Britain outside the EU

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why increase funding when it needs pruning?

If the size of the public sector is reduced substantially, those remaining can have a pay rise based on increased productivity, just like the railway workers could, and some of that money could be returned to the taxpayer.

Nice idea, who do you proposed will do all the things your substantially reduced public sector will no longer be able to do?

The problem with armchair accountants is they don't appreciate all the things public services do which they take for granted. These are almost certainly the same people who'd be the first to complain when the impacts of their wholesale root and branch pruning start to show. After 12 years of the Conservatives reducing the funding for local government there isn't really anything else left to chop, not when many of the services carried out by local government are a duty so can't be avoided. And by the way, many of the cuts proposed for local government are still in the pipeline, so it's going to get worse than it is now.

It's the Conservative funding model which has had a very large impact on the social care local council's can offer resulting in the crises we're experiencing now and has resulted in the introduction of the social care levy. If the Government felt social care could be cured by reducing staff numbers even more, they would've cut it even more. The fact they're now taxing us more to try and reverse a cock-up of their own making shows the cut cut cut mentality just doesn't work.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why increase funding when it needs pruning?

If the size of the public sector is reduced substantially, those remaining can have a pay rise based on increased productivity, just like the railway workers could, and some of that money could be returned to the taxpayer.

We need more civil servants than ever as we are now duplicating EU regulatory bodies.

[OLD BOY]

What we need to do is identify which departments and quangos we still need to retain, how they could be better organised and then who are the ‘doers’ that we want to keep.

There is too much dross in the Civil Service and many of these people are actually working hard to frustrate the government.

We don’t need to cut services. At all. On the contrary, many of them need improving.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

and many of these people are actually working hard to frustrate the government.

Where's your evidence for that and what do you mean by it too?

Saying 'this policy is unworkable' is not the same as 'working hard to frustrate the government'

[tweetiepooh]

One of the real problems with any system on a large scale are the dishonest who seek to play the system to their advantage. This causes the system to be more complex with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions ad-ininitum. In turn this needs more people to police the system and makes the system less efficient needing an additional system to cover the period before the first system completes.


I guess we all know how the system should work, it's usually obvious but thanks to a minority what should be simple and streamlined gets very complex and unwieldy. A simple system should be cheaper to implement leaving more money and resource for provision in the system. It's why simply throwing money/resource at the problem rarely works.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Where's your evidence for that and what do you mean by it too?

Saying 'this policy is unworkable' is not the same as 'working hard to frustrate the government'

He’s just echoing Johnson’s "deep state" bolleaux.

Politicians often propose unachievable aims and targets to gain press coverage and acclamation*, often with no idea of the complexity of the issues involved, then blame others when things don’t happen.

"Just Do It" is not a valid planning methodology.

*remember Johnson’s first speech as PM in July 2019?

“And so I am announcing now – on the steps of Downing Street – that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all, and with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”’

Here is the progress of the "clear plan we have prepared"

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8001/

In his first speech as Prime Minister on 24 July 2019, Boris Johnson stated that the Government would “fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”

Subsequently, the Conservative Party’s 2019 general election manifesto stated that a Conservative Government would seek a cross-party consensus in order to bring forward proposals for reform of how people pay for adult social care. It added that a prerequisite of the proposals will be that “no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it.”

In January 2020, the Prime Minister stated that the Government would bring forward a plan “this year” and would “get it done within this Parliament.” However, the Government subsequently stated that it would not be possible to meet this timetable in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

At the Spending Review 2020, published on 25 November 2020, the Government stated that it was “committed to sustainable improvement of the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals next year.” This remains the current position, as most recently reiterated at the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021. The background briefing notes to the Queen’s Speech stated that “the Government “know there is more work to do so that everyone receives high-quality, joined-up care” and is “committed to improving the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals in 2021.”

Information on the funding of adult social care and how people currently pay for care is available in the following Library Briefings:
Adult Social Care Funding (England), 11 December 2020.
Social care: paying for care home places and domiciliary care (England), 8 July 2019.

Health and Care Bill
As set out in a White Paper published in February 2021, the Government is expected to introduce a Health and Care Bill during the current parliamentary session. This is expected to contain provisions related to adult social care, including concerning the integration and collaboration of health and social care services. However, the proposals do not address the wider funding of adult social care or how people pay for care. As such, this briefing only provides very brief information on the proposals contained in the White Paper (see section 2.9).

tl:dr - very little has happened in 3 years on this "clear plan", but yes, let’s blame the Civil Servants, not the proven lying liar who actually made the speech…

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

tl:dr - very little has happened in 3 years on this "clear plan", but yes, let’s blame the Civil Servants, not the proven lying liar who actually made the speech…

Expect Covid 19 to be scapegoated here.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Expect Covid 19 to be scapegoated here.

Already has been - from the quoted link above

However, the Government subsequently stated that it would not be possible to meet this timetable in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Expect Covid 19 to be scapegoated here.

With good reason, or do you now think it had no impact whatsover ?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

With good reason, or do you now think it had no impact whatsover ?

"No impact whatsoever" and "partial impact" are different bedfellows.

It can't take all the blame here for three years of minimal progress can it? Not sure we'd all get away at work with pulling that particular stunt!

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"No impact whatsoever" and "partial impact" are different bedfellows.

It can't take all the blame here for three years of minimal progress can it? Not sure we'd all get away at work with pulling that particular stunt!

Also even if the implementation was delayed due Covid, I wouldn't accept from any party saying "with a clear plan we have prepared" and then still not have that plan three years later.

[richard-john56]

Where is the £350 million a week for the NHS the Brexit bus promised?

The Tories claim they are giving more money to the NHS, but are they really?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Expect Covid 19 to be scapegoated here.

Oh, so you don’t think that affected anything? For God sake, Andrew, wake up. Everything was thrown at Covid when it happened, you know that and the public will understand the delay that led to when it comes to the election.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"No impact whatsoever" and "partial impact" are different bedfellows.

It can't take all the blame here for three years of minimal progress can it? Not sure we'd all get away at work with pulling that particular stunt!

That and Partygate, yes, there are very good reasons why things have been delayed.

However, time now to pick up the pace.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Also even if the implementation was delayed due Covid, I wouldn't accept from any party saying "with a clear plan we have prepared" and then still not have that plan three years later.

A little unreasonable of you, don’t you think?

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Originally Posted by richard-john56

Where is the £350 million a week for the NHS the Brexit bus promised?

The Tories claim they are giving more money to the NHS, but are they really?

That money is being given to the NHS.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-16/...overnment-says

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Brexit was designed to create a temporary shortage of unskilled labour in order to push up wages. This shows that the policy is working.

If that’s genuinely the intent why aren’t we leaving the market to it and instead urging “wage restraint”?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-b2021380.html

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why increase funding when it needs pruning?

If the size of the public sector is reduced substantially, those remaining can have a pay rise based on increased productivity, just like the railway workers could, and some of that money could be returned to the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, so you don’t think that affected anything? For God sake, Andrew, wake up. Everything was thrown at Covid when it happened, you know that and the public will understand the delay that led to when it comes to the election.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------



That and Partygate, yes, there are very good reasons why things have been delayed.

However, time now to pick up the pace.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------



A little unreasonable of you, don’t you think?

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------



That money is being given to the NHS.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-16/...overnment-says

So you're using the reporting of a campaign promise by Theresa May in 2018 to prove that the £350 million a week is being given to the NHS?

Bold move...