From what I have heard, this organisation was a bloated and cumbersome bureaucracy. It attempted to bring caregivers into the decision-making processes, but ignored the fact that doctors and nurses didn’t want to sit in lots of meetings instead of caring for patients.
I listened to a phone in where a nurse with decades of experience mentioned meetings of up to 40 people, where only five or six attendees were needed. And that at one point she had eight levels of management above her.
Party for the workers /s
The working class inherently benefits from a stronger NHS. I’m not sure if these changes are the right ones but at least they’re trying something.
This is such a misleading headline.
The Tories created NHS England in 2012, basically an independently ran management layer for the NHS. Labour is bringing it back under government control.
There was a lot of extra bureaucracy by adding this additional ‘NHS England’ layer, with a lot of nurses in particular hired to do it.
Yes, a lot of these people’s administrative/management jobs will no longer be needed, but it’s very likely a great deal of these people (who again are predominantly nurses) will be hired by the (government-ran) NHS.
Agreed, this has the potential to be a very good thing for the NHS
Why is everyone so anti progress?
Everyone is not ‘anti-progress’, unless the ‘progress’ you mean is the type we see Elon Musk engaging in in the US.
But wait, the combination of ‘austerity’ and privatisation both parties (red and blue Tory) have engaged in for decades now is exactly a slow-paced what Musk is speed-running in the US. And the UK gradually moves down the global affluence tables while the rich get richer because of it.
So I guess maybe that is why everyone is so anti ‘progress’. You just forgot the necessary quotation marks around the work ‘progress’.
deleted by creator
Tldr
