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.

I am also aware of a hospital where they tried to run it with a massively reduced no. of admin staff. The proper admin staff who look after your records and type up your notes and letters and send out your appointments and make sure your consultant has a vague idea where they should be and that your operating theatre is booked etc, etc. The hospital was fucked within a week. The vast majority of admin staff in the NHS are absolutely vital.

But I think most people who've worked in the upper echelons of an NHS trust would admit (if they were being truthful) that there is a layer of managers in the NHS who sit in nice shiny offices and never even hear of anything related to a patient let alone see one who push round paper and do 'blue sky thinking' and talk in impenetrable jargon who get paid eye watering salaries without adding much of any value to the NHS.

But the Tories never seem to have got to grips with them because they're slippery beasts who say whatever the present administration wants to hear. They were masters at talking the PC, multicultural, equality talk under Labour which was their 'buzz' ideology. As soon as the Tories got in they started talking value for money and making savings and efficiency because that's what they wanted to hear. Funnily enough though they never seem to cut out the most unnecessary waste which is themselves...

Considering the long term future of public services is quite sensible, I'd have thought.

Unless you don't anticipate there being a public sector in a generation's time, which is what the Conservative manifesto points to.

Labour have a plan to invest.

Ciderinsider

"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."

Maybe I'll refresh your memory of how Gorden Brown (Labour chancellor at the time) sold off half the countries gold reserves at rock bottom prices

No Christina, you are quite simply talking rot.

Just to demonstrate, here are a few quotes directly from the Labour manifesto on the NHS:

we will take one million people off NHS waiting lists by the end of the next Parliament.

We will deliver the Cancer Strategy for England in full by 2020 (That would be the end of the next parliament).

Labour will commit to over £30 billion in extra funding over the next Parliament.

Please note Labour give no longer term plans on funding than that, so by your logic they intend to stop funding the NHS after the next parliament.

You are, patently, talking balls. Please link to any reliable source which confirms your contention which you made up that the Tories intend to end capital funding to the NHS once the Naylor review's recommendations are completed.

Go on. I'm waiting.

There's nothing wrong with selling off land that's not needed.
It's wrong to be forced to do it to gain access to government funds received by the service users taxes.

But why are they forcing the NHS to sell off land to raise capital whilst at the same time buying land at a 19% above its value to build more free schools (again privatisation) when there's a shortfall in funding in already existing schools and millions of pounds worth of renovations already required.
I can't remember the exact figures but they've spent more buying land above its value than is needed for repairs.

Please see the complete absence of mention of ongoing capital funding in the Naylor Report.

So what are you saying? That the Tories will back track on their systematic under resourcing of the public sector, and start redirecting funds into the public sector?

It's a shame that you can't have a discussion without so many personal insults and hyperbole, because you calling me names is a bit tedious.

I haven't 'made anything up'. I've simply pointed out that the Naylor Report doesn't address what will happen when the first lot of cash runs out. Given that the austerity agenda will still be dominant and the fact that the Tories have never stated an intention to invest in public services, I'm intrigued as to how anyone could conclude that this isn't privatisation.

We know it's privatisation.

We know they are all for more grammar schools and more schools not under the autonomy of the LA's.

We know they do aim their policies at those who require the support of the state the most.

Austerity is a valid economics model. But they can't justify or show figures that prove it won't affect the most vulnerable in society - and that's scary.

It's wrong to be forced to do it to gain access to government funds received by the service users taxes.

sigh. They're not being 'forced' to do anything apart from prove they're not throwing service users money as shite after shit. Basically they're being asked not to spend £10 million quid on repairing an old shitty building when they could build one which had 5 x the capacity for the same price plus get a bonus from selling some land on top.

And if you can find a single trust who are objecting to this then let me know. Xx

"Maybe I'll refresh your memory of how Gorden Brown (Labour chancellor at the time) sold off half the countries gold reserves at rock bottom prices"

Whilst that may be true at least they achieved the proper market value at the time unlike the royal mail where we undervalued it by a billion pounds.

Plus know one could be sure gold would go up where as the Royal Mail and British Water were profit making.

Is it any surprise that people get worried when the conservatives start talking about selling assets? As far as I can see it has 2 certain results services become more expensive and we never get market rate for them.

Trusting the conservatives to sell off states assets is like is like letting a bunch of children run a sweet shop.

"They're not being 'forced' to do anything apart from prove they're not throwing service users money as shite after shit. Basically they're being asked not to spend £10 million quid on repairing an old shitty building when they could build one which had 5 x the capacity for the same price plus get a bonus from selling some land on top."

10 million for a hospital?

Are you having a giraffe?

Try 100-500 million.

Whilst that may be true at least they achieved the proper market value at the time

No he didn't, he released the info before he sold it and the prices bottomed out....

Please see the complete absence of mention of ongoing capital funding in the Naylor Report.

Can you please point me to somewhere, anywhere which details Labours detailed commitment to funding the NHS beyond the next parliament? Please?

You complained about me not answering questions but you won't answer them either.

10 million might be just enough to demolish a hospital. Interesting how that works out?

"Whilst that may be true at least they achieved the proper market value at the time

No he didn't, he released the info before he sold it and the prices bottomed out...."

Well even if that is the case it does not really strengthen the argument for selling off assets.

So what is it you're saying now Bill?

That should Labour be elected and carry out their plan of investment in public services they will decide, should they be re-elected after that, to back track on their commitment to investing in public services?

So there is essentially no difference between the Tories and Labour because either of them might decide to or not to use public money to fund health?

If it was Blair that we were talking about, your view would make sense. But this Labour manifesto is very different.

So it looks like we can agree that the Naylor Review, should it be implemented, will contribute to the ongoing privatisation of the NHS.

Whether you believe that privatisation of public services is good, bad or somewhere in between is a separate issue.

But to pretend this isn't systematic privatisation isn't really compatible with the facts.

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
So the land might just as well sit there growing weeds

No. Public money should be invested in public services.

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.

This made me lol

I agree.

Worth re-linking the fullfact analysis of this:

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

Public money should be invested in public services.

The point.

Thanks for the FullFact document Charmageddon - that's cleared up the OP's misrepresentation

tompride.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/scandal-as-nhs-plasma-supplies-sold-off-by-tories-for-230-million-sold-on-to-chinese-for-820-million/

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-cost-cutting-plans-conservatives-leaked-campaigners-election-2017-a7775571.html

Strong and stable my arse!

What was my misrepresentation?

If you want to vote Tory then do, but don't pretend that you're voting for anything other than privatisation and severely reduced funding for the NHS.

And education.

www.facebook.com/DrRaviJ/videos/1895363664059678/