General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know how unfeasible 12% is economically but given the damage caused by covid, it might not be the best time for unions to be lobbying for that level of an increase given how many people's lives have been disrupted.

its back to the same old same old for the NHS, a football to be kicked about between whoever is and isn't at power at the time.

There are 670,000 nurses on an average of £33k per year. 12% would cost over £2.5bn

Joe_ Public

I dont know if 12% is realistic or fair, but if £37bn can be flung at a failed enterprise like track and trace then i dont see any great issue with granting those who have been an unqualified success an extra couple of billion.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont know if 12% is realistic or fair, but if £37bn can be flung at a failed enterprise like track and trace then i dont see any great issue with granting those who have been an unqualified success an extra couple of billion.

What was the alternative, not to do it?

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

What was the alternative, not to do it?

The alternative was to use the resources that were already available which would have come at a fraction of the cost and would have done the job more efficiently, though thats not saying much in fairness. It really just seems like they're more than happy to chuck billions at their private sector mates, value for money bedamned, while practically breaking out in a rash when it comes to rewarding under appreciated public workers. A clap and a badge, sure what more could they want?

weemcd

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The alternative was to use the resources that were already available which would have come at a fraction of the cost and would have done the job more efficiently, though thats not saying much in fairness. It really just seems like they're more than happy to chuck billions at their private sector mates, value for money bedamned, while practically breaking out in a rash when it comes to rewarding under appreciated public workers. A clap and a badge, sure what more could they want?

Very well put. UK's track and trace was and still is completely unfit for purpose. I think the last figures I read were in the region of 35 billion plus. The money could have been used on practically anything to better effect, but Tory ministers throw out contracts worth hundreds of millions out like bags of pick and mix. Hancock's mate down the pub for example.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The alternative was to use the resources that were already available which would have come at a fraction of the cost and would have done the job more efficiently, though thats not saying much in fairness. It really just seems like they're more than happy to chuck billions at their private sector mates, value for money bedamned, while practically breaking out in a rash when it comes to rewarding under appreciated public workers. A clap and a badge, sure what more could they want?

the existing resources failed right from the outset, so that wasn't really an option, was it.

weemcd

weemcd wrote: »

Very well put. UK's track and trace was and still is completely unfit for purpose

Could you provide some examples of why you claim it to be completely unfit for purpose?

Lemming

Aegir wrote: »

the existing resources failed right from the outset, so that wasn't really an option, was it.

The existing resources failed "right from the outset" because the government didn't bother pursuing efforts to trace who had the virus. Does the sentiment (if not the exact wording) "and if a few pensioners die, well then too bad" ring a few familiar bells?

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

The existing resources failed "right from the outset" because the government didn't bother pursuing efforts to trace who had the virus.

that's what you do whn the system gets overwhelmed, like we did here in January when the Irish system collapsed.

Lemming wrote: »

Does the sentiment (if not the exact wording) "and if a few pensioners die, well then too bad" ring a few familiar bells?

I've only heard a few posters on here say that, is it relevant?

breezy1985

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Chumocracy ?

It's not like there's a shortage of refined rooms they could use in Whitehall. Oak panelling and those double doors to keep sound out.

Some colour scheme too. Ripe for digital editing for memes

Lemming

Aegir wrote: »

that's what you do whn the system gets overwhelmed, like we did here in January when the Irish system collapsed.

Right, so the NHS was on its knees in March/April 2020 when there were less than a few hundred cases across the UK and the government stopped initial efforts to track, trace, and contain the virus and instead decided to pursue a policy of herd immunity (later denied of course, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck ... ) before reversing track tout sweet when it became apparent that the virus was spreading at an exponential rate and they had no f*cking clue who had it because ...

.... they stopped initial track and trace attempts.

I've only heard a few posters on here say that, is it relevant?

Very relevant because it was attributed Dominic Cummings last year. Before the whole eye-sight scandal.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Right, so the NHS was on its knees in March/April 2020 when there were less than a few hundred cases across the UK and the government stopped initial efforts to track, trace, and contain the virus and instead decided to pursue a policy of herd immunity (later denied of course, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck ... ) before reversing track tout sweet when it became apparent that the virus was growing at an exponential rate and they had no f*cking clue who had it because ...

.... they stopped initial track and trace attempts.

no, they ran our of capacity, so they stopped community testing https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/lack-of-capacity-led-britain-to-abandon-testing-and-contact-tracing-in-community-1.4257580

and the response was "Oh my god, they're not testing they'e letting people die"

so they set up capacity to test huge amounts of people and are now told

"Oh my god, they wasted all that money on test and trace".

does the phrase "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" ring any bells?

Lemming wrote: »

Very relevant because it was attributed Dominic Cummings last year. Before the whole eye-sight scandal.

attributed to?

you mean it kind of sounds like the kind of thing people think he may have said :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

the existing resources failed right from the outset, so that wasn't really an option, was it.

Thats not the case. The public health side of track and trace worked exceptionally well, it was the privately sourced wing that never came remotely up to scratch. Of course it may well have failed regardless, as it's almost impossible to keep case numbers down without accompanying strict measures like border control, but it definitely didnt need to be a £37bn failure or whatever it is now. That figure seems grotesque to me anyway.

PommieBast

Aegir wrote: »

Could you provide some examples of why you claim it to be completely unfit for purpose?

Parliamentary committee: Yet despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic, and the promise on which this huge expense was justified - avoiding another lockdown - has been broken, twice.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats not the case. The public health side of track and trace worked exceptionally well, it was the privately sourced wing that never came remotely up to scratch. Of course it may well have failed regardless, as it's almost impossible to keep case numbers down without accompanying strict measures like border control, but it definitely didnt need to be a £37bn failure or whatever it is now. That figure seems grotesque to me anyway.

it's test and trace. The testing bit was overwhelmed very early on https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52545662

so the government were told to "Recruit and army of contact tracers". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/recruit-volunteer-army-to-trace-coronavirus-contacts-now-urge-top-scientists

PommieBast

PommieBast wrote: »

Parliamentary committee: Yet despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic, and the promise on which this huge expense was justified - avoiding another lockdown - has been broken, twice.

so no country should have done test and trace, it was all a waste of time?

PommieBast

Aegir wrote: »

so no country should have done test and trace, it was all a waste of time?

They should not have tried building such a system using the consultant-industrial complex.

Edit: Behind a paywall but this FT article is more balanced in what they got right, eventually..

Lemming

Aegir wrote: »

no, they ran our of capacity, so they stopped community testing https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/lack-of-capacity-led-britain-to-abandon-testing-and-contact-tracing-in-community-1.4257580

Where in that article does it say they ran out of capacity? Because they didn't at the time; they chose not to attempt to buttress the ability of existing NHS resources to do their job and instead pursued herd immunity in all but name. Belatedly the government did a U-turn when they realised they could throw cash at their mates with no legal oversight. The private sector attempts at track and trace have been an utter farce mired in corruption.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Where in that article does it say they ran out of capacity? Because they didn't at the time; they chose not to attempt to buttress the ability of existing NHS resources to do their job and instead pursued herd immunity in all but name. Belatedly the government did a U-turn when they realised they could throw cash at their mates with no legal oversight. The private sector attempts at track and trace have been an utter farce mired in corruption.

Oh, ok, it says lack of capacity. Right there in the headlines.

Don’t you remember all the fuss about reagents?

Lemming

Aegir wrote: »

Oh, ok, it says lack of capacity. Right there in the headlines.

Don’t you remember all the fuss about reagents?

From the same article:

“At the time, with the testing we had, the right thing to do was to focus it on people who were really sick in hospital so we knew who in hospital had Covid,” she said.

The above is the relevant statement; in political speak "we don't want to spend money". The narrative on domestic [I live in Sheffield] print media & the radio at the time was that it would be too much effort to continue track & trace with growing numbers of people infected. Meanwhile they chose not to close the economy, they chose not to implement quarantine procedures at the borders for new arrivals, etc. etc. etc. This was all around the same time as the sh1t show radio show discussion that effectively described pursuit of herd immunity (I recall listening to that particular domestic radio show in abject horror at the implications of what they were saying), shortly after the the "too bad" comment was reportedly said in a meeting and then not long after that we were all told to "just take it on the chin" by an empty suit in an empty seat masquerading as a fat f*cking blonde clown.

So yes, I remember it all quite well Aegir.

Joe_ Public

The big contrast here, of course, is between the largely nhs public heath driven vaccine roll out and the overwhelmingly private driven test and trace world beating spaff up a wall operation. Yet when it comes to getting more money, it is the nhs workers who have to listen to all the tightened purse arguments. But i guess when all those promised £350m payments do finally materialise, all these disputes will be purely academic.

Lemming

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The big contrast here, of course, is between the largely nhs public heath driven vaccine roll out and the overwhelmingly private driven test and trace world beating spaff up a wall operation. Yet when it comes to getting more money, it is the nhs workers who have to listen to all the tightened purse arguments. But i guess when all those promised £350m payments do finally materialise, all these disputes will be purely academic.

In fact there was a senior NHS nurse on the radio the weekend before last I believe, talking about how people with 20-30 years of medical experience were being swapped out in place of contractor/"consultants" doing the same tasks on £6k per day. I can't quite recall the exact context as I turned on the channel half way through but I believe it was was in regards to dwindling staff numbers and poor pay (this was prior to the 1% fiasco breaking the news).

And as a nurse last weekend (over the 1%) said, "the money is there when it suits them".

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

From the same article:
The above is the relevant statement; in political speak "we don't want to spend money".

that some pretty impressive mental gymnastics you've done right there.

Lemming wrote: »

The narrative on domestic [I live in Sheffield] print media & the radio at the time was that it would be too much effort to continue track & trace with growing numbers of people infected.

that is absolute trite to be honest. They didn't have the capacity, so they concentrated on Hospitals, which is what the hospitals were crying out for.

like I said, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Lemming wrote: »

Meanwhile they chose not to close the economy, they chose not to implement quarantine procedures at the borders for new arrivals, etc. etc. etc. This was all around the same time as the sh1t show radio show discussion that effectively described pursuit of herd immunity (I recall listening to that particular domestic radio show in abject horror at the implications of what they were saying), shortly after the the "too bad" comment was reportedly said in a meeting and then not long after that we were all told to "just take it on the chin" by an empty suit in an empty seat masquerading as a fat f*cking blonde clown.

Interesting choice of words, which pretty much puts the rest of your post in to context I guess.:rolleyes:

Lemming wrote: »

So yes, I remember it all quite well Aegir.

you remember your version of things, albeit not very accurately.

Joe_ Public

Lemming wrote: »

In fact there was a senior NHS nurse on the radio the weekend before last I believe, talking about how people with 20-30 years of medical experience were being swapped out in place of contractor/"consultants" doing the same tasks on £6k per day. I can't quite recall the exact context as I turned on the channel half way through but I believe it was was in regards to dwindling staff numbers and poor pay (this was prior to the 1% fiasco breaking the news).

And as a nurse last weekend (over the 1%) said, "the money is there when it suits them".

Thats nail on head there, if they wanted to pay, they could. Going back to the original point here, there should really be no issue at all in granting nurses a decent pay rise at a time when their stock is so high and when there is a projected potential issue in future recruitment. That should go for social care now. Nurses must feel, if they cant get a good deal now, of all times, then they've no chances ever with this or likely any tory government. The latter just doesn't want to pay, simple as that, may end up being shamed into some acceptable deal, as with the school dinners fiasco.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The big contrast here, of course, is between the largely nhs public heath driven vaccine roll out and the overwhelmingly private driven test and trace world beating spaff up a wall operation. Yet when it comes to getting more money, it is the nhs workers who have to listen to all the tightened purse arguments. But i guess when all those promised £350m payments do finally materialise, all these disputes will be purely academic.

is this the vaccine programme that relied heavily on the vaccine task force sourcing the vaccines in the first place? The one headed up by Kate Bingham and had numerous accusations thrown at it about chumocracy or whatever the latest childish saying?

damn those private sector capitalists, I'm sure Nurse Susan could have done it for ten percent of what she was paid :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

is this the vaccine programme that relied heavily on the vaccine task force sourcing the vaccines in the first place? The one headed up by Kate Bingham and had numerous accusations thrown at it about chumocracy or whatever the latest childish saying?

damn those private sector capitalists, I'm sure Nurse Susan could have done it for ten percent of what she was paid :rolleyes:

Well, fair play to her. Genuinely hope she gets suitably rewarded for her service. And we should definitely celebrate a story of tory old boy networking that doesnt end in chronic wastage or personal enrichment. It's a wonder, though, that they didnt enlist Serco to do the roll out, then again it was pretty much a last roll of the dice political gamble for them, after messing up almost every other aspect of their pandemic response, so they could hardly doom it to failure right from the outset. That would have been catastrophic.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

that some pretty impressive mental gymnastics you've done right there.



that is absolute trite to be honest. They didn't have the capacity, so they concentrated on Hospitals, which is what the hospitals were crying out for.

like I said, damned if they do, damned if they don't.



Interesting choice of words, which pretty much puts the rest of your post in to context I guess.:rolleyes:



you remember your version of things, albeit not very accurately.

I'm just trying to understand if you are defending the spending of over 37 billion in a single program . And I use the term program sparingly.

And if the answer is yes ,why.

Under what specifics is that spend acceptable and where did the money go.

Good loser

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats nail on head there, if they wanted to pay, they could. Going back to the original point here, there should really be no issue at all in granting nurses a decent pay rise at a time when their stock is so high and when there is a projected potential issue in future recruitment. That should go for social care now. Nurses must feel, if they cant get a good deal now, of all times, then they've no chances ever with this or likely any tory government. The latter just doesn't want to pay, simple as that, may end up being shamed into some acceptable deal, as with the school dinners fiasco.

That is just typical of the level of debate, which I criticised, that goes on in Ireland when a topic such as the debate over nurses pay is under consideration.
Terms such as 'really should be no issue at all in granting nurses a decent pay rise' 'when their stock is so high' 'nurses must feel' 'being shamed into some acceptable deal' have (should have) no relevance in deciding what % pay rise nurses should get. You don't mention one number in your post - concerning an issue where numbers are the essence of the debate.
I do not have an opinion on what figure should be given; all I am suggesting is that the issue is being properly and fully debated politically and in the media in England. Whereas in Ireland such issues are decided on specious arguments of which yours above is an exemplar.

Joe_ Public

Good loser wrote: »

That is just typical of the level of debate, which I criticised, that goes on in Ireland when a topic such as the debate over nurses pay is under consideration.
Terms such as 'really should be no issue at all in granting nurses a decent pay rise' 'when their stock is so high' 'nurses must feel' 'being shamed into some acceptable deal' have (should have) no relevance in deciding what % pay rise nurses should get. You don't mention one number in your post - concerning an issue where numbers are the essence of the debate.
I do not have an opinion on what figure should be given; all I am suggesting is that the issue is being properly and fully debated politically and in the media in England. Whereas in Ireland such issues are decided on specious arguments of which yours above is an exemplar.

Apologies for my low level of debating skills. If you want numbers, well how bout 8% which would just about cover what nurses have lost in real terms since 2010, and maybe throw in the derisory single per cent the government is offering for good luck. Or what the heck, why not just round it up to a nice even 10% while we're at it? If i was in their shoes, not sure I'd be in the mood to settle for less, given their frontline efforts over the past year and the level of public support behind them. Looking at the polls - overwhelming majority backing at least 7% pay rise as well as the option of a nurses strike - it would rather seem that the British public is more swayed by the exemplars of the specious arguments rather than by any of the amazing frank and thorough debates going on in the media.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9332333/Majority-British-public-NHS-workers-strike-support-7-pay-rise-poll-finds.html

Good loser

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Apologies for my low level of debating skills. If you want numbers, well how bout 8% which would just about cover what nurses have lost in real terms since 2010, and maybe throw in the derisory single per cent the government is offering for good luck. Or what the heck, why not just round it up to a nice even 10% while we're at it? If i was in their shoes, not sure I'd be in the mood to settle for less, given their frontline efforts over the past year and the level of public support behind them. Looking at the polls - overwhelming majority backing at least 7% pay rise as well as the option of a nurses strike - it would rather seem that the British public is more swayed by the exemplars of the specious arguments rather than by any of the amazing frank and thorough debates going on in the media.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9332333/Majority-British-public-NHS-workers-strike-support-7-pay-rise-poll-finds.html

So you'd give 7%, 8% and 10%. Justification: the polls plus, plus.

Cons offer 1% plus and Labour 2.1% plus based on some kind of logic. You reach for the polls. If you went to the public and said you-the-public can have a 7% rise or cut in taxes or social welfare rise or whatever or the nurses can have it what would 'the polls' say?
Relying on the Daily Mail to support anything is the nadir.
All I'm saying is they resolve such matters better in England than here, where all politicians do is duck and dive - except the Left - whose approach is give them what they want!

Bit like yourself, it seems.