Government mishandling of money

newnanny

The Tax Payers Alliance found the NHS employs 800 diversity and inclusion officers costing £40 million pounds each year. More money wasted on translating leaflets into many languages. Tax payers money should be spent on medical help for patients. Far too many managers get too high salaries rather than employing enough nurses. The NHS needs massive reform because ATM it's a massive money pit no one will tackle. Patients should buy their own food. There is no need for the NHS to provide food. Their food is awful anyway.

Agree with the majority of this - but gobsmacked at the thought of "patients should buy their own food". That is so obvious that of course they can't - if only because many haven't got family or the like nearby - or even family anywhere at all. Followed by - if they have got family nearby in the first place - it may well be that part of the reason for their illness is what they've been eating.

I could see a lot of patients having to phone to order a takeaway - and not getting given any help whatsoever in doing that and/or their not being any suitable takeaways nearby anyway. I'm not someone who gets takeaways more than once in a blue moon personally - but on my first night in the town I'm in after moving here and I thought I'd better phone for a takeaway = there was only a very limited choice and all looked awful and I picked the "least worst" as I was desperate - and then had to throw half of it away for being so awful. So - even if we could get past the obstacles and afford the food = a lot of places just don't have decent takeaways anyway. Now racking my brain to think of any places at all that do takeaway breakfasts and drinks for coffeebreak time and would deliver - errrrrm....this could take a while.....as they don't exist at all.

Their food is awful - but the answer to that is = it needs to get better/a lot better.

There IS no answer other than "Of course hospitals keep providing food - they've just got to improve it (a LOT)".

Allira

^Ir's great to know that someone else 'gets it'. It makes me feel less like a voice crying in the wilderness.^

No you're not.
Perhaps many are trying to assimilate it but yes, I do understand that the economy is not like a household budget, and that cutting state spending curtails growth.

It's never too late to learn, David1949

I’m fully in favour of state spending for real growth

I’m Not in favour of borrowing and spending for more social enhancement or giving benefits to those that don’t need them

I can't comment on exactly how the money was overspent BUT ( as an ex civil servant) I suggested ways to cut costs the reply from management was "it is not enough". I was brought up to believe that you look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. so our department overspent on stupid things that we could have bought much cheaper .
My husband worked in a children's home and fellow staff insisted on buying expensive brands rather than store brands.
Too many people working for any organisation never think of the money as their money - I do . As a taxpayer , I consider it my money
No doubt the hotels used expensive laundries rather that going to a launderette or buying a cheap washing machine
the same with foods

When I was on a longish. term ward, many patients did order takeaways. But it was only possible because of the physical situation of the ward, at the edge of the site, ground floor buildings, parking.

Some families brought food in they knew their rellies preferred and help the patient/encourage them to eat if they weren't.. Brought a little bit of "home" in. Certainly no "have to's!" And of course permission depending on the patients' condition.

eg guidance in one place (it just happens to be Harrogate)

"Many visitors like to bring food and drink for their loved ones when they come to visit. However, in order to ensure food safety, we recommend that you only bring:

Washed fresh fruit
Pre wrapped biscuits/sweets
Non-alcoholic bottled or canned drinks
Prepared food that can be eaten straight away (our infection prevention and control procedures mean that we are not able to store or refrigerate food that relatives bring in)
In certain cases, we may encourage friends and relatives to bring particular food items in to encourage patients with poor appetites to eat. If this is the case, we will contact you."

MaizieD

^From Maisies post “most NHS workers are on mid level wages”,^

Why are you arguing this, David? It was AI's conclusion not mine.

I think that you're just using this to ignore the purpose of the AI findings, which was to establish that NHS spending has a multiplier of about 3.

AI finds that median (midpoint) earnings in the NHS are £55.5k and that mean (average) earnings are £41,15k.

All AI has done is collate the majority of opinions which does not make it correct.

The majority of voters opinions elected Starmer and all the other governments for the last 25 yrs plus, their policies have got us into the mess we are now.

I hope AI in the future enables our polititians to make better decisions.

Wyllow3

When I was on a longish. term ward, many patients did order takeaways. But it was only possible because of the physical situation of the ward, at the edge of the site, ground floor buildings, parking.

Some families brought food in they knew their rellies preferred and help the patient/encourage them to eat if they weren't.. Brought a little bit of "home" in. Certainly no "have to's!" And of course permission depending on the patients' condition.

As you say - the position of the ward in question facilitated it. I'm thinking of the NHS hospital I'd go in if it came to it - ie back in my home city...as I now refuse to use any of the awful ones near me now. It's got huge long corridors...it's BIG. Can't see it working there for takeaways. Or a private hospital - which is in Swansea ......which I've only been to for a couple of demonstrations in the last few years. I don't really think ill people are going to want to have to work out "practicalities" about basics like being fed if they're ill. I expect a lot of people in our agegroup would rather not have to work out "practicalities" at the best of times (I know I certainly want life very "easy to live" at my age now).

Re relatives - lots of people don't have relatives. My own parents - as to be expected at my age - are dead. My brother and his family are elsewhere in the country/not very nice people and I told them all exactly what I'd always known at some level I'd have to when our parents died - ie I told them where to get off and there has been no contact since (the clue is in the words "his family"). He grabbed - and he got kicked out the door up the backside for doing so and I'm told there's a lot of people that found they've had to break it off with their siblings in our age group for similar reasons. Many of us are "on our own" even if siblings are still alive...

So - like a lot of people there would be no-one available to do the "helpful relative" role - not that my erstwhile brother would anyway in the best of circumstances. Not that he understands a thing about healthy eating anyway - his very bad health started 40 odd years back in his 20's (junk food/smoking/etc). My health is better than his in my 70's..

This is going to be the case with a lot of people.

It is the hospital's responsibility to feed people a healthy diet they will like - and just facilitate (ie putting no undue obstacles in the way) if there's someone prepared to bring them in takeaways - if they can find a suitable takeaway place (big IF in many areas).

The NHS has 1.4 million employees by far its biggest cost, that’s under 4% of the UK workforce.

If it was true that the NHS generates 3 times its cost in the economy it’s unbelievably efficient
UK GDP is £2.4 trillion,
NHS spending is £200 billion x 3 is
£600 bn which is 25 % of the entire UK economy.

It’s not true that 4% of the population generate 25% of UK GDP
If the workforce was average efficiency it would generate under 1% of GDP.

All AI has done is collate the majority of opinions which does not make it correct.

What a bad loser you are , David

I asked where its figures came from for NHS wages:

Answer:

here’s exactly where the wage figures I gave came from:

🏛️ Official Sources

NHS Employers (official pay band data)

Source: nhsemployers.org — Agenda for Change pay scales 2024/25 and 2025/26

These are the nationally negotiated pay rates for NHS staff in England (Bands 1–9).

They show the current and upcoming pay scales for all non-medical NHS staff (nurses, AHPs, admin, estates, etc.).

NHS Digital (now part of NHS England) – Staff Earnings Estimates

Source: digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-staff-earnings-estimates

This dataset gives the mean and median annual pay for NHS staff based on actual payroll data from NHS organisations.

The March 2025 report was the latest available, and it lists:

Mean annual basic pay (per FTE): £41,396

Mean annual earnings (per person): £42,299

UK Parliament – House of Commons Library briefing (CBP-9731, May 2024)

Source: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9731

This independent report analyses NHS pay using ONS and NHS Digital data.

It gives averages for doctors and nurses:

Doctors: ~£75,300 average basic pay (Sept 2023)

Nurses: ~£37,900 average basic pay (Mar 2023)

NHS England Annual Report & Accounts 2023/24

Source: england.nhs.uk/long-read/accountability-report-23-24

This includes the median remuneration across NHS England staff (£51,558 in 2023/24).

These are all opinions, are they?

David49

The NHS has 1.4 million employees by far its biggest cost, that’s under 4% of the UK workforce.

If it was true that the NHS generates 3 times its cost in the economy it’s unbelievably efficient
UK GDP is £2.4 trillion,
NHS spending is £200 billion x 3 is
£600 bn which is 25 % of the entire UK economy.

It’s not true that 4% of the population generate 25% of UK GDP
If the workforce was average efficiency it would generate under 1% of GDP.

AI again

GDP measures output, not the physical money supply

GDP counts the total value of goods and services produced in a given period.

It does not measure how much money changes hands or how much remains after taxation.

So even though tax reduces disposable income in each round, the value of what’s produced and sold (output) in each round still counts towards GDP before tax is taken out.

Example:
If a nurse earns £30,000 and pays £6,000 in taxes, the full £30,000 counts in GDP (as the value of the service provided), even though only £24,000 goes into her pocket.
→ The tax is just a redistribution of income, not a subtraction from total output.

Incidentally, David, Did you know that the GDP figure includes an element that assumes that every house owner pays themselves rent for their house and counts that as part of the over all annual value of economic activity.

“If a nurse earns £30,000 and pays £6,000 in taxes, the full £30,000 counts in GDP (as the value of the service provided), even though only £24,000 goes into her pocket.
→ The tax is just a redistribution of income, not a subtraction from total output.”

If a nurse earns £30k she / he does not contribute £90k to the economy each year, if that was true all of us would be doing exactly the same because there is nothing unique about NHS workers.
It is no justification for increased health spending

MaizieD

Incidentally, David, Did you know that the GDP figure includes an element that assumes that every house owner pays themselves rent for their house and counts that as part of the over all annual value of economic activity.

No I didn’t realize that an imputed rent of home was included in GDP in addition to the cost of construction of a house. It seems mortgages are included as consumption expenditure, together that inflates the GDP.

Because that value is not actually received and isn’t taxed much money to spend is reduced, which is probably one reason that UK borrowing is so sensitive

There is a certain arrogance in those over 50 when they look back and decide that everything that has been gained for them during their life time, has been down to them, and only them.

Prior to the war capitalism ruled. It didn't matter how hard you worked, the majority earned little more than it took to keep them fed, housed, and if they were lucky, buried at the end of it all. Prior to WWII, especially in Britain, renting was common across all social classes. Many middle and even some upper-middle class families rented private homes, especially in urban areas. Around 80-85% of the working class rented their homes. About 30-40% of middle-class households also rented. Renting was often through private landlords rather than municipal housing, which was less common before the expansion of council housing after WWII. It seems all the pictures we had of slums have disappeared from the minds of the "we did it ourselves" crew.

So pre WWII a large proportion of the population lived in substandard, overcrowded, privately rented housing. We hav been returning to this. The interwar period saw some council housing initiatives, but these were limited.

After the war the government launched a massive public housing program, known as council housing or municipal housing. The Housing Act of 1949 (also called the "Steel Act") aimed to provide affordable homes, with a target of constructing hundreds of thousands of new houses annually. The most iconic development was the construction of new towns (e.g., Stevenage, Harlow) to decongest cities.

By the 1960s, over 30% of the population lived in council housing, a dramatic increase from pre-war levels. The focus was on replacing slum housing, reducing overcrowding, and improving living standards.

Pre war education was less accessible, with significant disparities based on class and region. The 1918 Education Act had begun expanding compulsory schooling but gaps remained. Post war the Education Act of 1944 (also known as the Butler Act) significantly reformed education. It raised the school leaving age from 14 to 15 (later increased further), introduced free secondary education for all children, established a tripartite system: grammar schools, secondary moderns, and technical schools.

Post war the National Health Service (NHS) was established in 1948, providing free healthcare to all. The welfare state was expanded to include social security, unemployment benefits, and pension schemes. The aim was to reduce poverty, improve health, and promote social mobility.

All these gave the over 50s better opportunities yhan had been previously available.. All these areas have been slowly receeding since circa 1970. Sometimes this has been deliberate, sometimes accidental but those under 50 simply haven't had the same support or massive changes to their potential lives that those over 50 had.

David49

MaizieD

Incidentally, David, Did you know that the GDP figure includes an element that assumes that every house owner pays themselves rent for their house and counts that as part of the over all annual value of economic activity.

No I didn’t realize that an imputed rent of home was included in GDP in addition to the cost of construction of a house. It seems mortgages are included as consumption expenditure, together that inflates the GDP.

Because that value is not actually received and isn’t taxed much money to spend is reduced, which is probably one reason that UK borrowing is so sensitive

I never forget the comment made frequently by my Welsh economics lecturer when i was at university, I mention his origin because of the way his accent gave the words he used such resonance aand music.

What he said was: All these statistics, (GDP, GNP etc) are purely hypothetical and do not represent reality.

When I started working as a business economist I discovered hypothetical or not, these were all the national staistics we had and what mattered was not what the statistics contained but their changing relationship with each other.

There is a certain arrogance in those over 50 when they look back and decide that everything that has been gained for them during their life time, has been down to them, and only them.

We obviously mix with different people over 50 because I have never heard anyone over 50 talk like this, most are very aware of the advantages they had and help from the state that our grandchildren do not receive.

M0nica

*There is a certain arrogance in those over 50 when they look back and decide that everything that has been gained for them during their life time, has been down to them, and only them.*

We obviously mix with different people over 50 because I have never heard anyone over 50 talk like this, most are very aware of the advantages they had and help from the state that our grandchildren do not receive.

I can only say MOnica, that when ever I have suggested on this forum that our generation has probably been the luckiest generation ever in so many ways, I am met with a barrage of posts saying how difficult life was, how hard they had to work to pay for their housing etc and that the younger generation have life far easier.

Perhaps some posters' lives weren't that difficult so they have no idea what life was like for some of us over the years.

As far as I can tell, all but one of my children are better off than we were at their age.
I don't know what life will be like for our grandchildren but, certainly, they seem to have more opportinities now than when I was young.

Not everyone's lives follow the same parallels.

QED

MaizieD

QED

No, not QED at all.

Your life may have been comfortably middle-class with all the advantages that brought but it was certainly not the same for everyone.

M0nica

*There is a certain arrogance in those over 50 when they look back and decide that everything that has been gained for them during their life time, has been down to them, and only them.*

We obviously mix with different people over 50 because I have never heard anyone over 50 talk like this, most are very aware of the advantages they had and help from the state that our grandchildren do not receive.

It's often on here Monica. The "I've worked hard all my life" brigade, and the "if they didn't spend all their money on ..." commentators.

Allira

MaizieD

QED

No, not QED at all.

Your life may have been comfortably middle-class with all the advantages that brought but it was certainly not the same for everyone.

Are you really suggesting your life has had exactly the same and no more than, the opportunities your parents had Allira?

Have all the people you grew up with missed out on a National Health Service, extended free education, and the growth of council housing and home ownership. I wonder how you missed these things.

Irs really, really hard for many young people now to find a suitable job. Post covid, many suffered just at the wrong time.

In the 1970's you had the choice of jobs, whatever level of society you lived in. There were proper apprenticships.

We ARE the lucky generation - and grumble like mad.

I dont get it. Beyond me.

We could get on the housing ladder, council house and flat provision was adequate to a point, benefits were handed out without many queries in the 1970's. the NHS including M Health care was the best it had been. Dental care was free for all. We could find a dentist.

(My mum was able to stay on a mental `health ward until she was actually well enough to leave recovered after my fathers death).

Nurses had time to really care, Council provision for older people in homes was good.

My school was great. Free trips for Geography. Free music provision and instruments provided. Class sizes OK for the needs of the time.

We ARE the lucky generation.

frankly, entitled: and grumble like mad. Our children and grandchildren dont have the security in work and for care we had.

(It couldn't last - industry moved abroad, cutting jobs, ruining communities.. public utitlies and council homes sold off abroad by Thatcher.....)

People arriving from abroad from ex colonies took the jobs we would not do,

.....and we trashed them, and behaved as we don now in all kinds of racist ways.

And we still trash them, although we could not do without them, not for a moment. (Started with the Windrush generation...Some people greeted them with notices in windows "no blacks" and talked of Rivers of Blood to stir up old far right activists)

So we now take doctors from poor countries who need them for themselves without a thought, and take away subsistence farming for market driven mass food production whilst populations can't grow their own food

But we are quite happy for our Empire in the 1940's and 1950's the appalling choices of how to divide colonies - including Palestine - now manifest themselves in real rivers of blood in Africa and so now we cut aid...

I don't get it.

Beyond me.

If things went wrong, we were the generation that had the power in our hands to make different political choices

Stop moaning, get active.

It’s never easy when you are starting out, finding your first career, buying your first home, our generation had it much easier. Our expectations were far less and there were more opportunities at all levels, housing in particular was much cheaper, most stayed with parents until they saved a deposit.

We help our children where we can, but there are less decent opportunities, even if they have the deposit they struggle with repayments.

I don't think it is necessarily about having life easier but about having vastly different expectations which include eating out, foreign holidays etc.