Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
ralphmalph

10% Staff Cuts In Nhs

Recommended Posts

From your link:

The NHS will have to shed around 137,000 jobs – almost a tenth of its workforce – if it is to meet planned efficiency savings of £20bn, the Department of Health has been warned.

The severity of cutbacks needed by 2014 was contained in advice presented by management consultants McKinsey to the government this spring.

That'll do wonders for the housing market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/se...to-lose-workers

Seeing as this is in the Guardian first it must have been leaked by Nu Liars.

The truth is hitting home. Without City taxes we can not afford the level of public spending that we have today.

Similar savings could be made, with no loss of front line NHS jobs, but getting rid of bloody consultants in the public sector. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similar savings could be made, with no loss of front line NHS jobs, but getting rid of bloody consultants in the public sector. :angry:

+1

Plus all the 'managers' created over the last 20 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/se...to-lose-workers

Seeing as this is in the Guardian first it must have been leaked by Nu Liars.

The truth is hitting home. Without City taxes we can not afford the level of public spending that we have today.

Looks like it will be means tested health care then. You'll need to show the ambulance men your UB40 or a credit card before they take you in to hospital. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Looks like it will be means tested health care then. You'll need to show the ambulance men your UB40 or a credit card before they take you in to hospital. :o

Given that only 8% of employees of the NHS are doctors I think you're jumping the gun a bit there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course we can't afford this level of public spending if we don't get billions of tax off the banks. It's not exactly news is it?

No, agreed, the "news" bit ought to be the very current and direct link between supporting the (private) banks with public funds that can't be spent on better things elsewhere...oh, and that historical little "eggs and basket" thing with the city and the service sector that has been going on since the Thatcher junta in the eighties and which has ended up meaning that there is no alternative platform for recovery like a forward thinking and developed manufacturing sector. The banking sector has and will cost us all plenty, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, agreed, the "news" bit ought to be the very current and direct link between supporting the (private) banks with public funds that can't be spent on better things elsewhere...oh, and that historical little "eggs and basket" thing with the city and the service sector that has been going on since the Thatcher junta in the eighties and which has ended up meaning that there is no alternative platform for recovery like a forward thinking and developed manufacturing sector. The banking sector has and will cost us all plenty, thanks.

And McKinseys don't come cheap either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/se...to-lose-workers

Seeing as this is in the Guardian first it must have been leaked by Nu Liars.

The truth is hitting home. Without City taxes we can not afford the level of public spending that we have today.

Nothing to do with the City.

The City is merely a conduit so that Bank of England QE/Printing can be re-borrowed by the Government. The City is just a middleman taking a cut on Gordon Brown's Zimbabwe economics. The pretense that the City creates wealth allows the City to justify itself and the Politicians to justify reckless spending, In reality nothing is produce by these money flows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD
Similar savings could be made, with no loss of front line NHS jobs, but getting rid of bloody consultants in the public sector. :angry:

Both will have to happen.

I have friends who are frontline staff in the NHS. These people suffer. Pay is dire and conditions can be hostile to life threatening. Bet it's them who get the chop over management such is social justice under New Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do some work for the NHS

It would be nice to think they will cut the beaurocrats who are worse than useless who take us away from treating patients to do useless admin such as continuity plans, clinical governance and all the other rubbish - this weeks was as I quote a "Memorandum of understanding" WTF that is! wellI just looked at it it's a policy on yesterday's news swine flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course we can't afford this level of public spending if we don't get billions of tax off the banks. It's not exactly news is it?

:rolleyes:

It wasn't hard working bankers tax that was paying for it.

It was unsustainable debt levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Peter Carter, the Royal College of Nursing's chief executive, said: "These proposals are deeply worrying because recent studies show that there is a direct link between the number of nurses working on wards and patient deaths .

"When there are not enough nurses, patients are more likely to die or experience complications. It is reckless to think about reducing staff levels without considering in detail the impact on patient care."

Over the last few years there are more chiefs than Indians.

Get rid of the chiefs that spend their day justifying their existence and creating a sh1tload of useless beauracracy in order to demonstrate how effective they are.

Must stop myself from going off on a rant, every day I become a little bit more cynical, burnt out and disgruntled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip

"When there are not enough nurses, patients are more likely to die or experience complications. It is reckless to think about reducing staff levels without considering in detail the impact on patient care."

Tautology of the day from "Dr" Carter.

If you want to enter the world of hurt that is the nurse practitioners vs traditional nursing debate etc look at the (recently defunct) NHS Blog Doctor site.

PS McKinsey... they do a high level report then bugger off leaving others to pick up the pieces. Masters at the game of farting in a lift on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course we can't afford this level of public spending if we don't get billions of tax off the banks. It's not exactly news is it?

Of course we never needed this level of public spending anyway. Lets not pretend that this was money we could waste, if we got billions from banks so easily why is our personal level of taxation so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that only 8% of employees of the NHS are doctors I think you're jumping the gun a bit there....

That`s interesting.

Anyone know the ratio of admin staff and managers to nurses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McKinsey, aren't they running the Tory party at the moment?

Presumably they want the contract of a few billion to sack people.

They may have a point, in fact I don't think 10% over five years is anything like enough (natural wastage would be above that anyway I'd imagine; they'd love to have a retention rate high enough to make it difficult) but it makes about as much sense as listening to EAs on the subject of houseprices.

These people speak with one hand on your wallet and one hand down a politician's underpants.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny that the government / department of health paid Mckinsey, presumably a lot of money, only to then reject their conclusions out of hand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That`s interesting.

Anyone know the ratio of admin staff and managers to nurses?

I make that somewhere between 1:6 and 1:4, admin:clinical although the Daily Mail reader "knows" there are more administrators than nurses (although I make it about 1:3). Somehow. According to a thing I read in Hansard in the 70s it was about 1:8 or 1:7 in hospitals, which would presumably exclude central services, ambulance dispatchers and that kind of stuff. I also seem to recall the private sector average in the US and UK was actually worse than this although I suppose selling generates its own administrative volume in addition to that incurred doing whatever it is you actually do. Its interesting how the pendulum swings back and forth, in the 80s they used to say the NHS was so wasteful and inefficient because, being a useless public sector org riven with socialism, it refused to hire sufficient managers.

Consultants

5,754

All general medical practitioners (excluding retainers)

34,085

Total qualified nursing staff

397,515

Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

375,371

General practitioner practice nurses

22,144

Support to clinical staff

368,285

Healthcare assistants and support staff

223,526

Other support to clinical staff

30,086

Administrative support to clinical staff

14,673

Administrative staff

137,557

Central functions

99,831

Manager and senior manager

37,726

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post-election layoffs of this magnitude are now inevitable, no matter who gets in. The public sector shortfall is beyond ridiculous.

Labour can hardly say we are going to lay off 100K jobs before the election and lose best part of a million votes from people that will blame them for it.

Gordon will stay to the very last day.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similar savings could be made, with no loss of front line NHS jobs, but getting rid of bloody consultants in the public sector. :angry:

Yep, pointless expense.

+1

Plus all the 'managers' created over the last 20 years or so.

The NHS is overloaded with managers who's sole job it appears is to produce as much paperwork as possible and make the entire system so inefficient they need more staff. Thus justifying there own positions and allowing them to create little empires.

We are currently morphing into something else and the management layer is ridiculous there's about 6 sh1t shovellers doing core work managed by about 10+ people. I'm not saying that these people aren't all doing something important but they are in a clearly defined management structure which makes no sense nor appears efficient at communicating up the chain of command. Chinese whispers it appears to have been designed around.

Anyone starting on a higher grade just gets shoved into the management structure to justify the higher grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.variantperception.com/sites/def...-y_Solution.pdf

This report was posted on the blog. It includes:

"So far this year, income tax is down 8%, VAT is down almost 20%, corporation tax is down 30% and stamp duty is down 46%. Altogether, taxes are down 12% from a year earlier, a shortfall of £33bn. "

I see govt spending having to be cut by more than 12% to balance the books, before even attempting to cover the bailout costs.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.