politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to Rochester & Strood which has become a “must win”

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to Rochester & Strood which has become a “must win” for both the Tories and UKIP

Inevitably UKIP go into the upcoming Rochester & Strood by-election with their tails up high. Clacton, and even more so, Heywood have given the party the “big mo” which they hope will carry over to the next contest.

Read the full story here

MattW

Ooooh.

First.

DecrepitJohnL

Surely the main benefit of an open primary is that those voters who take part become invested and hence are more likely to vote Conservative on polling day. A secondary benefit may be (although I'm not 100 per cent sure on this) that the primary does not count against campaign spending limits. The guff in the reproduced in the OP about "the people's choice" is just spin.

MikeSmithson

DecrepitJohnL said:

Surely the main benefit of an open primary is that those voters who take part become invested and hence are more likely to vote Conservative on polling day. A secondary benefit may be (although I'm not 100 per cent sure on this) that the primary does not count against campaign spending limits. The guff in the reproduced in the OP about "the people's choice" is just spin.

The question of whether the cost of the primary counts against spending limits is one that I haven't resolved yet - but my assumption is that it won't be. For sending out mail packs to all electors and then processing the return is not going to be cheap. In 2009 the one in Totnes is said to have cost £40k which would take a big slice of the overall allowable by-election budget of £100k

Maybe because this is taking place before the election has been called is making a difference? I don't know.

Are there any PB experts our there who can help?

CarlottaVance

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Surely the main benefit of an open primary is that those voters who take part become invested and hence are more likely to vote Conservative on polling day. A secondary benefit may be (although I'm not 100 per cent sure on this) that the primary does not count against campaign spending limits. The guff in the reproduced in the OP about "the people's choice" is just spin.

Maybe because this is taking place before the election has been called is making a difference? I don't know.

Are there any PB experts our there who can help?

What happens if Carswell moves the writ? Will the government vote it down?

DecrepitJohnL

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

audreyanne

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

CarlottaVance

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

SimonStClare

Matt’s take on Rochestor & Strood.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

DecrepitJohnL

CarlottaVance said:

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

Maybe. More likely a cash-strapped Labour will save its money for GE2015 and let the Tories and UKIP fight out Rochester & Strood. Whether that is an altogether wise course of action is another question, since Blairites and bloggers will make hay with any drop in Labour votes, but otherwise it is win/win for Labour since either UKIP or the Conservative Party will be damaged by a win for the other.

asjohnstone

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Surely the main benefit of an open primary is that those voters who take part become invested and hence are more likely to vote Conservative on polling day. A secondary benefit may be (although I'm not 100 per cent sure on this) that the primary does not count against campaign spending limits. The guff in the reproduced in the OP about "the people's choice" is just spin.

Maybe because this is taking place before the election has been called is making a difference? I don't know.

Are there any PB experts our there who can help?

What happens if Carswell moves the writ? Will the government vote it down?

The Government ? No, we don't have such a thing in political terms.

The Tories might have been tempted to do so, but the Lib Dems wouldn't join them in doing so, and the risk of humiliation of trying to do so and failing is too high.

MonikerDiCanio

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

Maybe. More likely a cash-strapped Labour will save its money for GE2015 and let the Tories and UKIP fight out Rochester & Strood. Whether that is an altogether wise course of action is another question, since Blairites and bloggers will make hay with any drop in Labour votes, but otherwise it is win/win for Labour since either UKIP or the Conservative Party will be damaged by a win for the other.

More like lose/lose for Labour, the most pathetic official opposition I can recall.

NickPalmer

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

Monksfield

MonikerDiCanio said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

Maybe. More likely a cash-strapped Labour will save its money for GE2015 and let the Tories and UKIP fight out Rochester & Strood. Whether that is an altogether wise course of action is another question, since Blairites and bloggers will make hay with any drop in Labour votes, but otherwise it is win/win for Labour since either UKIP or the Conservative Party will be damaged by a win for the other.

More like lose/lose for Labour, the most pathetic official opposition I can recall.

I rarely agree with you Moniker but this is an exception. For Labour to throw in the towel before a by election in a seat they so recently held is an admission of the poverty of their strategy.

DecrepitJohnL

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

Maybe. More likely a cash-strapped Labour will save its money for GE2015 and let the Tories and UKIP fight out Rochester & Strood. Whether that is an altogether wise course of action is another question, since Blairites and bloggers will make hay with any drop in Labour votes, but otherwise it is win/win for Labour since either UKIP or the Conservative Party will be damaged by a win for the other.

More like lose/lose for Labour, the most pathetic official opposition I can recall.

I rarely agree with you Moniker but this is an exception. For Labour to throw in the towel before a by election in a seat they so recently held is an admission of the poverty of their strategy.

This is how it will be spun but Labour may calculate that a UKIP win means disarray on the Conservative backbenches, with more defections to come. This is good for Labour. A win for the Tories, though, is also good for Labour as it will halt UKIP's momentum just as that party is starting to threaten Labour.

DavidL

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

hucks67

According to The Times today senior Tories admit that Lansleys NHS reforms were a mistake. Apparently neither Cameron or Osborne understood the reforms and now wish they had put a stop to them.

I just wonder whether this briefing to the press is a tactic in the run up to the election. Labour are using the NHS as a major part of their election campaign, saying that the Tories are currently in the process of privatising the NHS and will complete this if re-elected. In his party conference speech Cameron denied Labours NHS attacks and said he was a passionate supporter of a public NHS. So we have this briefing presumably sanctioned by Camerons team and CCHQ, where they try to suggest that they may regret Lansleys reforms. This seems to be an attempt to blame Lansley, when there are no current plans to reverse the reforms.

MonikerDiCanio

DecrepitJohnL said:

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

City AM argue that not just Cameron and Farage have a lot riding on Rochester:

Miliband must show that he can win votes in swing seats (his party held the seat up to 2010). If Labour fails to increase its vote, it would be going into a general election led by someone seemingly incapable of winning in the South and barely able to hold onto safe seats in the North.

http://www.cityam.com/1413167967/both-miliband-and-cameron-must-bet-house-rochester-save-themselves-now

Maybe. More likely a cash-strapped Labour will save its money for GE2015 and let the Tories and UKIP fight out Rochester & Strood. Whether that is an altogether wise course of action is another question, since Blairites and bloggers will make hay with any drop in Labour votes, but otherwise it is win/win for Labour since either UKIP or the Conservative Party will be damaged by a win for the other.

More like lose/lose for Labour, the most pathetic official opposition I can recall.

I rarely agree with you Moniker but this is an exception. For Labour to throw in the towel before a by election in a seat they so recently held is an admission of the poverty of their strategy.

This is how it will be spun but Labour may calculate that a UKIP win means disarray on the Conservative backbenches, with more defections to come. This is good for Labour. A win for the Tories, though, is also good for Labour as it will halt UKIP's momentum just as that party is starting to threaten Labour.

Too clever by half. Labour is in retreat North,South,East and West.

OldKingCole

Agree with DecrepitJohn upthread about “open primaries”. I don’t want to be represented by someone who sits on the Tory benches and generally speaking viotes with them. I know Sarah Woolaston is generally held to be freethinking, but she still takes the Tory whip.
Having said that, I’m not sure at all how in UK a party would go about polling it’s voters, as opposed to members. I suppose if one had a full set of marked registers from last time that would be a good start, but it’s not like the US where one can be registered as a Republican or a Democrat.
Don’t know what I’d do if a letter came through my door asking “who would you like to see as Tory candidate out ofd this lot?” I’d be tempted to vote for the most unpleasant, on the grounds that it might lose the Tories the seat. On the other hand, if the likely alternative’s UKIP.....

And I agree about Labour and or the LD’s fighting it, particularly Labour. It was after all a seat they held until recently so there should be a decent organisation locally.

DecrepitJohnL

DavidL said:

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

Essential for what? What exactly is the upside of throwing the kitchen sink at Rochester and losing?

Freggles

DavidL said:

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

They can fight for it properly in 7 months time, right now it's protest vote central and an opportunity to keep the UKIP bandwagon rolling right over Cameron's front lawn.

matt

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

Claiming City AM is hard-right speaks more to your view of the world than theirs.

DavidL

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

According to Wikipedia the constituency profile is:

"Rochester and Strood has a working population with close to the national average income,[5][6] low unemployment compared to the national average (3.5% at the end of 2012)[7] and can be considered aside from significant sources of employment, professions and trades in Kent as part of the London Commuter Belt. Levels of reliance on social housing are similar to most of the region in this seat.[5]"

Close to average income, commuter belt, typical levels of social housing for southern England and you are seriously saying Labour cannot hope to compete with the right tearing itself in 2?

There is no mention on Wiki of boundary changes. The seat was only created in 2010. What do you think has changed?

Swiss_Bob

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

CityAM the far right's Morning Star.

Monksfield

Freggles said:

DavidL said:

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

They can fight for it properly in 7 months time, right now it's protest vote central and an opportunity to keep the UKIP bandwagon rolling right over Cameron's front lawn.

The problem is that it's rolling over The Ed's lawn as well. Tremendously risky strategy.

DavidL

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

Essential for what? What exactly is the upside of throwing the kitchen sink at Rochester and losing?

To show they hope to gain seats (they currently have 4) in south east England as a one nation party? It is simplistic but divide Reckless's vote in 2 and they win. Do they really want to be squeezed again and have their supporters voting Tory tactically to keep UKIP out?

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

According to Wikipedia the constituency profile is:

"Rochester and Strood has a working population with close to the national average income,[5][6] low unemployment compared to the national average (3.5% at the end of 2012)[7] and can be considered aside from significant sources of employment, professions and trades in Kent as part of the London Commuter Belt. Levels of reliance on social housing are similar to most of the region in this seat.[5]"

Close to average income, commuter belt, typical levels of social housing for southern England and you are seriously saying Labour cannot hope to compete with the right tearing itself in 2?

There is no mention on Wiki of boundary changes. The seat was only created in 2010. What do you think has changed?

My understanding of Wikipedia on the seat is that it is the Medway seat re-named, not that there have been boundary changes. But I may well be wrong...

bigjohnowls

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

MarkSenior

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

Also agreed. The Tories are said to want Nov 24. We've discussed Carswell forcing the issue sooner - I think the earliest would be Nov 10. The main difference that would make might indeed be that the cost of the primary would count against the £100K limit,

CityAM is a hard-right free paper (though often a good read) and I wouldn't seek their advice on electoral tactics. As with Newark, it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

According to Wikipedia the constituency profile is:

"Rochester and Strood has a working population with close to the national average income,[5][6] low unemployment compared to the national average (3.5% at the end of 2012)[7] and can be considered aside from significant sources of employment, professions and trades in Kent as part of the London Commuter Belt. Levels of reliance on social housing are similar to most of the region in this seat.[5]"

Close to average income, commuter belt, typical levels of social housing for southern England and you are seriously saying Labour cannot hope to compete with the right tearing itself in 2?

There is no mention on Wiki of boundary changes. The seat was only created in 2010. What do you think has changed?

My understanding of Wikipedia on the seat is that it is the Medway seat re-named, not that there have been boundary changes. But I may well be wrong...

There were minor boundary changes for Rochester and Strood compared to the prior Medway seat probably sufficient for the Conservatives to have just won the seat in 2005 on the new boundaries but the overall effect of the changes was less than a 1% swing .

Innocent_Abroad

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

bigjohnowls

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

Monksfield

Jeremy Chum typically giving the impression that public sector workers get automatic inflation increments. Don't think that's too prevalent these days.

MonikerDiCanio

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Monksfield

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

rottenborough

DavidL said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

The 2010 result in Rochester and Strood:

Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6

Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7

Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9

English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A

Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A

So a truly terrible result for Labour, surely one of the bigger swings in the country, and yet they still came a respectable second with 28.5% of the vote. And there is a chunky Lib Dem vote to squeeze. And we are in the run up to a GE which they expect to return them to power.

If Labour sit this one out as well they really are giving up an overall majority. There will be too many seats where they are simply not competitive any more. I am not for a moment suggesting that they would win (although surely they ought to with the right vote split in two) but a respectable showing is essential.

Essential for what? What exactly is the upside of throwing the kitchen sink at Rochester and losing?

To show they hope to gain seats (they currently have 4) in south east England as a one nation party? It is simplistic but divide Reckless's vote in 2 and they win. Do they really want to be squeezed again and have their supporters voting Tory tactically to keep UKIP out?

As McTernan said of Labour at weekend:

"We are in deep, deep trouble. We are lost and our voters want us back. They keep sending us messages. When will we listen?"

I have put my money on the Tories.

Innocent_Abroad

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

If they were as dedicated as they pretend they'd tear up their union cards. If they are as broke as they claim they should cut out inessentials like TU subs, anyway.

MonikerDiCanio

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

Is there anything more disgusting than holding the sick and needy hostage for personal financial gain?

bigjohnowls

Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government.
David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not preventing what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”, it can be revealed.
One senior cabinet minister told The Times: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”

Denying a pay review body recommended 1% pay award as agreed in Scotland and Wales should help.

BTW I see FTSE 100 Chief Execs. only had a 20% increase this year all good news for GE2015?

Innocent_Abroad

MonikerDiCanio said:

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

Is there anything more disgusting than holding the sick and needy hostage for personal financial gain?

Possibly not, but it's what capitalism does 24-7.

bigjohnowls

MonikerDiCanio said:

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

Is there anything more disgusting than holding the sick and needy hostage for personal financial gain?

What increase have you had?

No_Offence_Alan

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

The staff will strike.
They won't get any more money.
The world will move on.

bigjohnowls

No_Offence_Alan said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

The staff will strike.
They won't get any more money.
The world will move on.

So it will still be on TV at GE2015?

Monksfield

MonikerDiCanio said:

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

Is there anything more disgusting than holding the sick and needy hostage for personal financial gain?

That's rich given that the financial services industry has held the entire country to ransom, and has shown no contrition whatsoever. They're the ones that have adversely impacted the sick and needy.

MarkSenior

MonikerDiCanio said:

Monksfield said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Get a grip. We're talking about bills to pay.

Is there anything more disgusting than holding the sick and needy hostage for personal financial gain?

Yep people like you pontificating that others should look after the sick and needy for wages that you would personally not accept .

rottenborough

bigjohnowls said:

Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government.
David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not preventing what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”, it can be revealed.
One senior cabinet minister told The Times: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”

Denying a pay review body recommended 1% pay award as agreed in Scotland and Wales should help.

BTW I see FTSE 100 Chief Execs. only had a 20% increase this year all good news for GE2015?

Interesting this is being briefed now. Getting it dealt with before GE 2015 formally starts? The implication of this is Cameron is not on the job when it comes to policy details (think we knew that one all ready), but, more interestingly, Osborne did understand but failed to stop it.

If they had left well alone, then would be easier to blame state of NHS on last lot of Labour ministers who left a mess etc etc.

CarlottaVance

Interesting perspective from Ashcroft on the (non) impact of conferences:

.......when it comes to the fundamentals, how much has really changed over the conference season? In my latest poll I asked more than 5,000 people what, if anything, they had heard about the Tories in the past few weeks. The biggest group, 30 per cent, had registered nothing at all. One in five had noticed they had held a conference — though often no more than that — and 15 per cent recalled them talking about tax cuts.

For Labour, the results are more depressing. Four in ten had noticed nothing, one in five had clocked the conference but nearly 15 per cent remembered that Ed Miliband had forgotten part of his speech — more than three times the number who remembered his party talking about the NHS.


http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/really-changed-conference-season/

Innocent_Abroad

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government.
David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not preventing what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”, it can be revealed.
One senior cabinet minister told The Times: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”

Denying a pay review body recommended 1% pay award as agreed in Scotland and Wales should help.

BTW I see FTSE 100 Chief Execs. only had a 20% increase this year all good news for GE2015?

Interesting this is being briefed now. Getting it dealt with before GE 2015 formally starts? The implication of this is Cameron is not on the job when it comes to policy details (think we knew that one all ready), but, more interestingly, Osborne did understand but failed to stop it.

If they had left well alone, then would be easier to blame state of NHS on last lot of Labour ministers who left a mess etc etc.

Government's easy in your world, isn't it? Do sweet FA for five years, enjoy the limelight, the limos and the PAs and blame it all on the other lot? Can't imagine why real world politicians don't see it like that...

bigjohnowls

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

rottenborough

Alan Johnson was unequivocal in Times at weekend. He 'aint coming back to rescue Labour, before the GE.

rottenborough

Matthew Norman is brilliant in Today's Indie. First has a go at Alan "the Modfather" Johnson, who won't run for leadership and then suggests Ed Miliband has a city-break in Boston because:

"Apparently there’s a bar there where everybody knows your name."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/alan-johnsons-lack-of-leadership-ambition-is-inexcusable-9790161.html

[Deleted User]

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

bigjohnowls

Bit quiet on here this morning.

Nurses and Midwives on strike. Hunt cant afford a 1% pay award although powerless to stop MPs taking an 11.9% one which apparently we can afford

Report shows FTSE 100 CE get 20% extra which companies have to give to retain talent.

Cameron and Osborne think Lansley reforms were a big mistake

Wonder why its quiet

DavidL

The NHS has endured several years of no real increase in money (bar some odd change) after years where it was growing rapidly. This is set to continue into the next Parliament whoever wins. Even if the stupid mansion tax came to pass the sums are relatively trivial in the context of the NHS budget.

So the challenge for all politicians is to get more medical services out of the same money. There is evidence that the NHS reorganisation in England has achieved that. Whether it might also have been achieved under the existing structures is harder to judge. By 2010 the NHS was spending money so inefficiently that there was ample room for savings without reorganisation. I suspect Osborne's regret is that it is easier for Labour to blame the Tories for the stresses the organisation is inevitably under given the changes.

As regards the strikes, this is simply symptomatic of the pressures the next government will face from a workforce who think they have been hard done by. Whether this is true or not is really not the point. They are frustrated that they are being asked to do more for what is less in real terms. It is entirely understandable but you cannot increase the number of doctors and nurses for the same money and pay them more, no matter how many managers you get rid of.

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

murali_s

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Typical comment from a nasty right-wing fruitcake...

Sadly, there seems to be more and more of them appearing on this blog. This blog is slowly losing it's soul...

rottenborough

Innocent_Abroad said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government.
David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not preventing what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”, it can be revealed.
One senior cabinet minister told The Times: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”

Denying a pay review body recommended 1% pay award as agreed in Scotland and Wales should help.

BTW I see FTSE 100 Chief Execs. only had a 20% increase this year all good news for GE2015?

Interesting this is being briefed now. Getting it dealt with before GE 2015 formally starts? The implication of this is Cameron is not on the job when it comes to policy details (think we knew that one all ready), but, more interestingly, Osborne did understand but failed to stop it.

If they had left well alone, then would be easier to blame state of NHS on last lot of Labour ministers who left a mess etc etc.

Government's easy in your world, isn't it? Do sweet FA for five years, enjoy the limelight, the limos and the PAs and blame it all on the other lot? Can't imagine why real world politicians don't see it like that...

I'm not commenting on whether the plans were right or wrong, I'm pointing out the political tactics. They told the electorate there would be no reorganization and then did a massive one. You may be right that more honourable ministers took the right steps for the greater good of the country. In which case, why are they now briefing that they got it so wrong?

Neil

Patrick said:

The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion

If only they could be converted to the free marketerianism. We could call them wee frees.

Monksfield

rottenborough said:

Matthew Norman is brilliant in Today's Indie. First has a go at Alan "the Modfather" Johnson, who won't run for leadership and then suggests Ed Miliband has a city-break in Boston because:

"Apparently there’s a bar there where everybody knows your name."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/alan-johnsons-lack-of-leadership-ambition-is-inexcusable-9790161.html

Alan Johnson isn't leadership material and to be fair to him had the self awareness to know it

bigjohnowls

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: bah, still irked with myself (and Toro Rosso for screwing up their set-up so badly) over Russia. Nevermind. The post-race piece is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-post-race-analysis.html

Button's apparently commented McLaren may be able to pass Ferrari. At first I was sceptical, but the gap is perhaps within reach (just over 40 points). That would mean Ferrari finishing fifth, which would be pretty atrocious.

Innocent_Abroad

murali_s said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

bigjohnowls said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

bigjohnowls said:

I would be interested to know how the Jeremy Hunt thinks the NHS strike is going to be resolved.

Anyone any ideas?

Since the problem is to wean the electorate off its dependence on "free" healthcare, cutting the employees' pay to cause more strikes and thus destroy healthcare workers' standing in the eyes of the public would seem to be one solution.

Not going to be resolved then?

These NHS workers seem to be more devoted to their wallets than their patients.

Typical comment from a nasty right-wing fruitcake...

Sadly, there seems to be more and more of them appearing on this blog. This blog is slowly losing it's soul...

Indeed it is. I predict that things will get so raucous during the GE campaign that OGH will wind it up soon afterwards...

BenM

Will the CON all postal primary get them into the game?

No. How many returns will the Tories get? 30? 40? 50?

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

Quite. As I understand it the government says we can afford either 3% for better paid NHS employees or 1% across the board for all employees. But not both. Given those choices, what would Labour do?

Innocent_Abroad

rottenborough said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government.
David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not preventing what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”, it can be revealed.
One senior cabinet minister told The Times: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”

Denying a pay review body recommended 1% pay award as agreed in Scotland and Wales should help.

BTW I see FTSE 100 Chief Execs. only had a 20% increase this year all good news for GE2015?

Interesting this is being briefed now. Getting it dealt with before GE 2015 formally starts? The implication of this is Cameron is not on the job when it comes to policy details (think we knew that one all ready), but, more interestingly, Osborne did understand but failed to stop it.

If they had left well alone, then would be easier to blame state of NHS on last lot of Labour ministers who left a mess etc etc.

Government's easy in your world, isn't it? Do sweet FA for five years, enjoy the limelight, the limos and the PAs and blame it all on the other lot? Can't imagine why real world politicians don't see it like that...

I'm not commenting on whether the plans were right or wrong, I'm pointing out the political tactics. They told the electorate there would be no reorganization and then did a massive one. You may be right that more honourable ministers took the right steps for the greater good of the country. In which case, why are they now briefing that they got it so wrong?

Don't ask me to read the minds of Tory cabinet ministers!

Scott_P

Innocent_Abroad said:

I predict that things will get so raucous during the GE campaign that OGH will wind it up soon afterwards...

Imminent death of the Net predicted!

Again...

bigjohnowls

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: bah, still irked with myself (and Toro Rosso for screwing up their set-up so badly) over Russia. Nevermind. The post-race piece is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-post-race-analysis.html

Button's apparently commented McLaren may be able to pass Ferrari. At first I was sceptical, but the gap is perhaps within reach (just over 40 points). That would mean Ferrari finishing fifth, which would be pretty atrocious.

Mr Dancer Surely Button deserves another contract at Mclaren

Do you think he will lose his seat to Alonso?

CarlottaVance

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Closer to home, how does NHS England compare with NHS Wales?

[Deleted User]

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

A ridiculous comparison because the US system is A: Insurance funded with no competition allowed across state boundaries, and B: Highly litiginous so there is strong pressure to gold plate and test for everything. It is NOT a free market in healthcare. And Obamacare has made this alot worse. The USA needs a free market revolution in healthcare just as badly as we do, maybe more so.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Owls, I think it pretty likely.

They're both older drivers, but Alonso's almost certainly faster. Magnussen isn't as good as either, but has room to improve and a decade ahead of him.

It'd be a bit rough on Button, but he is a multi-millionaire who's spent a long time in the sport, so it's not like he hasn't had a fair crack of the whip.

Some believe Alonso and Vettel will both go to McLaren. It'd be astonishing, not least because McLaren would've axed a newcomer (to the team) in two consecutive years (Perez and Magnussen).

Neil

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

Quite. As I understand it the government says we can afford either 3% for better paid NHS employees or 1% across the board for all employees. But not both. Given those choices, what would Labour do?

Not reduce the additional rate of income tax for those earning over £150,000?

BenM

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

Quite. As I understand it the government says we can afford either 3% for better paid NHS employees or 1% across the board for all employees. But not both. Given those choices, what would Labour do?

Who says those are the only choices?

CarlottaVance

BenM said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

Quite. As I understand it the government says we can afford either 3% for better paid NHS employees or 1% across the board for all employees. But not both. Given those choices, what would Labour do?

Who says those are the only choices?

The government....how is Labour run NHS Wales doing? Deafening silence on that so far......

Innocent_Abroad

Scott_P said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

I predict that things will get so raucous during the GE campaign that OGH will wind it up soon afterwards...

Imminent death of the Net predicted!

Again...

Err... some slight part/whole confusion hereabouts, methinks...

___Bobajob___

Senior Tories described Lansley's botched NHS reforms as "unintelligible gobbledegook"

Oh dear.

bigjohnowls

CarlottaVance said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Closer to home, how does NHS England compare with NHS Wales?

Depends how you measure it?

Today NHS England has its most important workers on strike Wales doesnt

I dont see how this will be resolved do you?

Oh and the Govt today is apparently briefing its flagship NHS reforms in England were the biggest mistake they have made.

Apparently the Govt are powerless to do anything about the 11.9% MP pay award and powerless to give Nurss a 1% rise.

What a way to run a country.

BenM

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

A ridiculous comparison because the US system is A: Insurance funded with no competition allowed across state boundaries, and B: Highly litiginous so there is strong pressure to gold plate and test for everything. It is NOT a free market in healthcare. And Obamacare has made this alot worse. The USA needs a free market revolution in healthcare just as badly as we do, maybe more so.

Clueless about Obamacare, which has reduced costs faster than even the CBO had forecast.

And a large amount of the extra expense in the US is wasteful marketing nonsense. All those ads! And still the insurers left 40m without proper cover before the ACA. Immoral.

Charles

@CarlottaVance @NickPalmer

Just thought I'd point out the Rochester article isn't a CityAM editorial.

It's an opinion piece by Matthew Elliott (head of Business for Britain and former head of No2AV).

You may disagree with his political view point (he's pretty mainstream Conservative) but he's certainly got a good handle on political dynamics

BenM

CarlottaVance said:

BenM said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

I am frankly amazed at the modest level of public sector industrial activity in this Parliament. I don't believe it can last into the next.

Quite. As I understand it the government says we can afford either 3% for better paid NHS employees or 1% across the board for all employees. But not both. Given those choices, what would Labour do?

Who says those are the only choices?

The government....how is Labour run NHS Wales doing? Deafening silence on that so far......

And you always accept what the government says?!

What's wrong in Wales? Spell it out.

Alistair

hucks67 said:

According to The Times today senior Tories admit that Lansleys NHS reforms were a mistake. Apparently neither Cameron or Osborne understood the reforms and now wish they had put a stop to them.

I just wonder whether this briefing to the press is a tactic in the run up to the election.

Vote for us - our leadership is too stupid to understand the bloody obvious but are totally willing to rush them through parliament?

Not exactly the most inspiring of slogans.

another_richard

What a truly disgusting person Anna Soubry is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789617/minister-tells-mps-not-believe-war-hero-bullied-sgt-major-maimed-paratrooper-says-s-unfairly-branded-liar.html

Long standing readers here will remember how the PB Tories were so concerned about the well being of military personnel.

Until May 2010 that is.

They lost interest in the issue then.

Financier

bigjohnowls said,"Yet it (NHS) is one of the most efficient health systems in the world.

Please state your evidence for this assertion and your definition of efficiency - is it quality of care, quality of drugs, cost basis, waiting times. etc etc?

TCPoliticalBetting

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

(Rochester) ... it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

In 2010 in Rochester Lab were 2nd with 28% and now have a large LD vote available. This by election is on the same boundaries as 2010. As the main opposition party Labour should be fighting hard where it is 2nd, not just in this by election but with an eye on the GE in 7 months. Instead, Labour seems to think it smart to withdraw support from Rochester undermine the morale and drive in the local Labour folk and consign Rochester to another party for the long term. Will the local Labour people in Rochester and Kent appreciate being abandoned by Labour HQ? I doubt it. How many local Labour activists will it cost? At a time when "westminster politics" is widely derided as out of touch we have in Rochester Labour's Leadership in Westminster feeding this belief by turning their back on the place. The Labour folk on here have stressed that this is some smart Westminster move on the strategic board game of the UK elections. Frankly it stinks. Our democracy dies a little.

Innocent_Abroad

another_richard said:

What a truly disgusting person Anna Soubry is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789617/minister-tells-mps-not-believe-war-hero-bullied-sgt-major-maimed-paratrooper-says-s-unfairly-branded-liar.html

Long standing readers here will remember how the PB Tories were so concerned about the well being of military personnel.

Until May 2010 that is.

They lost interest in the issue then.

Perhaps we should have a comp to name the first Peebie to abuse Nick Palmer for putting this article into his campaign material...

Charles

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Because (a) it rations by queuing not by money and (b) it underdiagnoses and undertreats.

Clearly the US system uses too many diagnostic tests (which is why am a fan of tort reform) and is too willing to prescribe pharmaceuticals.

But it's mindlessly simplistic to say "NHS good! USA Bad!" (Or vice versa)

rottenborough

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

(Rochester) ... it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

In 2010 in Rochester Lab were 2nd with 28% and now have a large LD vote available. This by election is on the same boundaries as 2010. As the main opposition party Labour should be fighting hard where it is 2nd, not just in this by election but with an eye on the GE in 7 months. Instead, Labour seems to think it smart to withdraw support from Rochester undermine the morale and drive in the local Labour folk and consign Rochester to another party for the long term. Will the local Labour people in Rochester and Kent appreciate being abandoned by Labour HQ? I doubt it. How many local Labour activists will it cost? At a time when "westminster politics" is widely derided as out of touch we have in Rochester Labour's Leadership in Westminster feeding this belief by turning their back on the place. The Labour folk on here have stressed that this is some smart Westminster move on the strategic board game of the UK elections. Frankly it stinks. Our democracy dies a little.

It may stink, but it fits perfectly with the 35% strategy. Or is it 32% now, I lose track?

bigjohnowls

Financier said:

bigjohnowls said,"Yet it (NHS) is one of the most efficient health systems in the world.

Please state your evidence for this assertion and your definition of efficiency - is it quality of care, quality of drugs, cost basis, waiting times. etc etc?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

Loads of others too but this seems to cover it.

TCPoliticalBetting

I would add to my Rochester comment that whenever in opposition Conservative HQ mounted some half hearted effort even where it was starting 3rd, CCHQ was widely condemned and attacked on Con Home and other websites. The main opposition party must mount vigorous camapigns at by elections.

[Deleted User]

BenM

Simply not true:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/14/obamacare-has-failed-to-collapse-but-that-doesnt-make-it-a-success/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535.html

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/some-in-the-mainstream-media-finally-join-the-obamacare-failure-chorus/

The ACA / Obamacare is a huge practical and political failure and is one of the key reasons Obama's (and the Democrats') popularity is at a historic low.

(Mike will there be US House / Senate betting threads?)

bigjohnowls

"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US.

TCPoliticalBetting

rottenborough said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

(Rochester) ... it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

In 2010 in Rochester Lab were 2nd with 28% and now have a large LD vote available. This by election is on the same boundaries as 2010. As the main opposition party Labour should be fighting hard where it is 2nd, not just in this by election but with an eye on the GE in 7 months. Instead, Labour seems to think it smart to withdraw support from Rochester undermine the morale and drive in the local Labour folk and consign Rochester to another party for the long term. Will the local Labour people in Rochester and Kent appreciate being abandoned by Labour HQ? I doubt it. How many local Labour activists will it cost? At a time when "westminster politics" is widely derided as out of touch we have in Rochester Labour's Leadership in Westminster feeding this belief by turning their back on the place. The Labour folk on here have stressed that this is some smart Westminster move on the strategic board game of the UK elections. Frankly it stinks. Our democracy dies a little.

It may stink, but it fits perfectly with the 35% strategy. Or is it 32% now, I lose track?

Yes abandoning Rochester may fit in with 35% but Labour are consigning themselves to a strategy that almost re-sets themselves as a party in the 25% to 33% range. Treating working class areas on the coast as no go zones is madness (for Labour). It is also very bad for our democracy and that is what concerns me.

Charles

bigjohnowls said:

CarlottaVance said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Closer to home, how does NHS England compare with NHS Wales?

Depends how you measure it?

Today NHS England has its most important workers on strike Wales doesnt

I dont see how this will be resolved do you?

Oh and the Govt today is apparently briefing its flagship NHS reforms in England were the biggest mistake they have made.

Apparently the Govt are powerless to do anything about the 11.9% MP pay award and powerless to give Nurss a 1% rise.

What a way to run a country.

TBF, the government is powerless on MP pay rises if the greedy f*ckers are selfish enough to vote for it

bigjohnowls

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Because (a) it rations by queuing not by money and (b) it underdiagnoses and undertreats.

Clearly the US system uses too many diagnostic tests (which is why am a fan of tort reform) and is too willing to prescribe pharmaceuticals.

But it's mindlessly simplistic to say "NHS good! USA Bad!" (Or vice versa)

The report I posted pretty much says NHS good USA bad though doesnt it? Better outcomes half at half the cost

rottenborough

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rottenborough said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Pace James Forsyth in the Spectator, it is hard to imagine a leadership challenge. For a start, there is no obvious alternative to Cameron(as is also true for Ed Miliband). What there will be is a lot of noise about electoral pacts with UKIP, and no doubt Boris will be widely quoted playing both ends against the middle while ostensibly supporting the Prime Minister.

Agreed: it's a nonsense, although we should never underestimate the capacity of the fringe right to commit political suicide.

Another interesting thread about an interesting by election. Any thoughts as to when it will be held?

(Rochester) ... it's become less winnable since 2010 due to boundary change, and I don't think we should make a massive effort.

In 2010 in Rochester Lab were 2nd with 28% and now have a large LD vote available. This by election is on the same boundaries as 2010. As the main opposition party Labour should be fighting hard where it is 2nd, not just in this by election but with an eye on the GE in 7 months. Instead, Labour seems to think it smart to withdraw support from Rochester undermine the morale and drive in the local Labour folk and consign Rochester to another party for the long term. Will the local Labour people in Rochester and Kent appreciate being abandoned by Labour HQ? I doubt it. How many local Labour activists will it cost? At a time when "westminster politics" is widely derided as out of touch we have in Rochester Labour's Leadership in Westminster feeding this belief by turning their back on the place. The Labour folk on here have stressed that this is some smart Westminster move on the strategic board game of the UK elections. Frankly it stinks. Our democracy dies a little.

It may stink, but it fits perfectly with the 35% strategy. Or is it 32% now, I lose track?

Yes abandoning Rochester may fit in with 35% but Labour are consigning themselves to a strategy that almost re-sets themselves as a party in the 25% to 33% range. Treating working class areas on the coast as no go zones is madness (for Labour). It is also very bad for our democracy and that is what concerns me.

I agree. It is deeply depressing. In a sense this is what some of the voters anger is about: the complete professionalisation of politics to the point where there is no colour, no passion left. There's a new piece on LabourList this morning, warning that the main parties have to respond.

CarlottaVance

bigjohnowls said:

CarlottaVance said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Closer to home, how does NHS England compare with NHS Wales?

Today NHS England has its most important workers on strike Wales doesnt

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/unison-ballots-strike-action-wales-7873755

BenM

Patrick said:

BenM

Simply not true:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/14/obamacare-has-failed-to-collapse-but-that-doesnt-make-it-a-success/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535.html

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/some-in-the-mainstream-media-finally-join-the-obamacare-failure-chorus/

The ACA / Obamacare is a huge practical and political failure and is one of the key reasons Obama's (and the Democrats') popularity is at a historic low.

(Mike will there be US House / Senate betting threads?)

More serious analysis rather than US conservative bleating:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/17/the-five-biggest-lies-about-obamacare.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/

Most Republicans have given up campaigning to repeal the law. That should tell you something.

Socrates

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Because (a) it rations by queuing not by money and (b) it underdiagnoses and undertreats.

Clearly the US system uses too many diagnostic tests (which is why am a fan of tort reform) and is too willing to prescribe pharmaceuticals.

But it's mindlessly simplistic to say "NHS good! USA Bad!" (Or vice versa)

The report I posted pretty much says NHS good USA bad though doesnt it? Better outcomes half at half the cost

It's particularly foolish to use the US example as demonstrative of a single payer, private provision however, seeing that it's not a single payer system. Canada, France etc are all superior systems.

TCPoliticalBetting

BenM said:

Will the CON all postal primary get them into the game?

No. How many returns will the Tories get? 30? 40? 50?

They are moving so slowly on this that it may imperil the Conservative campaign. Cameron brought down by admin cock-ups at CCHQ? Et tu Feldman/Shapps?

Socrates

Patrick said:

BenM

Simply not true:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/14/obamacare-has-failed-to-collapse-but-that-doesnt-make-it-a-success/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535.html

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/some-in-the-mainstream-media-finally-join-the-obamacare-failure-chorus/

The ACA / Obamacare is a huge practical and political failure and is one of the key reasons Obama's (and the Democrats') popularity is at a historic low.

(Mike will there be US House / Senate betting threads?)

This is complete nonsense. Obamacare has seen more people with healthcare coverage, a reduction in the government deficit, slowing healthcare inflation and people generally pleased with their new coverage. This is true whether or not Forbes cherry picks data on the price movements in one particular type of plan or whether you have to go back to May to find hiccups in the roll-out that has now been corrected.

bigjohnowls

Socrates said:

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Patrick said:

bigjohnowls said:

I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?

That depends on what you mean by 'mistake'. From a managerial, efficiency, clarity point of view they were bang on. From a popularity, political, opinion poll point of view they suck.

I for one would be very happy to see the NHS become ONLY a purchaser of services from the private sector. Healthcare should be free at the point of use - but I really don't think the best or most efficient or most sensible way to deliver this is a state managed centrally planned behemoth. I'd like to see a full market for healthcare. That would save alot of money AND improve service significantly. But...it would be 'privatising the NHS' - so an evil akin to barbecueing babies for some. The real healthcare problem in the UK is that the NHS has become a religion, not an organisation whose management structures and effectiveness/ efficiency should be constantly challenged.

Yet it is one of the most efficient health systems in the world wheras the private sector one in America is the most expensive in the world.

Because (a) it rations by queuing not by money and (b) it underdiagnoses and undertreats.

Clearly the US system uses too many diagnostic tests (which is why am a fan of tort reform) and is too willing to prescribe pharmaceuticals.

But it's mindlessly simplistic to say "NHS good! USA Bad!" (Or vice versa)

The report I posted pretty much says NHS good USA bad though doesnt it? Better outcomes half at half the cost

It's particularly foolish to use the US example as demonstrative of a single payer, private provision however, seeing that it's not a single payer system. Canada, France etc are all superior systems.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2014/jun/us-health-system-ranks-last

NHS first Canada 10th of 11 France 8th of 11

Why do you talk such rubbish?

Financier

bigjohnowls said:

"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US.

Please note that this referenced survey was done only on 11 countries which cannot be the world.

Also the survey says,"The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th."

Yes we can all reduce costs but surely the primary purpose of healthcare is keeping people alive!

Ninoinoz

A few points:

A caucus didn't seem to do the Tory candidate in Clacton much good.

In the H & S by-election there seemed to be anti-Labour tactical voting, not anti-UKIP.

Mark Reckless is the sitting MP, not some unknown.

Since Rotherham, UKIP look positively saintly compared to Labour.

BenM

rottenborough said:

I agree. It is deeply depressing. In a sense this is what some of the voters anger is about: the complete professionalisation of politics to the point where there is no colour, no passion left. There's a new piece on LabourList this morning, warning that the main parties have to respond.

A consequence of the discredited and undemocratic First Past the Post system and the deepening polarisation of politics.

Those of us who urged a Yes vote in the AV referendum were warning about the impending disaster of FPTP on our democracy, but partisan self interest won the day - particularly on the Tory side of course - although too many on the Labour side were complicit.