IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Beelzebub3]

58 minutes ago, Banker said:

They have to spend a lot of their time reviewing every little contract the local authorities & departments issue as that’s the process these days as everyone wants to cover their arse!!

Like the lot of time spent Liverpool terminal /Douglas promenade works yes clearly due diligence was carried out in both case's 🫤

[Two-lane]

10 hours ago, Banker said:

we do need a cap on nonessential civil servants 

Was MARS effective?

[Non-Believer]

4 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Was MARS effective?

It was very effective at allowing a lot of people to cheerily push wheelbarrows off into the sunset before their due time.

Their govt numbers have also now been replenished two or three fold.

[Banker]

6 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It was very effective at allowing a lot of people to cheerily push wheelbarrows off into the sunset before their due time.

Their govt numbers have also now been replenished two or three fold.

It’s a maximum of 1 years salary, pension benefits don’t change ie if you take early you get reductions. The process is that job is not replaced & pay off must be recovered in 5 years so in theory it should work 

[Roger Mexico]

30 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

The NHS in its current format is not fit for purpose, society has changed drastically from when the NHS was set up. What the answer is I don't know but something needs to change

And that's how we ended up with Manx Care.  People have been trying to 'reform' the NHS for decades, because like you they believe it's "not fit for purpose".  But they never specify how the basic system is wrong and they're usually just repeating the conventional wisdom that they read in the papers.

So 'reforms' are carried out without people really knowing what they want and we end up with poorer services that cost more.  But these reforms always require a lot more managers and bureaucracy, so someone will be happy.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

10 hours ago, Omobono said:

Dont forget Hooper sanctioned the appeal  and if he had done his home work he would have quickly realised all the woman wanted was an apology and here job back , but no  die in a ditch before admitting they were wrong ! ,  after all the taxpayer mugs are picking up the bill for this ,

I understood it was sanctioned by a civil servant in the DHSC using Callister's ministerial delegation. So not under Hooper.

[Non-Believer]

17 minutes ago, Banker said:

It’s a maximum of 1 years salary, pension benefits don’t change ie if you take early you get reductions. The process is that job is not replaced & pay off must be recovered in 5 years so in theory it should work 

The theory is unfortunately both flawed and abused. I know of people who received huge sums to go, well over £120k. And that job may well not be replaced but new "replacements" are created. Even if it's a minor change in Job Description it is enough to satisfy the requirements. Or the ex employee can be re-employed on the "external consultancy" basis, there are any number of cases of that. Our politicians quite simply have no control over the situation and some have expressed their concerns over this already

 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And that's how we ended up with Manx Care.  People have been trying to 'reform' the NHS for decades, because like you they believe it's "not fit for purpose".  But they never specify how the basic system is wrong and they're usually just repeating the conventional wisdom that they read in the papers.

So 'reforms' are carried out without people really knowing what they want and we end up with poorer services that cost more.  But these reforms always require a lot more managers and bureaucracy, so someone will be happy.

The system is probably right in that treatment being free at point of access, funded by taxes is right.  What may be where reform is needed is the actual services that are delivered and the expectation of what can be delivered.  

Medical science continually improves and adds to treatment and cures adding to cost, and there is the expectation that most things are curable or at least capable of being ameliorated.   This is a high cost.   Not sure how you correlate that into reform.  But at its simpler level, when medicine was pretty basic, the costs of the health service would be comparatively low.  Of course, that meant that many people would not be cured or have their lives improved by treatment.   That is the dilemma of a state funded health service. 

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I understood it was sanctioned by a civil servant in the DHSC using Callister's ministerial delegation. So not under Hooper.

But I think Hooper did say that he would have backed it, so 'sanctioned' would have still been correct.  And he was Minister when the appeal period started, so he should have been involved, even though he claims he wasn't.

Of course it turned out that Callister had never signed a ministerial delegation at the time (because even getting the simplest, most routine paperwork right is something that these expert bureaucrats can't manage), so the whole thing was illegal anyway.  But that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

[GD4ELI]

2 hours ago, thommo2010 said:

The NHS in its current format is not fit for purpose, society has changed drastically from when the NHS was set up. What the answer is I don't know but something needs to change

It is fit for purpose, we just need to contribute more. Low tax and a good health-care system are mutually exclusive.

[Banker]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

The theory is unfortunately both flawed and abused. I know of people who received huge sums to go, well over £120k. And that job may well not be replaced but new "replacements" are created. Even if it's a minor change in Job Description it is enough to satisfy the requirements. Or the ex employee can be re-employed on the "external consultancy" basis, there are any number of cases of that. Our politicians quite simply have no control over the situation and some have expressed their concerns over this already

 

Alf has been challenged on this a few times but has said he sees no reason to reduce/revisit numbers again!!! With the public sector be offered a 5.5% pay rise which they’ve turned down these figures are going to get worse!, if you factor in say an extra 2% for extra pension, NI costs it will in increase annual pay/pension costs even more 

 

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

Alf has been challenged on this a few times but has said he sees no reason to reduce/revisit numbers again!!! With the public sector be offered a 5.5% pay rise which they’ve turned down these figures are going to get worse!, if you factor in say an extra 2% for extra pension, NI costs it will in increase annual pay/pension costs even more 

Alf has been neutered, he came into office with no fear and promises of a new brush.

One of his first moves was to sack Black which was universally applauded (although naturally Black did all right out of it too with a huge payoff, no publicity over his actual failings (yet), further employment (BV) and one or two other sweeteners if rumour is to be believed). Then he was supposedly behind giving Greenhow his marching orders.

Since then, nothing. Apart from giving assurance that all is fine and in control despite repeated concerns from other MHKs, everybody else and facts and figures about out of control numbers.

Somebody now has Alf on a string in my opinion, probably after reading him the riot act.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Somebody now has Alf on a string in my opinion, probably after reading him the riot act.

Presumably Caldric Randall, who had Alf on his string for the five years he was Treasury Minister and Randall was in charge there.  It became clear fairly quickly that Greenhow's sacking, no matter how well-deserved, was mainly because Randall fancied the top job, and indeed has been manoeuvring since to increase its powers and no doubt salary.

I suspect this is the reason for the kerfuffle with the Callin Wild letter which was on behalf of  Randall among others.  If it turns out he was also responsible for the sort of behaviour that resulted in Greenhow going, becoming his official replacement might be more difficult.

[Non-Believer]

28 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Presumably Caldric Randall, who had Alf on his string for the five years he was Treasury Minister and Randall was in charge there.  It became clear fairly quickly that Greenhow's sacking, no matter how well-deserved, was mainly because Randall fancied the top job, and indeed has been manoeuvring since to increase its powers and no doubt salary.

I suspect this is the reason for the kerfuffle with the Callin Wild letter which was on behalf of  Randall among others.  If it turns out he was also responsible for the sort of behaviour that resulted in Greenhow going, becoming his official replacement might be more difficult.

It occurred to me that Alf might have been "advised" that any more culling of the CS brotherhood might have been bad for morale and send out the wrong messages etc, take whatever veiled threats you can read out of that, particularly if it happened to be "backed" by the UK who Randall must be in regular contact with.

A few months back, I posted of a "morale-boosting" video release to the Island's PS following the Ranson revelations, that I had heard about. Well, I've since had a chance to see some (not all of it) and it's remarkable.

I can't upload it on here unfortunately but it commences with a brief Tynwald lectern address from AC then cuts to a polo-shirted Randall in Grandstand pit lane who proceeds to deliver the gospel to his flock. Some of the crawling, grovelling and dismissal of facts in the name of absolving the PS for responsibility for anything at all is quite remarkable. Assurances that things will improve and that there should be no loss of confidence or guilt to be felt amongst his underlings. Bordering on vomit-inducing and certainly an insight IMHO.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Non-Believer
Fat fingers

[Gizo]

On 9/15/2023 at 11:51 PM, MickyL said:

If there is a significant increase in COVID would it not be advisable to provide the tests for free again as £11 for a box would be difficult to find if you are only just financially making ends meet. Otherwise people can’t afford the tests and therefore it will spread until it negatively effects the people working in positions within the Islands infestructure

You can have mine. Tenner a box.