Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Soo.. what proportion of Boots retail staff claim benefits and use the NHS?

181 replies

vinegarandbrownpaper · 01/02/2015 12:06

Sick of 'business leaders' with businesses propped up by tax breaks, working tax credits and people propping up contracts with benefits when there is no work.. making sure those workers can still come back despite zero hours. Pay your staff properly before you complain about a supportive society you dolt.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 03/03/2015 12:06

Grasshopper (Iggly) … over two previous pages I have shown you some of the sheer scale of government inefficiencies/waste, especially as many of those MP law/policy makers have not got a business savvy little grey cell in their head, it is not by fault that you are a rubbish student.

But enough about money, as the majority of our public services are not functioning in any financial or efficiency competition with the private sector, hence we hear today that thanks to a ‘turf war’ between midwives and doctors in the Morecombe Bay Trust Hospital tens of mothers/babies died needlessly over 9-years and in order to protect the vulnerable from ‘inefficient’ public services doing their job, the threat of a 5-year jail term was (arguably) needed.

Please do not get me wrong, as it seems you are more against free market driven competition, than I am FOR it, as on the whole the public sector ‘front line’ does an excellent jobs, I even want the lower paid to be paid substantially MORE.

But I detest (and will always speak out about) the taxpayer waste of incompetent, inefficient, governance like the creation of quangos we could do without prior to 1997 – that even those that created them, talking about rises for the likes of nurses/midwives, STILL talk about forming more commissions etc after 2015 and have not worked out if administrator/bureaucracy waste was cut, THE MONEY IS ALREADY THERE to recruit more and better pay the front line workers.

Finally, what you and trade unions run by protectionist dinosaurs have to realise is WHO owns the public sector, WHO the end client is and WHO pays for the public sector, as it one and the same, all the citizens within the UK.

Far too often the question is not WHAT IS BEST for the citizen ‘clients’ via cost and services, it is an internal one sided ‘turf war’ where the top down cost inefficiencies of public sector scares the trade unions and their government apologists into ideological rants of ‘privatisation’ by the blue team - even if THEY contracted the private sector to provide services (we assume they thought was going to do better) on their watch e.g. the NHS currently contracting out under 6% of their budget, under 5% of those contracts were issued by the last Labour government.

Iggly · 03/03/2015 14:54

Please do feel free to peruse my previous posts and provide quotes which back up your assertions about my political beliefs.

I think you shall find, as with most of your arguments, you cannot back it up.

:)

Isitmebut · 03/03/2015 15:40

I'm sorry Iggly, is there a political one policy Quango Party, and are you the Leader sent to this earth to justify their massively increased need and cost (since 1997), over everything else I mentioned e.g. the needs of the poorest in society?

If not and I have erroneously pigeon holed you, what are your political beliefs, please spill.

Iggly · 03/03/2015 19:34

I'd like you to back up your assertions please. I ask you to prove a few things and you can't.
The best you can do is cut and paste a few ranty articles, chuck in a bit of bold and underline formatting them accuse anyone of disagreeing with you of being a Labour apologist.

I enjoy winding you up. Give me facts! Evidence! Or some well reasoned arguments. Not rants - you have a very long winded way of saying "but it must be"...

Isitmebut · 04/03/2015 09:01

Iggly-san ..... you are in favour of a honking expensive fat State costing many tens of billions more than it did in 1997, supporting new bureaucratic entities and the 'creation' of new government jobs the UK did fine without prior - while REAL jobs that needed government help from the weight of regulation, new taxes and a strong Pound, were lost.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

Meanwhile I am saying that money can ALWAYS be better spent on social development, as these figures below show as one example of that.

"Shelter (2009); The housing crisis in numbers."
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis.

• Over 1.7 million households (around 5 million individuals) are currently waiting for social housing
• 7.4 million homes in England fail to meet the Government's Decent Homes Standard
• 1.4 million children in England live in bad housing. [3]
• In 2008/09, 654,000 households in England were overcrowded. [4]
The number of new households is increasing faster than the number of house builds.

That is my argument in a nutshell, no rant, just facts over two prior pages; if you disagree with that view, and you want to justify the change/expense of government the ONUS IS ON YOU to justify your view that the money could NOT have been better spent.

Iggly · 04/03/2015 21:23

I refer you to my previous post.
Proof please. Explicit proof that the private sector is more efficient, not that the public sector is wasteful. Of course there are examples of that - you never hear the good news.

Proof that I'm a labour apologist.

Proof that quangos themselves are a problem as opposed to government policy.

Proof. Proof. Proof. Not links for the daily mail.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page