Predict the General Election

[Darat]

My vote is for Labour's majority to be reduced to around 40ish.

(However if the PPB I saw tonight is any indication of Labour’s election campaign I reckon I may have to change that to a 163 seat majority for the Conservatives!)

 

[Beerina]

I have to keep repeating to myself: "Liberal is middle-of-the-road over there. Liberal is middle-of-the-road over there. Liberal is middle-of-the-road over there..."


If they kick him out, then they get the conservatives, who are mostly supporting the war. Quite a quandry for the voters, if they don't like the war.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I can't see the Conservatives winning this one, but I doubt that Labour will be rejoicing when the final results come in. 0-49 Labour majority for me.

An interesting article in the Torygraph re: bias inherent in the system... link

 

[Matabiri]

I think 50 - 100 Labour majority, simply because of the bias in the system and because of the success of Labour's "Oh my God you don't want Howard and Letwin do you?" campaign strategy.

And Beerina: "liberal" means something completely different over here, something more akin to "laissez-faire" social attitudes. But true, a sort of soft socialism is middle-of-the-road here.

Curiously, Labour are currently crowing that the Conservatives can't afford their planned spending cuts; that there's a hole in the calculations. No-one seems to have commented that if the Tories can't afford cuts without additional taxation, then Labour certainly can't afford increases...

 

[richardm]

But the Tories claim they're going to increase spending at the coalface (if you'll pardon the expression) at a higher rate than inflation, whereas Labour don't. Plus, there is the continuing suspicion that they aren't telling us the whole story:

Lib Dem frontbencher David Laws branded Conservative plans "unrealistic" and accused the Tories of "filleting out" parts of the James report because they were political unpalatable.

"That explains why they have had to fall back on these extremely flaky and unrealistic cuts which they clearly consider to be politically acceptable but in our view are clearly not credible."

The Tories do say, however, that they will be able to make savings by cutting out tiers of bureaucracy. One guy on the Today programme this morning who worked for a HR company said that if he went to his seniors and suggested trying that they'd laugh him out of the building, and invite him to clear his desk en route.

 

[richardm]

... It's interesting that in the "How will you vote" poll Labour and the Conservatives are on a pretty even keel. But so far, nobody's predicting a Tory victory.

 

[Oleron]

I voted for a slim labour majority, same as Darat - about 40ish.

Up until the last few weeks I would have predicted a strong labour win but a lot of the press I've been hearing recently seems to be indicating that the conservatives are showing strongly in the polls.
Funny, I never really considered Howard as a PM before but now I don't think its outside the realms of possibility....

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But the Tories claim they're going to increase spending at the coalface (if you'll pardon the expression) at a higher rate than inflation, whereas Labour don't. Plus, there is the continuing suspicion that they aren't telling us the whole story:



The Tories do say, however, that they will be able to make savings by cutting out tiers of bureaucracy. One guy on the Today programme this morning who worked for a HR company said that if he went to his seniors and suggested trying that they'd laugh him out of the building, and invite him to clear his desk en route.

And so he would be proved correct as one layer of bureaucracy was cut out.

Anyone who thinks there isn't massive scope for cutting waste in government has clearly never worked with it at any level.

 

[asthmatic camel]

And so he would be proved correct as one layer of bureaucracy was cut out.

Anyone who thinks there isn't massive scope for cutting waste in government has clearly never worked with it at any level.

Once again, amazingly enough, we agree.

 

[richardm]

You're right, I'm sure, but removing an entire tier of management in, say, the NHS sounds like something not do-able without causing problems. Bit of a "magic wand" solution that makes me nervous.

I could, of course, be wrong, but then if they also went ahead with their plan to abolish targets there'd be no way to be certain

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You're right, I'm sure, but removing an entire tier of management in, say, the NHS sounds like something not do-able without causing problems. Bit of a "magic wand" solution that makes me nervous.

I could, of course, be wrong, but then if they also went ahead with their plan to abolish targets there'd be no way to be certain

Compare the management structure in an NHS trust to a similarly sized commercial business.

 

[richardm]

Compare the management structure in an NHS trust to a similarly sized commercial business.

Well, I'm sure that it is unnecessarily top-heavy. I just don't like the gung-ho "Let's start chopping it up!" attitude much. e.g. "Let's get rid of Strategic Health Authorities and let doctors and nurses run hospitals!". Um.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, I'm sure that it is unnecessarily top-heavy. I just don't like the gung-ho "Let's start chopping it up!" attitude much. e.g. "Let's get rid of Strategic Health Authorities and let doctors and nurses run hospitals!". Um.

So what would YOU do about the fact that it is, in your own words, "unnecessarily top heavy"?

Change it or leave it?

 

[Matabiri]

Well, I'm sure that it is unnecessarily top-heavy. I just don't like the gung-ho "Let's start chopping it up!" attitude much. e.g. "Let's get rid of Strategic Health Authorities and let doctors and nurses run hospitals!". Um.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to bite the bullet and offer private-sector management level salaries for the top NHS management, and make sure their bonus structure and targets actually gives them an incentive to run it properly. There's no point in political micromanagement.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
The Tories do say, however, that they will be able to make savings by cutting out tiers of bureaucracy. One guy on the Today programme this morning who worked for a HR company said that if he went to his seniors and suggested trying that they'd laugh him out of the building, and invite him to clear his desk en route.

And at the same time add all new immigration controls, a point system, asylum approval "outside the county" (the moon perhaps?) and so on....

Hmm.. something doesn't quite seem to add up.

 

[Darat]

And so he would be proved correct as one layer of bureaucracy was cut out.

Anyone who thinks there isn't massive scope for cutting waste in government has clearly never worked with it at any level.

Just to make it clear - I agree with this, but to be able to make the savings as quickly as they say they will and introduce "all new" systems... that is what doesn't make sense.

 

[richardm]

So what would YOU do about the fact that it is, in your own words, "unnecessarily top heavy"?

Change it or leave it?

I would centralise more, probably. Why have so many duplicated posts?

ETA that's centralising management and admin, by the way, not hospital services.

 

[Darat]

Compare the management structure in an NHS trust to a similarly sized commercial business.

Not something I've ever seen, have you seen a like(ish) for like(ish) comparison anywhere? I'd find that interesting.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet:
Compare the management structure in an NHS trust to a similarly sized commercial business.

I don't think such a commercial venture exists. If memory serves the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe with a workforce of 2 million or so. I work for a large multinational and I'm only one of a piffling 60,000.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm inclined to agree with Darat and Oleron, but I'm going to reserve my vote until the next time I see Peter Snow having a session with his glitzy swingometer!

Rolfe.