[Archived] Election

[thenodrog]

Simon Heffer in the Telegraph writes as though the Tories have already lost the election and fires the starting gun for sacking Cameron.

I wouldn't entirely disagree. Just like our board screwed up with Ince I think the men in grey suits behind the Tories screwed up when appointing Cameron. Lets face it given the ineptitude of the opposition and the sheer unpopularity and car crash of Brown's leadership the Tories should be out of sight. Cameron is not a man of the people at all.

[thenodrog]

From Cameron down there is no one in the shadow cabinet who impresses. The City does not rate Osborne, and the rest are political pygmies who I would struggle to recognise or name. The Labour party even after 13 years in government and after the loss of many senior politicians through retirement still have in Darling, Straw, the two Milibands, Balls, Adonis and others men of stature and talent. I fear for the future of Britain if the Tories are elected.

A very similar situation in fact to New Lab in 97.

btw looking at the current economic situation you last sentence is perplexing to say the least not to mention melodramatic.

[Ewood and I Would]

I take it you mean managers, rather than consultants? If so, how do you know that?

No I mean "consultants", although their full title is probably "management consultant". I know it because as I said I two people who work in Hospitals nearby and they're always moaning about how much the NHS wastes.

Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that every single penny in the Public Sector is spent well and efficiently? Do you believe that not a single saving could be made anywhere without reducing service?

Here is story from me, I'm working at a local Council department who for the last year have been hiring a management consultant for £500 a day (as well as putting him up in a hotel which he has the cheek to moan about) because they obviously felt the actual manager of the site wasn't good enough. So do they sack the old manager or demote him? Nope, he's still there on the same high wages and same job title which now means we have a situation where two people claim to be the 'manager' of our unit.

[den]

No I mean "consultants", although their full title is probably "management consultant". I know it because as I said I two people who work in Hospitals nearby and they're always moaning about how much the NHS wastes.

Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that every single penny in the Public Sector is spent well and efficiently? Do you believe that not a single saving could be made anywhere without reducing service?

Management consultant is different Ewood. A "consultant" within the NHS, is a specialist doctor and someone at the top of their trade.

I wasn't sure which you were proposing sacking, the Doctor or the manager - that's all.

Here is story from me, I'm working at a local Council department who for the last year have been hiring a management consultant for £500 a day (as well as putting him up in a hotel which he has the cheek to moan about) because they obviously felt the actual manager of the site wasn't good enough. So do they sack the old manager or demote him? Nope, he's still there on the same high wages and same job title which now means we have a situation where two people claim to be the 'manager' of our unit.

That's your opinion. It might be right, or it might be wrong. It's not obvious though.

[broadsword]

It's not my home ... it's your's! D'oh!

[Ewood and I Would]

den it seems you missed this post where I started talking about this

http://www.brfcs.co.uk/mb/index.php/topic/22987-election/page__view__findpost__p__901866

I clearly said where the story came from and said "consultants (non-medical)".

When I used the word consultant again I assumed most people would have read my previous post and knew what I was on about.

[den]

den it seems you missed this post where I started talking about this

http://www.brfcs.co.uk/mb/index.php/topic/22987-election/page__view__findpost__p__901866

I clearly said where the story came from and said "consultants (non-medical)".

When I used the word consultant again I assumed most people would have read my previous post and knew what I was on about.

No, I did read it, but I can't remember every post, on every thread, on all the forums.

So, how many management consultants does the NHS employ and how many does it need?

[Ewood and I Would]

So, how many management consultants does the NHS employ and how many does it need?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6259718.ece

"The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today.

The Royal College of Nursing said that the spending the equivalent of 330 fully staffed 28-bed medical wards, 9,160 experienced staff nurses or 267,647 bed days in an intensive babycare unit was "utterly shocking.

[den]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6259718.ece

"The NHS paid £350 million to management consultants in England last year, according to figures released today.

The Royal College of Nursing said that the spending — the equivalent of 330 fully staffed 28-bed medical wards, 9,160 experienced staff nurses or 267,647 bed days in an intensive babycare unit — was "utterly shocking.

Those figures are from 2008/09 and account for less than one half of one percent of all NHS spending.

I have absolutely no idea how many consultants the NHS needs Ewood. Then again you're saying they have too many, but don't tell us how many they do need. It doesn't matter one iota really, but it does sound as though you made a statement that you don't back up - that's all. You might be right, or you might be wrong, but management is always an easy target.

[Ewood and I Would]

Those figures are from 2008/09

Wow a whole one year ago! They are the latest figues given the 09/10 one doesn't come out til the end of the year.

and account for less than one half of one percent of all NHS spending.

£350m almost sounds like 20p when you say it like that Den. I refer you to my earlier post where it tell you just how many frontline services you buy with that sort of cash. You also didn't quote the bit where it said reducing MCs could reduce the 2.3b deficit by 11%.

I have absolutely no idea how many consultants the NHS needs Ewood. Then again you're saying they have too many, but don't tell us how many they do need. It doesn't matter one iota really, but it does sound as though you made a statement that you don't back up - that's all.

All I can do is give you my experience and anecdotes from two people who work at different hospitals and yet whose stories coroborate.

Besides, if someone is being paid £1,000 a day for a non-medical, advisory role in the NHS then IMO it is up to them to justify their jobs to us, not the other way around.

You might be right, or you might be wrong, but management is always an easy target.

I just want to make clear that I am not one of those "us and them" characters, I have a Business Degree and am well aware of the role management play. Does Alan Sugar deserve his wage? Yes, he's earnt it... Does someone warrant a free hotel and £500 a day wage to come in and basically do the manager's job for him (like where I work)? No, not in my opinion.

The "management consultant" culture (like the claim for blame culture) is an American idea and one I've never liked. It started off just being a technical thing which made sense but now you have everyone from the Global Corporation to the local council employing them for long periods on merhcant banker style wages.

[den]

That's OK Ewood and I would. I wasn't trying to pick an argument with you. I just saw the comment about sacking the Consultants and employing more Doctors and got the wrong end of the stick.

While I was there I noticed your comments that you could 99% guarantee that the NHS could save millions by doing this and I thought you might know how. That's all.

[John]

From Cameron down there is no one in the shadow cabinet who impresses. The City does not rate Osborne

Not so true now.

Osbourne took his time but the City now generally like some of his (and the Tory party's) ideas. They were very sceptical intially about Osbourne but his image has improved over time.

Certainly, the City has little/no faith in Darling (who is likely to be sacked after the election), Brown or the cringe worthy Ed Balls.

[roversmum]

Why is it that at least half of the people backing the Tories in this thread have to resort to things that are just plain factually inaccurate?!

Strange that, I've always found the very same thing relates to Lib Dems and Labour!

Anyone voting for Labour or the Tories should hang your heads in shame !

see my earlier comment ...

Can someone tell me what's so bad about the Tories?

BTW I'm not a tory boy and not sure who I'll vote for yet...it's just annoys me when people slag off the tories based on nothing more than the fact you're supposed to hate them right?

Somehow the myth has been perpetrated that to vote conservative is not 'cool'

Better ask someone who votes Tory. Ask them to define "Conservatism" and explain how lower taxation benefits the majority. Conservatism is based on lower taxes -usually meaning less public services and people supporting themselves more - and of course "conserving" what you already have. Ask them to explain what happens to those who don't have much to conserve.

- and that isn't a judgement, just an attempt at an explanation.

Not necessarily. For one example as mentioned before, cutting out waste cuts out the need for higher taxes.

Claiming welfare benefits should not be a career choice either, the money should go to those who need it, without having to fill in copious amounts of paperwork and borrow funds

from family/friends whilst claims are sorted out.

The Conservative Manifesto states: "...we will create a Cancer Drug Fund to enable patients to access the cancer drugs their doctors think will help them.

"To help the fight against cancer further, we will

• 
  give thousands more people access to effective drugs to treat rare cancers by changing the way these drugs are commissioned."
  

Incidentally, I ordered hard copies of manifestos from the Conservatives and Lib Dems late on Friday night. The Conservative manifesto landed on my doorstep first thing on Monday morning, no sign of the Lib Dem one yet, and to obtain the Labour Manifesto I had to phone up, order and send a cheque through the post ...

[philipl]

I think this increasing flood of Tories thinking they are already beaten is over-done.

The KEY NUMBER to watch is the gap between Tory and Labour. If that gets above 5% (and it is gravitating back towards 7% again now), then the Tories will be the largest party in Parliament.

I have been in the UK throughout the entire election campaign so far and it feels like Labour have simply given up. There is no fight or guile in them whatsoever.

The debate tomorrow night is another leap into the unknown. Brown as the incumbent has a massive advantage in terms of access to facts and briefings on foreign policy but is he just going to plod on? Is Cameron going to re-invent himself? Will anyone believe it if he does? Will Clegg overplay his hand or play safe and lose the novelty factor?

This second debate could well be the truly momentous one far more than the last one on the economy.

I wonder if Clegg is willing to take the attack to Cameron? Could get tasty if he tries that.

[philipl]

Hmm, perhaps time to revise what I wrote about the Conservatives being prematurely written off.

There is some evidence tonight that their support in Lab/Con marginals is slipping away as voters see a hung Parliament as preferable to a switch all the way over to Tory.

[den]

The Conservative Manifesto states: "...we will create a Cancer Drug Fund to enable patients to access the cancer drugs their doctors think will help them.

"To help the fight against cancer further, we will

• 
  give thousands more people access to effective drugs to treat rare cancers by changing the way these drugs are commissioned."
  

mum, the devil is in the detail. Will they allow every Cancer drug, that every Doctor wants to prescribe? Maybe they will, I'm not sure. Labour say that this fund wont go anywhere near the kind of money that is needed to provide these drugs. I would like to know how much it will cost and how much is available.

That said, we wont get Cancer deaths reducing to the levels of other major European countries until we screen for all the major Cancers that are treatable - which Labour says is the way forward - and we provide all the effective Cancer drugs that the Conservatives say they will do now. We have to do both.

[tony gale's mic]

Strange that, I've always found the very same thing relates to Lib Dems and Labour!

If you look through my posts in this thread I've personally pointed out at least half a dozen plain factual inaccuracies from those on the right. If you want to point out any in mine then feel free...

Oh and it's a shame you're so easily bought by this "Cancer Drug Fund". All that means is that there's going to be a finite amount of money available to buy cancer drugs with which isn't any different from now. It doesn't say that any drug possible will definitely be available on the NHS and nor should it, as they could never keep promises like that - every drug MUST have a costs vs benefits review. They shouldn't just blanket allow any drug possible than any doctor anywhere wants to prescribe - there HAS to be some sort of regulation.

"Change the way cancer drugs are commissioned" - currently we have a large proportions of clinicians on the board of NICE together with health economists etc etc. Now it may well be that there is a better way of commisioning these drugs but these changes MUST be made by the same set of people including clinicians and health economists (and with very limited input by politicians) but without even giving a few lines or even a sentence synopsis as to how theyre going to bring about these changes it sounds exactly like the wishy-washy rhetoric that is so common with DC and the New Conservatives.

[John]

Lib Dems obviously facing more scrutiny now and they could struggle. The perceived perfect Vince Cable was pretty shocking on the Daily Politics today - Cable looked like he was struggling big time with the questions and was very nervous.

He mentioned quantitative easing as from the Robert Mugabe School of economics, but then appeared to say he supported it - had a complete mare old Vince!!

[Ewood and I Would]

[pg]

Quantitative easing (i.e. Printing Money) is from the Robert Mugabe school of economics.

[berkshireblue]

From Cameron down there is no one in the shadow cabinet who impresses. The City does not rate Osborne, and the rest are political pygmies who I would struggle to recognise or name. The Labour party even after 13 years in government and after the loss of many senior politicians through retirement still have in Darling, Straw, the two Milibands, Balls, Adonis and others men of stature and talent. I fear for the future of Britain if the Tories are elected.

STATURE AND TALENT _ JIM were you ######%d when you wrote that ?

Tory shadow cabinet whether you agree with policies has some very strong individuals including 3 ex party leaders and one who should have been

So the fact that you state you cant name them backs up what I already thought from your posts you know nothing about politics

The lib dem shadow cabinet now that is a laugh

[Amo]

The Tories must be somewhat troubled by the Lib Dems now they've resorted to a smear campaign. The hypocrisy of it all.

[broadsword]

The Lib Dems have done enough smearing in their time.

Don't you elieve they're the clean guys, they're just as bad as the other two!

[RibbleValleyRover]

The Tories must be somewhat troubled by the Lib Dems now they've resorted to a smear campaign. The hypocrisy of it all.

Proof that the Conservatives are behind this? The Telegraph has been pretty anti Cameron over the years and their support these days tends to cater the old right wingers of the party and those that are likely to vote UKIP. The lord of the dark arts is perfectly capable of organising something like this.

On Facebook i have seen several friends join this RATM style get Clegg into power campaign, i was hoping the debates would get those young voters into politics and give them the chance to really look into each party's policies more instead its like an X Factor campaign on who is trendy and hip. I have asked them why they are going to vote Lib Dem’s and what policy they like that has made them change their mind and pretty much all of them couldn’t name one specific policy.

There is a reason why the Lib Dem’s haven't been near power for years and that is because their policies don't meet the views of the majority of the general public. All the polling shows that the majority of the public don't want to join the Euro, that they want a control on immigration and they want fewer powers diverted to Brussels. The Lib Dem's are the most pro European of the parties, they want to join the Euro and their immigration plans are too soft and ineffective. Some of these voters are in for a real shock.

[tony gale's mic]

STATURE AND TALENT _ JIM were you ######%d when you wrote that ?

Tory shadow cabinet whether you agree with policies has some very strong individuals including 3 ex party leaders and one who should have been

So the fact that you state you cant name them backs up what I already thought from your posts you know nothing about politics

The lib dem shadow cabinet now that is a laugh

Who are the three ex party leaders? Michael Howard is retiring this election, William Hague was a terrible leader who arguably had the Tories' worst election result - yes Major had the biggest loss but for Hague to come in and after 4 years only make a net gain of one seat was truly shocking. IDS was so awful he was ousted mid term so it sounds like you don't really know a great deal about politics yourself...