By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Breaking news: A maximum of 4,000 fans are to be allowed at outdoor events in the lowest-risk areas when the national lockdown in England ends on 2 December, so BBC Sport understands. Probably not us then!
0
Fans allowed back on 15:15 - Nov 29 with 1993 views
I would say that it is not always how much, but what it is spent on. When you see adverts for 'diversity officers' on £60,000 a year plus I do wonder if a lot of money could not be better spent elsewhere rather than on management and 'non jobs'. You also hear the tales about waste and the poor procurement policies.
1
Fans allowed back on 15:30 - Nov 29 with 1948 views
I would say that it is not always how much, but what it is spent on. When you see adverts for 'diversity officers' on £60,000 a year plus I do wonder if a lot of money could not be better spent elsewhere rather than on management and 'non jobs'. You also hear the tales about waste and the poor procurement policies.
If the planned increases materialise, then they will reduce the amount of money the NHS is short, caused by the tightening of spending from 2010. I totally agree that the money at times could be spent better, but that is the same in any organisation, public or non public.
If the planned increases materialise, then they will reduce the amount of money the NHS is short, caused by the tightening of spending from 2010. I totally agree that the money at times could be spent better, but that is the same in any organisation, public or non public.
This shows there has been a shortage of required increases.
So that graph in your link shows that there has not be any real terms cut, which matches the King Fund website I linked to. You posted earlier that there had been a cut, yet both those sources say that there has not. So has there or has there not been a cut?
A shortage of required increases is a different matter altogether and is subjective. What I would like to know is how much is enough?
2
Fans allowed back on 16:09 - Nov 29 with 1888 views
So that graph in your link shows that there has not be any real terms cut, which matches the King Fund website I linked to. You posted earlier that there had been a cut, yet both those sources say that there has not. So has there or has there not been a cut?
A shortage of required increases is a different matter altogether and is subjective. What I would like to know is how much is enough?
Ok, I apologise, should have said from the start that according to the what was deemed required by the NHS itself, and by organisations linked to it, there had not been enough, which led to cuts in staff numbers . What can be no question of, is the last ten years have seen a tightening of funds compared to the 10 years leading to it, and the overall funding since 1945.
What’s enough? Well there should be an independent body set up to evaluate the cash needs of the NHS, compared to what the NHS is required to deliver, taking into account new technology, treatments etc. This should be for Health and Social care. This body then sets out what’s required, and this is set in law. That’s what I do. But I an no politician, hence why I mistakenly believed there had been a relative cut over the past 10 years, for which I again apologise.
Ok, I apologise, should have said from the start that according to the what was deemed required by the NHS itself, and by organisations linked to it, there had not been enough, which led to cuts in staff numbers . What can be no question of, is the last ten years have seen a tightening of funds compared to the 10 years leading to it, and the overall funding since 1945.
What’s enough? Well there should be an independent body set up to evaluate the cash needs of the NHS, compared to what the NHS is required to deliver, taking into account new technology, treatments etc. This should be for Health and Social care. This body then sets out what’s required, and this is set in law. That’s what I do. But I an no politician, hence why I mistakenly believed there had been a relative cut over the past 10 years, for which I again apologise.
Again this graph would question you point about 'overall funding since 1945'.
Whilst you make some really good points about the NHS especially about the independent body and a root and branch reform about what the NHS should be required to deliver and you are obviously passionate about this issue your use of stats is somewhat dubious and undermines your overall argument. Maybe you could address the lower level of funding as a percentage of GDP of all Labour governments prior to the last two years of the Blair/Brown years? That is if you are trying to frame everything in the post 2010 funding narrative.
[Post edited 29 Nov 2020 16:40]
0
Fans allowed back on 17:11 - Nov 29 with 1789 views
It is incompetence. If you pay for services and fail to send the patients ........ shocking incompetence of the local management teams. You can't blame the private hospitals who will have blocked out their capacity. During the initial wave of the pandemic the private patients couldn't get access to the hospitals that they pay hundreds of pounds a month for in insurance premiums as the Govt requisitioned them. Its a two way street
Quite a decent watch, but how the hell have the club spent £50k on making the ground the go to phrase of "covid safe" seems a tad heavy
He said "probably" £50,000 which, at the risk of appearing intolerant, could be another figure plucked out of the air.
£50,000 for 2,000 people is not correct either - it surely is a spend designed to provide covid-19 safety over the season that fans are allowed, that should have commenced in early October.
Now, if only the £116,000 versus Sunderland on a Tuesday night had materialised.
I would also question why an overnight stay for the Plymouth game is necessary if every pound counts.
He said "probably" £50,000 which, at the risk of appearing intolerant, could be another figure plucked out of the air.
£50,000 for 2,000 people is not correct either - it surely is a spend designed to provide covid-19 safety over the season that fans are allowed, that should have commenced in early October.
Now, if only the £116,000 versus Sunderland on a Tuesday night had materialised.
I would also question why an overnight stay for the Plymouth game is necessary if every pound counts.
Coach plus hotel is probably worth it so the team aren't fatigued before the game.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
