20-01-2018, 11:15 PM
211
Re: NHS Malaise
Originally Posted by Purwell
->
Of course we need a growing economy but the quitters have made sure it won't happen.
But is % GDP a good measure to aim for if money is simply thrown at the service without sufficient common sense or guidance? Blair basically just chucked money in but didn't specify too many details, because his leadership was one of rainbows and blue sky thinking. The nitty gritty details were not defined. A lot of wasted funding and a gravy train for things like this (you must remember the headlines) :
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ds-system-10bn
21-01-2018, 03:33 PM
212
Re: NHS Malaise
Originally Posted by AnnieS
->
This is a different question to what's been discussed though Julie. Blair looked at the nhs and said he would bring our nhs spend in line with the proportion of gdp spent by other countries. We are still under despite the investment. Taxes didn't rise. It was funded with growth and borrowing. It has gone from 40bn to 120bn. To keep funding it as it stands we need a constantly growing economy regardless of whether individual tax contributions increase.
21-01-2018, 07:31 PM
213
Re: NHS Malaise
The real wasted funding is spent on bigger ticket items such as the abandoned IT project. If better decisions were made on Multi-billion big projects then more money could be spent on policing the low value high volume bits like how much a rubber glove costs.21-01-2018, 07:41 PM
214
Re: NHS Malaise
Here is another example :https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/...vices.politics
Scrapped after 8 years and £14m spent :
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/21/nhs.politics
"The costs of the Paddington scheme included £7.8m in fees to 52 companies including architects, planners, public relations firms and lawyers. One law firm, Berwin Leighton Paisner, alone billed £1m. The bill for NHS managers seconded to the project was £4.76m and accommodation and other project costs account for £1.27m.
The campus may also have to pay £300,000 towards legal costs and other costs of the developers of the Paddington Basin site."
21-01-2018, 08:24 PM
215
Re: NHS Malaise
Originally Posted by AnnieS
->
Here is another example :https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/...vices.politics
Scrapped after 8 years and £14m spent :
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/21/nhs.politics
"The costs of the Paddington scheme included £7.8m in fees to 52 companies including architects, planners, public relations firms and lawyers. One law firm, Berwin Leighton Paisner, alone billed £1m. The bill for NHS managers seconded to the project was £4.76m and accommodation and other project costs account for £1.27m.
The campus may also have to pay £300,000 towards legal costs and other costs of the developers of the Paddington Basin site."
A similar 'project' is the HS2, which will also probably be cancelled after sufficient money has been wasted.
What to do? Do we have any sensible politicians?
21-01-2018, 08:29 PM
216
Re: NHS Malaise
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Hospital managers are rather like politicians; they think nothing of spending other people's money on anything that appeals to them without thinking twice.A similar 'project' is the HS2, which will also probably be cancelled after sufficient money has been wasted.
What to do? Do we have any sensible politicians?
21-01-2018, 10:09 PM
219
Re: NHS Malaise
Not an echo, the inference was that this was a bottom up initiative. But such ideas are top down originating somewhere in Westminster. The government comes up with ideas that sound good at the time but then they don't bother to come up with a concrete plan. They delegate that bit to highly paid management consultants and project managers. So they throw money at organisations expecting magic. There's no proper control. With HS2 they created a whole new company to implement it. They publish their expenses online if you're interested. There never seems to be adequate financial control because there is a "nail a square peg into a round hole" mentality where a politically charged project is involved.Then when it all goes wrong they have an inquiry. Instead of monitoring these schemes properly at each stage. Nobody wants to admit they are a dead duck until it's at a really dire point. By then it's a scandal.
|
|
