The current UK government, a troubled state, With leaders who seem more intent on fighting, Than working for the good of the nation's fate, Leaves many people feeling quite unsettling.
Their choices and their actions, steeped in scandal, Have caused a rift that's left the country torn, The people's trust in them, now quite vandalized, Their credibility, forever worn.
But still, they cling to power, with stubborn will, Refusing to step down and make amends, Their actions causing further chaos still, While the nation's future hangs in the balance, my friends.
Oh government, when will you learn to lead With integrity, and put the people's needs ahead of your own greed?
Execrable.
Indeed. Simon Armitage is secure for the time being.
Reminds me a bit of the famous Dundee poet William McGonagall:
'Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay! Alas! I am very sorry to say That ninety lives have been taken away On the last Sabbath day of 1879, Which will be remember'd for a very long time.'
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
You mean the EDL chaps didn’t realise You Are Really A White Man?
Pshaw! Did you contact their HR to arrange the appropriate course for the offenders?
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
If the plan is for c. 2% pay rises across the public sector in 2023-4, then God help us all. There won't just be strikes, but entire sectors will grind to a stop for lack of staff.
Indeed. In a week the Junior Doctors are balloting on their 2% pay offer, pretty nailed on to strike.
If Sunak is seriously proposing 2% next year too then expect strikes all year, and service collapses due to vacancies. Surely even he has some contact with the real world?
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
You mean the EDL chaps didn’t realise You Are Really A White Man?
Pshaw! Did you contact their HR to arrange the appropriate course for the offenders?
I didn't speak to HR, I tried to speak to one of their recruiting officers.
I told them I wanted to join the EDL as I want to see Saint George replaced patron saint of England with Saint Edmund.
Bloody Saint George, a bloody foreigner taking the job of an Englishman, it shouldn't be allowed.
I would have contacted HR, their recruitment function and escalated this to their Diversity and Inclusion Team.
I’ll bet they don’t even have an anti-fattist policy.
Imagine - on a hot day, screaming death to {insert minority here}, EDL members take off their T-shirts and someone makes a fattist remark? How will they handle that without the policies on inclusion to deal with it?
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
They are the Trans Illegal Immigrant AIs that hide in @Leon’s closet. This is known.
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
If the mother earned more some do now
Step away from the keyboard before you write something you might regret.
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
Straw man. Nobody is against trans rights except fundamentalist nutters and probably hyufd.
This winds the left up so much they have to move the goalposts and define believing that men are on average very very slightly more likely than women to have penises as rampant transphobia. It really is not.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
Straw man. Nobody is against trans rights except fundamentalist nutters and probably hyufd.
This winds the left up so much they have to move the goalposts and define believing that men are on average very very slightly more likely than women to have penises as rampant transphobia. It really is not.
Oh sod it. There was I confidently believing I was a member of 'the left'... But no! Not at least according to your definition.
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
They are the Trans Illegal Immigrant AIs that hide in @Leon’s closet. This is known.
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
That's spooky. I started to read your post and it completely disappea
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
ChatGPT knows:
The term "woke" is a slang term that originated in the United States and has become popular in other countries as well. It is often used to describe someone who is aware of and actively opposed to social and political injustices, particularly those related to racism and discrimination. A person who is "woke" is often seen as being enlightened or socially conscious, and they may be active in supporting social and political causes. The term "woke" can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and it is often used to describe someone who is actively working to bring about social change or who is particularly aware of social and political issues.
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
If the mother earned more some do now
Presumably they still have to do the washing up though?
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
ChatGPT knows:
The term "woke" is a slang term that originated in the United States and has become popular in other countries as well. It is often used to describe someone who is aware of and actively opposed to social and political injustices, particularly those related to racism and discrimination. A person who is "woke" is often seen as being enlightened or socially conscious, and they may be active in supporting social and political causes. The term "woke" can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and it is often used to describe someone who is actively working to bring about social change or who is particularly aware of social and political issues.
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
The fact is that the public sector is already not paying the market rate for the job across a range of professions. You can tell by the vacancies. Whereas the private sector largely is. And where they aren't, the response is a hefty pay rise till the vacancies are filled. If it's so cushy why aren't tens of thousands of folk lining up to leave their appalling private sector jobs for a life of ease in the public sector?
It depends which part of the public sector you are talking about.
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
Believe me. We are struggling for enough teachers to keep open in the northeast too. Support staff of any kind is even harder.
Money matters of course, but other conditions matter too. Imagine going to work like this every day:
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
Woke is the antonym of gammon.
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
ChatGPT knows:
The term "woke" is a slang term that originated in the United States and has become popular in other countries as well. It is often used to describe someone who is aware of and actively opposed to social and political injustices, particularly those related to racism and discrimination. A person who is "woke" is often seen as being enlightened or socially conscious, and they may be active in supporting social and political causes. The term "woke" can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and it is often used to describe someone who is actively working to bring about social change or who is particularly aware of social and political issues.
I fear that makes you rather woke TSE. Well done.
now do gammon
The term "gammon" can have a few different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. Here are a few possible meanings:
1. Gammon is a type of cured ham that is made from the hind leg of a pig. It is similar to bacon, but it is typically thicker and has a stronger flavor.
2. In the game of backgammon, "gammon" refers to a situation in which one player wins the game by removing all of their pieces from the board before their opponent. In this context, a "gammon" is equivalent to a "backgammon."
3. Gammon is sometimes used as slang to refer to someone who is angry or annoyed. This usage of the term is derived from the phrase "red in the face," which is used to describe someone who is angry or embarrassed.
4. Gammon is also a derogatory term that has been used in the United Kingdom to refer to someone who is perceived as being old-fashioned or conservative. This usage of the term is controversial and considered by some to be offensive.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
"The right to access cash will soon be enshrined in law A new bill to remove no cash “not spots” will provide protection and reassurance for communities across the UK Andrew Griffith"
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
I certainly remember there being TAs in the 80s and 90s. Doing one to one reading with strugglers etc.
"The right to access cash will soon be enshrined in law A new bill to remove no cash “not spots” will provide protection and reassurance for communities across the UK Andrew Griffith"
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
They are the Trans Illegal Immigrant AIs that hide in @Leon’s closet. This is known.
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
That's spooky. I started to read your post and it completely disappea
Please do not be alarmed. @Benpointer has been ProtectServed by the Special Social Alignment Team. Be Mellow, Fellow Citizens.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
Apologies, you're quite right. I'm definitely the main culprit today. I shall desist henceforth.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
The theory was that it could lead to, in effect, kinda, possibly increasing the teacher-pupil ratio and providing classroom experience for would be teachers.
At my eldest daughters primary, they, in effect divided the 30 strong class in 2. The teacher got the 15 students who needed most work. The teaching assistant got the 15 who were already ahead in the book etc…
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
They are the Trans Illegal Immigrant AIs that hide in @Leon’s closet. This is known.
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
That's spooky. I started to read your post and it completely disappea
Please do not be alarmed. @Benpointer has been ProtectServed by the Special Social Alignment Team. Be Mellow, Fellow Citizens.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
That…reads very much like you prompted ChatGPT to write it
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
TAs will be there to look after any special needs children of which there are likely to be some.
On a basic level special needs children bring their own pot of money and using TAs is an efficient use of the money which can’t be used for much else.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
In large part it is the integration of statemented kids with special needs into mainstream schools. Varies from deafness and physical handicaps to pycho-social issues, but not possible in a regular class without TA support.
If there is truth to that headline then we're doomed. If I give my 90 days notice of early retirement, I get CPI on my pension. Otherwise I get a 7% real terms pay cut. It really is a no brainer.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
You're the most woke Tory I've ever met and I am 100% here for it lol
I'm not too keen on the woke, to a lot of them I'm a coconut/Uncle Tom.
Remember I've been told, on more than one occasion, that I don't know what racism is because I'm a privately educated, middle class, Oxbridge graduate chap.
If only I could put them in contact with the EDL people who really didn't like me for having a white girlfriend.
I wish someone could tell me who or what is 'woke'.
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
They are the Trans Illegal Immigrant AIs that hide in @Leon’s closet. This is known.
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
That's spooky. I started to read your post and it completely disappea
Please do not be alarmed. @Benpointer has been ProtectServed by the Special Social Alignment Team. Be Mellow, Fellow Citizens.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
But it’s a career rather than a job, and hence the average alone is insufficient data.
The banding in the link header is also useful. So a staff nurse earns between £19,475 when newly appointed to a cap of £42,374. So each year until they get that cap they will also be getting enhancements on their salary in addition to the basic wage increase.
That isn't how it works. Promotion between bands is not automatic. Mrs Foxy is a band 5 Staff Nurse with 30 years experience with 10 years experience in a specialist area. She doesn't get a weekend or out of hours bonus as she works in the daycase Operating theatres, the top of the scale is just under £33 000 for a Whole Time Equivalent.
She would only become Band 6 if she did a lot of admin work as team leader, and less clinical work.
She won't get anymore within her band because she is already at the top and, as you say, she would need a different job to get a higher band. The point I was making in the context of a staff nurse is that they start at the £19,475 but they will get enhancements on that within their band as they get more experience. Once they reach the cap of £42,374, however, they are stuck unless they get promoted to a higher band. The result of that is that in their early years their wages will go up faster than the % award made on their salary.
A good day for humanity and the climate . Lula inaugurated as Brazilian President .
Thankfully enough Brazilian voters realized that another term of Bolsonaro would have had devastating effects for democracy there and the rain forest .
With these wannabe dictators if you don’t remove them the first chance you get you’re in trouble .
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
But it’s a career rather than a job, and hence the average alone is insufficient data.
The banding in the link header is also useful. So a staff nurse earns between £19,475 when newly appointed to a cap of £42,374. So each year until they get that cap they will also be getting enhancements on their salary in addition to the basic wage increase.
That isn't how it works. Promotion between bands is not automatic. Mrs Foxy is a band 5 Staff Nurse with 30 years experience with 10 years experience in a specialist area. She doesn't get a weekend or out of hours bonus as she works in the daycase Operating theatres, the top of the scale is just under £33 000 for a Whole Time Equivalent.
She would only become Band 6 if she did a lot of admin work as team leader, and less clinical work.
She won't get anymore within her band because she is already at the top and, as you say, she would need a different job to get a higher band. The point I was making in the context of a staff nurse is that they start at the £19,475 but they will get enhancements on that within their band as they get more experience. Once they reach the cap of £42,374, however, they are stuck unless they get promoted to a higher band. The result of that is that in their early years their wages will go up faster than the % award made on their salary.
Yes but £42374 is a different band for a different job, like going from paralegal to partner. It isn't automatic progression, and neither is it the same responsibility.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
In large part it is the integration of statemented kids with special needs into mainstream schools. Varies from deafness and physical handicaps to pycho-social issues, but not possible in a regular class without TA support.
The other sort of TA is the one you tend to get in primary schools, working with a class teacher. Doing admin, working with small groups, being an extra pair of eyes, ears and hands. That takes the edge off having 30 kids in a classroom (that's a lot by international standards and larger than most secondary classes).
I mean you could get rid of them (Kemi Badenoch mused on the possibility in her leadership campaign), but in a well -run school they do a lot for not very much money.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
TAs will be there to look after any special needs children of which there are likely to be some.
On a basic level special needs children bring their own pot of money and using TAs is an efficient use of the money which can’t be used for much else.
Hmm, thanks for the info. I wonder whether a better use for the money would be having special needs schools with specialist teachers and staffing ratios to suit rather than just dumping TAs in classrooms.
3 self-solving headaches. 25,000 of the migrants to be offered jobs the NHS, the rest to be recruited as train drivers.
What, kinda like Free Movement of Labour...
It's genius.
Best of all, this means we don’t need to offer any pay rises. People leave, we keep filling the posts.
Except of course we are not filling the posts.
Remember when the Tories promised 50 000 extra nurses in 2019? 40 000 of those were to be from improved retention, yet 40 000 nurses quit the profession last year.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
3 self-solving headaches. 25,000 of the migrants to be offered jobs the NHS, the rest to be recruited as train drivers.
What, kinda like Free Movement of Labour...
It's genius.
Best of all, this means we don’t need to offer any pay rises. People leave, we keep filling the posts.
Except of course we are not filling the posts.
Remember when the Tories promised 50 000 extra nurses in 2019? 40 000 of those were to be from improved retention, yet 40 000 nurses quit the profession last year.
What, you mean that just hoping that you can get people at a cheap rate isn’t working? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you…
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of scrolling through this political discussion forum and seeing comments from ChatGPT copied and pasted by multiple users. Can't we all just unplug from the AI for a minute and use our own brains to form our own opinions? It's like a never-ending game of 'Telephone', where ChatGPT says something mildly insightful and then every other user just parrots it back without any critical thinking. Come on people, let's step up our game! #politics #chatgpt #forumfatigue"
Yes, ChatGPT delivers golden rays of the obvious.
Sure
Write a better poem than the one I posted, and post it.
That will make me and chatgpt look really silly
Only other constraint is you have well under 2 seconds to write it
A good day for humanity and the climate . Lula inaugurated as Brazilian President .
Thankfully enough Brazilian voters realized that another term of Bolsonaro would have had devastating effects for democracy there and the rain forest .
With these wannabe dictators if you don’t remove them the first chance you get you’re in trouble .
What the hell has happened to the NHS? Why is it on its knees?
Someone I know, for reasons I won’t go into, seriously tried to commit suicide yesterday. They took a load of paracetamol and took themselves off somewhere secluded to die. The police helicopter had to find them using the thermal imaging camera.
When they got to hospital they were waiting an hour - an hour - to be triaged, whilst vomiting up blood.
If someone in this position has to wait an hour to be traiged, to have to wait to be given the drugs they need to counteract the paracetamol while vomiting blood, the system is well and truly broken.
Who is going to take responsibility for this and fix it? The NHS is falling apart. It was fine in 2010.
Jesus, that is terrible. A paracetamol overdose is an immediately life-threatening, body-endangering emergency, isn't it? How can there be people in triage with anything more demanding of instant (and relatively easy) treatment?
It does sound awful - I hope they were ok after all that.
Is that perhaps an example of the 'ambulance' issue, whereby if you get taken to A&E in an ambulance you can be left for hours on the ambulance because you are being looked after by trained paramedics?
A neighbour of ours, a recently retired hospital consultant, suggests just driving to A&E if you can because you'll get triaged earlier. (Obviously that was not going to work in northern_monkey's friend's case.)
The treatment for paracetamol overdose is N-acetylcysteine, which oddly enough is uncontrolled and available from holland and barrett. But only the oral version. A&E infuse it into the bloodstream - I'm not sure if that can be done in an ambulance?
According to wikipedia (that reliable source of medical information...) the oral version would work, but 'is poorly tolerated' and you'd have to eat jars of the stuff, which tastes foul and you'd probably vomit it back up.
My sister was over today fretting about schools etc... because her first is starting next September and forms need to be submitted soon. Can someone in education explain when schools started having teaching assistants in classrooms? I don't remember having anyone other than the teacher in the classroom for primary or secondary school and yet this now seems commonplace, all classes seem to have a teacher and teaching assistant as standard. Is this is a relatively recent change? It seems like a huge expense for no gain at all. Wouldn't it be better to not have the TAs at all and pay the teachers more? Solves a lot of issues. From what my sister was saying the TAs don't seem to do very much either.
TAs will be there to look after any special needs children of which there are likely to be some.
On a basic level special needs children bring their own pot of money and using TAs is an efficient use of the money which can’t be used for much else.
Hmm, thanks for the info. I wonder whether a better use for the money would be having special needs schools with specialist teachers and staffing ratios to suit rather than just dumping TAs in classrooms.
However. I work in a special needs school. We don't have many specialist teachers.(I got a job simply by agreeing to do it. I have NO SEN training whatsoever). Nor do we have anywhere near staffing ratios to suit. We have an 80 pupil waiting list of kids we should have but are stuck in mainstream. And TA's on minimum wage. So if you're looking to penny pinch look elsewhere.
What the hell has happened to the NHS? Why is it on its knees?
Someone I know, for reasons I won’t go into, seriously tried to commit suicide yesterday. They took a load of paracetamol and took themselves off somewhere secluded to die. The police helicopter had to find them using the thermal imaging camera.
When they got to hospital they were waiting an hour - an hour - to be triaged, whilst vomiting up blood.
If someone in this position has to wait an hour to be traiged, to have to wait to be given the drugs they need to counteract the paracetamol while vomiting blood, the system is well and truly broken.
Who is going to take responsibility for this and fix it? The NHS is falling apart. It was fine in 2010.
Jesus, that is terrible. A paracetamol overdose is an immediately life-threatening, body-endangering emergency, isn't it? How can there be people in triage with anything more demanding of instant (and relatively easy) treatment?
It does sound awful - I hope they were ok after all that.
Is that perhaps an example of the 'ambulance' issue, whereby if you get taken to A&E in an ambulance you can be left for hours on the ambulance because you are being looked after by trained paramedics?
A neighbour of ours, a recently retired hospital consultant, suggests just driving to A&E if you can because you'll get triaged earlier. (Obviously that was not going to work in northern_monkey's friend's case.)
The treatment for paracetamol overdose is N-acetylcysteine, which oddly enough is uncontrolled and available from holland and barrett. But only the oral version. A&E infuse it into the bloodstream - I'm not sure if that can be done in an ambulance?
According to wikipedia (that reliable source of medical information...) the oral version would work, but 'is poorly tolerated' and you'd have to eat jars of the stuff, which tastes foul and you'd probably vomit it back up.
[sorry, the quoting is fouled up somehow]
It is given by IV in paracetamol overdose (after inducing vomiting or stomach washout*), not particularly difficult to do.
Of course of you triage nurse is occupied or a vacant post, then it doesn't happen in an ambulance or anywhere else. This is the opportunity cost.
* I remember doing these. It brings out one's inner sadist.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
I'd have thought as a partner in your firm it'd be much higher?
It all depends on what you do and where you do it. A partner in a legal aid firm in Carlisle will earn significantly less than a partner in an American firm in the City. Like low five figures compared to low seven figures.
The idea that you can manage something as complex as a healthcare system with only centralized management at a national level is ridiculous. If you look at privatized systems from Germany to the US, they have regional management. Managing a huge work force at various skill levels, masses of specialized real estate, continuous capital expenditure with rapid technological improvement is genuine work. The bloat in the NHS is at the hospital and national level, not in the Trusts.
All very true and rational. However, with the NHS, rationality plays little in the decision making process. It's a religion and to advocate radical change - or, Heaven forbid, design a service that puts patients first - will get you burnt at the metaphorical cross.
The ultimate blame for this lies with Labour - it ramped up the NHS myth for its own political purposes for decade after decade. Political gain over patients lives.
So we are back to blaming Aneurin Bevan.
There are one or two Tories on here who are so unashamedly myopic that they can pin the blame for everything and anything on all comers bar the Conservatives.
"Political gain over patients lives" now there's a thought. I'll bat that one back and suggest fast track PPE contracts for friends and family is an easier finger point.
Labour was the one who talked about "our" NHS as though it was some sort of political property as well as "you can't trust the Tories" mantra. They also have been the ones that have pinned the myth of the 1948 NHS as the Gold Standard that can't be changed. That has stymied any meaningful attempts at reform.
And if you want an example of how it gets used by Labour as a political weapon, look no further than today's thread. We have a heartbreaking story of somebody trying to commit suicide and what do we get from certain sections of the left as to who is to blame for it? That's right "The Tories".
To blame for the horrendous state of the NHS, not the suicide. If your explanation for the perilous collapse in service delivery in recent years is "Labour" then you are bonkers.
It's not (and you made good suggestions earlier) - it's that a lot of the reason why health reform is difficult in this country is because the NHS has been made into a political football. Labour is to blame for that - any attempts by a Conservative government to look at any change in the NHS is met with a chorus of "evil Tories trying to destroy the NHS". So we never get any meaningful reform because one party is too scared to do anything while the other is in hoc to its public sector union supporters.
This is nothing to do with any of that. This - very simply - is about the government choosing not to pay nurses enough money. That is a political choice, but its a Tory one not a Labour one. Quote a turnaround though in 2 years from people being told to go out clapping for our NHS heroes to people being told the nurses are greedy and if they rely on a foodbank at their own hospital its their own fault.
That is comfortably above the average wage in the country. I frankly find it hard to believe that someone who has such a salary is dependent on food banks although no doubt they will take free food if it is offered.
I am not saying that this is a fortune or anything. But it is not poverty wages.
You are a smart man and yet post some utter guff to defend the indefensible. I am sure that a nurse on an average wage living not in an expensive area with a partner at work will not be using one.
But what about the ones below that average? In expensive cities? With no money left at the end of the month and their boiler packs in? That's what a MINISTER said about it, and I'm sure she's right.
Our system of capitalism has collapsed because people work full time and can't pay their bills, never mind have enough cash left over to consume - or pay unexpected bills like a broken boiler. If wages don't allow people to consume then we have no market economy. Would think that advocates of said market economy like your good self would understand this.
It is immoral for our society to have some nurses reliant on foodbanks set up in their own hospitals. Those of you who see no problem with it - or blame the nurses like Lee Asderson - I can't help.
A market economy requires that the going wage for the job is paid. There are clearly a lot of experienced nurses leaving but there is absolutely no shortage of people queuing up to be nurses. The wages are not putting them off.
There is nothing unusual about people earning less at the start of their careers. My daughter is currently a trainee solicitor on £24k a year living in Edinburgh. Her standard of living reflects that despite having a partner who earns more. That is not some moral outrage, its life. But I do agree with much of your proposed changes to the NHS. I do agree the service is not only badly run but also over managed. I would very much support more of the spend available being directed to the front line. As I have said I think the government should move on the pay review recommendation. The quantity of money, however, is not limitless. The proportion of our GDP taken by health is remorselessly climbing and a government needs to be very conscious of that.
As you say, it’s life. I’m a 30 year qualified solicitor and my income is typically around £50 - £60k.
£33k would be fairly shit to live on in London
In other parts of the country, due to vastly lower housing costs, it would be effectively double.
It's still pretty poor.
I was struggling to bring up a family on more than that figure 25 years ago, and my wife was working and her salary was added to the pot, and I wasn't living it large, but the childcare costs ..
Or mother could stay home with the children so no childcare costs and then return to work once they reached nursery or school age
Why not the father to stay at home?
Your misogyny is astonishing.
If the mother earned more some do now
Presumably they still have to do the washing up though?
surely everybody has a dishwasher nowadays, you just stick the dishes in and press a button. Same for laundry, it is a cinch nowadays.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McGonagall
'Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.'
Pshaw! Did you contact their HR to arrange the appropriate course for the offenders?
Lets make 2023 a good one
https://twitter.com/DanielAngRC/status/1609521145077981185?s=20&t=HWdH5RjvR0E9LTjpW4S8tg
On the one hand 'the woke' are everywhere, plotting the downfall of western civilization, etc. etc.
On the other hand the actual examples of their evil stupidity (e.g. TSE can't understand racism because he's privately educated) are exhibited by a few extremist nutters - the leftist equivalents of Sir Christopher Chope.
If Sunak is seriously proposing 2% next year too then expect strikes all year, and service collapses due to vacancies. Surely even he has some contact with the real world?
I told them I wanted to join the EDL as I want to see Saint George replaced patron saint of England with Saint Edmund.
Bloody Saint George, a bloody foreigner taking the job of an Englishman, it shouldn't be allowed.
Not often I agree with Spector articles - but this….
A catch all insult for people who you disagree with.
I'm very much pro trans rights, I find some of the language used towards the trans community is reminiscent of the scares used against gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Am my friends say I am politically bisexual, socially liberal than even most lefties, fiscally dry, Thatcher is my hero.
I’ll bet they don’t even have an anti-fattist policy.
Imagine - on a hot day, screaming death to
{insert minority here}, EDL members take off their T-shirts and someone makes a fattist remark? How will they handle that without the policies on inclusion to deal with it?
They are controlled by the Lizard Men who work for the Zeta Reticulans who work the Illuminati. Who work for the People Behind Things.
"Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?"
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department."
As I mentioned below, teaching is definitely one of those areas (in London, at least) where there are problems with recruitment and retention, and where pay and the cost of living is the biggest single factor (although there are other relevant factors, particularly with workload). As a Governor at a state school, I see that a lot. On the other hand, you do get switchers from other careers, particularly those who have earned their crust before.
When it comes to high level Civil Service jobs, I know multiple contacts from my City days who have made the move into Government or quasi-Government roles (e.g. working for the BBC, regulators etc). The same goes for management consultant contacts. The pay might be less but the hours, stress and job security aspects are far more favourable, plus it also looks good on the CV.
Also remember nursing, and medical careers in general, are quite hard to switch into from another career - you are looking at taking at least several years out to train up to an acceptable level, and possibly more.
My mistake, too late.
This winds the left up so much they have to move the goalposts and define believing that men are on average very very slightly more likely than women to have penises as rampant transphobia. It really is not.
The term "woke" is a slang term that originated in the United States and has become popular in other countries as well. It is often used to describe someone who is aware of and actively opposed to social and political injustices, particularly those related to racism and discrimination. A person who is "woke" is often seen as being enlightened or socially conscious, and they may be active in supporting social and political causes. The term "woke" can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and it is often used to describe someone who is actively working to bring about social change or who is particularly aware of social and political issues.
I fear that makes you rather woke TSE. Well done.
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1609491506100064257?t=zvZKLXiBVhLazHQesQXJ5Q&s=19
Though it does sound as if you do, in the teaching equivalent.
I have been off for a few days, but looks pretty grim on the hospital dashboard.
1. Gammon is a type of cured ham that is made from the hind leg of a pig. It is similar to bacon, but it is typically thicker and has a stronger flavor.
2. In the game of backgammon, "gammon" refers to a situation in which one player wins the game by removing all of their pieces from the board before their opponent. In this context, a "gammon" is equivalent to a "backgammon."
3. Gammon is sometimes used as slang to refer to someone who is angry or annoyed. This usage of the term is derived from the phrase "red in the face," which is used to describe someone who is angry or embarrassed.
4. Gammon is also a derogatory term that has been used in the United Kingdom to refer to someone who is perceived as being old-fashioned or conservative. This usage of the term is controversial and considered by some to be offensive.
A new bill to remove no cash “not spots” will provide protection and reassurance for communities across the UK
Andrew Griffith"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/01/right-access-cash-will-soon-enshrined-law/
(It's a bit crap anyway tbh)
At my eldest daughters primary, they, in effect divided the 30 strong class in 2. The teacher got the 15 students who needed most work. The teaching assistant got the 15 who were already ahead in the book etc…
On a basic level special needs children bring their own pot of money and using TAs is an efficient use of the money which can’t be used for much else.
It's genius.
I mean you could get rid of them (Kemi Badenoch mused on the possibility in her leadership campaign), but in a well -run school they do a lot for not very much money.
Remember when the Tories promised 50 000 extra nurses in 2019? 40 000 of those were to be from improved retention, yet 40 000 nurses quit the profession last year.
Edit : But https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/annual-leaver-rates-for-selected-nhs-hospital-and-community-health-staff-groups
Write a better poem than the one I posted, and post it.
That will make me and chatgpt look really silly
Only other constraint is you have well under 2 seconds to write it
Btw. I tend to agree. But the irony of using this forum....
According to wikipedia (that reliable source of medical information...) the oral version would work, but 'is poorly tolerated' and you'd have to eat jars of the stuff, which tastes foul and you'd probably vomit it back up.
[sorry, the quoting is fouled up somehow]
I work in a special needs school. We don't have many specialist teachers.(I got a job simply by agreeing to do it. I have NO SEN training whatsoever). Nor do we have anywhere near staffing ratios to suit. We have an 80 pupil waiting list of kids we should have but are stuck in mainstream. And TA's on minimum wage.
So if you're looking to penny pinch look elsewhere.
Of course of you triage nurse is occupied or a vacant post, then it doesn't happen in an ambulance or anywhere else. This is the opportunity cost.
* I remember doing these. It brings out one's inner sadist.