Movember ~ Men & Suicide

We are halfway through Movember already, and I've been meaning to post about men's mental health for weeks.

Men & the Mental Health Crisis

• Every year, thousands of men take their own lives. 
• Suicide is now the leading cause of death among men under 50. 
• 75% of deaths by suicide are men. 

Men in the UK are in deep psychological distress, and mental health is not just a matter of brain chemistry. 

Behind these statistics, we find that the mental health crisis is linked to economic changes.

Beyond individual explanations

Men in England’s poorest areas are four times more likely to die from preventable causes (including suicide) than men in the wealthiest areas.

The connection between class and suicide is stark.

When suicide doesn't affect all of society equally, then we know it is a social problem -- middle-aged men in areas of high deprivation are at most risk.

The highest male suicide rates are found in ex-industrial regions — the North East, South Wales, and parts of Scotland. These are the same places where deindustrialisation hit hardest. 

 The Samaritans have a lot to say on this. It is definitely worth exploring their website.

There is a link between poverty and suicide (it's not the full explanation).

When people lose stable work, financial security, and purpose, this can help push them into a dark place. Things are even worse when public services are stripped away. 

The long shadow of deindustrialisation

From the late 1970s onwards, Britain’s industrial base was dismantled. Coal mines, shipyards, steelworks, car plants — workplaces that had employed generations of men — were closed. 

Alongside the jobs went union power, local solidarity, and male identity rooted in collective labour.

In their place came low-paid, insecure service work or unemployment. Communities once built around shared labour now suffer from isolation, poverty, and alienation.

There is a link between suicide & the breakdown of a sense of community.

* Mainstream debate often talks about suicide as an individual medical issue — a failure of personal coping, or a chemical imbalance in the brain. 

* But I want to talk about how social conditions are related to the pattern of suicide deaths.

* Suicide is not JUST connected to being in-and-out of low-paid work, but also to having a sense of belonging and a sense of community.

Class, inequality, and despair

Working-class men have been stripped of social worth in an economy that no longer values their labour and offers little in return. Insecure work, low pay, poor housing, debt, addiction, and declining public services are the features in many people's lives.

Community centres, advice bureaus, and support groups — the small infrastructures of solidarity — were closed or privatized. For men who already struggle to express vulnerability, this withdrawal of collective care is devastating.

Working men's clubs are mostly gone, and people can't afford to go for a pint like they used to. Many pubs have closed along with many local services and shops, so there might not even be that sense of a local community anymore.

Austerity and the dismantling of support

Austerity has made the crisis worse. 

Between 2010 and 2020, local authority funding for mental health and youth services was cut by over 40% in some areas. NHS mental health waiting lists are now so long that many never receive treatment.

With hard times and little support from a community, it is no surprise that suicide rates rose sharply after 2010. When the state retreats, despair fills the vacuum.

Masculinity and emotional isolation

Both men and women experience the difficult economic situation, but the suicide rate is much higher for men. Why is that?

There has to be either a biological or a gender-related reason why more men commit suicide than women. 

Social deprivation: 

• Women experience higher rates of poverty and persistent low income compared to men, driven by factors like the gender pay gap, women's roles in family and caregiving, and the design of social security systems. 
• Single mothers, in particular, face a very high risk of poverty, with nearly half of single-parent households living in poverty.

Poverty obviously makes daily life more difficult and it is the trigger. But what explains the Male v Female difference when it comes to suicide? 

Gender is a social construction shaped by material conditions

Capitalism has long rewarded men for emotional detachment and competitiveness, whereas women tend to have more of a social support network and a deep sense of responsibility to look after their children. 

The “real man” is expected to be productive, stoic, and self-reliant. These traits suited a world of heavy industry and the nuclear family in which a mother and dependents relied on the main breadwinner.

But in today’s fragmented, precarious economy, those same traits of emotional detachment and competitiveness have become a trap.

Many men are left without emotional literacy or support networks. They turn inward, or to alcohol and drugs, rather than seeking help. This helps explain why men are far more likely to die by suicide — men often act more violently and seek help less.

But rather than seeing this as a matter of “toxic masculinity” alone why not ask: 

Who benefits from men being isolated?
Men taught to suppress vulnerability are less likely to resist exploitation, unionise, or demand care.

The answer: capitalism benefits. 

The Individualisation of Pain

Under neoliberal ideology, problems become personal responsibility. 

Mental health campaigns often frame depression as something to “manage” through mindfulness, exercise, or apps — never as a symptom of systemic alienation. 

If you are isolated or lonely, YOU need to pull your socks up and get out more. The onus is on the individual rather than on society, which causes the problem.

Meanwhile, the material causes of distress — job insecurity, rent exploitation, long working hours, social atomisation — remain untouched. Men are told to “open up” but not given anyone to open up to, nor the social time or security to do it.

Collective Response

We should reject the idea that suicide is merely a private tragedy. It has far-reaching repercussions.

It’s a class and social issue that reveals how our current economy corrodes well-being.

The solution isn't fast or easy. We need to:

• Rebuilding stable, meaningful employment and strong trade unions.

• Restoring funding for community mental health and youth services.

• Creating public spaces where men can connect outside the pressures of work and competition.

• Challenging the concept of masculinity that equates worth with productivity.

• Ensuring that care — psychological, emotional, and social — is a collective right, not a market commodity.

The tragedy of male suicide cannot be solved with slogans about “talking more.” 

Men are dying because an economic system that once gave them identity now gives them precarity, and because the public safety nets that once caught them have been torn apart.

The cure lies not just in therapy but in solidarity — rebuilding communities, restoring public care, and transforming the economic order that produces such widespread despair.

Until we bring about change, many men will continue to face the same silent, brutal choice: between enduring impossible pressures or ending their pain. In a society organised around profit instead of people, that is not a personal failure — it is a political one. 

Where Do You Stand on Trans Rights?

TLDR: I support trans people's rights. 

This I try to be a decent human and treat trans people the same way that I treat everyone else!

• This means respecting their dignity.
• This means the golden rule -- treating other people as I would hope to be treated.
• This means respecting people's rights to live and dress how they please.
• This means respecting the way a person identifies, calling them by their preferred name and pronouns. 
• This means not ridiculing people or deliberately making them uncomfortable.

I recognise that trans women and trans men are vulnerable people and targets for hate, bullying, and violence. These are not acceptable, no matter who the target is.

Every trans person has parents and neighbours. 

I think about how I would worry about them and want to protect them if I were their mother or their neighbour. 

If I were their work colleague, I'd like them to feel I am on their side.

I'm also human and deeply flawed, so I hope people will be forgiven when I get their name or pronouns wrong. It isn't out of anti-trans malice - I do it to everyone!

How can anyone think anything else?

I'd sum it up: 

Be a decent human being and treat other people respectfully.

It's not difficult or complicated. 

Anything else is not acceptable.

Throughout my life, I've had many trans friends. I realise and they realise, some issues are tricky and there aren't clear-cut, obvious answers to every question. 

There are some things open to reasonable debate, and others I don't know much about.

EXAMPLE: 

I don't know when trans people should be welcomed or excluded from specific sporting events. And I don't need to have an opinion on this because I believe it should be decided by experts, perhaps the people who run an event and scientists. 

The one thing I am sure about when it comes to trans people in sporting events -- it should not be the job of politicians to decide the rules.

TRANS RIGHTS

Rights aren't like cherry pie, so that if someone gets more, another person gets less. Trans and non-binary people are a tiny minority of the population -- they only need a tiny bit of pie.

I'm all for women, children, and trans people all having rights. 

I'm very interested in the relationship between rights and responsibilities.

Suppose we stopped talking about rights and instead discussed our responsibilities to other people and to future generations, then what would this mean for trans people?

I think we (all of us as a society) have responsibilities to look after our neighbours so they don't face poverty, hunger, violence, or discrimination. Society has the responsibility to look after our most vulnerable members, and trans people are those vulnerable people.

This is the website of the Fledgling Trans Rights Caucus:

https://transliberationgroup.org.uk/

Their demands are simple. 

A PARTY FOR EVERYONE

LEGALISE TRANS EXISTENCE

This includes:

• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to undo the damage caused by the Supreme Court ruling of 16th April 2025 by making it clear “sex” refers to a person's current lived sex and adding gender identity as a protected characteristic. Ensure that “gender-critical” beliefs cannot be treated as protected beliefs.

REFORM THE BROKEN SYSTEM

This includes:

• Institute a complete ban on all types of conversion therapy, including trans conversion therapy. Support for people questioning their gender should be affirmative of their desires while giving space for people to explore their feelings.
• Enshrine in UK Law the right to privacy over your assigned gender at birth and trans status, and oppose all attempts to leave the ECHR, which guarantees the right to respect for your private and family life, including confidentiality around your assigned gender at birth under Article 8.

HEALTHCARE THAT WORKS

WHAT I THINK!

In my opinion, most of their demands are about basic things any decent person should support and that should be really easy to implement. 

Changing the NHS -- funding it to meet all of our needs, that isn't going to be a quick or easy fix. And I'm mindful that healthcare services are terribly underfunded at the moment. I think to improve healthcare for trans people, we need to focus on improving healthcare for everyone. 

Demand massive investment across many or all healthcare services.

What Women Want -- From Politicians

Women exist in families and communities. 

They care for people and are often in low-paid jobs. 

A better world for women, where they are well paid, not stressed out, and feel safe, will be a better world for everyone.

A safer world for my daughter is a safer for everyone. 

Women as victims of low pay, poverty, and violence are not just suffering individuals; it has knock-on implications for society, especially through the way these things affect their children.

MOTHERHOOD:

I think a parent should be able to choose to stay at home with their pre-school children or be able to go to work, and that public policy should enable this choice, through:

• highly subsidized childcare places for parents who want to work (like in Sweden where parents pay a small contribution towards the costs),
• the taxation and benefits system should enable parents to stay home and raise children (payments for housework is a concept to consider), 
• a lower cost of living would make it far easier for parents (and grandparents) to reduce their working hours and afford to spend time with their children. A lower cost of living might be achieved through various policies, such as: (1) building low-rent council houses, (2) public-owned utilities to reduce these costs, and (3) a digital strategy to give all households access to the internet.

WORK:

Equal pay, of course!

Equal opportunities for all based on ability, of course.

Increased flexible work and part-time working, job sharing, and career breaks - of course! We exist in a 24/7 society, so work should offer flexible hours (note: most work—obviously not all work).

Better opportunities to retrain and re-enter education—of course.

Violence Against Women & Girls

A better, safer world for women is a better, safer world for everyone.

A few key areas of concern are:

• Violence at the hands of a romantic/domestic partner ~ women are twice as likely to be the victim. But more than 90% are women who are at high risk of serious assault/ murder/ rape.
• Thousands of people are “spiked” each year - ie, drugged - and 3 out of 4 of these victims are women.
• Harassment in all its forms seems to be greater for women, but it is also significant for men. 

* Some Factors in Violence Against Women

* Poverty, Low pay, and Unemployment are not an excuse!

There is substantial evidence that poverty, low pay, and unemployment play a significant role in increasing the risk of violence against women and girls (VAWG). They do not cause the violence on their own (that is always the perpetrator’s responsibility), but they help create a context in which VAWG is more likely, and they make it much harder for survivors to escape or recover from abuse.

* Drugs and Alcohol Misuse are not an excuse!

Alcohol and drug misuse are strongly linked to harassment, particularly sexual harassment, street harassment, and workplace misconduct. But the relationship is correlational and contextual — alcohol increases risk and frequency, but it’s not the root cause. Should we ban these things? I’m NOT generally in favour of prohibition, which often doesn’t work and encourages enterprising criminal gangs to set up shop. I’d prefer to look at causes and practical solutions to alcohol and drug misuse.

One thing that would make a big difference in the lives of women, young people (and everyone) is low-cost, safe, efficient, and frequent 24-hour public transport. 

This deserves a separate post all of its own one day. But good luck if you are looking to get across the Potteries area after 6 pm. You might be able to get a bus, but you might not have a connection. 

My Policies 

If I were the Prime Minister of one of the top 10 wealthiest countries in the world, these would be some of the top things I’d want to implement that I think will have a significant impact on women’s lives:

1. Lifting families out of poverty, primarily through tackling the cost-of-living crisis and the connected housing crisis, and through house building and job creation.
2. Heavily subsidised child care would be available year-round, rather than the ridiculous policies we have seen that only subsidised a few hours of childcare during school terms.
3. A greatly increased public transport system (this might involve taxis and minibusses at times and places of low demand) so that most people could get to work by bus in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost. Note: Some people cannot travel to and from work, even in urban areas, due to inadequate bus services.
4. Community support: since the Tory policy of austerity took hold, “community” has declined. Libraries, community centres, and community services such as Sure Start have closed down. These provided low-cost resources and places for people to go out and meet other local people. The dire consequences are rippling out, feeding crime, antisocial behaviour, and a sense of hopelessness. These things affect us all. I want to build communities, making sure every local area has something local.

There are other issues that are important, but I'm not sure what an MP  should do about them.

There are issues around menopause and perimenopause, which need a lot more research as well as public information. Women's suicide rates peak at the same time as the average age for menopause, indicating that this change in hormone levels is a significant issue for women. 

When it comes to toilets, we need a lot more of them. Public toilets have been closed down across the country; a civilised country funds public toilets. Wee need them!

Are there any women-only issues that only benefit women that should be on my priority list? Perhaps there are some—please leave a message and let me know.

Loyalty to my friends and family and country is not the same as to A SUPERMARKET

Strangely enough, I don't get points and free stuff for family loyalty. 

I am grateful for the new tradition of £0.08p veggies at Christmas.

But I see no reason for Supermarkets to expect loyalty. 

Loyalty Cards

Are you kidding me! 

Years ago, the TESCO points used to add up to something substantial, but they've cut back on the rewards, so it's hardly worth bothering with.

Loyalty Cards: They are just annoying cards. Keep loyal customers by keeping them happy. Here are some tips for free:

• Do NOT rearrange the stock. No one likes it! When we know where to find stuff, we want it to always be in the same place.
• Keep the prices low and fair. Don't expect me to buy three lots of something to get a better price. Just cut the price of buying one. I'll buy more if I want more.
• Thirdly, for bonus points, carry an interesting variety of locally sourced stock with big, bold labels reading 'Made in Britain'. Or grown in Staffordshire. 

Above all...

Something that really winds me up — 

The dual pricing system

It’s everywhere. You know: £1.75 with Clubcard, £2.50 without. 

Tesco, Sainsbury’s, even Co-op’s started doing it. 

So now, the price you pay for your food depends on whether you’ve signed up to their loyalty scheme and remembered to bring your card or scan your phone.

Loyalty? I call it disloyalty pricing — because it punishes the people who haven’t signed up and those who are TOO YOUNG to sign up. Or the homeless. Or those who forgot to bring their card/phone.

---

Let’s be honest: it’s not really about loyalty, is it?

It’s about data. 

They want to know what you buy, when you buy it, and how much you’re willing to spend. Every pint of milk and pack of biscuits gets recorded somewhere in a database, so they can target you with “personalised offers”. Keep them. I've told you what I want (see bullet points above).

The Competition and Markets Authority looked into this stuff. 

Their research found that about 70% of shoppers think the discounts are useful, who doesn't like a discount?

Almost half — 43% — think it’s unfair that members get lower prices than everyone else.

Count me in that 43%.

If you’re not a member, you’re basically being charged a penalty price for daring to mind your own business and not hand over your data.

Or, you’re being charged a penalty price because you forgot to scan your phone/card.

And it’s not like you can shrug and say, “I’ll just pay the normal price.” That “normal price” isn’t normal anymore — it’s inflated to make the “loyalty price” look good.

See how the Tesco receipt says the bill was £120, but they gave you £20 discount. No, the shopping was £100, but they are making some people pay that much more.

For a while, I was shopping at ASDA to escape this hell. But they have started a similar scheme now, and coincidentally, their prices have gone up dramatically so that it's cheaper for me to go back to Tesco. But they are all much of a muchness, and Sainsbury's has some amazingly nice veggie food that suits my mean budget.

Sadlly, two-tier pricing is normal these days.

No matter that it punishes those under 18 or various sections of poor people who might not have signed up for the card.

Profits are up. Yet we’re supposed to feel grateful that we can get a cheaper price if we play the game right.

I feel like I'm the one being played by those corporate giants.

I don’t want to join a scheme to buy food at a fair price.

I don’t want to download an app, or carry a plastic card, or scan a QR code to avoid paying extra for pasta.

I just want a supermarket where the price on the shelf is the price for everyone.

Is that too much to ask?

We used to call that fairness.

Have you ever thought that if loyalty were about rewarding regular customers, the savings would be automatic every time we went into the shop? No need for a card. Or, sure, give us vouchers for money off clothes to tempt us to spend money in that section. 

But two prices for groceries just seems wrong to me. So wrong it just might be immoral.

Sign up, hand over your details, and we’ll stop overcharging you.

That’s not loyalty.
That’s blackmail by barcode.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

If I were in charge, I would consider banning two-tier pricing for regular groceries in regular supermarkets.

What do you think?

Why can't I see a GP? The tip of the NHS crisis ~ in numbers

 It was always possible to see a GP the same day for an emergency and to make an appointment within a reasonable timescale for non-emergencies.

Nowadays... it seems the NHS is almost an emergency-only service. 

I think it is a good thing that patients are being redirected to other professionals, such as prescribing nurses and pharmacists, when appropriate. GPs don't need to see everyone.

Also, fantastic that we have Urgent Treatment Centres (UTCs) or Walk-in Centres (WICs) or Minor Injuries Units (MIUs). These offer an alternative to A&E. 

People can turn up without an appointment for urgent medical help for non-life-threatening conditions when you can't get a GP appointment, like sprains, cuts, infections, and minor head injuries, without needing an appointment.

But still, often you need to see YOUR local GP for an ongoing condition: 

• You don't need to see them that day, but that same week would be ideal.
• You don't want to see the locum who you will never see again.
• You do need to see a doctor and not a different clinical person (such as a PA or nurse)

The ONLY way this is going to be fixed is by employing more GPs. There have to be more NHS budget ringfences to employ more GPs.

It isn't that GPs need more pay (although I'm sure they would like more) it is that there aren't enough GP posts being funded. Across the country, there are qualified GPs who are unemployed. They'd love a job. They trained for years to be qualified. 

There are unemployed GPs: this is a scandal.

In September 2015, there were 50.2 GPs for every 100,000 people in England. This had fallen to 43.3 for every 100,000 people by December 2024

So there used to be 5 GPs for every 10,000 people and now there are only 4. 

It's as if every village or small market town has lost one of its doctors. 

Another way of looking at it is that every GP used to have 1,992 registered patients, and now they each have 2,309.

And that means every GP's workload has increased by 16% in theory, though, as they have a team to help them, it isn't so straightforward, but the responsibility does ultimately lie with the GP.

***

Many GPs choose to work part-time. But many would like to work more hours.

If we add them all up together to get full-time equivalents rather than the number of people, then there are actually fewer GPs working today than there used to be, even though we have a bigger population.

There were 29,364 FTE GPs in September 2015 and 28,516 today.

How Many More GPs Do We Need?

There isn't a definitive figure about how many GPs we need. 

On the one hand, the cases they see and manage are more complex than ever, and the BMA recommends they see no more than 25 patients per day. 

On the other hand, there are other professionals seeing patients (nurses and pharmacists, for example). It's clear we need to step things up, perhaps with an immediate increase of 500 GPs, with a further 500 as quickly as possible. 

***

Additional notes:

It's not all about funding. 

Attracting GPs to jobs and keeping them is an issue. 

GPs are just as frustrated by the system as patients. They want to be family doctors, offering continuous care and getting to know their patients (like what used to happen). That's what attracted them to the job.

Today's NHS offers them a poor working life, with lower job satisfaction than they expected, which is why many of them leave or want to leave.

Sky High Food Prices

 Tell me about it!

Today, I read a detailed explanation about why Orange Juice is so expensive all of a sudden.

My daughter is the only one in my house who drinks it regularly, so I typically buy a carton every two or three weeks.

Each time I buy one, I can't believe the price hike. I'm really thinking twice and looking for the best value buys.

Of course, the issue of relying on a single crop from a few suppliers and the risk of crop failure due to weather and disease is precisely what I wrote about a few weeks ago. We in the UK are extremely vulnerable because we rely so heavily on imports.

If you'd like to check out my thoughts on food Insecurity, you can find them here.

Taxis or taxes?

I'd like to see more public transport, more buses, trains, and trams. I'd like the price of public transport to be kept low and affordable. This blog post is a bit of a rant if you want to come along for the ride.

Have you thought about going to London by train recently? 

If you aren't eligible for any of the railcards, it costs an arm and a leg. Well, the cheapest return tickets seem to cost about £55, which is just too much. No wonder lots of people just get on the train and hope to get away without paying. 

There are signs saying that traveling without a ticket is theft, but the person who didn't pay (because they couldn't afford to pay) isn't taking something away from someone else -- there are empty seats. 

Someone somewhere is getting away with daylight robbery when most fares to London are well over £100. 

I want to travel from Stoke-on-Trent to London, not from one country to another. It's 160 miles. The train journey can take upwards of 90 minutes. Why should a day-return ticket cost over £100?

I want to go because: 

(a) my eldest child lives there, and 

(b) a dear old friend who I've known for almost 40 years is very ill. VERY ill. 

Unfortunately, it would be a lot cheaper for me to drive and let the train go with plenty of empty seats: make it make sense.

I'm a parent. I've spent many years doing my utmost to raise the next generation. I've also worked most of that time. I've made a contribution to society. And now I wonder how many times I can visit my friend in what is likely to be her final year, given the exorbitant cost of the train fare. She's almost 80 years of age and has worked all of her adult life, too.

Our taxes, our contribution to the country, should be enough to mean that basic essential infrastructure is functional and affordable. 

Just remind me: is the UK one of the richest countries in the world?

And I know the train fare isn't fair because if I were JUST a few years older than I am now, I could cut the cost by 1/3rd with a railcard. 

That's not based on the ability to pay, it would be solely based on age.

I know plenty of people older than me with bags of spare cash.

It's nothing to do with the capacity of the train. 

There are many empty seats on the Stoke to London trains (after 9am).

***

If I had my way, the public transport system across the UK would serve the British public. 

It would be priced so people could afford to use it. 

but Deb, HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR IT?

I don't want to say I have all the answers, but there has to be a better way. 

• I suspect the people who work on railways and people who use railways frequently have far better ideas about how to change them than I do.
• I suspect we could learn a lot about running an efficient public transport service from other countries; many of them seem to do it better than we do.

Socialists Always Want to Raise Taxes

That's the accusation, as if all taxes are a bad thing.

Shared control and funding of public services and infrastructure for the good of us all is a good thing. Everyone benefits, even the rich and mega corporations.

I'm in favour of a welfare state and a fairer distribution of wealth.

I'm in favour of everyone contributing to public services that benefit all of us.

And things that benefit society do benefit all of us, even if we don't all personally use those things.

On the subject of TAXES: 

I've been listening to Dan Neidle a lot. On YouTube, on the Radio (BBC Sounds), and reading his website: Tax Policy Associates. It is interesting stuff and very accessible. You don't need to be a lawyer, accountant, or have A-level maths to follow along with his shows on TAX. 

 

TAXES

I'm sick of hearing that rich people would leave the UK rather than pay more taxes. 

And they'd take their money and their business opportunities with them

and they'd invest in some other country with lower taxes

and less employment rights for workers

and less protections for nature and the environment.

What kind of a shithold do those rich bastards want to live in?

How patriotic is that?

If you were stinking rich,

surely you'd want to invest in the country

that made you who you are.

That nurtured you 

and educated you.

Surely you'd want to help your country

generate wealth

generate jobs

generate happiness.

That said, I don't think being a left-wing socialist is all about raising taxes.

HERE are some thoughts on what we can do to change the tax system today. 

Who Wants Curry?

In a break from my usual content, I just want to shout out for food. 

 At the Curry Life Awards a few local eateries picked up prizes: 

• Chennai Indian Cuisine, in Leek, 
• Ali’s Kitchen, in Longton, 
• Ali’s Spice, in Blythe Bridge, 
• East 360 in Congleton.

I'm always on the lookout for delicious food.

I'd add Indian Heaven in Alsager as a personal favourite.

And a special shoutout to some special places in Newcastle:

• Sukhmani - low cost in the heart of N-u-L. Punjabi veggie food from a cafe /takeaway.
• UK Meal Club - authentic Malayalee food for the taste of Kerala
• Rose of Kashmir Restaurant 

When Essential Services are Run for Profit: eg. wheelchairs

Our taxes are often used to fund essential services provided by private companies. 

• Should a company reap a profit at the taxpayers' expense? 
• Should the provision of essential services that are paid for by taxes be left up to the private sector?

Companies supplying services ***ESSENTIAL goods and SERVICES*** that are paid for by taxpayers are generally making things more expensive because a profit has to be paid to the company owners. 

note: I'm the first one to admit that this is a simplification: there are owners of (small) companies who really don't make obscene profits. The bosses generally work in the company and only make enough to cover their own wages and company's bills and everyone's wages.

There have always been private businesses involved in providing some essential stuff and paid by taxpayers, but it proliferated from the 1980s

A clear example of where the taxpayer is paying more is when private companies are involved in building schools and hospitals. We also pay shockingly high rates to water and energy companies now, after our state-run services were privatised.

This year, wheelchair users have faced difficulties in getting their equipment repaired. 

This is essential equipment and often provided for via taxpayer funding.

I was amazed to discover that wheelchair parts and repairs are in the hands of the private sector.

When a major player, NRS Healthcare, faced financial difficulties, it was wheelchair users who had to stay in their homes and suffer the consequences:

NRS Healthcare was a leading UK provider of community equipment, wheelchair services, and technology-enabled care, but the company entered liquidation in 2025, creating disruption for thousands of users and professionals reliant on their services. 

The company is no more, and its NHS contract has been transferred to Medquip. 

 * * *

I'm sure we all find it hard to imagine things being run in a different way to what we know.

But it really doesn't have to be this way.

I don't know much about mobility aids, tbh, but I can talk to you about hospital cleaners and porters:

Back in my day...

I remember the good old days when ancillary staff were directly employed by the NHS. They were employed where they worked and had good terms and conditions.

In the mid 1980s there was a move to 

* SAVE MONEY

* contract out...

Let's say there were 2 or 3 domestic workers on a hospital ward who were all directly employed by the NHS with full rights, pensions, and holiday pay. Some access to training, etc.

Now, a private company comes along to SAVE MONEY - do the job cheaper AND make a profit for the company shareholders.

How is that possible?

Answer: It is only possible by doing one or all of these:

• Cutting the working hours of domestic staff on the ward
• Cutting staff pay or other perks (such as pensions) 
• Cutting back on equipment and uniforms

The fact is, cleaners were working hard on those shifts, and there were numerous tasks that had to be completed daily to align with the ward routine. So this money-saving exercise had to involve cutting back on some aspect of hospital cleaning.

Experienced staff left in droves.

The NHS is the nation's biggest employer. Therefore, it can offer economies of scale (cost savings) through its finance and payroll system and its human resources team. 

There is simply no logical reason for any staff member who works in an NHS setting all the time to be employed by an outside employer.

 * * *

Hiring the cheapest staff on the worst contracts may have been cheaper and may have cut costs for the taxpayer (I doubt it), but what does it say about the kind of society we want to live in? 

There are currently not enough jobs, and people can't afford to live on their wages. 

Would we all prefer that taxes were paying for an extra part-time cleaner on a hospital ward rather than the costs of having people without jobs?

Dr John Lister is one person who really does understand the consequences of "contracting out" in the NHS, a process of transferring work from the public sector to the private (for-profit) sector. Studying this has been his life's work. He has published on the failure of 40 years of the private sector being invited into the NHS.

 * * *

Wheelchair repairs and hospital cleaning staff are just two examples of where essential services are being provided by the private sector for a profit.

What about the private sector being used to provide clinical services? Yes, they do operations to reduce waiting lists and they provide other clinical services routinely. All of this is a drain on the NHS and into private profit.

It would be far better if that money were spent on the NHS, building up the NHS. It has the capacity for more work -- the buildings and staff are in place, they just need the funding. 

It has been a political decision to fund the private sector instead. 

And it is not just me saying it, the BMA said the same about outsourcing.