[Mild Rover]

Re: New sides : Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:35 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

On the NHS - clinical/pharma excellence/progression is moving faster than the funds to support it - can we still expect the NHS to keep delivering as it is? Do we spend millions on cancer treatments for one person or millions doing cataracts for thousands of people etc.

On the second point - yes I am interested in a more Federal approach - were local issues are dealt with locally and Macro issues such as Fiscal policy is dealt with centrally

It is challenging to fund new treatments. However, it is worth remembering that only ~15% of the NHS budget is spent of drugs. The bigger challenge healthcare provision faces in the UK is a an ageing population, more than pharmaceutical innovation and its budget impact.

Rather than removing MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales from Westminster, would it make sense for that to remain as the central body and have regional assemblies in England?

Re: New sides : Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:54 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

It is challenging to fund new treatments. However, it is worth remembering that only ~15% of the NHS budget is spent of drugs. The bigger challenge healthcare provision faces in the UK is a an ageing population, more than pharmaceutical innovation and its budget impact.

Rather than removing MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales from Westminster, would it make sense for that to remain as the central body and have regional assemblies in England?

I don't mind how its structured as long as duplication is reduced and decision-making is streamlined, we have seen during Covid how difficult it seems to make decisive decisions quickly

Re: New sides : Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:49 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't mind how its structured as long as duplication is reduced and decision-making is streamlined, we have seen during Covid how difficult it seems to make decisive decisions quickly

Out of interest, which decisions around the response to the current crisis do you think have been stymied by the second chamber? I ask that in the spirit of neutrality proposed by the OP - because I genuinely can't think of a single one; and I am in favour of constitutional reform, so we get off on the right foot.

On the NHS and the 'ageing population' problem - I have long advocated radical reform of the Social Care sector - and I speak from the inside; that in itself would solve a significant swathe of the problems faced by the NHS. But successive H&SC Secretaries forget the SC part of the brief.

Re: New sides : Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:13 am  

bren2k wrote:

Out of interest, which decisions around the response to the current crisis do you think have been stymied by the second chamber? I ask that in the spirit of neutrality proposed by the OP - because I genuinely can't think of a single one; and I am in favour of constitutional reform, so we get off on the right foot.

On the NHS and the 'ageing population' problem - I have long advocated radical reform of the Social Care sector - and I speak from the inside; that in itself would solve a significant swathe of the problems faced by the NHS. But successive H&SC Secretaries forget the SC part of the brief.

I completely agree with your second point - the first point was more about the infrastructure of the public sector and how long it takes to get things done - we apparently have thousands of UK firms wanting to supply PPE but because of government processes they haven't been responded to - a crisis like this needs quick accurate decisions - some of which will be wrong - this isn't possible with a public sector as snail-paced as ours.

Re: New sides : Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:18 am  

bren2k wrote:

But successive H&SC Secretaries forget the SC part of the brief.

I must correct myself in the interests of fairness - SC was only added to H at the beginning of 2018, so that Jeremy Hunt could ignore it from a position of authority; prior to that, it was just quietly ignored, in an informal way.

Re: New sides : Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:24 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I completely agree with your second point - the first point was more about the infrastructure of the public sector and how long it takes to get things done - we apparently have thousands of UK firms wanting to supply PPE but because of government processes they haven't been responded to - a crisis like this needs quick accurate decisions - some of which will be wrong - this isn't possible with a public sector as snail-paced as ours.

That feels like shifting the blame to civil servants for what the Panorama documentary last night has clearly demonstrated, was a Govt decision; essential items of PPE were omitted from the pandemic stockpile, for financial reasons.

I don't disagree that generally, the public machinery moves frustratingly slowly in many instances - but I don't think this is a good example.

Re: New sides : Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:27 pm  

bren2k wrote:

That feels like shifting the blame to civil servants for what the Panorama documentary last night has clearly demonstrated, was a Govt decision; essential items of PPE were omitted from the pandemic stockpile, for financial reasons.

I don't disagree that generally, the public machinery moves frustratingly slowly in many instances - but I don't think this is a good example.

The MPs aren't on the ground moving stock around its like saying the army killing innocent citizens is the government's fault - somebody dies on an operating table is the government's fault. Did they make a decision on PPE when nobody had even heard of Covid - yes they did - which has proved to be the wrong one in hindsight. Getting PPE around the country is the responsibility of those people within the NHS charged with that responsibility - you can't shift that blame surely?

The furlough scheme and getting the money has worked brilliantly - not heard one of you on here going good job well done - no wonder people see your perspectives are well skewed.

Re: New sides : Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:39 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The MPs aren't on the ground moving stock around its like saying the army killing innocent citizens is the government's fault - somebody dies on an operating table is the government's fault. Did they make a decision on PPE when nobody had even heard of Covid - yes they did - which has proved to be the wrong one in hindsight. Getting PPE around the country is the responsibility of those people within the NHS charged with that responsibility - you can't shift that blame surely?

Operation Cygnus told the Govt what they needed to do in the event of a pandemic - they chose not to do it for financial reasons. Their stockpile contained *no* gowns - not a single one; that's bordering on criminal negligence, yes?

Sal Paradise wrote:

The furlough scheme and getting the money has worked brilliantly - not heard one of you on here going good job well done

The furlough scheme has worked well for some industries yes - but not all; and 'getting the money' has yet to be proven - the scheme opened for claims a week or so ago. If you mean the loan scheme - that clearly hasn't worked, as the banks (shock horror) were making it too difficult - so the Exchequer has had to step in and guarantee loans for smaller companies, to take the banks out of the equation.

Sal Paradise wrote:

no wonder people see your perspectives are well skewed.

What happened to a non-partisan discussion? I'm trying not to be skewed - I'm not suggesting anyone else would have done it better - I'm just dealing with facts before me.

Re: New sides : Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:22 am  

bren2k wrote:

Operation Cygnus told the Govt what they needed to do in the event of a pandemic - they chose not to do it for financial reasons. Their stockpile contained *no* gowns - not a single one; that's bordering on criminal negligence, yes?

The furlough scheme has worked well for some industries yes - but not all; and 'getting the money' has yet to be proven - the scheme opened for claims a week or so ago. If you mean the loan scheme - that clearly hasn't worked, as the banks (shock horror) were making it too difficult - so the Exchequer has had to step in and guarantee loans for smaller companies, to take the banks out of the equation.

What happened to a non-partisan discussion? I'm trying not to be skewed - I'm not suggesting anyone else would have done it better - I'm just dealing with facts before me.

So I will ask you this question - you are suggesting that given the chances of a pandemic were so great and the government should have acted and stockpiled PPE - I am correct in that yes? You as a social care provider looking after the most vulnerable in society to one of these incidents would have obviously done the thing you expected the government to do and stockpiled PPE - you didn't and I correct again - yes? So why didn't you stockpile PPE for the very same reason the government didn't because the money was better invested elsewhere. You are a private business charging £20-30k annually per customer and you cry wolf when the public sector don't get you out of the mess you have got yourself into - safeism gone mad.

I have issues in my business through the economic situation - the only person to blame is me.

On the furlough scheme - I have money out with 5 days of requesting it - so as far as I can see it works fine and many in my network have had the same experience - its quick and easy to access and the funds are flowing.

The banking is a different matter - banks are concerned that the loans will be repaid and that business that take out these loans will survive the crisis. The biggest part of the problem is most businesses can't provide the information the bank needs e.g. 2 years P&L. balance sheet and cashflow and business justification to support the loans. This is neither the government's nor the banks' problem - this is an issue of poorly managed businesses.

Re: New sides : Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:33 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The MPs aren't on the ground moving stock around its like saying the army killing innocent citizens is the government's fault - somebody dies on an operating table is the government's fault. Did they make a decision on PPE when nobody had even heard of Covid - yes they did - which has proved to be the wrong one in hindsight. Getting PPE around the country is the responsibility of those people within the NHS charged with that responsibility - you can't shift that blame surely?

Wasn't one army commander quoted as being desperate to take over the distribution operation, and as being 'appalled' at NHS planning? I certainly don't 'blame' the NHS - it would be unfair to expect any distribution operation to expand from 200+ delivery locations to 58,000 overnight.

The furlough scheme and getting the money has worked brilliantly - not heard one of you on here going good job well done - no wonder people see your perspectives are well skewed.

The government have stepped up and done a fantastic job financially. Not a sniff of gratitude or acknowledgement from most on here, some of whom I assume are grudgingly receiving furlough payments and possibly other means of assistance.

It cannot be overstated just how critical the furlough scheme is. Millions of us now have guaranteed income until at least June 30th, and who knows, it may be extended further if the lockdown continues. Most lenders are arranging mortgage holidays. So, for 3 months I'm only paying for shopping, utility bills and a few other small bills (and my daughter's birthday next month). I'll probably come out of this period better off despite a considerable drop in income. But will I have a job? That remains to be seen so I'll take what I can.

I acknowledge some businesses and individuals will inevitably fall through the cracks - there are millions of variables at play - but it cannot be denied the government have done a fantastic job in propping the country up financially. We'll all pay for it over time of course, but the alternative is unthinkable.

Is it all running perfectly smoothly? Not yet. I don't think it's unreasonable to forgive a few blips launching such huge and complex programmes in a matter of weeks.

Let's look at some of the achievements. I'm sure there are some I may have missed:
- The hugely impressive Nightingale hospitals - thankfully mostly not required yet.
- Increasing critical hospital capacity to the point we have over 3,000 spare critical care beds.
- A clearly defined four-stage strategy.
- For the most (while not ignoring the gaps) - providing medical equipment to cope with demand, including ventilators and PPE.
- The Job Retention (furlough) Scheme (later extended to include June).
- The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme.
- The 'Bounce Back Loan' for SMEs of up to £50,000.
- The Business Interruption Loan Scheme of up to £5m.
- The Corporate Financing Facility for larger businesses.
- Small business grant funding of £10,000.
- Guaranteeing loans where required.
- Grant funding of £25,000 for some retail, hospitality & leisure businesses.
- Deferred VAT payments.
- A 12 month business rate holiday for retail, hospitality, leisure & childcare businesses in England.
- £750 million cash grants fund for thousands of charities.