ChatterBank0 min ago
Nhs.
According to" The Financial Times " the NHS ended its Financial Year, over
£1 Billion in the Red, Thought the NHS was safe in the hands of the Conservatives.
£1 Billion in the Red, Thought the NHS was safe in the hands of the Conservatives.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Looking at just NHS England, the budget for 2018/18 was around £125 billion. The budget has increased every year.
An overspend of £1billion is not much in the context of the overall spending is it.
And NHS professionals are not going to aim to underspend are they a sthey might get less next year- it's always better to overspend in the hope that they will be able to make a case for more money next year.
An overspend of £1billion is not much in the context of the overall spending is it.
And NHS professionals are not going to aim to underspend are they a sthey might get less next year- it's always better to overspend in the hope that they will be able to make a case for more money next year.
The top 1% already pay 27% of all the income tax at a marginal rate of 45% (plus some NI) - and in fact the tax take is said to have been less when it was 50% rate, so unless you mean closing down tax loopholes for tax avoiders I'm not sure there is an easier way. Most people say they are happy for taxes to go up to support the NHS- but that normally means for just those who earn more than them.
-- answer removed --
“And NHS professionals are not going to aim to underspend are they a sthey might get less next year- it's always better to overspend in the hope that they will be able to make a case for more money next year.”
Yes, the common strategy of all government departments and local authorities. Businesses build their budgets going forward. They forecast what they might be doing and cost their plans accordingly. Public bodies do the reverse. They look at what they spent last year, add 2x% to it for “luck” (knowing they will only get x%) and that’s their bid.
I have a relative who worked for a local authority. Every year around the beginning of March he and his colleagues had gifts bestowed upon them by their employer. One year he received a new laptop “in case he was required to work from home”. He never was and the laptop remains in his possession to this day, long after he left the job. Another year he received a new outdoor coat and protective boots “should he need to go on a site visit”. He had not and never did leave his office on business. The reason for this largesse with taxpayers’ cash was that if the money was not spent less would be provided the following year. There was no notion whatsoever that If it wasn’t needed it should not be part of the bid.
In common with most other government departments the NHS will never have enough money available. In the early 1960s government spending was, in real terms, about a quarter of that squandered today. As I recall nobody was suffering “catastrophic cuts”, there were not wholesale deaths of people dying from starvation and women did not need “free” sanitary products.
Many of the problems faced by the NHS could be cured at little or no cost whatsoever if only it was managed properly and, most importantly, if it was removed from the control of politicians who use it as a point-scoring machine against their opponents. But it won’t be and its problems will exacerbate until it becomes so inefficient and unwieldy that it will collapse. It is as safe with a Tory government as it would be with any other - that is, not very safe at all unless it is drastically overhauled.
Yes, the common strategy of all government departments and local authorities. Businesses build their budgets going forward. They forecast what they might be doing and cost their plans accordingly. Public bodies do the reverse. They look at what they spent last year, add 2x% to it for “luck” (knowing they will only get x%) and that’s their bid.
I have a relative who worked for a local authority. Every year around the beginning of March he and his colleagues had gifts bestowed upon them by their employer. One year he received a new laptop “in case he was required to work from home”. He never was and the laptop remains in his possession to this day, long after he left the job. Another year he received a new outdoor coat and protective boots “should he need to go on a site visit”. He had not and never did leave his office on business. The reason for this largesse with taxpayers’ cash was that if the money was not spent less would be provided the following year. There was no notion whatsoever that If it wasn’t needed it should not be part of the bid.
In common with most other government departments the NHS will never have enough money available. In the early 1960s government spending was, in real terms, about a quarter of that squandered today. As I recall nobody was suffering “catastrophic cuts”, there were not wholesale deaths of people dying from starvation and women did not need “free” sanitary products.
Many of the problems faced by the NHS could be cured at little or no cost whatsoever if only it was managed properly and, most importantly, if it was removed from the control of politicians who use it as a point-scoring machine against their opponents. But it won’t be and its problems will exacerbate until it becomes so inefficient and unwieldy that it will collapse. It is as safe with a Tory government as it would be with any other - that is, not very safe at all unless it is drastically overhauled.
-- answer removed --
