What’s an acceptable level of pay for an interim manager in the NHS?

This is well worth a read. In my view, the interim sector into the NHS requires a savage cull. There seems to be a swing door policy that benefits the privileged few and their cronies in resourcing firms – all of this is not in the public interest nor does it demonstrate best value for money.

There needs to be legislation barring public sectors workers from working as a consultant in the public sector – I suggest three years from the time they leave paid employment.

Expenses for public sector employees should be capped at HMRC levels.

It’s time for the austerity axe to fall on the fat cats. These people need to compete in the open market, with the best from the private sector in the UK & the public sector globally.

The percentage of interim management costs as a percentage of total NHS budgets is a disgrace.

Nhshack's Blog

There’s an invisible barrier for chief executives in the NHS: as far as I know, no permanent chief exec is paid more than £300,000 a year (please let me know if I am wrong).

But there seems to be no such barrier for interim execs. In 2013-14 the number of cases where they were paid rates which amounted to more than £300K a year doubled compared with the previous year. The Telegraph story is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11295416/The-rise-of-the-300000-NHS-fatcats.html. You might argue with the use of the word ‘fatcats’ or even with the methodology but the evidence is clear in annual reports: interim managers are often paid shedloads. Top chief executives and finance directors in the NHS are paid well; but they could often earn more – or work less – by becoming interims.

Of course, what the Telegraph is talking about is cost rather than pay – and there are issues of…

View original post 705 more words

mainly macro: The imaginary world of small state people – Simon Wren-Lewis

This blog from leading Oxford economist, Simon Wren-Lewis is well worth a read. Check it out!

via mainly macro: The imaginary world of small state people.

Personally, in terms of political ideology, I tend to favor a small-state, and take exception to some of the Wren-Lewis’ argument. I fear that he has missed the point with regard to George Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.

For me, it is better to separate the politics from the economic evidence.

I agree with Wren-Lewis that in terms of strictly economic management, Osborne’s record has been seriously ineffective. In particular, I agree that Osborne’s austerity has been too deep for too long. So I endorse the Wren-Lewis argument about the opportunity cost – under Osborne economic growth has been seriously curtailed.

From the beginning, Osborne’s economic credentials have been questionable. Personally, I believe that Osborne has always been long on political dogma and short on economic argument.

To conclude, I favor small-government but believe that Osborne has precipitated an omni-shambles of savage cuts to public sector services. This blog has repeatedly argued that the Government has not taken a strategic approach to public sector cost reduction. The UK public need to wake-up to the evidence that the UK is only 40% along the journey of ten years of cost cuts.

For me, there would only be one thing worse than Osborne as Chancellor and that would be Osborne as Prime Minister.

Thoughts?