Forum menu
He's done a YouTube piece too.
Doesn't surprise me - I'm pretty much aligned to his logic (apart from his tax and spend confusion he's always piped out.)
I know plenty of moderates who have this opinion too. In fact i know no one who actively supports Starmer (maybe one mate actually.)
Plenty of disillusioned people around.
"Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year"
What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?
You're proposing a hybrid of Windrush, HS2 and the COVID VIP fast lane all at once!
"You’re proposing a hybrid of Windrush, HS2 and the COVID VIP fast lane all at once!"
Apart from that, a brilliant plan!
What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?
And what continues to go wrong if you don't do it and plan it for 10 years but only if we have the "right growth and the public finances are good"
I said make 5 big issues better within a year - give me the money and I will do it. They may not be fully better but they will be noticeably better and the electorate will be the ones who notice allowing me to continue.
You lot don't sound like the sort of people I want on my team....
What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?
As opposed to the decades long doing nothing useful - playing lip service to the city, add value to nothing whilst stripping away anything that's good.
I mean wtf do you think the current monetarist system does - it uses unemployment as a backstop to inflation! FFS.
The very definition of exploitation and being used like pawns.
Got us nowhere.
There is a difference between a rush and getting on with things.
Stop protecting the status-quo. It's failed.
You lot don’t sound like the sort of people I want on my team….
As with most political discussions, this thread (and all the others on here) suffers from an enormous failure of imagination. Politics used to be about ideas and the problems they will solve. Now it seems it's only about the problems, and our inabilty to do anything about them. And we wonder why people show no interest or take the reactionary route towards populists.
It just appears to me we have a whole group of pretend progressives wedded to conservatism - but have got fed up with the current brand so would prefer Labour just makes the transformation and continuation policies.
This is what happens when you build your entire argument for politics about personality, and ignore the ideology because some prat dismissed having a plan as 'ideologically pure.'
Please stop drinking the Conservative kool-aid on the economy. You've just had several senior Labour politicians jump into bed with Thatcher (even adopt one of their exact fiscal rules) and you're still defending Labour!
It's totally bizarre.
ransosFree Member
I know some will dismiss it because of the author, but it’s worth reading this article:
Yep, good article, can’t disagree nor take issue with a single word he says, it highlights Starmers utter hypocrisy and shape shifting, then again he’s being gently coaxed by that odious Mandleson skulking around like a shit Voldemort.
"Politics used to be about ideas and the problems they will solve. Now it seems it’s only about the problems, and our inabilty to do anything about them"
Which is not what we have said, the claim was that things would be better within a year and we are pointing out that that is unlikely to be achievable. Two years you might see some progress.
I'm sorry you disapprove of some of us feeling that realistic timeframes are better to set expectations. But we're electing governments in the real world, not a fairy godmother in a mythical land far far away.
But we’re electing governments in the real world, not a fairy godmother in a mythical land far far away.
And governments (and oppositions) in the 'real world' tell us that all these problems can't be solved when we know they can. Apparently there's no money for the NHS or to solve homelessness. Yet only a couple of years ago there was plenty money for both. There's no money to invest in our industries and training/eduction, but there's loads of money to bail out failing banks and pension funds. There's no money to fix our crumbling infrastructure but plenty to send weapons to foreign countries which are then used to destroy infrastructure somewhere else. The real world is a nonsense*. Stop telling yourselves that it can't be changed.
*It's not even real because they can't even be honest about how it actually works and feed us bollocks about national credit cards and government 'debts'.
Hell yes brother, the national debt and budgets are all fake news, just print more money and spend, spend, spend, anyonw with even half a brain knows MMT is the saviour for the UK!
You ok argee?
@argee who did we borrow all that money from? Honest question, I have no idea.
"There is a difference between a rush and getting on with things."
How closely involved have you been with the construction of hospitals to think that you can knock one out in a year?
You can't "knock one out in a year" but I didn't say that is what I would do in a year. I can reduce waiting times in a year though by getting the staff required, increasing wages to retain staff. In the background the hospitals will be being built as required and better training plans, recruitment incentives etc,. will be happening.
I can do this because I am the government but I could also not do it and just use some BS excuses about public finances.
What do you think is the better outcome for the people of the country and as a byproduct the productivity of the country?
who did we borrow all that money from? Honest question, I have no idea.
Mostly from commercial banks in the form of BoE quantitative easing. But also others in the form of gilts.
A nice simple explanation from BBC
A bond is a promise to pay money in the future. Most require the borrower to make regular interest payments over the bond's lifetime.
UK government bonds - known as "gilts" - are normally considered very safe, with little risk the money will not be repaid.
Gilts are mainly bought by financial institutions in the UK and abroad, such as pension funds, investment funds, banks and insurance companies.
The Bank of England has also bought hundreds of billions of pounds' worth of government bonds in the past to support the economy, through a process called "quantitative easing".
I can reduce waiting times in a year though by getting the staff required
What a hopelessly naive comment. Where are these professionally trained and experienced practitioners coming from, we left the EU remember, are you poaching them from struggling countries in Africa? Perhaps you want to steal them from the private sector? News flash the private sector is already propping up the NHS as many people are forced to pay for treatment due to the state of the NHS. Plus it would haven to be a huge wage increase to get people back. Your statement lacks any credibility.
Enticing them back isn't a simple case of offering more money, people generally leave due to conditions, another long term problem. The NHS is borked due to terrible government interference, over demand, lack of social care, too high expectations from the public, awful use of resources and the victim culture amongst NHS workers. None of which are simple to sort and certainly not in a year. Money doesn't fix everything.
News flash the private sector is already propping up the NHS as many people are forced to pay for treatment due to the state of the NHS
Where do you think the private sector are getting their trained staff from?
Where are these professionally trained and experienced practitioners coming from, we left the EU remember, are you poaching them from struggling countries in Africa?
Clue, where are the people who are leaving going?
And why can't we employ people from the EU?
Money doesn’t fix everything.
It sort of does though. Those conditions and working culture you are referencing can all be fixed but need money to do so.
Because you left.
And even if you decide you want to hire them, and change the rules you'll need to pay as there's no job security for these people as the UK might change the rules again on a political whim
Long term visas. Next question.
The NHS has a multitude of issues, but blaming the private sector isn't going to get you far frankly. A good portion of the folks that work in the sector are also employed by the NHS, and it's [relative to the NHS] teeny anyway. There's a short term back log that mostly a legacy of COVID, a long term issue that lots of folks are living longer with lots of quite serious and chronic disease, and that we don't have a properly funded social care system to remove them from acute care once they find themselves there. and we've shed workers becasue apart from a few towards the top of the tree, it's shit money for doing an ever-increasingly complex and thankless task.
It's probably a decade or more of increased funding and prioritising that's going to cost billions and billions rather than: "Here's the ten things to do now"
Money doesn’t fix everything
Clearly lack of money causes carnage in the economy and society.
We have a huge problem where the majority of things that have failed in this country can be traced back to lack of government spending or at least material conditions of the public.
Without money and taxation, there is no way for the government to provision itself and give its currency value to purchase things it needs to run a country.
You also need pounds to pay your taxes so you absolutely need to earn money.
That's just the way things are set up.
The NHS has a multitude of issues, but blaming the private sector isn’t going to get you far frankly.
The private sector robs the NHS of labour and resources available to those that can't afford to pay.
End of story.
I wish people would understand the country can only get it resources and labour from the same pool. You put some of those in the private sector and you've just done something extremely regressive - you've made it harder for those without funds to access treatment.
(And they've probably used state resources to learn too.)
News flash the private sector is already propping up the NHS as many people are forced to pay for treatment due to the state of the NHS.
And based upon my OH's recent experiences the waiting times for private sector ops are now equivalent to what NHS ones were a decade or so ago - no more "see you in a day or two".
But I'm blaming those who've created this mess, not those putting forwards ideas/strategies to try and fix it.
The Guardian view on Labour’s economic plans: a response too small for the challenge the UK faces
Although this was Wednesday's Guardian editorial I have only just read it. It hits a lot of nails on the head (I'm not often much of a fan of comment pieces in the Guardian) so I thought it was worth linking. Especially as the Guardian has a long established history of being something of a moderate/centrist bible.
I particularly liked the last couple sentences of the editorial bearing in mind my claim a couple of days ago on this thread that the 1970s are used by Tories and Labour right-wingers to justify neoliberal policies, and that every decade since then has seen economic crisis.
The 1970s are a political device that can be used to frighten voters into accepting the neoliberal logic of “there is no alternative”. But a better balance between capitalism and democracy will need alternatives – and Ms Reeves ought to offer them.
The private sector robs the NHS of labour and resources available to those that can’t afford to pay.
Your occasional reminder that nearly every high street dentist, GP surgery, Optician who provides NHS care is in fact a privately owned 'for profit' business.
Actual Private healthcare i.e.; paid for services that isn't provided by the NHS, is a teeny sector.
News flash the private sector is already propping up the NHS as many people are forced to pay for treatment due to the state of the NHS.
It's taken away resources from the rest of us.
Same with private schools - they take labour that was available available to the state and allocate it to those with wealth.
The private sector props nothing up.
It's a drain when it comes to essential services.
Your occasional reminder that nearly every high street dentist, GP surgery, Optician who provides NHS care is in fact a privately owned ‘for profit’ business.
Yeah and it shouldn't be that way should it!
Look at the state of dentists!
You've answered your own question.
Actual Private healthcare i.e.; paid for services that isn’t provided by the NHS, is a teeny sector
Taking labour and resources from a limited pool for those who can't pay.
Although this was Wednesday’s Guardian editorial I have only just read it. It hits a lot of nails on the head (I’m not often much of a fan of comment pieces in the Guardian) so I thought it was worth linking. Especially as the Guardian has a long established history of being something of a moderate/centrist bible.
It's funny how Centrists came to the defence of Reeves - finding optimism and solutions buried deep in her speech.
Reality check: there is no detail in her speech that I can see that is even remotely aligned to progressive macro-economics.
The private sector props nothing up.
It’s a drain when it comes to essential services.
It's more nuanced than that. For example, I was able to take advantage of private healthcare to deal with a recent health issue, which managed to get appointments with two specialists and multiple scans within the space of a month.
On the NHS I'd have been waiting for a year or more, and would have lost my job, and at that point I'd still need the NHS to cover the cost of the diagnosis and treatment.
Not sure what the cost to the NHS is of, say, an MRI scan, but I remember thinking that it was actually quite good value for money when I saw the invoice after spending more than an hour in the thing.
Yeah and it shouldn’t be that way should it!
It works quite well as long as you fund it properly, and that's how the NHS has always worked.
Taking labour and resources from a limited pool for those who can’t pay.
Yes I don't disagree, but that part of the labour and resource pool is a teeny incidental part of the issue, not the major one. There are many many things to sort out before you get to the issue of the private care sector worker pool that only works in the private sector that is preventing the public sector getting to your granny's hip replacement.
Yeah but those specialists will have NHS jobs too. They take the private work to boost their salaries by another £100k or so. It does take from the NHS and increase inefficiency and unfairness.
But the idea you just dump money into a hugely complex health and care system that's been starved for years and with one bound you're free... It's so far beyond naive I struggle with where to start. How long would it take you to create a new post - sort the job description, place in the organisation, where they're going to sit, IT etc etc. And then recruit someone, do the pre employment checks etc etc, and then get them up to speed. And that's for one of the new HR people you'd need to start doing the deals to bring in all these new frontline staff, who'd clearly need the same.
Alternatively nah, just herd a crowd of docs in Delhi onto a ferry or something? Be reet...
Point is we simply don't need private healthcare. Don't need to go much further than that.
The term 'it's not pragmatic' is often thrust towards leftist solutions - but in this case it's entirely pragmatic if you want a healthy mobile population - to not have a private sector gaining traction!
It will just make things worse.
Factually - when you take limited resources available to the country and allocate them to a small section of society with wealth - then you've simply excluded the rest of us who haven't got the capital to pay for it.
It's just another example of the market working for a few. It's ludicrous and not pragmatic, and only appears to work because the people believe the government has limited funds to pay for healthcare.
Total fraudulent house of cards.
The point is even if you get all the private sector staff to return to the NHS is does sweet FA to increase treatment capacity in the UK, the pot still has the same number of doctors and nurses in it. Also if they all return to the NHS the NHS picks up their costs and all the other costs associated with the private care. The fact the current pot is unfairly distributed isn't right, but it's a separate issue.
The amount of naivety being displayed this morning is really underming a lot of the usual left wing arguments that if we throw a shit tonne of money at something it'll be alright. Underfunding is a problem but it's not the only one and probably not the biggest single issue. A bigger issue for the NHS is bed blocking and lack of social care. Whilst funding for social care is a major issue (people used to look after their own relatives in old age now expect the state to pick up the cost whilst pocketing their inheritance) we just don't have the number of people willing to go into the care sector available in this country. Increasing wages would undoubtedly help but being in caring role requires a specific skillset and attitude, one most people don't have.
Where are these professionally trained and experienced practitioners coming from, we left the EU remember
Ah yes the new centrist mantra. Nothing can be fixed unless we rejoin the EU, and everything that's wrong is because we left!
Things were going south long before Cameron started having nightmares about Farage. And you know, we still have the power to unilaterally allow EU workers to come here, so the argument doesn't stack up.
Also if they all return to the NHS the NHS picks up their costs and all the other costs associated with the private care. The fact the current pot is unfairly distributed isn’t right, but it’s a separate issue
There is no issue at all with the NHS paying for anything that is available - providing the government agrees.
And secondly you've not constructed an argument in support of private healthcare care.
For want of a better expression there are tonnes of things that do need money throwing at them - the Tories have made sure of that.
Again Centrists doing god's work for the Tories under the idea that we're all naive. The only thing that's naive is to believe the stupidity that is the private sector funding the state.
Point is we simply don’t need private healthcare. Don’t need to go much further than that.
It doesn't matter who provides the care, it's largely a red herring. The vast majority of German healthcare is privately owned insurance companies, the vast vast majority of folks are happy to use the NHS, and when it's funded properly it works just fine. The UK private healthcare sector is an insignificant proportion of the overall healthcare spend. The UK NHS healthcare budget was £233 billion last year, the private sector is worth approx £9 billion. It isn't the problem that needs resolving.
Before any reforms of the the private healthcare sector, put: Focus, funding, a proper social healthcare system, retention, resolving the looming public health crisis (obesity lifestyle illness etc etc),and put in place plans to deal with an increasingly elderly population, and look at health interventions properly ( i.e. regulate the food industry comprehensively). Look at the role regulators are playing, to incentive schemes with unintended consequences. All these will have a massively more impactful effect on the nations health than anything you might do to the private healthcare sector. It would literally be fiddling while Rome burns otherwise.
All v true. The private sector is an irritant though
"Long term visas."
Second class citizens? Why bother when you can go anywhere else in Europe and keep all your rights, and more importantly so can your family.
Why bother when you can go anywhere else in Europe and keep all your rights, and more importantly so can your family.
Money. It would be very easy for the UK govt to waive tax for specific sectors to incentivise people to come here.
The private sector is an irritant though
It depends what you mean by "the private sector" Every GP practice aims to make a profit (it's how the partners in the practice are paid after all) nearly 90% of the mental health beds that the NHS use are owned by the private sector, and both those elements are wholly in that £9 billion privately earned portion of the healthcare market. And while you could bring every GP practice into the public sector, how much would that cost to do? And what would achieve if your aim to improve the health outcomes of the population? Is that the place that you want to reform ahead of say; the food we eat? or the fact that we have more and more elderly folks that aren't being looked after properly. What's going to give you the biggest bang for your buck without just pissing off every single GP in the country?
A bigger issue for the NHS is bed blocking and lack of social care. Whilst funding for social care is a major issue (people used to look after their own relatives in old age now expect the state to pick up the cost whilst pocketing their inheritance) we just don’t have the number of people willing to go into the care sector available in this country. Increasing wages would undoubtedly help but being in caring role requires a specific skillset and attitude, one most people don’t have.
So you say throwing money at something is naive and then give an example where throwing money at it is exactly what is required and you have even said it yourself
"funding for social care is a major issue" and "Increasing wages would undoubtedly help"
How naive of you.
"It depends what you mean by “the private sector”"
(Don't seem to be able to quote any more)
I meant private medicine, consultants doing a couple of sessions a week on top of their NHS work in a private sector clinic to pay the school fees and the skiing somewhere nice etc. As one of my good riding friends does (not the school fees but some nice other stuff). This is the norm.
"So you say throwing money at something is naive and then give an example where throwing money at it is exactly what is required"
This started with the idea you can do it in a year. Of course more money is needed. But people changing jobs, training up, being recruited, forming new organisations etc takes time. You can give the system more money but it takes time to digest, as new labour found at a time when health budgets were doubled. It doesn't necessarily get spent at first where it needs to be spent (eg hosp sector growing many times faster than primary care, which is hugely more efficient - prevention, acting early - and where 90% of patient contacts happen.)
This is the norm.
But is it really a problem that needs an urgent resolution? One of my salaried GPs does weekend work on one of the many online GP services, it mostly seems to involve her writing 'scripts for Viagra. Another does medico-legal work for one of the indemnity unions . Neither of these effect their work within the NHS.
Urgent resolution? Nah. Very deep into "really not worth thinking about it" territory, though your GP example does make me worry it could be an increasingly hard and growing problem, and maybe we should stiffen our resolve. [Yes, I did come back to edit just to put that sentence in. Shoot me. Please.]
I guess my views were partly informed by John Yates' book "Private Eye, Nose and Throat" from over 20 years ago. A leading health services researchers based in Birmingham Uni, the only way he could get a handle on doctors' private sector activity was by hiring (ironically enough) private detectives to follow them and see when they nipped off to do a quick clinic. An unusual use of research funding but hey.
“I meant private medicine, consultants doing a couple of sessions a week on top of their NHS work in a private sector clinic to pay the school fees and the skiing somewhere nice etc. As one of my good riding friends does (not the school fees but some nice other stuff). This is the norm.”
This was a criticism of Nye Bevan at the inception of the NHS, so nothing new @johnx2:
‘he succumbed to the consultants, not wanting to fight against them, as well as the deeply suspicious GPs. Accordingly, the consultants had their fears of having to work for local authorities allayed; financially had their mouths ‘stuffed with gold’! David Kynaston - A World to Build (Austerity Britain 1945-48).
This started with the idea you can do it in a year.
Correct - loads of things can be done within a year with the money and motivation. Everything would clearly not be fixed within a year as many things take longer than that but that doesn't mean a lot of things cannot be noticeably improved within a year, which was my point.
My comment was provocative in response to the "it will take 10 years" to sort anything out.
Provooative would be one word. Daft would be another 🙂
What are we going to do? Kidnap them?
Nope, we need to attract them here to work which is the same before Brexit as it is afterwards. I was just questioning why someone thought leaving the EU had any bearing. Pay enough money, give them visas and other incentives and they will come and work here.
This is only to help through the immediate need while we put in place longer term training, incentives to get people into NHS, better rewards, better culture etc, etc,.
Provooative would be one word. Daft would be another
So you don't think a government could make noticeable improvements to areas most in need within a year given enough money and having the motivation?
do you honestly think that's what I said?
Provooative would be one word. Daft would be another 🙂
Let's not beging to start to turn things around because someone on the internet called things 'daft'.
I notice this all the time - especially with Reeves and Starmer - they lack substance and detail. Simply because no one appears to actually want to fix anything for fear of upsetting the current shit-show, and because there is no political will.
Just changing tack slightly.
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1770783028299595960?s=20
This breed of politician ...
I loved my old squelchy open bath Marzocchis!!
RCT3is were my plushest ever ride
"Money. It would be very easy for the UK govt to waive tax for specific sectors to incentivise people to come here."
What do you think would be the political and social consequences of hiring a large number of foreigners to live and work in the UK on temporary visas while paying zero tax? Do you think it would create a more cohesive, integrated and equitable society?
Do you think it would create a more cohesive, integrated and equitable society?
See that lack of imagination I was talking about up the thread? I think eliminating waiting lists, providing people with dentists and enabling them to see their GP would defuse the immigration problem by removing one of the issues the far right use to stoke hatred. As with anything in a market economy, if you have the money, you can buy solutions, and money is not a problem.
I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit. I think it's great that he's focusing on the important issues of the day, and not pandering to dickheads.
I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit. I think it’s great that he’s focusing on the important issues of the day, and not pandering to dickheads.
Unfortunately there's no way to win that game.
- Ignore it and he's unpatriotic and out of touch with the common man
- Talk about it and he's wasting time on unimportant things
He could of course have just said it is a representation of the England flag in a similar way the Union flag was represented in 2012 and was just a visual image on the back of a jersey and not the actual flag which would be on the front chest if anywhere so let's not get too excited about it as we have much more important things to deal with.
I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit
He's a fully signed up gooner eng-er-lan type, as evidenced by his wearing of a Stone Island top in an interview once. Any football hooligan will know that displaying 'the badge' is an overt sign of solidarity with that community so it's no surprise he's piled on the St George's flag debate at the first opportunity. He didn't jump on the bandwagon, he was already the driver.
"And the flag is used by everybody, it's unifying, it doesn't need to change. We just need to be proud of it. So I think they should just reconsider this and change it back. I'm not even sure they can properly explain why they thought they needed to change in the first place. They could also reduce the price of the shirts."
If that's outrage... then he's even dull and overly mild mannered when he's outraged.
Strip looks very traditional to me... you need to be close enough to kiss a player on the neck to see this small detail... really don't see why anyone would care in the slightest about it. The price of the replicas is bonkers though.
As for Starmer commenting on football... at least he's genuinely interested in the sport. Unlike so many other politicians who want to be seen to be associated with it. For me, it's just something else that adds to his ordinary boringness though. I'd rather he was into growing fruit and veg down the allotment.
https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1771217380145815831?t=UsgQnMmy_IuAO0Os0ZgxLw&s=19
Apart from the obvious point here can someone much more knowledgeable explain this to me because some expert on STW said Britain had nothing to do with arming Israel?
See that lack of imagination I was talking about up the thread
It's not imaginative to just "import" skilled foreigners (as if they were commodities) to fill gaps in the UK labour market and ignore the consequences. That's exactly what's been done since 1945 and what got us here. We need to solve the structural problems and move the people already here into higher value roles - not just ponce off foreign countries' education and public health services.
He’s a fully signed up gooner eng-er-lan type,
Loving the reinvention of Starmer as a casual that'll stamp on a 19 year old's legs outside a pub near Elland Rd after 15 Holsten Pils on the train up from Kings Cross. Makes a change from him being called the most boring, unambitious middle manager on the planet.
Apart from the obvious point here...
What is the obvious point? I am trying to figure out whether the threat to stop arms exports to Israel is likely to be primarily motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns, or whether it is an attempt by ministers to cover their arses, in the event of them being taken to court for arming a country which they know is committing war crimes with the supplied weapons .
Obviously the latter doesn't concern Starmer - he cannot be prosecuted for not calling on the UK government to stop arms export licences to Israel.
Apart from the obvious point here…
That the headline is making.
It’s not imaginative to just “import” skilled foreigners (as if they were commodities) to fill gaps in the UK labour market and ignore the consequences.
I never claimed it was imaginative, I also said it was a short term plan while the longer term plan (actually filling the gaps in the UK Labour Market with training, incentives, decent wages, new buildings, process changes etc,. where required). When the longer term plan is complete (n years) then the import of labour stops as the n years Visa are running out.
So would you wait 5-10 years before seeing any improvements or would you rather see something in a year?
(you don't need to answer that one)
@kerley it's not about what you want but rather what is realistic.
I work for a company many orders of magnitude smaller than the NHS, recruitment for a couple of positions can take 3 months and that's just from the ad going out. Then there's the basic training that can take up to a year just to be allowed to work on your own without mentorship. For the sort of drive you're talking about you're probably talking the guts of a year minimum just to plan for it never mind start the actual process.
It's not just nurses that's needed, it's admin staff (that would allow medical staff to actually do medical things), estate staff (if the NHS wasn't doing what it did it would have been shut down by the HSE years ago) and probably loads more folk behind the scenes.
I'd say you're not going to start seeing the benefits before 3-4 years as the organisation adapts and gets used to it's new norm. It's doable, it's noticeable within a term but a year is just completely unrealistic.
And I wouldn't be buggering about with anything else until the main body is sorted (or at least significantly improved), that's just asking for trouble. Second term goals.
"So would you wait 5-10 years before seeing any improvements or would you rather see something in a year?"
A hospital has a 30 year lifespan and they're unbelievably complicated buildings. In the dialysis unit near me, the wiring and gas piping for each bed had to be designed on a computer before any physical works could begin. This is going to shock you, but actually there are not many people in the world that have those design skills and they're busy as hell - and that's just one tiny element of designing and building a hospital.
You seem to be one of these "stuff and nonsense" types that thinks that all that is required is to have a gästarbeiter in a bulldozer pushing earth around begin work, and then everything else follows. This is the Boris Johnson approach that involves him getting photographed in a high viz vest and then buggering off. Actually, it's not the case that everyone else is slow and unimaginative, and that you're the visionary. It's that some of this stuff is very, very complicated and takes time.
There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses. I will leave it at that.
Let's not improve things because someone on the internet said it's going to be tough.
What hell kind of logic is this?
Do you understand how an economy expands. It uses residual labour and resources that could be directed away from less important private projects to more necessary infrastructure projects.
The only limitation are resources - granted.
As long as we're not at full employment then this can be done without crowding out the private sector. Of course there are hurdles.
Things are so far behind there needs to be a huge push in the right direction which will have a positive benefit anyway.
Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.
Pretty sure they want to improve things, but to be realistic on the timescales for achieving the aims.
I've known two things about government over time, first is if they try to do something fast it invariably costs a lot more, or if they try to 'streamline' the timescales without budgeting for it, they end up late and over budget, even though it arrives in a timescale that was originally planned, and the government department get a kicking, which tends to mean the hierarchy take it out on those who do the work, further demoralising them and making them leave.
There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses.
You sound like some the managers I've had over the years, we need to do something, anything now! Results lots of pissed off people, wasted resources and we're worse off than when we started. This is the Tory way, lots of noise and ignore the detail and nothing delivered.
Meanwhile those of us who actually understand how things work quietly get on with the job doing the boring hard miles and actually make positive sustainable improvements.