There is another factor to consider GP,s are paid according to the number of patients on their books.
It is the interest of the practice to get as many patients through the doors as possible.

We recently went from a local practice ( 3 doctors ) to a huge multi practice when 3 GP practices merged.
No thought was given to the patients many who are elderly and now face a long trek to see anyone when they are ill.
It is more like a factory than the local doctors I was used to.

Interesting because I've done the opposite.

I changed from a large practice/health centre because I simply could not get an appointment other than a telephone consultation 3 weeks hence.

Moving to a smaller surgery just a mile away and I was able to see a GP the next day!

We had no choice, it is the mega practices or nothing in our area.

I´m not sure a "mega practice" is a money maker?
Three practices each earning money for the number of patients on the books equates to 1 practice with all of the patients on the books? ie, the same "hand out"
Also, rent of a single practice will be cheaper than rent for three, so the money they are given for rent etc will be less.
I think "mega practices" are a government cost saver.

Or perhaps those with the ready cash will spend their social life chatting endlessly about their need to fart with their GP.

Those who do not have the where-with-all can go phone a helpline?

This may go some way to explain our woes.

Government’s reorganisation of the NHS was its biggest 'mistake', say senior Tories - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Isn't it about time that we bust this myth that everyone in the NHS works terribly hard.

No they don't. They work a contracted amount of hours which is far less than many others in the Private Sector, they have superior pension arrangements and superior benefits.

I'm sure many do work hard but there are also a great many that play the system. Anytime I visit someone in hospital it seems to ma great deal of time is spent at the nurses station hanging around and chatting.

Didn't happen in Matrons day

It all comes down to piss poor managment!

I spent 10 years working in a hospital in my younger days & we never had the time to stand around chatting.
At that time all wards were run by a ward sister & the Matron would regularly inspect all aspects of the ward & chat to the patients.
God help you if she found anything wrong !!!

That applies to most of the public sector.
Whoever wins the next election will have to deal with public sector costs and reduce them to what the country can afford.
The most sensible way is to reduce the size of the workforce and get the remainder working more effectively/efficiently.
Some chance, the managers have their own jobs to preserve!

... or privatise...

Very true. But there's nothing out of the ordinary about that.

Governments don't have the same set of metrics as the private sector. Competition being the most obvious. Money comes in, you spend it. If you don't spend it, you don't get it next year. Need more money? raise taxes. simples.

Conversely, the private sector has to compete. That means watching every penny, and always searching for ways to deliver a better product more efficiently. If they don't the business goes elsewhere.

Wouldn't it be great if we could choose which government is giving us the best value for >our< money? (it is OUR money, by the way). You can argue that one political party or another does it better, but in the end, it's still a monopoly without competition, and that alone sets much of the rules.

I suppose you could argue that there are other governments that are more efficient and offer a better value for YOUR money, but then, taking any advantage of that competition makes you a cheat in the eyes of your country. Monopolies hate competition.

Oh, and by the way, the theory that certain political groups are trying to "carve it all up" for some mysterious destruction aspiration is a very short-sighted and completely senseless argument.

Political parties all have varying opinions and strategies for "improving" things (often unwittingly causing more damage than good), but destruction for the sake of destruction benefits nobody, including politicians or their parties.

Monopolies certainly do but it's not just public sector. There are plenty of big businesses that are monopolies or "ring" their prices among themselves.

Many also avoid paying their taxes in the country where they make their profits.

I am not anti public sector, I am anti unfairness whether that be public or private sector.