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.

The knee-jerk approach of so many to 'protect the NHS' does so much damage to the NHS. It keeps it stuck in old and outdated buildings; it denies the fact that we need to provide very different services now; and it suggests every change or move of a service is A Bad Thing.

Read the links given above by @CinderellaRockefeller and concentrate your fire on the real issues facing the NHS. Such as being starved of funds.

I've read the link and also the Naylor Review. I see this as part of the process of the NHS being starved of funds, not separate.

I can't find any explanation of where capital funds will come from once the cash from the sale of assets runs out?

Can anyone direct me to it?

Part of what the NHS needs is £10 billion capital investment in order to be able to deliver modern healthcare in the way that people need it. The Naylor report calls for that investment and says the treasury will need to put in as well.

That 10bn isn't a reoccurring cost it's a one off massive investment - then it should be maintanence costs. Trusts are not going to have to sell land to fund every development they ever want to do. They have to put in place a plan to maximise the efficiency of their estate to access capital funding. If they don't have a plan, they won't get funding to build. That's fair in my eyes.

My issue with this is that the sale of state assets recently and historically have been close to theft in my eyes.

Take for example the royal mail which was undervalued to the tune of 30% at least!

11,000 jobs have been lost, a fifth of its mail centres have closed and 5% of its delivery offices have shut with more due to follow. These things are not just down to privatisation - but shareholders are exerting more and more influence to maximise their own profits.

As a sign of these shifting priorities, while staff are constantly seeing their workload increase and face the threat of the pension scheme closing, Royal Mail is paying out dividends of £220m per year.

So please forgive my if I am cynical about selling state assets but I have seen it happen many time where we sell off a profit making state asset which end up making these places much worse for employees and consumers and the only beneficiaries are rich individuals and shareholders but the country keeps getting poorer.

Of course capital funding is ongoing. Medical equipment is always being updated and modernised.

My question is how will that be funded when the cash from the property sale has been spent and the Treasury will no longer fund capital investments?

What the Naylor report says is not 'If you don't sell your land we're not giving you capital funding'.

It says:

STP estates plans and their delivery should be assessed against targets informed by the benchmarks developed for this review. STPs and their providers, which fail to develop suf ciently stretching plans, should not be granted access to capital funding either through grants, loans or private nance until they have agreed plans to improve performance against benchmarks.

So they need to achieve 'benchmarks'. Not just sell their assets. And the benchmarks are:

building efficiency, which considers the amount of space used for delivering services, as well as the amount of non-clinical space and the amount of unutilised space; and

land efficiency, using metrics to calculate building and facility footprint as a percentage of the total site area.

Or to put it in plainer language, if a site holds a hospital which is up to date and functions well as a modern hospital and the site is used efficiently with most spaces given over to functioning facilities it will pass the benchmark without changes being made.

If a one storey Victorian building with multiple leaky draughty unsuitable rooms out of use with 15 single storey car parks, multiple unused fields and scrublands area is assessed it won't meet the benchmarks.

They are not being 'forced' to sell off anything except for unsuitable poor buildings.

If the trust doesn't want to sell the land, they will not be granted access to capital funding.

Forced to sell or bankrupt. That's the 'choice'.

Please don't assume that people vote Tory because they are evil, thick or misinformed. They are as capable as you of reading things

Thanks.

My question is how will that be funded when the cash from the property sale has been spent and the Treasury will no longer fund capital investments?

That's just absolute nonsense. Nobody has said 'this is the only capital funding available to you and once it's gone there will be no more capital funding available'.

That's simply untrue.

BillSkyesDog. Once again, could you or someone else point me to the part of the Naylor Review that says where capital funds will come from once the money from the original sale of assets is spent?

You're right that the Review doesn't say that there won't be further capital funding available, but it very starkly doesn't say that there will be either.

A Trust can only sell a piece of land once, although its capital costs will be ongoing, long after that money is spent. It's a fair question, isn't it? Where will capital funding come from in the longer term?

If the trust doesn't want to sell the land, they will not be granted access to capital funding

No. If they don't want to sell the land they have to come up with a plan to show how they intend to better utilise the land/facility so that it functions properly and can be properly refurbished to offer better value than a new build which takes up less space, is cheaper and also offers the extra of freeing up land which can be sold for a cash injection.

But they just can't do that. Because these old buildings would cost far, far more to fix than it would cost to build new.

The other thing they could do is show that they could new build on current levels of investment without selling the land. But they won't be able to do that either.

If any building is valuable to the NHS and it's patients as is it will be kept.

If trusts say they 'don't want' to sell a shitty old hospital which will cost 3 x the amount of a new build to fix you would really have to question why. And they point is that no trusts are going to say 'no we don't want to' and no trusts are kicking up a fuss over it because it's a sensible and workable solution. They won't be begging to keep a 1920s hospital building that hasn't been renovated since 1950.

Which again brings us back to the only people making a fuss over this are scaremongering left wing activists.

You're right that the Review doesn't say that there won't be further capital funding available, but it very starkly doesn't say that there will be either

Can you please point me to any has. government policy where future funding has been committed to before the presently proposed scheme has even begun?

The default for capital investment in the NHS is that it is an ongoing process as medical technology and practices change and develop. The default is that there will be ongoing funding.

So actually what you're saying is entirely false, unless there has been a specific announcement that this is the last capital funding which will be available then the default is that there will be.

You are deliberately scaremongering on the basis of something entirely made up. There is no indication that funding will be cut off after this spending and lack of assurance that it won't be doesn't mean that it will. It means it's so improbable that assurance isn't even needed.

In the end of the day the Naylor report is just a report.

However the conservative party have made massive cuts to the NHS they have made massive cuts to police,education and to social care.

They have stated they will make further cuts to all the above.

Their ideology is based on having a smaller state. None of this is news. If you want more funding for the police, NHS, education and social care then you should not vote for a conservative government.

If you agree with that ideology then by all means vote conservative but be honest with yourself about it.

Arguing that the conservatives do not wish to cut these services is a waste of times.

I don't understand why you're saying that I'm 'deliberately scaremongering'.

I've simply asked questions that you can't answer and pointed out glaring holes in the long term picture of the NHS as per the Naylor Review.

Even less so do I understand your assertion that the default position for NHS is ongoing funding under a Conservative government. They are deliberately cutting public funding for their own ideological motives.

Where in their Manifesto does it say that they intend to increase/continue funding to the NHS? With figures?

it doesn't because there aren't any figures in their manifesto

If you want a privatised NHS then by all means vote Tory but don't pretend that they intend to fund public services as they explicitly do not.

FFS we get it - that nice Mr Corbyn will make sure everyone gets their own personal unicorn whereas the evil Tories will kill everyone.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that people are intelligent enough to read up and make their own minds up.

This place is too predictable....

Funny how keen the Tories are on selling off national assets.

Usually to their mates in the City who ever so conveniently get the asset for a price that turns out to be a knockdown price.

Like Royal Mail, like pretty much every single Tory privatisation/selling off of national assets ever.

I agree with you bill
One hospital I worked at was so spread out that the nurse carrying the resuscitation bleep would run to her car with equipment and drive round the hospital,

Land should be re purposed (housing for NHS workers perhaps - which it argues for actually) rather than unused.

Healthcare is changing. It's more outpatient than inpatient these days and will alter further. We need spaces to suit.

Did you expect the nhs still keep land that derelict hospitals are on?

Hope people read your thread before voting.

Cider - your drum banging would be more effective if you could cite actual examples of "mates in the city". Just singing like the canary isn't cutting it.

'singing like the canary'?

Do you actually know what that phrase means?

You aren't making any sense.

This is exactly the way most of the political threads are going at the moment.

As soon as someone starts discussing the economy in realistic, practical terms, it gets side-tracked with talk of 'magic money trees' and 'unicorns'. Or 'scare mongering' or 'absolute nonsense'.

Why not counter with a sensible economic argument?

It is also interesting that the three threads about the election that are constantly staying on the front page all have conservative leaning thread titles i.e "To think Teresa May has just won the election?".

Call me cynical but perhaps these are being bumped systematically?

I've simply asked questions that you can't answer and pointed out glaring holes in the long term picture of the NHS as per the Naylor Review.

What questions have you asked me that I haven't answered? I've answered all of them except where is the money coming from after the sale of land. But I haven't answered that because it's a dumb question. I don't know the answer, the government don't know the answer, the opposition don't know the answer. It gets to a point where you're not asking people for a plan, you're asking them to look in a crystal ball.

I can't tell you for certain exactly how the army or schools will be funded in ten years time and neither can anybody else. It might come from general tax receipts, it might come from borrowing. That doesn't mean that the logical assumption is 'OMGZ teh sky is falling and we r going 2 abolish edukashun'.

This is also because we live in a democracy so it makes no sense for governments to waste time making detailed long term plans which will most probably end up in the bin. It's a pointless waste of time and money.

If you want 20 year plans move to China or North Korea.

I can't answer a question which is so nonsensical that there isn't even an answer. Suggesting that because further funding sources for the future aren't mapped out this far in advance means that all capital funding is going to be cut is just deliberate, inane scaremongering that anybody who has the slightest knowledge of funding planning would dismiss for the alarmist claptrap it is.

These funding plans cover a minimum 5 years so I don't know why an earth they would put anything in a manifesto which isn't even relevant for the term of government they're standing for.

Honestly, you just sound ridiculous. You clearly don't know much if anything about how this sort of stuff works. But believe me, to anybody who does the stuff you're coming out with sounds laughable.

The dumbest thing is that even if Labour win, all the recommendations in the report will still happen because the Trusts want it to happen.

When I worked in the NHS, albeit a long time ago, the administrative staff outnumbered the medical staff by 3 to1.

Sorry I have to respond to this trope because I'm so so so so so so bored of hearing it. Here are some stats for you, from February this year.

NHS infrastructure support (that's admin, management): 15.6%
Support to clinicians: 28.9%
Clinicians: 54.1%

The NHS actually has about a quarter of the proportion of management staff of the average private sector company.