relatives and friends they are those that risk their lives for us in all weathers fighting fires tackling angry mops or football thugs or risking their lives to pull you out of a burning car and putting their lives on the line to save yours then we have our brave armed forces who we hear of far too often as giving their lives and loosing limbs.
There are I am sure better ways to run the public sector and I feel the best way is to stop governments interference and let the public sector do the job they are paid for.

Yes, there certainly are far better ways to run the public sector, and you've put your finger on one of the major causes; waste. Couple this with the inefficiency so often found there, then add in the huge amount of pointless bureaucracy the public sector is riddled with, and you'll inevitably get a service running way under par. Leaven all that with the fact that most public sectors are political footballs, itself hugely wasteful, and it's a recipe for disaster. Estimates vary, however from figures I've seen within the Institute of Directors, the staffing levels of most government departments could be cut by around 50% without any significant effect on the necessary work they do. I quite agree that some private businesses are not run as well as they should be either, however you have to remember that vast amounts of money and resources can be tied up simply complying with the mountains of unnecessary government regulation and bureaucracy, much of it out of the EU, that they have to deal with. This can substantially reduce profitability and take funds away from other areas in the business where they could be put to far better use; like improving services. Unlike in the public sector, private industry has to make a profit and can't just dig ever deeper into the taxpayer's pocket to pay for its inefficiency.

[Hookit]

Midas, you have some good points however there are other reasons why cleaning is poor and public transport is not as good as it should be and unlike the public sector which does not have this problem it is only the private
sector that can be blamed and that is greed. That is why public buildings including hospitals are not cleaned as good as when in the public sector that is why investment in public transport is poor it has nothing to do with old agreements ect just plane greed.

Private Sector = GREED

[Kiwi 1691]

The fact that the private Sector is more efficient is valid, perhaps the UK govt should get its various departments to allow private companies to tender for certain jobs in the departments. Like if cleaning staff in the NHS are considered to be inefficient, give private cleaning companies the right to tender for it.

[Opinionated]

...Like if cleaning staff in the NHS are considered to be inefficient, give private cleaning companies the right to tender for it.

It is that way now Kiwi, that's the problem. Unfortunately, and here's the rub, health authorities are forced to accept the lowest bid. Although the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 allow for the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT), so that factors other than or in addition to price, like quality, technical merit and running costs can be taken into account; in actual fact the largest pressure on managers is to keep the cost down means in reality it is very rarely the overiding consideration.
The pointless bureaucracy of managers which has grown up in the NHS is imo as a direct result of introducing private business principles, before Thatcher cleanliness etc. was the responsibility of the ward nurses and matron, obviously they tended to put the best interest of their patients above the end of year accounts. The cleaners who worked on the wards became part of a community sharing in the highs and lows of hospital life and as it was a job for life took pride in it (obviously we can't have that, that just smells of state reliance). Now if you're a Prime Minister aiming to see the dismantling of the NHS completely and you wish to break a strong union (the nurses) then you need to attack the very people who have become a loved institution and you start by chipping away at the culture they inhabit.

[Kiwi 1691]

It is that way now Kiwi,

oh, ok

[pauli007001]

Efficiency aside( though i believe that Private sector meritorious workers are more motivated than public sector unionised workers), the private sector is preferable, it offers choice to the customer, it removes government dogma from the provision of a service, it prevents a totalitarian attitude of "we are the government and we will look after you".

Look at the difference in Customer service from a Private US hospital and the arrogant and rude staff in a UK NHS hospital( dont **** with me, I am the government, is the attitude of many NHS staff, now get in line and shut up)!!

[Midas]

The pointless bureaucracy of managers which has grown up in the NHS is imo as a direct result of introducing private business principles, before Thatcher cleanliness etc. was the responsibility of the ward nurses and matron, obviously they tended to put the best interest of their patients above the end of year accounts. The cleaners who worked on the wards became part of a community sharing in the highs and lows of hospital life and as it was a job for life took pride in it (obviously we can't have that, that just smells of state reliance). Now if you're a Prime Minister aiming to see the dismantling of the NHS completely and you wish to break a strong union (the nurses) then you need to attack the very people who have become a loved institution and you start by chipping away at the culture they inhabit.

With all due respect, that sounds very much like passing the buck and blaming anything other than inefficiency and ineptitude within a state controlled system simply because it fits with your way of thinking. Granted the private sector does have its own problems, many of them arising from government interference, over-regulation and political correctness, but at least it doesn't generally seek to play the blame game.

As far as the NHS is concerned, if it was managed properly and had a financial incentive to run itself efficiently, it wouldn't need the multiple layers of self-sustaining bureaucracy endemic within it, and it would have far more money to spend on essential services like cleaning, not to mention actual medical services. You just cannot blame a private contractor, cleaning or otherwise, for not doing a decent job when they know full well they're not being paid anywhere nearly enough to do even a half-decent one.

[Kiwi 1691]

As far as the NHS is concerned, if it was managed properly and had a financial incentive to run itself efficiently,

Have they tried setting requirements for the NHS, and the income of the people running the NHS being linked to how well the NHS achieves in the requirements. IE if they meet the set requirements they get a higher level or remuneration, if they fail their remuneration is reduced.

[pauli007001]

Have they tried setting requirements for the NHS, and the income of the people running the NHS being linked to how well the NHS achieves in the requirements. IE if they meet the set requirements they get a higher level or remuneration, if they fail their remuneration is reduced.

The people setting the requirements are the same people paying themselves hugely inflated saleries from the public purse, the polititians that is.

Your answer to fixing political corruption is to get more corrupt polititians to stick their snouts into the trough?Yeah thats really gonna work!!

Then again better pay for better results and reduced pay for lesser results, isnt that the meritorious system of Capitalism??I guess you are beginning to see the light KIWI!!

[Midas]

Have they tried setting requirements for the NHS, and the income of the people running the NHS being linked to how well the NHS achieves in the requirements. IE if they meet the set requirements they get a higher level or remuneration, if they fail their remuneration is reduced.

With socialists all round, what do you think? No, if they run short of money they just appoint a few more bureaucrats to look into why, then take some more taxpayer's money to cover the cost.

[Kiwi 1691]

Then again better pay for better results and reduced pay for lesser results, isnt that the meritorious system of Capitalism??I guess you are beginning to see the light KIWI!!

To that I say **** Capitalism, you can blow my brains out before I'd ever be a capitalist.

better pay for better results and reduced pay for lesser results, could be capitalist or socialist.

[Kiwi 1691]

With socialists all round, what do you think? No, if they run short of money they just appoint a few more bureaucrats to look into why, then take some more taxpayer's money to cover the cost.

Theoredically, socialists would be all for it if it improves the efficiency of the system. The only people who'd oppose it would be an capitalists who run the system.

Socialism is aimed at doing the best for society, reducing waste in the NHS would be a change for the good of the whole society of the UK, people who want the best for society would agree to that.

People opposed or supportive because of a loss/ or gain for themselves is a capitalist.

[Midas]

Theoredically, socialists would be all for it if it improves the efficiency of the system. The only people who'd oppose it would be an capitalists who run the system.

Socialism is aimed at doing the best for society, reducing waste in the NHS would be a change for the good of the whole society of the UK, people who want the best for society would agree to that.

People opposed or supportive because of a loss/ or gain for themselves is a capitalist.

All I can say is that you've a great deal to learn about real life, the difference between theory and practice, and about human behaviour! Capitalists are opposed to efficiency??? It's efficient systems which work best and that efficiency is boosted when there's a reward motive, usually financial, for making it so.

I'm tempted to think that living down in New Zealand, hanging upside down off the bottom of the world, has given you a rush of blood to the head......

[JAMC]

An interesting thread on a subject I've mused over many times in the past.

Having been employed in both public and private sectors, I can only conclude that there is no evidence to support the stereotype that dynamism and efficiency are solely the preserve of the private sector - in many cases the worst examples of inefficiency I've ever seen were in the private sector.

[JAMC]

Look at the difference in Customer service from a Private US hospital and the arrogant and rude staff in a UK NHS hospital( dont **** with me, I am the government, is the attitude of many NHS staff, now get in line and shut up)!!

If you exhibited the same attitude towards the NHS in an emergency room as you do on this forum; typically...

"I demand to be seen first because I'm a taxpayer and everyone else in here is a lazy dole-scrounging, self-harming, feculent clump of human turd that doesn't deserve to be seen before me"

... then I'm not surprised you were told to sit down and STFU. Frankly I think you could count yourself lucky that they didn't politely ask you to crawl off and die in the car park.

[Midas]

An interesting thread on a subject I've mused over many times in the past.

Having been employed in both public and private sectors, I can only conclude that there is no evidence to support the stereotype that dynamism and efficiency are solely the preserve of the private sector - in many cases the worst examples of inefficiency I've ever seen were in the private sector.

On the other hand, having had to deal with both local and central government bodies for getting on for 30 years in relation to all aspects of running a business, I can hand on heart say I've very rarely encountered the slowness and the 'can't be bothered' and 'jobsworth' attitudes which are very prevalent in the public sector, from within the private sector. There have been exceptions both ways of course, but I'd say the balance of inefficiency is 90/10 to the public sector.

[Kiwi 1691]

All I can say is that you've a great deal to learn about real life, the difference between theory and practice, and about human behaviour! Capitalists are opposed to efficiency??? It's efficient systems which work best and that efficiency is boosted when there's a reward motive, usually financial, for making it so.

Capitalists are opposed to anything that does not directly benefit them, making the system more efficient could negatively affect the people currently running the NHS. If they oppose that because of their own interests they are capitalists.

I'm tempted to think that living down in New Zealand, hanging upside down off the bottom of the world, has given you a rush of blood to the head......

We have devised a cunning way to overcome that Midas.

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/s...wi1691/lol.jpg

[pauli007001]

If you exhibited the same attitude towards the NHS in an emergency room as you do on this forum; typically...

"I demand to be seen first because I'm a taxpayer and everyone else in here is a lazy dole-scrounging, self-harming, feculent clump of human turd that doesn't deserve to be seen before me"

... then I'm not surprised you were told to sit down and STFU. Frankly I think you could count yourself lucky that they didn't politely ask you to crawl off and die in the car park.

I observed this kind of behaviour by NHS staff when i worked in a forensic psychiatric unit in Huddersfield.

I have never complained about the care i recieved in an NHS hospital at the point of delivery, i am a civilised person and do not demand anything, i just go and get it myself.
I have complained after the fact when treatment has been ****ed up completely causing permanent disability, the result was that i was blacklisted by the NHS trust in question and was forced to wait 16 hours in A+E whilst bleeding profusly because of the original screw up, in the end I walked to the local store and purchased a sewing kit, returned to the dept and began sewing up the injury myself, all of a sudden they got interested, but that probably had more to do with my mate, a photographer, recording the entire episode on film.

The NHS attitude I have witnessed as an employee, I had challenged it on occasion, it was the reason i decided i couldnt work for such an organisation.
I have never been told to STFU by anyone in person, nor to sit down, like i said I am not some obnoxious ****.

The attitude of NHS workers is rude and arrogant;Im the ****ing government do as I say, now get in line(for the next 18 months) you dont deserve anything but waiting lists is the attitude they have.All people who attend NHS units are treated like spongers and wasters, it is the ingrained institutional attitude of the NHS worker, they are institutionaly arrogant.

[pauli007001]

Theoredically, socialists would be all for it if it improves the efficiency of the system. The only people who'd oppose it would be an capitalists who run the system.

Socialism is aimed at doing the best for society, reducing waste in the NHS would be a change for the good of the whole society of the UK, people who want the best for society would agree to that.

People opposed or supportive because of a loss/ or gain for themselves is a capitalist.

Socialism is about feathering the nests of Inellectuals who are too lazy to work, it is also about violence and controll.
Look at all socialists in history and you will find the biggest mass murderers.

Napoleon(originally), Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Polpot, Nelson Mandella, Idi Amin etc etc.
I respect freedom and will not allow myself to be murdered so that a lazy intellectual can terrify the masses into loving him.

[pauli007001]

If you exhibited the same attitude towards the NHS in an emergency room as you do on this forum; typically...

"I demand to be seen first because I'm a taxpayer and everyone else in here is a lazy dole-scrounging, self-harming, feculent clump of human turd that doesn't deserve to be seen before me"

... then I'm not surprised you were told to sit down and STFU. Frankly I think you could count yourself lucky that they didn't politely ask you to crawl off and die in the car park.

Now you think it acceptable to deny healthcare to people on the grounds that they paid for it?
Of course I never spoke that way in any hospital, but i guess you could put words in peoples mouths and deny them treatment if they couldnt proove that they were members of the Party, thus prooving that their dogma was in line with recieving NHS treatment.

Real life is different to online, in the real world we do not generally discuss politics, this aint the real world it is a political forum where people are supposed to be able to discuss their political beliefs, do you see the difference?If not I would guess that as a socialist you goose step around your local town dragging your Jewish neigbors off to be gassed( as socialists have been know to in the past)??

[Kiwi 1691]

Socialism is about feathering the nests of Inellectuals who are too lazy to work, it is also about violence and controll.
Look at all socialists in history and you will find the biggest mass murderers.

No, something is socialist if it attempts to help all of society, capitalism is about helping your self.

[Midas]

No, something is socialist if it attempts to help all of society, capitalism is about helping your self.

NO! Socialism is all about trying to force all people to be equal against human nature, and is all about taking from those people who have the determination to make money to better themselves in life and 'redistributing' it to pay for those who can't be bothered. Capitalism is to recognise that everyone has different abilities in life and is about allowing those who can become the driving forces behind the economy to do so, to the benefit of everyone, in return for enabling them to keep their own money.

Where do you think the money that socialist governments throughout the world comes from? It comes from either those people who, despite the system, still try to make something for themselves and their families, or when they start to complain too much and tax revenues drop, from simply borrowing it with little regard to the effect that will have on everyone in the future.

You cannot spend without earning, and without reward people will not earn enough.

[pauli007001]

No, something is socialist if it attempts to help all of society, capitalism is about helping your self.

Hitler, stalin, Lenin , POL POT and IDI AMIN were helping society?

Socialism is a political idea and a form of government that needs to use violence to supress the people.

Capitalism is a buisness plan, no government is run for profit, buisnesses are.Capitalism is not a political idea but free nations allow capitalism to flourish because it allows people the freedom to choose their own way in life, socialism forces people to the will of the government, look how stalinist USSR bred people to specific jobs, atheletes(whose families were killed if the athelete didnt bring home a medal), scientists etc, that is socialism, forced misery for all.Capitalism is the equal sharing of opportunity for all, some are too lazy to take the opportunity, thats their choice.

[Kiwi 1691]

Hitler, stalin, Lenin , POL POT and IDI AMIN were helping society?

Socialism is a political idea and a form of government that needs to use violence to supress the people.

The usual stupidity we all expect from you.

[JAMC]

On the other hand, having had to deal with both local and central government bodies for getting on for 30 years in relation to all aspects of running a business, I can hand on heart say I've very rarely encountered the slowness and the 'can't be bothered' and 'jobsworth' attitudes which are very prevalent in the public sector, from within the private sector. There have been exceptions both ways of course, but I'd say the balance of inefficiency is 90/10 to the public sector.

I can also only draw from personal experience. I must admit I haven't had to deal with local/central govt bodies in the same capacity you may have done, nevertheless I imagine few have. If you were to ask me for a weighting between the two based on experience alone I would claim parity - the truth is probably somewhere between the two estimates.

[JAMC]

I observed this kind of behaviour by NHS staff when i worked in a forensic psychiatric unit in Huddersfield.

I have never complained about the care i recieved in an NHS hospital at the point of delivery, i am a civilised person and do not demand anything, i just go and get it myself.
I have complained after the fact when treatment has been ****ed up completely causing permanent disability, the result was that i was blacklisted by the NHS trust in question and was forced to wait 16 hours in A+E whilst bleeding profusly because of the original screw up, in the end I walked to the local store and purchased a sewing kit, returned to the dept and began sewing up the injury myself, all of a sudden they got interested, but that probably had more to do with my mate, a photographer, recording the entire episode on film.

The NHS attitude I have witnessed as an employee, I had challenged it on occasion, it was the reason i decided i couldnt work for such an organisation.
I have never been told to STFU by anyone in person, nor to sit down, like i said I am not some obnoxious ****.

The attitude of NHS workers is rude and arrogant;Im the ****ing government do as I say, now get in line(for the next 18 months) you dont deserve anything but waiting lists is the attitude they have.All people who attend NHS units are treated like spongers and wasters, it is the ingrained institutional attitude of the NHS worker, they are institutionaly arrogant.

I've not encountered this attitude from NHS staff personally, although I imagine it varies massively from trust to trust, and depends on whether the individual in question has just worked a 14hr shift. I wonder how much can be gleaned from this particular example (although it is something of an indictment if correct), as I'm sure we'd all agree that there are arseholes in every workplace - both public and private sector. I've met enough of them in my time to know that's a fact.

[Major Sinic]

I've not encountered this attitude from NHS staff personally, although I imagine it varies massively from trust to trust, and depends on whether the individual in question has just worked a 14hr shift. I wonder how much can be gleaned from this particular example (although it is something of an indictment if correct), as I'm sure we'd all agree that there are arseholes in every workplace - both public and private sector. I've met enough of them in my time to know that's a fact.

I imagine that I may be a little off topic with this post but what the hell.

I have been in the 'grip of the NHS' for the last year, for which I am incredibly grateful. The resources which were used to save my life and restore me to almost rude good health have been, and continue to be, considerable. The care, compassion and competence which I received, without exception, from nurses, doctors, surgeons and medical technicians could not have been improved upon.

None of this however means the NHS is efficient, or spends its funds, now some 25% of our public expenditure budget, in a manner which yields the greatest front line return. The medical staff I have spoken to at length are the first to acknowledge the inefficiencies in terms of administration, procedures, work practices, procurement and management within the NHS, and the resulting frustrations so caused.

There are massive efficiency savings to be made. The success or otherwise of these will rest on whether it is cuts which are made or genuine savings. It will, unfortunately, be a far greater challenge to make genuine savings whilst sustaining front line services, rather than to simply cut costs.

The establishment of the NHS is, in my opinion, the greatest single legacy of Labour, and the Conservative's unambiguous commitment to the maintenance of the NHS, is evidence of this.

[pauli007001]

The usual stupidity we all expect from you.

Sorry but is it stupidity to point out that every socialist government in the past 200 years has also been a despotic and totalitarian state?
I point you to the nations whose socialist leaders i have previously pointed out.Socialism has not yet delivered a single element of freedom in any nation where it has taken controll.
I show you a fact, you hurl abuse.....I think that speaks volumes, dont you??

[Kiwi 1691]

Sorry but is it stupidity to point out that every socialist government in the past 200 years has also been a despotic and totalitarian state?

So false that, yes you do look stupid by saying that.

I point you to the nations whose socialist leaders i have previously pointed out.Socialism has not yet delivered a single element of freedom in any nation where it has taken controll.

What about all the socialist democracies, before 1983 NZ was very socialist, and guess what NZ was free and democratic. There are many other examples.

I show you a fact, you hurl abuse.....I think that speaks volumes, dont you??

What facts Pauli??

[pauli007001]

So false that, yes you do look stupid by saying that.


What about all the socialist democracies, before 1983 NZ was very socialist, and guess what NZ was free and democratic. There are many other examples.



What facts Pauli??

So socialist are all good?
You are an idolator of Stalin and Hitler?Is that stupid?They were the most sucessfull socialists In the 20th centuary, they made the good people amongst us realise the evils of socialism.

It is impossible to have a free and democratic country that is socialist, the idea of freedom within socialism is foolish, only a ranting lunatic would believe that, look at Hitler and Stalin, did they offer freedom and democracy?

The facts i posted were that socialism is oppressive and totalitarian, i then listed the most memorable socialists in living memory, look to their examples and see socialism for what it is, i will help you out here by listing some again.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, pol pot, Robert mugabe, Idi Amin and Nelson Mandella.
Which of these leaders offered a free and democratic nation whth equality for all?

Any more abuse to hide your embarrasment at being completely wrong again?

[Kiwi 1691]

So socialist are all good?
You are an idolator of Stalin and Hitler?Is that stupid?They were the most sucessfull socialists In the 20th centuary, they made the good people amongst us realise the evils of socialism.

It is impossible to have a free and democratic country that is socialist, the idea of freedom within socialism is foolish, only a ranting lunatic would believe that, look at Hitler and Stalin, did they offer freedom and democracy?

The facts i posted were that socialism is oppressive and totalitarian, i then listed the most memorable socialists in living memory, look to their examples and see socialism for what it is, i will help you out here by listing some again.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, pol pot, Robert mugabe, Idi Amin and Nelson Mandella.
Which of these leaders offered a free and democratic nation whth equality for all?

Any more abuse to hide your embarrasment at being completely wrong again?

Pauli, I am not going to waste my time with your stupidity.

[pauli007001]

Like I said, you cannot argue with facts, the fact is socialism is oppressive, you see it but cannot answer it so you resort to abuse and Insult.It is a socialist thing.
It is the same as all socialists, abusive and insulting to those who know better. When socialists are in power they stop with the insults and instead utilise violent supression of the opposition, thank you Kiwi for proving my point.

You have nothing to offer in defense of socialism because it is indefensable.

[Kiwi 1691]

Like I said, you cannot argue with facts,

I could, if you made a reasonable argument.

[pauli007001]

I could, if you made a reasonable argument.

Reasonable as in all socialist regimes in history have been totalitarian( I refer you to the list made earlier).Freedom and democracy are not socialism.Freedom would allow capitalism( a buisness practise not a political dogma) socilaism restricts capitalism and punishes the buisness owner for his motivation.Not one socialist nation has allowed democracy, Did Stalin or Hitler allow democracy? They were the most succesfull socialists in history were they not?

Reasonable arguments would be those which agree with your dogma?

Unreasonable would be the plain facts, with no artificial additives or preservatives, is that the case?

[Hookit]

To me many seem to be targeting the wrong people the Conservatives have got many turned against other hard working men and women. When in fact they are not the problem but Government and our MP's of all parties we allow people who are fit and healthy not to work yet we give them benefits and for their many offspring’s. We give billions to overseas aid even those countries that can afford nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan.

Another reason the Conservatives and this government want you to turn on the public sector is not because the public sector is broke but so it takes the heat off all their wrong doings, last Conservative government Cash for Questions and more recent the MP's caught fiddling their expenses and off course claiming for a second home. And the crazy thing is many have been suckered and feel if the Public sector is cut and given to the private sector all will be well get real. All the rubbish within the public sector has not been their making but that of the government of the day projects that are rubbish pushed onto the public sector impossible deadlines and funding yet the public sector have to make it work. Millions spent on private sector consultants because of this.

Look at the private sector that was once the public sector that is not run as well as when it was part of the public sector. Private sector does not = quality of service and efficacy it = profits and even when if it does go to the private sector all the red tape will go with it as the government will make that part of the conditions.

[JAMC]

I imagine that I may be a little off topic with this post but what the hell.

I have been in the 'grip of the NHS' for the last year, for which I am incredibly grateful. The resources which were used to save my life and restore me to almost rude good health have been, and continue to be, considerable. The care, compassion and competence which I received, without exception, from nurses, doctors, surgeons and medical technicians could not have been improved upon.

None of this however means the NHS is efficient, or spends its funds, now some 25% of our public expenditure budget, in a manner which yields the greatest front line return. The medical staff I have spoken to at length are the first to acknowledge the inefficiencies in terms of administration, procedures, work practices, procurement and management within the NHS, and the resulting frustrations so caused.

There are massive efficiency savings to be made. The success or otherwise of these will rest on whether it is cuts which are made or genuine savings. It will, unfortunately, be a far greater challenge to make genuine savings whilst sustaining front line services, rather than to simply cut costs.

The establishment of the NHS is, in my opinion, the greatest single legacy of Labour, and the Conservative's unambiguous commitment to the maintenance of the NHS, is evidence of this.

This post I think expresses the views of the vast majority of the UK population, myself included. In essence it can be condensed to....

Can't really fault the care, but we need to keep an eye on the cost.

I would agree that there are efficiency savings to be made - there are always efficiency savings to be made in any organisation, public or private. As you point out, the staff know it too. We all know it where I work as well (private sector).

It is, I think, important to distinguish between those asking sensible questions about the long-term affordability of the service but yet are committed to it's survival and purpose from those who simply want to attack the institution because they are ideologically opposed to it's very being - no amount of life saving treatment or positive outcomes will disuade this group because their objections are based on zealotry rather than reason.