You are saying it was all private investment not government money? So how do you explain the move from 10% to nearly 15% if it is not increased government spending on health and education?

No, I'm not. I'm asking what's the proportion of spending through taxation or private investment. If in the past a new hospital was paid 100%/95%/90% or whatever through taxation is it the same now?
If a government spends an extra 5% on health and education, which isn't going to be chicken feed, just where did the money come from?

PFI was created by Major's government.

And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing.

Quote: Mintball "PFI was created by Major's government. And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing.'" Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not. Then you've this from 2012. www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

Quote: Mintball "PFI was created by Major's government. And it was Thatcher's government that started privatising the NHS, bit by bit – selling off 'soft services', for instance, so that in order for private companies to profit from cleaning hospitals, they had to axe half the cleaners to start with. It is, of course, pure coincidence that, shortly after this, rates of c-diff and MRSA started climbing.'" Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did. Who knows if it's a coincidence or not. Then you've this from 2012. www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

It's what New Labour does/did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was a reason that one of the first things Blair did, on becoming leader, was to get rid of Clause 4 from the party's constitution – the clause that tied the party, at least ideologically, to public/state ownership.

In office, Blair's government continued down the same ideological, economic route set in motion by Margaret Thatcher.

Additionally, though not mentioned in that story, UNISON has also repeatedly called for a return to proper sisters on wards, and for them to be given control over cleaning staff. The situation that remains in place at present is that medical staff cannot call a cleaner to do something, because they are not the cleaner's line manager – someone at the private company is – so it's more complicated than it should be to have cleaning services respond to need determined by medical staff.

Seeing as I haven't got anything better to do today and I feel like a little mischief I am getting suited and booted and going down my local Aldis to ask the shop manager if it's possible to talk to his staff with the intent of seeing if his workers are at all interested in some form of union representation.
They were all informed yesterday that they will be losing their jobs if they don't 'buck their ideas up'.

If true (the last bit) that is terrible, not least because Aldi are doing so well.
Our local Aldi is really doing well and has taken money off the nearby Morrisons.
But perhaps the parent company are meanies after all.
At Christmas all the staff of our Aldi dressed up festively. I asked if this was a company initiative and was told that it was and that in the true spirit of Christmas each member of staff had had to pay for their own costumes.
Nice!

I popped in the store today and had the manager flapping his @rse off.
I was told that I would have to return and speak to the area manager who apparently visits twice weekly.
Asked for a contact number but it wasn't forthcoming so left mine and said I would be returning.

Obviously the stakeholder group that walmart want to keep happy the most are the shareholders.

I see no problem with this

Regards

King James

And yet another idiot reincarnates. Have you seen the WalMart shareholder list?

I've forwarded a link to this thread to Aldi head office.

Actually, I haven't. That would be almost as sad as you actually popping into Aldi.

Or have I?

Maybe I have.

BTW, I thought it was common knowledge Aldi are the supermarket version of RyanAir. That said, as far as I'm aware they pay pretty well in comparison to their competitors and offer generous graduate management schemes. But they definitely make you work for every penny.

More FlyBe, not the best in the world but by no means the worst.



Its the same right across retail not just the discounters.

For what its worth I'd say the the store manager has had his backside kicked by the area manager/head office and is taking it out on the staff, it is really his job to weed out the poor workers rather than attack his whole team like that.

Ahh cod'ead, I had been warned about you, that you were a cantankerous and repellant old man. Considering you choose to call me an idiot, I can safely say the warnings were right. No wonder the rlfans forums have gone down hill with now only about 3 people posting each day, with people like you around.

Anyway, To answer your question, No, i am not privvy to the shareholders list of walmart. Considering it is listed on the stock exchange, I am assuming that a list of shareholders would be quite colossal. Again, i see no problem with trying to keep the shareholders happy to the detriment of the workers as they will never have a problem filling staff vacancies. The main aim of a company afterall is to maximise shareholder wealth.

Regards

King James

Given that the Walton family own over 50% of the stock and are seeking to buy back even more, I'd suggest that WalMart exists to keep the Waltons in clover and at thr detriment of their employees. But that's OK with you? Righto

You can forward whatever you like sunshine.
Does it stick in your throat that some may benefit from protection and representation from an over-zealous and aggressive employer?
Would you have me shackled and transported around the world?