This was the point Marr was making fin, ill show it as a bus ride in labours world to privatise all you think of is the ticket price, not the cost of the bus, the storage of the bus, the private companies who maintain the bus, the pensions, sickness, training of the private companies staff of the bus maintenance company, the offices and buildings of work of the bus company for labour, none of that cost exists because it's all about the ticket and nothing else
if you did, I have to ask why you lied on the previous post but perhaps you can answer the question McDonnell didn't. If you let the contract fall but the need is still there, how do you go about replacing what the private company has been doing, at no extra cost to the nhs or the tax payer?
in your mind noob you forget about or ignore the wage/cost of services payed to staff including management and procurement includes tax. tax that can be avoided by private companies.
No I don't fin, look at what I am asking. day one after the contract has lapsed and labours "we control everything", how will you manage to cope with that loss of capacity, from day 1, you don't have that building, you don't have that equipment and you have staff with no building or equipment to work in how does that work?
whose bid fin? I think you are trying to divert away again so I'll clarify again day one after the contract has lapsed and labours "we control everything", how will Labour manage to cope with that loss of capacity, from day 1, you don't have that building, you don't have that equipment and you have staff with no building or equipment to work in how does that work?
I watched Mcdonnell too. His answers tbh were fair. He didnt dodge, unlike typical Tory responses. Got to wonder if some people cannot grasp the inflated costs that the NHS is paying due to outsourcing. Some folks are getting rich on the back of the NHS. Fact. Savings can be made. Also a fact. Sometimes initial investment is required to make savings in the longer term. Having been involved in several businesses I can see the logic. Along the lines of, make your own (insert product or service) instead of buying in..if you have enough demand (which obviously the NHS has) then savings should/can be expected. The proposals really are not rocket science or fantasy.
the capacity is already there, the building the tax payer funded, the staff the tax payer funded. and the management team will still be there looking for work. only the share holder and members of the board will be looking for another job.
Do you know then jb how labour replace the capacity they have by shutting down the private assistance, their buildings and equipment at no cost?
You're still buying just the ticket fin, not the bus or the buildings to operate in or the garage equipment to keep things running Labour have said, at no extra cost, they can bring everything in house
no, i dont think so. but if it makes it easier. its not possible, everything is beyond the whit of man bar delivering Brexit for the good of everybody.
wow, difficult question..would they have to employ to the NHS? Hence taking more control, giving people proper work contracts. Then not having the extra overheads and profit being paid to shareholders and investment companies when outsourcing. Perhaps while at it, Labour could invest in training nurses in the UK. That would help reduce immigration.
This is how it goes, due to capacity, the nhs farms out some minor surgeries to private companies for the same costs as the nhs. In my own area, there is a private hospital that does nhs and bupa, I suspect most are like this. Now if labour says that's it, no more work for you from the nhs, the workload still exists but the nhs does not have the buildings or equipment capacity to deal with that workload. In order for them to replace the buildings and equipment they have just lost from the private company, they will have to build a new building and buy new equipment but labour says this will not cost a penny, not a single penny How do they bring extra capacity into the nhs, increase buildings and equipment to full fill the workload that still exists and it not cost a single extra penny?
I can give an analogy, to help you understand. A home improvement company I was involved with bought their windows and doors from a manufacturer, ready made. When said company reached a certain size, the directors realised that by investing in machinery, extra space and extra staff. They could make the windows and doors at a substantial saving. Other benefits were control of deliveries, control of quality and choice of materials used. At first the investment cost money. Obvious really. Within one year machinery costs were covered. After one year profits were up and investment showed a return. It is not difficult to transpose this idea across.
I agree with you but you missed one key point, the firm invested in new buildings and new equipment for the extra workload By labour excluding what is currently done by private companies at the end of the contract, labour are saying they will be able to bring that in house. Why is it a company knows it needs investment to increase capacity, but labour says it will not cost an extra penny and can do an increased workload with less buildings and less equipment without a single extra penny? Do they think the private provider will give the buildings and equipment to the nhs for free or will they find companies to build those needed buildings and give the equipment needed for free?
Noobie, You Are Hard Work Initial investment, returns/savings later. This is how business works. In long term savings are made. It will save, not cost.
So you agree with me then that "initial investment" is needed which labour have said it will not be needed
