We Are Saved!
The Tuberous Brain has decided to solve the NHS crisis for us.
How £30 billio0n of additional health funding might be raised
….
All other rights are reserved and the permission of the copyright holders
must be obtained for nay use but those noted.
Written in something of a hurry no doubt and without proof reading.
Sure, I err there too but not so much in published reports.
The actual mistake he makes is right at the beginning of the thought – Ha! – process.
which should then grow by at least 4% a year in real terms.
No, what we want to know is why does the NHS have such an appalling productivity record? 4% in real terms forever ends up with more than 100% of GDP when the economy does not grow at 4% in real terms.
So, the actual question we want to answer is “How do we increase NHS productivity?”
Sigh.
It is comforting to know that all of the world’s problems can be solved by some fat guy bashing away on a computer in Ely.
I was thinking it was going to be more involved than that.
Some chip in his head has been fried and has malfunctioned (again)!
Maybe he’s trying to speak scots? isnae that the prime market for this kind of thing?
Essentially the “report” is just regurgitating all his tax raising brainwaves but spending them on the NHS (I forget what he was spending them on last week). All your favourites are here – money spent on the nhs staff pays for itself through the income tax paid by the staff, tax the wealthy, end tax abuse and not forgetting – PRINT it.
A Murphy greatest hits
Measure customer satisfaction? Measure actual results. Fund patients with chronic conditions to seek private help for those ailments where the NHS will cheerfully drug you for the rest of your life rather than use any initiative? Oh, and of course get rid of excess management and faddish jobs.
The NHS has many problems. Does anyone seriously believe the solution is to pour in more money? If they do believe that can the NHS cure them?
What Boddicker said – it’s another cut and paste job.
His blog refers to a grant from the Polden Puckham charitable trust to Finance for the Future, the sham LLP that Ritchie and Colin Hines use to get funding from charitable trusts that don’t fund individuals, but Hines name is not mentioned in the report, so I suspect Ritchie will use this to get a bigger slice of that grant.
Boddicker nails it
There’s nothing there we haven’t seen a dozen times before- like the ‘Fair Tax Mark’ and ‘Sustainable Cost Accounting’ I think the impact of this report is likely to be ephemeral. It does show how desperately short of funding the Daily Mirror is if they are turning to him as an expert
@ Sam Jones “Finance for the Future, the sham LLP that Ritchie and Colin Hines use to get funding from charitable trusts that don’t fund individuals”
For those that don’t know the background, the LLP was (as Murphy said on his blog) formed in 2007.
He didn’t mention that it was dormant from March 2012 to 2020. Charitable trusts generally don’t give grants to individual so when Colin Hines needed some money, the LLP hastily sprung back into life and applied for a grant from the Polden Puckham charitable trust. Of the £15k initial grant, £14,700 was paid to Hines ‘to undertake the work required to meet the conditions of the grant’ whateverthefuck that means.
A cynic might conclude that Hines needed some money, couldn’t get it as an individual so Murphy resurrected this dusty LLP, got the grant and Hines got his money.
Since then they’ve been screwing money out of the trust to “promote the New Green Deal” and have apparently got £70k a year for 2022 and the following two years as the Trust decided to wind its affairs up and spew all its money out to whoever wanted it in one go. (hey, it wasn’t the Trustees money so I guess they didn’t care).
I don’t know if anyone feels “promotion of the New Green Deal” has been advanced or will be advanced such that £70k a year represents value for money for the Trust but Murphy’s bank balance will benefit as he now gets 55% of the LLP ‘profits’ (which is pretty near all the grant as its only costs seem to be ‘services’ supplied to the LLP by…er…Hines and Tax Research UK LLP) . Maybe to start with it was just a favour to Hines but when the grant increased Murphy wanted his cut.
Another cynic might conclude that Hines and Murphy will carry on doing the same old shit they would have done anyway but they’re richer now.
Is that Margaret Thatcher calling asking for her fiscal constraints back?
Incidentally, don’t you think Spud would have something to say about Zahawi’s tax travails?
No? Not a peep, Ritchie? Cat got your tongue?
Or are you spitting with jealousy that other, better tax experts got there first?
@aaa, Spot on. Zahawi was exposed by Dan Neidle, a Labour supporter, but a top tax lawyer (formerly Head of Tax at Clifford Chance).
Ritchie doesn’t have the tax knowledge or the forensic skills to analyse Zahawi’s tax affairs in the way that Neidle did.