Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
A hospital in Cambs was one of the worse and now is one of the best, why? Because it was privatised.
There is a story about this in the link below that also takes in the bigger picture about the needs for public sector reform and more private sector involvement.
We have to remember though - this is just about more effective public spending by expanding the 'secondary public sector' and nothing really to do with the 'real' private sector, the wealth creating side on which recovery really depends.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9444500/A-revolution-on-the-wards-that-could-heal-our-public-services.htmlGuest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
Hurrah for the Co-Op movement...
"Under a new employee-ownership deal, hospital staff became part-owners of the managing company, Circle, so all had a personal stake in making the project a success."
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Indeed - you can thank Mrs T for this, one of her first privatisation deals was the NFC bought by its employees. Spreading equity ownership in businesses to both employees and the general public has been a main plank of Conservative policy for decades. Extending a modern form of this to public sector services was a key part of the last Conservative manifesto.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
If only the NHS wasn't already owned by the public. It could only be cheaper and more profitable for the public purse were such co-operative arrangements done without involving mere money-grubbing shareholders and the skewed markets that come with them.
What a far more enlightened economy we would have if ownership of all companies remained with those with the long-term aims in mind and not 'transformed' into the get-rich-quick, risk averse stock-market.
I have nothing to thank Mrs. T for. Except perhaps, along with M Potillo, the manner of their comeuppance.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
oh tom
you are naughty
but i like you lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#6
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
More of your socialist idealism Tom. Real life is not like that. 'Money-grubbing shareholders' - you means our pension funds and others who invest their money, yes with a view to making a return, but also in doing so to help businesses grow develop markets and new products and create more wealth and employment. Your characterisation is a travesty of what really happens. We all benefit directly and indirectly from successful businesses and we need more of them with a society based on investment into businesses not debt.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#8
It's just gambling, plain and simple. Bonus-driven management (with their own future prosperity assured through ridiculous golden good-byes) coupled with fast-and-loose investors with their weather-eye on the property assets tied-up within a company have no long-term view other than for themselves. All sales talk from you Barry. The jobs and livelihoods of the customers and the contractors do not concern those who seek to profit from the dead. The value of a pension depends on the cost of living too. To deal only with money as money will lead to scenes of old-folk wheelbarrowing their pension money about wondering if they can get to the bakery (if there is one) before the price of a loaf leaps yet again beyond their means.
It is a circle that will not join-up:Making stuff people can afford to buy, paying decent wages (so people can afford...), making a decent profit, investing and growing...so as to make stuff people can afford to buy [so far so good] - then enter the gambler, who insists on getting something from everybody at every turn.
Where there is wealth, there is poverty...again, so far so good, but to insist, as you do, that FIRST the gambler must be assured of a risk-free gamble and all the rest will thrive...in time. Just sales talk.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
Tom - your old fashioned them and us view of the world is your problem and does not reflect actuality. It may be quite quaint, something of a throwback to the 70's, mind you it was out of date then, but it does not reflect the world as it is.
The man who delivered your post, the shop assistant who served you, the barmaid in your local, your electrician, the local headmaster, the dinner lady - all of these could be the people you insult as 'gamblers' 'fast and loose investors', lacking a long term view, not worried about jobs and livelihoods etc. It is nonsense, total and complete nonsense. This is your characterisation that is a million miles from the truth. People such I refer to are all among the types of people who I advise, decent people, your friends and neighbours. These are the people who own businesses through share ownership, often a direct holding, more often as part of a collective holding whether in their pension or in other investments. We are an asset owning democracy now and that goes beyond a mere house owning democracy.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#10
Many people don't have shares Barry or investments, and millions do not have pensions, as there weekly wages do not stretch to having the money to invest in them.
The big problem for the NHS is we the taxpayers over pay for the services we get.
We get a bad deal because we over pay the upper employees in the NHS.
We over pay for drugs and supplies.
We over pay the pensions, of these individuals, these commitments can go on for 30+ years.
I think all public servant should have a pension limit of £20000 a year, and a 20 year cut of point .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Keith (B) - public sector pensions are a scandal, far too expensive and we can agree on that.
There is no rule that everyone has to invest but it is wise if people do so and most people when they work can afford to do so if they prioritise it. This can be from only £20 a month upwards so it is accessible to everyone. It is appalling that too many people are not investing enough, you are right and in doing so they are blighting their future.
In my time I have met many a person who 'cannot afford' a pension, investments or even some cheap life cover to protect their children and yet can afford to smoke 20 a day, pay for the full Sky package and go to the boozer a couple of times a week, not to mention holidays. When they get to state retirement age the crunch will come when they cannot find the money for those things and will have to carry on working if they want them. We all make lifestyle choices and that is what determines our futures. Investing in equities is open to all of us who choose to do so and there are ways it can be done with simple products without the added cost of advice, though good fee based advice is best and will pay off in the end.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#12
Barry
Low wages are the problem , more going out than coming in.
A distorted labour market, cheep Foreign labour ,employment agencies driving down wages, all exasperate the problem.
Conservative economic blindness to the problems, Will only alienates your party from the struggling working man in the street
The votes you will need if you are ever get the working majority your party desire.
Expensive rent expensive food ,over priced gas electric & water.
The minimum wage cannot keep up with this,
Blindly dismissing the struggling working man will see your party finished.
The Scottish refuse to vote for you, the welsh to, and your trying your best to turn of the English working man .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Keith (B)
Agreed about foreign labour, totally disagree about employment agencies - these help create jobs and ensure flexibility for employers who need to cater for peaks of demand. This helps them survive and be competitive in the markets.
Prices are not controlled by government and attempts to control them in the past have never worked.
The minimum wage and tax credits are part of the problem too helping keep unskilled wages down, not up.
Hardly 'dismissing the struggling working man' merely being realistic.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#14
tom makes a good point, with privatisation they refused to tteat someone
can that be right?
tax credits are a good thing helped many people to get back into employment
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#15
That depends on the truth of the story Keith.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#16
tom
are you telling the truth???
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
