The charming Allison Pearson in the latest bout of howhardcanitbeism, I see. The affliction that led us to hold all the cards after Brexit.
You don't think it's legitimate to question why an organisation that employs getting on for as many people in the UK as Macdonald's employs worldwide, and whose funding has been ring-fenced since the horse-drawn cab, can't organise their fucking selves to increase bed capacity?
Since 2010 the NHS has steadily reduced acute bed capacity, by about 25%.
Who has been in government over that period?
So far as I can see, the Tories' only role where the NHS is concerned during their tenure has been to ask how much to make out the cheque for.
If you're saying that they should have taken the opportunity to reform the organisation beyond all recognition, I couldn't agree more, but that seems contrary to your previously stated views on the topic.
I would also be interested to know whether you support or condemn the BMA's 2008 vote to restrict the numbers of new doctors and ban new medical schools.
On the contrary I have consistently advocated expanding medical schools, improving staff retention, and consider the BMA spineless government lackeys. The BMA incidentally has no say over licensing medical schools and their numbers. That is a role of the GMC, which is a government appointed quango.
As for reform, I have consistently advocated reform, and think my header on it a few years ago has aged rather well:
It isn't. Rishi and HY say so. We can comfortably ignore the dead and the dying and the healthcare professionals struggling under siege conditions. No Crisis, just the winter, shut up you leftwingers.
No just the usual left-wing whinge exploiting the NHS for their political ends.
Refusing to reform, so it stays the most statist and bureaucratic healthcare system in the developed world
If that's the answer wtf have the Tories been doing for the past 12 and a half years?
The Tories have been failing to reform the NHS, while gradually spending more we cant afford, vs Labour fail to reform the NHS while spending a lot more than we can afford.
The core problem in all of this is that there is a maximum amount that can be raised from taxation. Other developed countries therefore fund a big chunk of their healthcare with private contributions. But it's politically verboten to do that in the UK, so the exchequer has to cover all the health budget plus every other public cause and there's not enough money to go round.
Interesting that graph correlates with Brown's ludicrous decision to tell GPs they didn't have to work nights and weekends. It's been a fecking disaster since then.
The British people hate academic knowledge, except if it's about old things and buildings and that. This isn't France. Bad political call.
The French are more into philosophy and literature than Maths. It is the likes of Singapore and China and Japan he is trying to copy.
Though English, foreign languages and IT are equally as important to learn for today's workplace
Point is: if it were history or Shakespeare until 18, that would be the germ of a good idea politically. You can see Gove and Cummings trying that one. Maths and most other hard subjects are coded as being for ugly people and ethnic minorities.
I am not sure what the actual policy is, but question how it can it be regarded as good politics to try and impose mandatory remedial maths lessons on teenagers (particularly 16-18 year olds). They won't want to know, it will be a waste of money, no one will appreciate it.
It isn't. Rishi and HY say so. We can comfortably ignore the dead and the dying and the healthcare professionals struggling under siege conditions. No Crisis, just the winter, shut up you leftwingers.
No just the usual left-wing whinge exploiting the NHS for their political ends.
Refusing to reform, so it stays the most statist and bureaucratic healthcare system in the developed world
If that's the answer wtf have the Tories been doing for the past 12 and a half years?
The Tories have been failing to reform the NHS, while gradually spending more we cant afford, vs Labour fail to reform the NHS while spending a lot more than we can afford.
The core problem in all of this is that there is a maximum amount that can be raised from taxation. Other developed countries therefore fund a big chunk of their healthcare with private contributions. But it's politically verboten to do that in the UK, so the exchequer has to cover all the health budget plus every other public cause and there's not enough money to go round.
Interesting that graph correlates with Brown's ludicrous decision to tell GPs they didn't have to work nights and weekends. It's been a fecking disaster since then.
The new GP contract was implemented in 2004, and if anything the shortening of waiting lists accelerated in the years afterwards.
As I pointed out earlier there have been endless "reforms" implemented over the last decade.
Why do people so persist in making statements that are obviously wrong?
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
In terms of day to day life, the best way to live with bureaucratic absurdity is to see it as an inevitability and not let it bother you. If you keep getting angry about everything, you are going to get consumed by misery. It is a bit worrying though hearing these anecdotes about what is happening to lecturers in universities.
For a lot - a majority, probably - of people, maths is boring; at school it is an abstract chore, and frankly 90% of what’s taught to GCSE is irrelevant in the lives of 90% of people*.
But you could say the same, or similar, for many other subjects. So why not study music to age 18? Or art? Or D&T? Or biology?
There’s a weird and unnecessary fetishisation of maths as *the* gold standard subject. It’s important, of course. But not compulsory-to-age-18 important.
*Which, despite the Bilboesque phrasing is still not a negligible amount of relevance! But I learnt way more about statistics (easily one of the most useful everyday branches of maths) in my *archaeology* degree than I ever did pre-16 in my maths lessons.
Because maths teaches you to think in a logical, rigorous way. Biology does that somewhat, but is a lot more about memorization than chemistry or physics. Design and technology could be valuable. Art is a fluffy subject that is already oversubscribed.
The fact that GCSE maths has been watered down over the decades isn't good reason for not doing as much maths.
I think it's really important that they neglect teaching probability in schools. Otherwise, where would we get our edge?
For a lot - a majority, probably - of people, maths is boring; at school it is an abstract chore, and frankly 90% of what’s taught to GCSE is irrelevant in the lives of 90% of people*.
But you could say the same, or similar, for many other subjects. So why not study music to age 18? Or art? Or D&T? Or biology?
There’s a weird and unnecessary fetishisation of maths as *the* gold standard subject. It’s important, of course. But not compulsory-to-age-18 important.
*Which, despite the Bilboesque phrasing is still not a negligible amount of relevance! But I learnt way more about statistics (easily one of the most useful everyday branches of maths) in my *archaeology* degree than I ever did pre-16 in my maths lessons.
Because maths teaches you to think in a logical, rigorous way. Biology does that somewhat, but is a lot more about memorization than chemistry or physics. Design and technology could be valuable. Art is a fluffy subject that is already oversubscribed.
The fact that GCSE maths has been watered down over the decades isn't good reason for not doing as much maths.
I think it's really important that they neglect teaching probability in schools. Otherwise, where would we get our edge?
Gambling should be taught in schools.
It was in mine. We had a card game permanently in one classroom at lunchtimes. 3 card brag with a box.
It isn't. Rishi and HY say so. We can comfortably ignore the dead and the dying and the healthcare professionals struggling under siege conditions. No Crisis, just the winter, shut up you leftwingers.
No just the usual left-wing whinge exploiting the NHS for their political ends.
Refusing to reform, so it stays the most statist and bureaucratic healthcare system in the developed world
If that's the answer wtf have the Tories been doing for the past 12 and a half years?
The Tories have been failing to reform the NHS, while gradually spending more we cant afford, vs Labour fail to reform the NHS while spending a lot more than we can afford.
The core problem in all of this is that there is a maximum amount that can be raised from taxation. Other developed countries therefore fund a big chunk of their healthcare with private contributions. But it's politically verboten to do that in the UK, so the exchequer has to cover all the health budget plus every other public cause and there's not enough money to go round.
There are lots of countries (eg France and Germany) that spend more in public money (including compulsory insurance) per capita on health than the UK does. They also have a lower proportion of private health spending. It is hard to find a single country that spends less than the UK per capita in terms of public spending/compulsory insurance AND makes up the difference in private health spending.
On maths, in most OECD countries - including France, Germany, America and Japan - maths is compulsory up to the age of 18, and, of course, de rigueur in places like Singapore, HK and South Korea. My understanding is that the policy doesn't mean everyone has to do A-level but will mean everyone has to complete a core maths qualification or a T-level. It follows a year-long commission set up by the Times Education Commission that heard from experts in business and education that has now reported. It might also include for a British baccalaureate as well.
I am very supportive of this. One of the biggest challenges we have in this country is in the skills and productivity of our workforce. We need to start investing more in that if we want to raise our competitiveness in the medium-long term. And, yes, more maths teachers is a part of that. Analytical skills will be crucial to good jobs in the future, jobs that will help generate the taxes to pay for the NHS. We are in a global race.
Yes, the politics of it is unfortunate. Because right now there is an NHS crisis (and that's what everyone wants to hear Sunak talk about and get a grip on) the timing of this risks trashing this very welcome and necessary initiative. Furthermore, Politics (big P) requires that any opponent of Sunak and the Conservatives also trash it because sledging them and getting them out of office asap is their priority - and we see plenty of that on here this morning. No doubt we'd be hearing far less criticism if it were an opposition policy.
We have a productivity problem in this country - and a broader British disease of thinking maths, science and engineering is gaudy, nerdy, difficult and uncool, which holds us back - and I really hope this doesn't fall casualty to that. Because it's very important - not taking it with the seriousness it deserves will continue to mean that plenty of state school pupils, and our country more broadly, fall by the wayside whilst private schools & tutors continue to respond to parent wishes and give them the rigorous education they demand.
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
I don’t have one. Or at least, if I do I’ve never been told who it is.
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
I don’t have one. Or at least, if I do I’ve never been told who it is.
The practice is obliged to tell you within weeks of registering.
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
I don’t have one. Or at least, if I do I’ve never been told who it is.
The practice is obliged to tell you within weeks of registering.
"In recent days, I have heard the following stories from people whom I trust to tell the truth—and furthermore, with some documentary evidence in support. A distinguished professor with an international reputation has tried to obtain an appointment on her mother’s behalf with her general practitioner—or rather, with the group practice at which she is registered, since no particular doctor takes responsibility for her care. The mother was widowed not long ago, her husband having been for 40 years a general practitioner in the area; his patients loved him so much that, when he died, many attended his funeral, though he had retired 20 years earlier.
The mother, 82, had suffered a stroke, following another serious illness that had left residual effects. She now had a problem that needed a face-to-face consultation with a doctor to resolve, but the practice refused to grant an appointment until the patient first filled out an online form. The doctors would then review the form to decide whether the patient deserved an audience (a better term than “consultation,” in the circumstances).
In the modern world, not to use the Internet, as this old woman did not, is almost a criminal offense: at any rate, it deprives one de facto of many rights. At least she could have her daughter fill out the form for her, though it was so complex that it took more than half an hour to complete, and—by ukase of the practice—it could not be submitted during the weekend or outside of working hours, and only on the day it was filled out. The true purpose of the ukase, I surmise (though it came with the usual unctuous bureaucratic genuflections to efficiency and the best possible patient care), was to let the supplicant—again, a better term, in the circumstances, than “patient”—know just who was boss.
The form allowed for various choices in describing one’s medical problem. But such a net is of necessity coarse mesh and cannot catch all diagnostic fish. Not to worry: the electronic form issued instructions as to what to do if none of the choices covered the case in hand. The first step was to consult a pharmacist. The second was to go to the National Health Service Self-Help helpline. The third was to contact the medical practice to seek further advice on how to fill out the form. The seventh circle of hell was nothing, compared with this."
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
Interesting phrasing, Foxy. Part time work among GPs (often female) is part of the issue. If you train lots of women (a good thing) they tend to have children (also a good thing) and often go part time or drop out (a bit less good). Our pharmacy cohort is ridiculously skewed to women (>80%) which stores up workforce issues for later.
It isn't. Rishi and HY say so. We can comfortably ignore the dead and the dying and the healthcare professionals struggling under siege conditions. No Crisis, just the winter, shut up you leftwingers.
No just the usual left-wing whinge exploiting the NHS for their political ends.
Refusing to reform, so it stays the most statist and bureaucratic healthcare system in the developed world
If that's the answer wtf have the Tories been doing for the past 12 and a half years?
The Tories have been failing to reform the NHS, while gradually spending more we cant afford, vs Labour fail to reform the NHS while spending a lot more than we can afford.
The core problem in all of this is that there is a maximum amount that can be raised from taxation. Other developed countries therefore fund a big chunk of their healthcare with private contributions. But it's politically verboten to do that in the UK, so the exchequer has to cover all the health budget plus every other public cause and there's not enough money to go round.
There are lots of countries (eg France and Germany) that spend more in public money (including compulsory insurance) per capita on health than the UK does. They also have a lower proportion of private health spending. It is hard to find a single country that spends less than the UK per capita in terms of public spending/compulsory insurance AND makes up the difference in private health spending.
France and Germany fund healthcare via social insurance
Comments
As I pointed out earlier there have been endless "reforms" implemented over the last decade.
Why do people so persist in making statements that are obviously wrong?
According to this (which might be wrong):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
There are lots of countries (eg France and Germany) that spend more in public money (including compulsory insurance) per capita on health than the UK does. They also have a lower proportion of private health spending. It is hard to find a single country that spends less than the UK per capita in terms of public spending/compulsory insurance AND makes up the difference in private health spending.
I am very supportive of this. One of the biggest challenges we have in this country is in the skills and productivity of our workforce. We need to start investing more in that if we want to raise our competitiveness in the medium-long term. And, yes, more maths teachers is a part of that. Analytical skills will be crucial to good jobs in the future, jobs that will help generate the taxes to pay for the NHS. We are in a global race.
Yes, the politics of it is unfortunate. Because right now there is an NHS crisis (and that's what everyone wants to hear Sunak talk about and get a grip on) the timing of this risks trashing this very welcome and necessary initiative. Furthermore, Politics (big P) requires that any opponent of Sunak and the Conservatives also trash it because sledging them and getting them out of office asap is their priority - and we see plenty of that on here this morning. No doubt we'd be hearing far less criticism if it were an opposition policy.
We have a productivity problem in this country - and a broader British disease of thinking maths, science and engineering is gaudy, nerdy, difficult and uncool, which holds us back - and I really hope this doesn't fall casualty to that. Because it's very important - not taking it with the seriousness it deserves will continue to mean that plenty of state school pupils, and our country more broadly, fall by the wayside whilst private schools & tutors continue to respond to parent wishes and give them the rigorous education they demand.
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/gp-practices/managing-your-practice-list/requirement-for-all-patients-to-have-a-named-gp
Ultimately the problem described is one of capacity. We were promised 5 000 more GPs in both the last elections by the party that won, but now have 1800 fewer WTE full time GPs.
NEW THREAD