Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

craggy_steve

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

craggy_steve last won the day on March 8

craggy_steve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

945 Excellent

About craggy_steve

  • Rank
    -

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,183 profile views
  1. There is a very insidious and powerful danger from AI. Yes it will "improve" lives - if you think that living longer into decrepitude on a planet of finite resources with an ever-increasing population is an improvement. It will also concentrate more decision-making power and wealth into the hands of the few; devaluing, disempowering and impoverishing ordinary folk unless current economic models are radically changed. Neither of these "prophesies" are scaremongering; human longevity and population has increased significantly and quality of life has, I think, on average diminished since microprocessor-based technologies became ubiquitous - and AI is set to accelerate these trends. Imagine living 20% longer and having a low-value, impoverished and "meaningless" existence; doesn't sound like much of a recipe for happiness or harmony. AI will be a real challenge to humanity unless we can evolve our society to accommodate it. The more that we permit computers to do for us the less there is for humans to do, and humans need to do something in order to have a fulfilling existence even if it's a hard grind. Track record to date has not been good. Don't have any real solutions or quick fixes!
  2. Yep, it matters because companies are mechanisms people use to generate wealth and employment, directly and indirectly via service providers. Also matters because Go'v't makes money in company fees.
  3. The "hundreds of start-ups" are those which have attended Bridge events or been facilitated by Bridge to consider coming to the IoM, not the number which have actually established here. The falling number of companies registered is concerning, but in part reflects the extortionate registry fees and the new requirements for beneficial ownership registration and transparency. At least three lost in that timescale are companies which I was a director of, shuttered because it was not worth keeping them registered here given the costs of the IoM. Many others will go over time for similar reason. One could argue that these are no great loss because they were marginal or speculative businesses - except that some will have been start-ups which will succeed given time, but will be domiciled elsewhere in a more friendly regime, and others will be the PSCs of freelancers who have moved their tax base and incorporated elsewhere due to aggressive anti-PSC tax measures.
  4. Whilst Bridge was self-funding (profit making) and intended to piggy-back off the DfE funding scheme, it was very worthwhile and set up with just about the best sponsorship that such a venture could have on this island. That it considers its position solvent but its future untenable is just about the most damning indictment of DfE and FSA that we could possibly have. Shame on them both, and shame on their leaders.
  5. "Real" Charities on the IoM probably don't have that scale of wealth / worth. I was involved in one of the larger ones which had assets under £3M, mainly land & buildings. Obviously some charities such as Hospice have rather more, but on the whole charities are not rich. However, there are many charitable trusts with varying levels of wealth - for instance Albert Gubay's charitable foundation alone was worth c. £700M in 2016 when he died, so it all depends on how you count it.
  6. Interesting perspective on the Scottish NHS - as I said I'm not close to it so I've no idea. As for the UK NHS turnaround specialists, UK NHS trusts are structurally very different to the IoM NHS and I think we want a different outcome - a successful UK NHS trust model may not be the best fit for IoM, which is not to say that these people would be ineffective here but they might need a different game strategy for the IoM case. In any transformation there has to be a bit of "you're with us or you're against us" - transformation programmes cannot afford to tolerate guerrilla saboteurs so there are likely to be casualties.
  7. Nope. Had peripheral involvement in Scottish care, but not NHS. No idea how their practices or performance might differ. If this article is true then it may be that NHS Scotland is well worth a look https://www.thenational.scot/news/16326265.can-you-compare-the-nhs-in-scotland-to-the-rest-of-the-uk/
  8. Team from across: UK NHS does not have a good record. They may be such folks but the majority of UK NHS folk would be unsuitable for the transformation bit. UK Health Regulation / Bureaucracy: One of the greatest inhibitors to progress in the UK NHS because it is so complex that nobody wants to risk trying to invent a better wheel, the regulatory environment stifles change - but it can be done. I was part of an external organisation that forced the NHS (kicking and screaming) to adopt changes to a particular part of NHS "Guidelines", and by 'eck they fought back. (And no, I'm not putting myself up for any part of this). Change / transformation is about communication, motivation, will, coordination and enablement. Let the health professionals worry about how to change operating methods whilst remaining compliant, the job of the change leadership is to make those professionals want the change, see that it is possible, and support them in achieving it. Not going to be easy, but it is do-able.
  9. There are many talented people on the island, including some quite capable of being a "Manx Care" board and running the proposed "Transformation Programme". Few if any in the Civil Service for pretty obvious reasons, the Civil Service is inherently about bureaucracy and administration not leadership or change so it neither wants nor attracts many of those people. As to who the heck would want to do the job, that's another matter - it's going to be a pretty thankless task. Most of the suitable talent pool on the island doesn't need the hassle, doesn't need the money - similar problems to the inhibitors the island has in trying to get good quality politicians. Key thing is to start with people who are firmly from outside of Gov't. One of the things that worries me most about the Michaels report is the theme that the transformation team should report to the Chief Secretary. I think it should be arms length and reporting to CoMin or Tynwald, not a civil servant and not any specific minister, because otherwise innovation will be stifled.
  10. The Review Team, like the DHSC leadership, actually don't seem to know what operational facets need to be changed, although their expert informed / experienced / gut feel suggestions in the review are probably near the mark, because DHSC doesn't have the data. Until they have actual factual data about performance of services the actual operational changes necessary cannot be determined or prioritised. I was disappointed but not surprised to learn that the DHSC and hospital management don't have the data needed - and for that reason alone it would be fair to say that the management of the island's health services has been incompetent. To quote Peter Drucker "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." And W. Edwards Deming: "In God we trust, all others must bring data.” Without the data they're buggered. With the data they can execute operational change one piece at a time, quite comfortably, which _might_ have a significant impact on user's perceptions of service quality. Given how long the island has been messing around with health / hospital IT systems the claimed data gap is lamentable. The culture change necessary is a different matter, and the very absence of adequate operational metrics is indicative of the massive cultural transformation necessary - a culture which believed in self-improvement would demand the creation of metrics.
  11. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/public-consultation-on-private-healthcare/
  12. 1) False economy: If she goes into care for even as little as 3 months sooner than she need to the DHSS will lose financially, cataract ops are very cheap.
  13. I'm currently dealing with issues for an elderly relative. Needs both cataracts doing in order to avoid going into a care home. IoM NHS Opthalmology wait list is (according to Opthalmology Dept) 30 months to see the consultant, followed by 14 months wait for treatment = 44 months total. She'll probably be dead before then. Private would be fine, she can afford it - but the Nobles Private Patient Unit is closed. Currently looking at getting it done across, probably within the next 2 months, but means 5 or 6 trips to the UK for a nonagenarian. The only reason that Private treatment is even necessary for many cases is that the NHS is so effing inefficient - if we didn't have these stupid waiting lists, which are largely the consequence of poor NHS management and obviously unnecessary because private treatment is usually available pretty promptly, the majority of private treatment would evaporate.
  14. I think Lxxx meant "these". Prices do seem to have increased significantly, nearly £500 for a fully flexible return to MCR. You can get a scheduled return Manchester to Los Angeles for less. Looks like Flybe are handing Easyjet more business. But then Flybe were in dire financial trouble on the basis of their previous pricing, so maybe some increases were to be expected.
  15. 17 medals in total. From such a small team this is simply stunning. Well done to all, they are outstanding https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-sport/special-olympians-to-return-home/
×
×
  • Create New...