We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant
Comments
-
moggylover wrote: »I would agree to some extent, but there are people who go into nursing to NURSE, not to be a manager! Personally I would see dedication to hands on nursing rather than paper-pushing to be something to applaud not criticise with comments regarding competence or ambition.
Of course. I fully applaud those who go in to nursing to be a good nurse. The pay band for them is £20 - £26k as discussed. And if you want to do that for 20 years, be a great nurse, take care of patients and not do anything else then you have my respect and admiration. We need these types of people.
Apologies for sounding patronising, but you've then assumed that anyone who goes 'above' this level becomes a "paper pusher". Being a good senior nurse, ward manager, matron or specialist nurse is no more about pushing paper than being a nurse is about 'pushing paper'. People who do advanced nursing roles roles will enhance the experience for the patient and be a leader for nurses who don't want to lead. Is there more paperwork to do? Maybe. Doesn't mean it's a beauractic role though. These people will be assessing which patient interventions work, what nursing techniques work best, which nurses work best with which patients, how wards could be changed to work better, how nurses could work better with other medical staff... I could go on. Obviously the better you are at this kinda stuff, the more you tend to be paid.0 -
So. Some lazy wet behind the years new starter can get 20k. And someone who is excellent at the job, hard working, experienced can get 6k more. This is my problem with scales. They do not allow sufficient leeway for expertise and accomplishment. There are people who are twice as productive, easily, than the next person. But paid twice as much? No.The pay band for them is £20 - £26k...
Where's the incentive? Or to put it another way, where's the punishment for being basically useless.0 -
Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »A parish midwife of 20 years experience may well be worth as much as a 29 year old ward manager- they have just chosen to focus on one area of care and are not interested in people management.
That's an interesting perspective. I guess it depends on whether you think someone who does the same job for 20 years becomes better at this role every single year. I don't have an answer to that of course, but my opinion would be that most people reach a level of competence in a job after probably 4 or 5 years and simply become very good at what they do. At this point if you aren't taking on more responsibility, or learning new things that are needed for your role, then a yearly inflation-linked payrise is probably sufficient.Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »Nursing is a vocational profession; people enter it for reasons other than money and power.
Maybe for some, but that's probably a bit of a cliched, old-fashioned statement if you don't mind me saying. Many nurse come in to the profession now because they want to do things as well as nurse: become specialised in an area, work with doctors to learn new skills, maybe become an expert in bed management or the patient flow. Some may be people that other nurses warm to and enjoy working with, so they become nurse managers.
As I said in a post above, some nurses want to come in, care for patients in a brilliant way, then go home. And thank god they do. But there is a payscale for this nurse of £20k to £26k and you know that when you enter in to the profession.
Most nurses want a career path now. Like most of us, this isn't just for the money. It's for job satisfaction, learning new skills, doing different things, specialising in areas where you excel.
A mix of both types of nurse is what we need and, thankfully, probably what we've got.0 -
I'll ask 'er indoors she was a staff nurse, but now works the odd bank shift mainly on sundays to keep her rcn membership. As you can gauge from the article response from several nurses they appear to suggest the figure to be somewhat inaccurate compared to the reality. Either that or er' indoors is a lying mare.
Having spent a good few years working on wards with nurses to look at payscales, staffing patterns, staff development etc. I can state that the figures in the article looked bang on for qualified nurses.0 -
So. Some lazy wet behind the years new starter can get 20k. And someone who is excellent at the job, hard working, experienced can get 6k more. This is my problem with scales.
No. There is a gateway at the first point of the scale that allows you to block further progress if they aren't any good and actually sack them if they are not performing to the level you require. And actually, you can stop progress up the scale at any point for the same reason (but the first gateway is normally the big one that is used).
Of course, crap managers may just put everyone through, which I'm sure happens.They do not allow sufficient leeway for expertise and accomplishment. There are people who are twice as productive, easily, than the next person. But paid twice as much? No.
Where's the incentive? Or to put it another way, where's the punishment for being basically useless.
As above. If you're useless you don't go up the payscale, you stay where you are. Or get sacked in extreme circumstances.
Again as above, this probably isn't put in to practice at every hospital. It was at the last one I worked at though.0 -
Johann Hari: Britain's not bust. So don't use it as an excuse to impose cuts
We thought the fever of this autumn was going to be swine flu, but we were wrong. It has turned out to be National Debt Hysteria. Our entire political class has taken to their beds with this fever, crying for nurse to bring cuts, cuts, cuts. The symptoms are simple: the sufferer becomes convinced that debt levels lower than almost all other wealthy nations, and lower than almost all of modern British history, are "a disaster", and so we must immediately slash our spending. They keep up this wail even though the most qualified doctors, like the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Economics, Professor Paul Krugman, stand by their beds and tell them this will bring our real sickness, the recession, back with a vengeance.
The hysteria will reach a Cameroonian crescendo today when the Tory leader delivers his party conference speech promising Austerity For All. (Except for millionaires like himself, of course, who will receive a massive inheritance tax cut.) So let's calmly study the patient – and see how this National Debt Hysteria is going to do us far more harm that the real national debt ever could.
Let's start with a few facts that have been forgotten. Britain went into this recession with one of the lowest debt levels in the developed world. According to the International Monetary Fund, Japan's debt in 2008 was 198 per cent of national GDP, Italy's was 104 per cent, Germany's was 76 per cent, France's was 65 per cent, the US's was 61 per cent, and Britain's was 43 per cent. All countries have rapidly increased borrowing during this recession – for very good reasons we'll get to in a second – and Britain has nudged closer to the middle of the league table. But to claim, as Cameron does, that Gordon Brown had "racked up debts in the good times" so we "can't afford more" is simply untrue.
IndyCameron and George Osborne say that a national debt at 75 per cent of GDP makes a country "bust." Using this measure, the most successful economies in the world are bankrupt, and have been for a long time. Japan has apparently been trebly "bust" since the 1970s, yet it has just elected a government committed to higher public spending. The US, Germany – "bust" and "bust", yet spending more.Oh, and Britain has been "bust" for almost its entire history since the 1750s if Cameron's standard is right. There have only been two 40-year periods when we had a debt that dipped below Cameron's supposed catastrophe-level: the end of the 19th century, and from the 1970s to now. As the economist Will Hutton puts it: "From 1750 to 1870, Britain won wars, assembled an astonishing navy, built an empire and launched the Industrial Revolution to become the envy of Europe, yet the national debt was consistently above 80 per cent of GDP. Nobody cared. High national debt was a precondition for winning two world wars in the 20th century. Periods when the over-riding preoccupation has been lowering the national debt have coincided with industrial, economic and strategic decline. So it will again."
So is the world – and Britain's history – bankrupt, or is Cameron's reasoning?
They're going to do "a Thatcher" to us all over again. And Britons are sleep walking into it.
and
this is the worst bitCameron and Osborne would repeat this mistake. When I read their statements to Krugman – the Nobel Prize-winning expert on depressions – he said he was "shocked." I asked if this approach would make the recession worse, and he said: "Yes. For sure." Professor David Blanchflower, until recently on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, warns that Osborne's cuts could well send unemployment soaring to five million.If you keep doing what you've always done - you will keep getting what you've always got.0 -
Johann Hari: Britain's not bust. So don't use it as an excuse to impose cuts
Indy
They're going to do "a Thatcher" to us all over again. And Britons are sleep walking into it.
and this is the worst bit
Our National Debt is forecast to go up to 75%+ by 2013/4 and that's before the smoke & mirrors off balance sheet stuff like PFI is taken into account which will add another 25%.
Quite a big increase over the last 10 years for our kids to eventually pay for.0 -
I would want the one who was most competent at surgery, kept up to date with their training and personal development and was the best overall at their job. I don't know which one that is from your question.
Friend of mine is a GP and it's shocking some of the stories he's told me about older GP's that haven't studied for many years.
New doctors are considerably more knowledgeable, but that said, less experienced.0 -
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat, 1848.0
). This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards