To think that people should read the Naylor Review before Thursday?

[christinarossetti]

It's what TM has already said that she'll back if she is re-elected.

It's a plan to force the NHS Trusts to sell their assets, primarily land, to provide capital funding for their own services. If NHS hospitals don't want to do this, they won't receive capital funding from the Treasury.

The private company company NHS Property Services has been established to broker deals.

Obviously, one piece of land can only be sold once. Once the money raised by flogging land has been spent on MRI scanners etc, there are no plans for the Treasury to resume capital funding.

If you don't mind the NHS being sold off to private companies and moving towards a US style of health care then, fine, vote for the Tories.

If you do, just don't vote for this.

So if you want a new capital project (building, major equipment) and you have a saleable asset, you will be expected to sell it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Of course, it does require rather more competency to do it right than was shown with PFI. But the risks (of budget vanishing into servicing debt) has been removed.

There isn't a magic money tree, unfortunately.

Bingo. Second post and we're on to 'magic money tree'.

No, you'll be forced to sell it. Capital funding from public money (our taxes) will be cut off.

I haven't seen reference to the 'magic money tree' aside from when anyone from the left mention economics.

Rather than engage with the fully costed Labour manifesto, the right venture into mythical horticulture.

Almost as if they don't have a sensible counter argument.

There isn't a magic money tree, unfortunately.

We have given the banks a blank cheque.

The Tory magic money pot - bottomless for bankers and financiers....empty for the rest.

Just to focus on the Naylor Review and what the Conservatives being re elected on Thursday would mean.

Are people happy to asset strip the NHS rather than properly fund it?

(Other than the few already rich people set to make millions, of course).

If not, then don't vote for it.

No, there isn't a magic money tree.
And there wont be one in the future either, when a hospital realises that it needs to expand or build a new facility. They will not be able to afford to buy that land back - once its gone, its gone.
But hey, short term cost savings no matter how bad the long term economic impact is what austerity is all about, isn't it?

Well said, makeourfortune. Endless bail outs for the banks. And then he patronizing crap about money trees to the NHS.

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/30-things-you-should-know-about-tory.html?m=1

Yes, I would suggest they read and understand the report and have a look at the information behind it such as the fact it is based on information from the fiercely pro NHS King's Fund.

And they might take in information like it is not 'selling off' the NHS as not a single penny will leave the NHS and in fact it will increase NHS funding by attracting match funding from central government.

And they will also learn that what the Naylor report says is that many old, crumbling NHS buildings are far, far to expensive to fix and renovate and refurbish to be suitable for modern medicine, but hold huge value in the land they are on or in real estate terms for other purposes. So it makes much more sense to sell those buildings and build cheaper, better equipped more suitable buildings on land the NHS already owns but isn't being used efficiently.

And that any money raised from sales will be matched by central government funding.

NHS estates have been neglected for years and it is an accepted problem.

The Naylor report has been welcomed in the NHS and opposition parties are not combatting this. The only people making a fuss about this are left wing activists who think they can con people into thinking it means 'selling off the NHS' when it means no such thing.

So yes, OP, I agree with you. I really think the should read the Naylor report so they can see your scaremongering for what it is.

They will not be able to afford to buy that land back - once its gone, its gone.

But the NHS doesn't need the land it has. It has huge inefficiently managed tracts of land that could contain everything it needs plus loads left over to sell.

A huge 2 story Victorian hospital full of poky unusable rooms could be replaced with a modern hospital with three or four times the usable space on half the land with the other half sold off because it's not needed.

@BillSykesDog

Don't bring facts to the table, there is only a couple of days left for the left wing activists to shout into the echo chamber.

Maybe much of the land will never be needed. Maybe some of it will in the future. Why not let the trusts decide, rather than force them to sell it off whether they want to or not?

And knocking down old victorian hospitals and replacing with a better, modern one that frees up land is a great idea, but complicated and very expensive (selling off the land won't cover it all) to do in practice.

People should read anything they can to help them make an informed decision, but personally I think anyone who doesn't already know the tories are planning to privatise the NHS must have had their head down a well for the last 7 years.

NHS property services has been around for years. It hasn't been stealthily established recently.

It's a limited company but it's 100% owned by the department of health. So it's hardly 'private', particularly since anybody can view their accounts online, for free, on the Companies House web portal!

I think anyone who doesn't already know the tories are planning to privatise the NHS must have had their head down a well for the last 7 years.

There are also lots of people who do know, but are in a position to make sure it doesn't affect them, so will ignore.

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with NHS trusts selling off land they don't need. Its the fact they will be FORCED to that most people are objecting to, I think.

Maybe much of the land will never be needed. Maybe some of it will in the future. Why not let the trusts decide, rather than force them to sell it off whether they want to or not?

How are they being forced to sell it off?

I'll help you with the answer to that. They're not. Can you please back that up with any evidence?

And knocking down old victorian hospitals and replacing with a better, modern one that frees up land is a great idea, but complicated and very expensive (selling off the land won't cover it all) to do in practice

Clearly you haven't actually bothered to read the report you're commenting on have you?

The whole point of the Naylor report is that it is cheaper and quicker to knock down and rebuild than it would be to bring these old hospitals up to standard.

And yes, it might not all be covered by sales but that's why the government is going to match all money raised from sales with a grant from central government.

I think anyone who doesn't already know the tories are planning to privatise the NHS must have had their head down a well for the last 7 years.

The above was me having a username fail. Nope. Spent the last 7 years working on projects including in the NHS. Did a lot of work prior to that on projects which involved Labour's introduction of private sector delivery into the NHS.

Really, people who buy into the whole 'Tories abolishing the NHS thing' generally tend to be credulous people who get their information from left wing blogs who have absolutely no idea how far superior European health systems work and why it would be beneficial to us all to move towards them.

Nope. They're generally people who would like their taxes to go towards funding public services and would like well resourced health, education and housing.

Blaaaa, they will be forced.

The Naylor Review is very clear. If trusts don't want to sell their assets, the Treasury will cut off their capital funding.

Trusts obviously can't operate without capital funding.

I agree with billsykesdog, it's seems like a very sensible plan from a business point of view. The NHS have limited options available to them and there's no point in people saying just give them more money all of the time, the money isn't there.

I also don't think that privatisation would be such a bad thing. When I worked in the NHS, albeit a long time ago, the administrative staff outnumbered the medical staff by 3 to1. This should be looked at as a business, by business people and not civil servants.

"Really, people who buy into the whole 'Tories abolishing the NHS thing' generally tend to be credulous people who get their information from left wing blogs who have absolutely no idea how far superior European health systems work and why it would be beneficial to us all to move towards them."

Perhaps this is partly because all countries in the G7 spend more of their GDP on healthcare than us apart from Italy?

Many countries also have more top up scenarios or insurance contributions so the figure we pay already way below the G7 average is in reality even smaller.

But no its not about the money.......(smashes head against a wall).

The Nuffield Trust back the report. The Kings Fund back the report. The HSJ broadly back the report.

Three independent organisations who know huge amounts about health and the NHS back the report. Full Fact has backed it as not being what is being reported.

fullfact.org/health/what-is-naylor-review/

But we're bored of experts, aren't we?

Perhaps this is partly because all countries in the G7 spend more of their GDP on healthcare than us apart from Italy?

Thanks pumpkin....so true.

It does depend on whether you think public assets and services should be invested in, or whether you think it's find that they're sold to the highest bidder.

From the information in the Naylor Review, I can't see that Nuffield, Kings or HSJ could possibly comment on the long-term implications ie what will happen once the first lot of cash has been used up and the Treasury not being involved in capital investment in the NHS being the norm.

Seems perfectly sensible to make efficient use of the NHS land and property. Selling some bits to fund improvements to the rest has my vote.

I have been in some hospitals that are just in inappropriate buildings for the 21st century. Sell them and use the money to fund modern appropriate facilities. My local hospital doesn't have parking even if you wanted to pay for it because its in a Victorian building in the center of a city. But no one will even countenance selling it because only sadists close hospitals.