Discussion:
NHS, G.C.
Add Reply
Sid Nuncius
2021-07-05 17:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quite right.

Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift. IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.

Er...that's it.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Nick Odell
2021-07-05 18:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Quite right.
Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift. IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.
Er...that's it.
I agree. It's excellent. And has happened so rarely as to make it very
special indeed.

I can't help wondering whether those two, new letters after N.H.S make
it a more attractive sell-off proposition or whether in her way, Her
Majesty is throwing, Peter Capaldi-style[1], a protective ring around
our very special service.

Nick

Sid Nuncius
2021-07-06 06:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Sid Nuncius
Quite right.
Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift. IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.
Er...that's it.
I agree. It's excellent. And has happened so rarely as to make it very
special indeed.
I can't help wondering whether those two, new letters after N.H.S make
it a more attractive sell-off proposition or whether in her way, Her
Majesty is throwing, Peter Capaldi-style[1], a protective ring around
our very special service.
That had occurred to me, too. I shouldn't think that rapacious US (and
home-grown) healthcare companies, or the people in the UK who loathe the
public sector, or those who stand to gain by selling off the NHS will
give an airborne copulation, but it's certainly a strong gesture.

These are words I never thought I would say, but I wrote to the Queen in
January. I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
mainly because they deserve national recognition, but partly because I
thought it might give a little protection. The G.C. is probably better
as the royal family don't use the NHS so the title Royal might invite a
charge of hypocrisy.

(I looked up the correct form of address. The palace website says that
it's fine to write in any style in which you feel comfortable, but the
strict formal valediction is "I have the honour to be, Madam, Your
Majesty's humble and obedient servant". I used that because I love the
18th-Century sound of it.)
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Chris
2021-07-06 07:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Sid Nuncius
Quite right.
Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift. IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.
Er...that's it.
I agree. It's excellent. And has happened so rarely as to make it very
special indeed.
I can't help wondering whether those two, new letters after N.H.S make
it a more attractive sell-off proposition or whether in her way, Her
Majesty is throwing, Peter Capaldi-style[1], a protective ring around
our very special service.
That had occurred to me, too. I shouldn't think that rapacious US (and
home-grown) healthcare companies, or the people in the UK who loathe the
public sector, or those who stand to gain by selling off the NHS will
give an airborne copulation, but it's certainly a strong gesture.
These are words I never thought I would say, but I wrote to the Queen in
January. I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
mainly because they deserve national recognition, but partly because I
thought it might give a little protection. The G.C. is probably better
as the royal family don't use the NHS so the title Royal might invite a
charge of hypocrisy.
(I looked up the correct form of address. The palace website says that
it's fine to write in any style in which you feel comfortable, but the
strict formal valediction is "I have the honour to be, Madam, Your
Majesty's humble and obedient servant". I used that because I love the
18th-Century sound of it.)
Chuckle.

Sincerely Chris
BrritSki
2021-07-06 10:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Sid Nuncius
Quite right.
Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift.  IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.
Er...that's it.
I agree. It's excellent. And has happened so rarely as to make it very
special indeed.
I can't help wondering whether those two, new letters after N.H.S make
it a more attractive sell-off proposition or whether in her way, Her
Majesty is throwing, Peter Capaldi-style[1], a protective ring around
our very special service.
That had occurred to me, too.  I shouldn't think that rapacious US (and
home-grown) healthcare companies, or the people in the UK who loathe the
public sector, or those who stand to gain by selling off the NHS will
give an airborne copulation, but it's certainly a strong gesture.
These are words I never thought I would say, but I wrote to the Queen in
January.  I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
mainly because they deserve national recognition, but partly because I
thought it might give a little protection.  The G.C. is probably better
as the royal family don't use the NHS so the title Royal might invite a
charge of hypocrisy.
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" status. I have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay rather than waste money on
lockdowns with concomitant expenses for furlough, EO2HO schemes etc.

At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly and there's some truth in that, but the waste that goes on at
the top is legendary and the way it is organised is just wrong.

Two articles here explaining more about what I mean:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/06/nhs-hasnt-earned-george-cross/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/time-to-admit-we-can-do-better-than-the-nhs-3hfsljqqs
Peter
2021-07-06 11:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Sid Nuncius
Quite right.
Admittedly a decent pay rise would have been a lot better, but that's
not within The Queen's gift.  IMO, the award of the George Cross is
thoroughly well merited and a Good Thing.
Er...that's it.
I agree. It's excellent. And has happened so rarely as to make it very
special indeed.
I can't help wondering whether those two, new letters after N.H.S make
it a more attractive sell-off proposition or whether in her way, Her
Majesty is throwing, Peter Capaldi-style[1], a protective ring around
our very special service.
That had occurred to me, too.  I shouldn't think that rapacious US
(and home-grown) healthcare companies, or the people in the UK who
loathe the public sector, or those who stand to gain by selling off
the NHS will give an airborne copulation, but it's certainly a strong
gesture.
These are words I never thought I would say, but I wrote to the Queen
in January.  I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
mainly because they deserve national recognition, but partly because I
thought it might give a little protection.  The G.C. is probably
better as the royal family don't use the NHS so the title Royal might
invite a charge of hypocrisy.
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" status. I have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay rather than waste money on
lockdowns with concomitant expenses for furlough, EO2HO schemes etc.
At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly
Every year since its inception the NHS has received an increase in money
in excess of inflation.

And having written that, I then reread what you wrote: viz not that it
hasn't been sufficiently funded but that it hasn't been funded properly.
One might say that it has been given enough money, but not to spend on
the right things - administration rather than clinical services.
--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
Nick Odell
2021-07-06 14:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:56:36 +0100, Peter <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>
Post by Peter
Every year since its inception the NHS has received an increase in money
in excess of inflation.
Do you have a citation for that?

I, on the other hand would offer this:
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/70-years-of-nhs-spending

<snip>

Nick
Nick Odell
2021-07-06 13:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:51:16 +0100, BrritSki
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by BrritSki
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" status. I have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay rather than waste money on
lockdowns with concomitant expenses for furlough, EO2HO schemes etc.
I don't see it as an either/or (GC or Pay) situation and I feel that
some of the memes such as the doctor at the front of the supermarket
checkout queue holding open an empty purse and asking "Do you accept
GC?" are disingenuous at best.

As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on. I think the last eighteen
months have taught us that drivers and checkout assistants are
essential workers too and they deserve to be rewarded as such. As for
the NHS, whilst I might argue that the wastage and the proliferation
of high paid managers and business consultants at the top end is not
entirely the fault of the NHS, dissatisfaction with the organisation
is no reason to withhold a decent reward to the people at the sharp
end of the system.
Post by BrritSki
At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly and there's some truth in that, but the waste that goes on at
the top is legendary and the way it is organised is just wrong.
But the way it is organised is a result of it being pushed into the
state it currently is by legislation from governments of every
persuasion which have been determined to erase the ideology of the
prior administrations and impose their own.
Post by BrritSki
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/06/nhs-hasnt-earned-george-cross/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/time-to-admit-we-can-do-better-than-the-nhs-3hfsljqqs
I think I'm repeating stuff I've already said before elsewhere. The UK
is not alone in being one of the wealthiest countries in the world yet
one which fails to require all its citizens to be treated decently.
Other, more modest countries without aspirations of being dominant,
global and world-beating, manage to educate, pay and care for their
people better than we do and we could do the same if ideology didn't
stand in the way.

There are rumours that a quirk in statistics could lead to state
pensioners receiving a windfall increase next season and already
commentators are saying the money ought to be spent on other things
instead. The pensions expert and Conservative peer, Baroness Ros
Altmann has admitted that the UK State Pension is " the worst state
pension in the developed world "[1] so paying the windfall would only
make it a slightly better worst state pension instead. We need to pay
state pensioners better, pay ordinary people better and pay the people
in the NHS and beyond who give so much of themselves much, much
better.

"The nation can't afford it!" goes the cry. But other, poorer
countries can afford it and do afford it so in my opinion the only
arguments standing in the way of gtreating people better are the
ideological arguments of both left and right. Instead of expecting the
world to model itself on Great Britain, we would do well to take a
long, hard look at how and why other countries do so much better than
ourselves in so many ways that bring real benefits to their citizens.
In my opinion, of course.

Nick
[1]<https://inews.co.uk/opinion/triple-lock-rishi-sunak-pension-credit-poorest-pensioners-1062959>
John Ashby
2021-07-06 13:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:51:16 +0100, BrritSki
<snip>
Post by BrritSki
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" status. I have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay rather than waste money on
lockdowns with concomitant expenses for furlough, EO2HO schemes etc.
I don't see it as an either/or (GC or Pay) situation and I feel that
some of the memes such as the doctor at the front of the supermarket
checkout queue holding open an empty purse and asking "Do you accept
GC?" are disingenuous at best.
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on. I think the last eighteen
months have taught us that drivers and checkout assistants are
essential workers too and they deserve to be rewarded as such. As for
the NHS, whilst I might argue that the wastage and the proliferation
of high paid managers and business consultants at the top end is not
entirely the fault of the NHS, dissatisfaction with the organisation
is no reason to withhold a decent reward to the people at the sharp
end of the system.
Post by BrritSki
At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly and there's some truth in that, but the waste that goes on at
the top is legendary and the way it is organised is just wrong.
But the way it is organised is a result of it being pushed into the
state it currently is by legislation from governments of every
persuasion which have been determined to erase the ideology of the
prior administrations and impose their own.
Post by BrritSki
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/06/nhs-hasnt-earned-george-cross/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/time-to-admit-we-can-do-better-than-the-nhs-3hfsljqqs
I think I'm repeating stuff I've already said before elsewhere. The UK
is not alone in being one of the wealthiest countries in the world yet
one which fails to require all its citizens to be treated decently.
Other, more modest countries without aspirations of being dominant,
global and world-beating, manage to educate, pay and care for their
people better than we do and we could do the same if ideology didn't
stand in the way.
There are rumours that a quirk in statistics could lead to state
pensioners receiving a windfall increase next season and already
commentators are saying the money ought to be spent on other things
instead. The pensions expert and Conservative peer, Baroness Ros
Altmann has admitted that the UK State Pension is " the worst state
pension in the developed world "[1] so paying the windfall would only
make it a slightly better worst state pension instead. We need to pay
state pensioners better, pay ordinary people better and pay the people
in the NHS and beyond who give so much of themselves much, much
better.
"The nation can't afford it!" goes the cry. But other, poorer
countries can afford it and do afford it so in my opinion the only
arguments standing in the way of gtreating people better are the
ideological arguments of both left and right. Instead of expecting the
world to model itself on Great Britain, we would do well to take a
long, hard look at how and why other countries do so much better than
ourselves in so many ways that bring real benefits to their citizens.
In my opinion, of course.
Nick
[1]<https://inews.co.uk/opinion/triple-lock-rishi-sunak-pension-credit-poorest-pensioners-1062959>
Enthusiastic wave.

john
BrritSki
2021-07-06 13:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 06/07/2021 14:00, Nick Odell wrote:
<most of what I snipped I agree with to a certain extent, but a few
comments>
Post by Nick Odell
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on.
Up to a point Lord Copper. What do we do with the guy who has 8 children
and who has always had a poorly paid job (if any) but both parents
continue to drink and smoke ? Obviously you can't penalise the kids,
but why should the responsible support the feckless ?

.... As for
Post by Nick Odell
the NHS, whilst I might argue that the wastage and the proliferation
of high paid managers and business consultants at the top end is not
entirely the fault of the NHS, dissatisfaction with the organisation
is no reason to withhold a decent reward to the people at the sharp
end of the system.
Agreed, but we do need to do something to address these top heavy costs
as one of the articles I attached pointed out.
Post by Nick Odell
Other, more modest countries without aspirations of being dominant,
global and world-beating, manage to educate, pay and care for their
people better than we do and we could do the same if ideology didn't
stand in the way.
Agreed again, but part of that ideology is that the NHS is sacrosanct.
We should spend more, but there are better ways of handling health where
a much higher %age of the money is spent at the sharp end.
Post by Nick Odell
... The pensions expert and Conservative peer, Baroness Ros
Altmann has admitted that the UK State Pension is " the worst state
pension in the developed world "[1] so paying the windfall would only
make it a slightly better worst state pension instead.
While there is no doubt that French and German state pensions are better
there are good reasons for that in the way we concentrate more on
private pensions for example. I do not accept that the Italian state
pension is better from what I've seen about the way people live in
Italy. There are a lot of relatively poor pensioners in the USA too.

As for the quirk that would cause a big jump in the state pension this
year, I think [1] that should be suspended, esp. as the cause in the
rise of average wages is because so many low-wage jobs have been lost,
most of them permanently probably. OTOH inflation is likely to be a big
problem soon :(

[1] but I would say that as I can afford to forego it...
Penny
2021-07-06 16:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:30:52 +0100, BrritSki <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by BrritSki
<most of what I snipped I agree with to a certain extent, but a few
comments>
Post by Nick Odell
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on.
Up to a point Lord Copper. What do we do with the guy who has 8 children
and who has always had a poorly paid job (if any) but both parents
continue to drink and smoke ? Obviously you can't penalise the kids,
but why should the responsible support the feckless ?
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.

Forcing many working disabled to stop working by removing their independent
transport - or worse, providing a more expensive method (taxis) to take
them to work. Closing the sheltered work environments where others did
useful but fairly mindless tasks for little or no actual money but which
provided their family carers with some ongoing respite. Constantly
'assessing' others - 'has your missing arm grown back - come here and prove
it hasn't' - and punishing others by withdrawing the pittance they relied
upon when they could not attend the assessment centre, a mile from the
nearest bus stop on the 3rd floor of a building with no lift.

Many people had two or three jobs and still couldn't feed themselves as
well as their children without the help of food banks. I put that in past
tense because I've no idea how they are managing since the pandemic.

You don't have to be feckless to lose your main breadwinner. It can happen
to anyone at any time by accident or disease.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sam Plusnet
2021-07-06 19:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.
However the feckless do provide a very valuable service, by generating
headlines which in turn justify punitive measures against all people who
happen to be on benefits.

Perhaps they should be offered some award for their services?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter
2021-07-06 21:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Penny
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.
However the feckless do provide a very valuable service, by generating
headlines which in turn justify punitive measures against all people who
happen to be on benefits.
Perhaps they should be offered some award for their services?
Instead of giving the feckless benefits, give them feck.
--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
Mike McMillan
2021-07-07 07:28:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Penny
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.
However the feckless do provide a very valuable service, by generating
headlines which in turn justify punitive measures against all people who
happen to be on benefits.
Perhaps they should be offered some award for their services?
Instead of giving the feckless benefits, give them feck.
Without the feck, there might be less large families…
--
Toddle Pip, Mike McMillan
Vicky Ayech
2021-07-06 20:25:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by BrritSki
<most of what I snipped I agree with to a certain extent, but a few
comments>
Post by Nick Odell
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on.
Up to a point Lord Copper. What do we do with the guy who has 8 children
and who has always had a poorly paid job (if any) but both parents
continue to drink and smoke ? Obviously you can't penalise the kids,
but why should the responsible support the feckless ?
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.
Forcing many working disabled to stop working by removing their independent
transport - or worse, providing a more expensive method (taxis) to take
them to work. Closing the sheltered work environments where others did
useful but fairly mindless tasks for little or no actual money but which
provided their family carers with some ongoing respite. Constantly
'assessing' others - 'has your missing arm grown back - come here and prove
it hasn't' - and punishing others by withdrawing the pittance they relied
upon when they could not attend the assessment centre, a mile from the
nearest bus stop on the 3rd floor of a building with no lift.
Many people had two or three jobs and still couldn't feed themselves as
well as their children without the help of food banks. I put that in past
tense because I've no idea how they are managing since the pandemic.
It is worse not better.
Post by Penny
You don't have to be feckless to lose your main breadwinner. It can happen
to anyone at any time by accident or disease.
Quite.
Serena Blanchflower
2021-07-08 19:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by BrritSki
<most of what I snipped I agree with to a certain extent, but a few
comments>
Post by Nick Odell
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on.
Up to a point Lord Copper. What do we do with the guy who has 8 children
and who has always had a poorly paid job (if any) but both parents
continue to drink and smoke ? Obviously you can't penalise the kids,
but why should the responsible support the feckless ?
The number of feckless families and benefit cheats among those surviving on
State Benefits is minuscule. Governments of the last 10 years have spent
far more on trying to catch the cheats and cull the feckless than they were
ever going to save.
Forcing many working disabled to stop working by removing their independent
transport - or worse, providing a more expensive method (taxis) to take
them to work. Closing the sheltered work environments where others did
useful but fairly mindless tasks for little or no actual money but which
provided their family carers with some ongoing respite. Constantly
'assessing' others - 'has your missing arm grown back - come here and prove
it hasn't' - and punishing others by withdrawing the pittance they relied
upon when they could not attend the assessment centre, a mile from the
nearest bus stop on the 3rd floor of a building with no lift.
Many people had two or three jobs and still couldn't feed themselves as
well as their children without the help of food banks. I put that in past
tense because I've no idea how they are managing since the pandemic.
You don't have to be feckless to lose your main breadwinner. It can happen
to anyone at any time by accident or disease.
<Keep pressing Like button>!
--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Which bird always succeeds?
A. A budgie with no teeth.
Penny
2021-07-06 14:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2021 14:00:12 +0100, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on.
The 'benefits' there are being given, indirectly, to the employers.
Post by Nick Odell
I think the last eighteen
months have taught us that drivers and checkout assistants are
essential workers too and they deserve to be rewarded as such. As for
the NHS, whilst I might argue that the wastage and the proliferation
of high paid managers and business consultants at the top end is not
entirely the fault of the NHS, dissatisfaction with the organisation
is no reason to withhold a decent reward to the people at the sharp
end of the system.
It's much the same in education - a drive to make a service into a
business. Both should be seen as an investment in the future of the
country. Good health and education benefit everyone.

It was a bit of a surprise that scientists in the UK were (among?) the
first to create vaccines against Covid - until you recall that Big Business
was paying for that. British governments in my lifetime have never funded
research properly. They did provide a good education, only to export many
of the brightest sparks elsewhere because their skills were not appreciated
here.
Post by Nick Odell
Post by BrritSki
At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly and there's some truth in that, but the waste that goes on at
the top is legendary and the way it is organised is just wrong.
Too much politics in medicine?

Hospitals, like many places, work best when slightly over-staffed. There
are always jobs to be done when things are quiet (sh) which can be ignored
for a while when they are busy. Better than pulling in expensive, unknown
agency staff who don't know who is who or where things are.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Kate B
2021-07-06 15:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
It was a bit of a surprise that scientists in the UK were (among?) the
first to create vaccines against Covid - until you recall that Big Business
was paying for that.
Not really. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was created at the Oxford
Jenner Institute, who are supported by a number of charitable
foundations and government agencies. It was developed for mass use by
Astra-Zeneca who went against usual Big Business practice by
distributing it at cost.
Post by Penny
British governments in my lifetime have never funded
research properly. They did provide a good education, only to export many
of the brightest sparks elsewhere because their skills were not appreciated
here.
That is however sadly true. And not just scientists.
--
Kate B
London
Serena Blanchflower
2021-07-08 19:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:51:16 +0100, BrritSki
<snip>
Post by BrritSki
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" status. I have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay rather than waste money on
lockdowns with concomitant expenses for furlough, EO2HO schemes etc.
I don't see it as an either/or (GC or Pay) situation and I feel that
some of the memes such as the doctor at the front of the supermarket
checkout queue holding open an empty purse and asking "Do you accept
GC?" are disingenuous at best.
As a nation we should pay people better. Nobody deserves to work a
full week and have to fall back on the state to top up their earnings
in order that they have enough to live on. I think the last eighteen
months have taught us that drivers and checkout assistants are
essential workers too and they deserve to be rewarded as such. As for
the NHS, whilst I might argue that the wastage and the proliferation
of high paid managers and business consultants at the top end is not
entirely the fault of the NHS, dissatisfaction with the organisation
is no reason to withhold a decent reward to the people at the sharp
end of the system.
Post by BrritSki
At the same time I think that the NHS as a service has let us down
badly. It's easy to say that Gov'ts of all types have not funded it
properly and there's some truth in that, but the waste that goes on at
the top is legendary and the way it is organised is just wrong.
But the way it is organised is a result of it being pushed into the
state it currently is by legislation from governments of every
persuasion which have been determined to erase the ideology of the
prior administrations and impose their own.
Post by BrritSki
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/06/nhs-hasnt-earned-george-cross/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/time-to-admit-we-can-do-better-than-the-nhs-3hfsljqqs
I think I'm repeating stuff I've already said before elsewhere. The UK
is not alone in being one of the wealthiest countries in the world yet
one which fails to require all its citizens to be treated decently.
Other, more modest countries without aspirations of being dominant,
global and world-beating, manage to educate, pay and care for their
people better than we do and we could do the same if ideology didn't
stand in the way.
There are rumours that a quirk in statistics could lead to state
pensioners receiving a windfall increase next season and already
commentators are saying the money ought to be spent on other things
instead. The pensions expert and Conservative peer, Baroness Ros
Altmann has admitted that the UK State Pension is " the worst state
pension in the developed world "[1] so paying the windfall would only
make it a slightly better worst state pension instead. We need to pay
state pensioners better, pay ordinary people better and pay the people
in the NHS and beyond who give so much of themselves much, much
better.
"The nation can't afford it!" goes the cry. But other, poorer
countries can afford it and do afford it so in my opinion the only
arguments standing in the way of gtreating people better are the
ideological arguments of both left and right. Instead of expecting the
world to model itself on Great Britain, we would do well to take a
long, hard look at how and why other countries do so much better than
ourselves in so many ways that bring real benefits to their citizens.
In my opinion, of course.
Nick
[1]<https://inews.co.uk/opinion/triple-lock-rishi-sunak-pension-credit-poorest-pensioners-1062959>
Hear! Hear!
--
Best wishes, Serena
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?
Jenny M Benson
2021-07-06 13:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hmm, not sure I agree with either the GC or "Royal" statuI have no
doubt that the front-line staff of the NHS - the doctors, nurses, care
assistants, cleaners, porters, caterers etc. - as well as similar people
in the care sector all deserve our wholehearted thanks and appreciation,
but I personally think we'd do better to give them - or at least the
lower paid - a substantial increase in pay
MTAAW.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
krw
2021-07-06 11:15:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
Sadly I suspect that they would treat it with much the same disdain as
the "Royal" National Theatre does to that word.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike McMillan
2021-07-06 11:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
Sadly I suspect that they would treat it with much the same disdain as
the "Royal" National Theatre does to that word.
Shirley, adding G.C. , Royal, H.M. Or any other initials or honours to the
NHS does not mean a jot to provide any additional financial support,
provide any trained staff or provide any ability to train staff, shorten
the queue for consultations or treatment, update facilities to Victorian
premises - or help pay the employee’s bills!

I don’t know what benefits are conferred on any of the above by the
conferment of G.C. to the name by Her Maj. I am curious, please could
anyone explain what benefit if anything beyond possible morale boosting
will be gained please?
--
Toddle Pip, Mike McMillan
Sid Nuncius
2021-07-06 15:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
I don’t know what benefits are conferred on any of the above by the
conferment of G.C. to the name by Her Maj. I am curious, please could
anyone explain what benefit if anything beyond possible morale boosting
will be gained please?
No material gain, obviously. That's a separate matter and I agree with
what Nick has said about it. Personally, I think it is right to honour
fine service on behalf of the nation, quite separately from materially.
People deserve to be shown that what they do is genuinely appreciated
by the huge majority of the country as a whole and I am glad to see that
done.

Of course the organisation has flaws, and no doubt there will be some
within it who have done little or nothing to contribute to the award but
who will preen themselves anyway. What really matters to me is that
there are thousands upon thousands of dedicated people who have worked
impossibly hard and put themselves at great risk on behalf of all of us.
And, by God, I am proud to live in and contribute taxes to in a
country where if you are ill, injured or otherwise in medical need,
people will help you to the very best of their ability no matter who you
are or how wealthy or poor you may be. I think these things are worthy
of public honour and celebration.

I repeat, this should not be in lieu of any pay rise or proper funding,
but I think it is an award which conveys something important.

YMMV.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Sam Plusnet
2021-07-06 19:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
I suggested that she confer the title "Royal" on the NHS,
Sadly I suspect that they would treat it with much the same disdain as
the "Royal" National Theatre does to that word.
Shirley, adding G.C. , Royal, H.M. Or any other initials or honours to the
NHS does not mean a jot to provide any additional financial support,
provide any trained staff or provide any ability to train staff, shorten
the queue for consultations or treatment, update facilities to Victorian
premises - or help pay the employee’s bills!
I don’t know what benefits are conferred on any of the above by the
conferment of G.C. to the name by Her Maj. I am curious, please could
anyone explain what benefit if anything beyond possible morale boosting
will be gained please?
Benefits??
Consultants will be employed to design new logos, stationary, signs,
workwear etc. etc all of which must display the G.C.
Suppliers will be engaged to provide all of the above material.

Why benefits abound for those who position themselves to benefit.
--
Sam Plusnet
Loading...