30,000 jobs could go in Labour’s radical overhaul of NHS
Loss of staff will be at least twice as big as thought, as new NHS England chief tells regional boards to cut costs by 50%
From what I have heard, this organisation was a bloated and cumbersome bureaucracy. It attempted to bring caregivers into the decision-making processes, but ignored the fact that doctors and nurses didn't want to sit in lots of meetings instead of caring for patients.
I listened to a phone in where a nurse with decades of experience mentioned meetings of up to 40 people, where only five or six attendees were needed. And that at one point she had eight levels of management above her.
This is such a misleading headline.
The Tories created NHS England in 2012, basically an independently ran management layer for the NHS. Labour is bringing it back under government control.
There was a lot of extra bureaucracy by adding this additional 'NHS England' layer, with a lot of nurses in particular hired to do it.
Yes, a lot of these people's administrative/management jobs will no longer be needed, but it's very likely a great deal of these people (who again are predominantly nurses) will be hired by the (government-ran) NHS.
I'm not surprised to see the Mail, Express, and Telegraph spin this news as Labour scrapping the NHS or mass sacking NHS workers, but I'm sad to see the Guardian doing the same.
Agreed, this has the potential to be a very good thing for the NHS
What makes you think the guardian are any better than the mail?
Not being openly fascist?
Yes progress often begins with sacking 30k employees
The NHS sorely needs admin jobs doing. I know because i fucking do it everyday.
Good admin saves the time of nurses and doctors to do clinical work. Its just as crucial as clinical work
Those suggesting this is sensible have just drunk the cool aid
You seem to believe that NHS England is the same as the NHS. It's not.
NHS England is a quango, created by the Tories, that added another layer of management to an already top-heavy organisation. Its goal was to detach the NHS further from the government in order to make it easier to privatise. By all objective accounts, NHS England has been a dead weight and an abject failure. It is not the only means available to administer the NHS, instead, it complicates administration due to a built-in bias in favour of privatisation.
Now, it may be that your admin job is essential, but not all of them are, by any means. Those that are will get relocated to the actual NHS, not the quango.
Why is everyone so anti progress?
Everyone is not 'anti-progress', unless the 'progress' you mean is the type we see Elon Musk engaging in in the US.
But wait, the combination of 'austerity' and privatisation both parties (red and blue Tory) have engaged in for decades now is exactly a slow-paced what Musk is speed-running in the US. And the UK gradually moves down the global affluence tables while the rich get richer because of it.
So I guess maybe that is why everyone is so anti 'progress'. You just forgot the necessary quotation marks around the work 'progress'.
I also thought the whole sacking of 30K government workers seemed a trumpian or muskian action, and its been obvious for a long time that private healthcare has been boosted and touted as a valid choice, while the NHS has festered and fallen apart - which was a political choice. Now productivity is effected and the red tories are going after the disabled rather than fixing the NHS so that the post covid populace might be healthy enough to work.
Party for the workers /s
The working class inherently benefits from a stronger NHS. I'm not sure if these changes are the right ones but at least they're trying something.
NHS England was put in by the Tories in 2012 to cripple the NHS. It should never have existed and it's misleading to label the removal of this superfluous body as an attack on the NHS. Labour should have been clearer in their messaging about what it is that they're getting rid of. This is more like excising a tumour than chopping off a limb.