As some might be aware, most of the last week was about travelling the Sky, the Sky of No Man and it has been all it promised, even now, as I am stranded on a planet in a galaxy far far away, I see that I have coin for the brothel, but there is no brothel. I have Anti-Matter for my warp drive, yet it is broken, it is short a resonator, so I am now exploring the planet, hoping to find two of them puppies soon. A true game of exploration where at times being clever makes all the difference. Yet today is about another matter, not exactly on exploration, but on exploring options and solutions and on how some presentations fall short. You see, there is a think-tank who had an idea (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/25/nhs-needs-eu-employees-to-avoid-collapse-says-thinktank). Now, the idea is not bad, but it is also very shaded in many ways. Let’s take a look! First there is “EU nationals who have lived in Britain for six years should get automatic citizenship“, and a few lines later we get: “The NHS would collapse without its 57,000 workers who are EU nationals and they must be offered free British citizenship so they don’t leave the country after Brexit, according to a leading think-tank“. Now these two statements are not in synch, they do not contradict each other but it raises questions. You see, the fact that 57,000 need citizenship is a strange part. Why?
Well, consider that the four National Health Services in 2015-16 employed around 1.6 million people with a combined budget of £136.7 billion. Which the Guardian published in Jan 2016. In addition, we should consider that in 2014 “the total health sector workforce across the UK was 2,165,043. This broke down into 1,789,586 in England, 198,368 in Scotland, 110,292 in Wales and 66,797 in Northern Ireland“, which we get from https://www.hsj.co.uk. So the fact that these 57,000 people represent a diminished workforce of 3.1% makes me wonder how that impact is so drastic that Automated Citizenship is voiced. Now, let me be clear, I am not opposing that part!
In addition, the fact that the NHS has shrunk by 6% in a year is a bad number, we could state almost disastrous (based on the mere number). In all this a few things are now rising to the surface.
The Think-tank states ‘Citizenship’, not permanent residency. You see, in several countries (the Netherlands for one), only in special cases is dual citizenship an option and the reality is that plenty of people might work abroad, that does not mean they are willing to give up the citizenship they have. Some French and Dutch are very proud to be that. The Netherlands is not alone, so, does this think-tank have a breakdown of numbers per nation? In addition, the article states that they are 5% is already inaccurate (57K/1.6M is not that great). In addition we also see “The Brexit result has left the future status of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain uncertain. While the IPPR says their deportation is ultimately unlikely, the lack of official reassurance is already having a chilling effect on those seeking jobs, housing, bank loans or making other long-term commitments“, a statement I already debunked in June 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), so I am amazed that this tail of fairies is still ongoing. The fact that in simple clarity we see “In addition to this that the applying migrant is paid at or above the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, which gets us to the other appendix (J) which clearly states that a nurse does not need to make 35,000 pounds“, so why are some continuing to weave stories on this loom of tales?
This makes me wonder what the IPPR is actually up to.
Is that not a valid question?
So when we see the quote “The think-tank says wider reform of the current system of British citizenship is so overly complicated and bureaucratic that it is deterring the high earners that the British economy needs, and is so expensive that it also deters the lower skilled workers that the sectors of the economy that depend on manual labour also need” I wonder what their end game is. You see, if there is truly a need for high earners than those companies can apply via an immigration agent. Which is a group of people the Australian ‘economy’ relies on. We should wonder when a large corporation seems to not be involved in the immigration of its staff members, should we consider letting that person in at all. This last part was a speculation from my side, yet I remember my own immigration path, so we should take the accountability of a corporation in stride in all this. In addition, the high cost are indeed a worry, yet the quote “so expensive that it also deters the lower skilled workers that the sectors of the economy that depend on manual labour also need“, which is fair enough on one side, yet when 1/20 has no job in the UK, how hard are those people needed? This is in effect a self-answering question, because there is always a need for lower skilled people, often well trained or versed in one way or another. In all this, one simple solution would be to enact an UK version of the Australian 457 VISA. There is no mention in the article towards a solution in that direction.
In addition, opening the UK labour market for Commonwealth nations is also a path that has been ignored for too long, why is that?
The article seems to answer little, only speculate on what is needed in the eyes of some, whilst the eyes seem to indicate that their view is implied to be narrow, debilitating and not entirely correct. It seems funny that this article comes from Alan Travis, author of ‘Bound and Gagged, a history of British obscenity’. It makes me want to kill someone to get a Nobel Peace prize, which comes to think off it is both Sarcasm and Irony in one small package. Irony, because it is funny how the most basic of solutions seem to be ignored. They might have been part of the report, yet in this case, why not clearly mention those issues. And Sarcasm as my findings from June 2015 were not countered and have actually been confirmed by at least one Lawyer, so I have to wonder what is going on here. For it is my personal believe that this is about a lot more than just 57.000 citizenships, this is about a fundamental change, whether this is about immigration, or about the NHS being a piggy in the middle. Yes, we all agree that 3% of staff could be disastrous, yet where are those 3% placed. The fact that this article is not mentioning that is equally a worry. We can agree that in pressure a loss of both doctors and nurses the impact is a strike at the heart of the NHS, yet there is no clear mention is there? You see, we know that it is ‘7,000 consultants & specialist registrars as well as more than 21,000 as nurses and health visitors’, yet not where and as we see that 7,000+21,000+29,000=57,000. Yet where are the 29,000 placed? Moreover, these three groups where are the set in the 4 areas. So how much per area when we consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It boggles the mind on how these many incomplete parts could give way to smaller solutions diminishing the larger danger. Now, let’s face it, the danger still remains, but the assumptions seen in this article regarding the report makes me wonder how the Guardian who swallows the ‘facts’ by Santa Snowden at the drop of almost unconformable data is easily eager to let the entire NHS set on incomplete reporting.
So if the article is about ‘NHS needs EU employees to avoid collapse, says thinktank‘, why do we see side mentions of “The Brexit result has left the future status of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain uncertain“, which might not be that dire as well as “a British Future/ICM poll showed that the public does not believe the government will meet its target to reduce net migration to below 100,000 a year by 2020 even after Brexit takes place. In the poll, which was conducted just after the referendum in June, only 37% agreed the net migration target was likely to be reached in the next five years“. So is this really about the NHS, or is it a hidden story regarding Prof David Metcalf, who is calling for a much stronger enforcement of minimum labour standards in the UK to ensure the country’s flexible labour market prevents undercutting by foreign workers and boosts the welfare of British residents. You see, that too is not about the NHS, because that group of people lacks any level of skill to be regarded as optional staff for the NHS.
So consider where the title was and what this story is actually about, because it does not seem to be about the stress and resolving that stress these many nurses in the NHS are facing.
Perhaps it is still under construction, like an empty webpage with a simple icon from a cheap provider with no continuation plan.