the snap general election thread

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

..I would be surprised if they do not buy stationery from a centralised catalogue. They are no doubt being helped by Sopra Steria's business acumen.

From my recollection, there is a whacking great big NHS supply chain catalogue that's got everything on it. Now I'm talking about the 90s here, and maybe things have changed, but some of the pricing was ridiculous. As in, you would be better off popping round to the nearest WH Smith. The trust I worked for was a bit more on the ball, and had it's own local deal for stationery. They bought a lot of Bic Cristal pens.

cogito

Possibly the biggest problem is the ball and chain of PFI that Brown and Blair thought was such a great idea. Try to get a new washbasin fitted and the only place you can go is the finance provider. That will be £2500, thank you very much, and £500 a year to maintain it. It's criminal.

sevenhills

cogito wrote: »

Possibly the biggest problem is the ball and chain of PFI that Brown and Blair thought was such a great idea. Try to get a new washbasin fitted and the only place you can go is the finance provider. That will be £2500, thank you very much, and £500 a year to maintain it. It's criminal.

PFIs were developed by the Conservative Party in the early 1990s but since both Labour and Conservative governments have signed up to the deals.
Yet despite the growing concerns over the burden of keeping up with the annual charges, the past year(2015/16) has seen PFI deals finalised, or nearing completion, for assets worth more than £1.5bn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pfi-deals-will-cost-taxpayers-209bn-over-next-35-years-a6966986.html

sevenhills

antrobus wrote: »

We are not reducing our spending on the NHS.

Health expenditure (medical services, health research, central and other health services) per capita in England has risen from £1,868 in 2010/11 to £2,057 in 2014/15.

NHS chief Simon Stevens earlier this month that “in 2018-19, real-terms NHS spending per person in England is going to go down”. At least that is what is planned, lets see what is in the different parties manifestos.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

From my recollection, there is a whacking great big NHS supply chain catalogue that's got everything on it. Now I'm talking about the 90s here, and maybe things have changed, but some of the pricing was ridiculous. As in, you would be better off popping round to the nearest WH Smith. The trust I worked for was a bit more on the ball, and had it's own local deal for stationery. They bought a lot of Bic Cristal pens.

I suspect things have moved on in the past 20 years. Agree a catalogue is only helpful if the contents are priced in accordance with your organisation's muscle for bulk buying. But I think I read that these shared services organisations were established to negotiate such contracts.

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (+1)
LAB: 32% (+2)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-2)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 09 - 12 May)


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 48% (-2)
LAB: 30% (+5)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
UKIP: 5% (-2)
GRN: 3% (-)

(via @ComRes)


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 49% (+3)
LAB: 31% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
UKIP: 3% (-2)

(via @YouGov)

westernpromise

I would be punching the air if Corbyn got 32%. It would mean he kept his job...Con gain!

antrobus

Everyone's favourite Belizean banker and part time pollster has just launched the Ashcroft Model. Apparently

The Ashcroft Model currently estimates that the Tories are ahead in between 406 and 415 constituencies, depending on whether turnout matches that of the 2015 election, the 2016 referendum, or voters’ own declared likelihood to turn up on 8 June. This implies an overall Conservative majority of between 162 and 180 seats in the House of Commons – but don’t forget, we are talking about probabilities not predictions: within those figures, 39 seats are categorised as “too close to call” and a further 63 are only “leaning” towards rather than “likely” for one party.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/

Electoral Calculus have updated their prediction;

Conservative majority 170

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

PFIs were developed by the Conservative Party in the early 1990s but since both Labour and Conservative governments have signed up to the deals.
Yet despite the growing concerns over the burden of keeping up with the annual charges, the past year(2015/16) has seen PFI deals finalised, or nearing completion, for assets worth more than £1.5bn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pfi-deals-will-cost-taxpayers-209bn-over-next-35-years-a6966986.html

PFI was invented by the Major government, and did a few deals in the 1990s. Naturally, the Labour Party pronounced them to be a very bad thing. Of course, as soon as Labour got back into government, the use of PFI exploded. Naturally, the Conservative Party pronounced this to be a very bad thing. Of course, as soon as the Cons got back into government, what they did was carry on with PFI. (I think it was rebranded as 'new PFI' or something like that.)

PFI is basically leasing. It's attractive to governments because it's a way of borrowing money without increasing the national debt.:)

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

NHS chief Simon Stevens earlier this month that “in 2018-19, real-terms NHS spending per person in England is going to go down”. At least that is what is planned, lets see what is in the different parties manifestos.

That NHS confederation source I cited, seems to claim otherwise.

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs