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.
As I mentioned last night, Anna Soubry is a nasty person. She tried to smear Nigel Farage by saying he was the sort of person that did a particular self-sex act. Can you imagine if Nigel Farage had said she was the sort of person that looked like she tried a vibrator and enjoyed it? He would be destroyed by the media and would have had to resign. However, if you're female the media gives you a free pass, just like being black is a free pass for Diane Abbot's racism.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
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.
The Commonwealth Fund ranking is a joke. Just look through the criteria used for the ranking. The NHS ranks highly in box-ticking stuff like whether letters were sent out after certain appointments, which matters more than important stuff like success rates in surgeries. On the only medical outcomes part of it - healthy lives - the NHS comes tenth.
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.
As I mentioned last night, Anna Soubry is a nasty person. She tried to smear Nigel Farage by saying he was the sort of person that did a particular self-sex act. Can you imagine if Nigel Farage had said she was the sort of person that looked like she tried a vibrator and enjoyed it? He would be destroyed by the media and would have had to resign. However, if you're female the media gives you a free pass, just like being black is a free pass for Diane Abbot's racism.
Nick looks to be a shoe-in for the seat, thankfully.
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?
I keep on saying that there is no enthusiasm for labour and now Nick palmer, ex labour MP has confirmed it.
It is possible that UKIP could take over labours position as the opposition and labour appear to be meekly letting it happen.
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that doctors and senior nurses are underpaid?
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
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
On the subject of the NHS, real opportunity for Ed, with the news this morning that Dave and Ozzy consider the top-down reorg to be their biggest mistake.
I was particularly struck by Ozzy's comments that he could see it was going to be a disaster but felt powerless to stop it. He's an intelligent guy so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did predict failure.
But the idea that the Chancellor felt unable to stop it gives the impression of a government out of control. Any ideas why he felt that he could not stop the project in its tracks before it wasted billions in public money?
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
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
That the British electorate voted not to replace?
Are they 'discredited' and 'undemocratic' too?
A mistake in my opinion, but not choosing one alternative available does not mean an endorsement of the status quo.
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.
The Commonwealth Fund ranking is a joke. Just look through the criteria used for the ranking. The NHS ranks highly in box-ticking stuff like whether letters were sent out after certain appointments, which matters more than important stuff like success rates in surgeries. On the only medical outcomes part of it - healthy lives - the NHS comes tenth.
And the NHS is second-cheapest of those listed, which is its dirty little secret. The NHS is cheap.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
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.
Between 5-10m of the uninsured didn't have insurance because they didn't need it, they were rich.
''On the subject of the NHS, real opportunity for Ed, with the news this morning that Dave and Ozzy consider the top-down reorg to be their biggest mistake.''
Surely labour have to show that they could do it better to clinch voters here.
Their example is Wales. Is it really any better than England? Its just a dog with different fleas from what I have read.
And some of the preaching will come from Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituents aren't even effected.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
I don't know where you live, Bobby, but it's 10 days to 3 weeks to see my personal GP (the one I want to consult) or about 48 hours to see a registrar who knows sweet fanny adams.
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
That the British electorate voted not to replace?
Are they 'discredited' and 'undemocratic' too?
A mistake in my opinion, but not choosing one alternative available does not mean an endorsement of the status quo.
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
That the British electorate voted not to replace?
Are they 'discredited' and 'undemocratic' too?
A mistake in my opinion, but not choosing one alternative available does not mean an endorsement of the status quo.
No - but neither does it mean its 'discredited' or 'undemocratic' since the most recent test of democratic opinion was not to replace it with something allegedly more democratic.
Even if 2015 produces a travesty of (for example) a Labour government with fewer votes than the Tories and Lib Dems with four times the MPs with half the votes of UKIP, I'm not sure 'electoral reform' is going to push its way swiftly up the 'issues facing the country/you/your family'......
1) Mark Reckless is pretty much a bog standard MP, so far as I can tell. He won't have an unusual personal vote.
2) UKIP are ahead in the one poll taken in the constituency so far, but not by a mile. That poll was taken by the most UKIP-friendly of the pollsters.
3) UKIP will probably get a bit of a bounce from Douglas Carswell's election, as the idea of a UKIP MP becomes more believable to casual observers of politics.
4) The Conservatives are going to throw the kitchen sink at this, as they did in Newark. They're highly motivated by what they see as Mark Reckless's treachery.
5) The Conservatives made significant efforts in Clacton, but they cut no ice at all. Set against that, the Conservatives seem to have done well in Newark when they threw the kitchen sink at UKIP.
6) How will Labour voters break? Will they stay loyal to the red team, try to stop UKIP or try to embarrass the Tories?
The net of all this is that the Conservatives are good value at present prices in my view. I had a good green position all round on Thursday, but I've laid UKIP since then. I look forward to backing UKIP later on (perhaps when Lord Ashcroft gets round to polling the constituency?).
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.
The Commonwealth Fund ranking is a joke. Just look through the criteria used for the ranking. The NHS ranks highly in box-ticking stuff like whether letters were sent out after certain appointments, which matters more than important stuff like success rates in surgeries. On the only medical outcomes part of it - healthy lives - the NHS comes tenth.
Its a joke!!!
42 measures most of them clinical
The NHS ranks first
Why do you not accept it Independent medical experts carried out the research and found the NHS best the systems you praised as second and 3rd worst and yet sytill you know bettter you must really hate the NHS
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.
The Commonwealth Fund ranking is a joke. Just look through the criteria used for the ranking. The NHS ranks highly in box-ticking stuff like whether letters were sent out after certain appointments, which matters more than important stuff like success rates in surgeries. On the only medical outcomes part of it - healthy lives - the NHS comes tenth.
And the NHS is second-cheapest of those listed, which is its dirty little secret. The NHS is cheap.
Its other dirty little secret (or was until Staffs etc) is its poor ability to keep people alive who should have been kept alive.
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
The difference being of course is that you won'tt get a Mid Staffs scandal in America because patients wouls choose to go elsewhere. Whereas in this country, the NHS will be quite happy to neglect you until you die.
The Con -> Lab swing in both Clacton and Heywood was ~ 7% iirc.
If we assume Labour gets 20%, then that means the Conservatives will drop perhaps (11 + 14)% = 25% and so end up with 24% of the vote.
Assume 8% for "the rest" (Green, ED, Lib Dem)
8% Others 20% Labour 28% Con 44% UKIP
Since Labour seem to get terminally squeezed in 3rd (The Newark swing was 2% Con -> Lab) then perhaps the swing won't quite be so large. Also there may be a touch of anti-UKIP tactical voting (As well as anti-CON)
2% LD 2% English Democrat 4% Green 15% Labour 33% Conservative 44% UKIP
That would mean a swing to Labour more in line with Newark which is perhaps realistic here rather than 7% in Clacton/Heywood...
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
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
The difference being of course is that you won'tt get a Mid Staffs scandal in America because patients wouls choose to go elsewhere. Whereas in this country, the NHS will be quite happy to neglect you until you die.
Funnily enough, the reason for sky-high medical malpractice insurance charges in the US is not because nothing ever goes wrong.
As the Times reveals Tories know backing Lansley's NHS privatisation is a costly error.Some of the £5 billion wasted could have gone on to give NHS workers the ability to put food on the table and shoes on the kids feet.The Tories give everyone choice,starve or freeze to death.
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
And you will still have the problem of having to wait a long time to get an appointment with a GP who is not familiar with your case.
As the Times reveals Tories know backing Lansley's NHS privatisation is a costly error.Some of the £5 billion wasted could have gone on to give NHS workers the ability to put food on the table and shoes on the kids feet.The Tories give everyone choice,starve or freeze to death.
Even if that is right (and it seems more complex than that), then what could the £10 billion lost in the NHS IT system fiasco been better spent on?
"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.
Indeed. And the admin burden is destructively huge. My brother and his wife, who live in the States, have just had their second child. They have just been landed with a $40,000 bill, including $4,000 for four minutes in an ambulance. They have insurance but now have to spend large amounts of their own time filling in forms and making various claims (minus a hefty excess). This when they have a newborn to look after.
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
And you will still have the problem of having to wait a long time to get an appointment with a GP who is not familiar with your case.
It is astonishing that Labour already seem to have given up on this seat, which they held (under its previous name, albeit with slightly different boundaries) as recently as 2005 and where they should be able to tap into all those LibDem to Labour switchers that Mike is always telling us about. It makes no sense to me - I'd have thought they, as well as UKIP and the Tories, should be throwing the kitchen sink at this one.
On the main UKIP/Conservative battle, I agree with Mike that the value is on the Tories. This is demographically and economically a very different seat to Clacton, and Mark Reckless doesn't have the personal vote or personal authority of Douglas Carswell.
(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 think Labour should be having a proper go in Rochester and Strood - and with it being a by-election could feasibly win. It is worth pointing out that the Tory majority in R&S is more than 20%, which means that the seat is not on the Labour target list at UK polling report.
If Labour were to win all the Conservative seats on their target list (103 seats) then they would have a majority of 60-something.
However, Thanet South is on the Labour target list. It would be interesting to know how far up their target list Labour are willing to allow UKIP to encroach. Dover isn't far off being a seat they need for a majority - will they abandon that to be a Tory-UKIP contest?
Sky News, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have announced joint plans for a series of party leader debates across TV and the internet in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
I presume Tory PBers agree that Lansley reforms were a big mistake?
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
The difference being of course is that you won'tt get a Mid Staffs scandal in America because patients wouls choose to go elsewhere. Whereas in this country, the NHS will be quite happy to neglect you until you die.
Funnily enough, the reason for sky-high medical malpractice insurance charges in the US is not because nothing ever goes wrong.
Why are you mentioning medical malpractise insurance.
My point is;-
"The difference being of course is that you won't get a Mid Staffs scandal in America because patients would choose to go elsewhere. Whereas in this country, the NHS will be quite happy to neglect you until you die."
In America, if a hospital is known to be crap you don't go there.
In Midd Staffs, you go to the Midd Staffs hospital if the NHS sends you there.
Fuck all to do with insurance, everything to do with patient choice to allow patients to escape the clutches of an organisation that will kill 1200 with substandard care.
Here is a quick, simple and easy question for you,
Do you think patients should have the choice to avoid a hospital that will neglect them without having to wait longer for an appointment elsewhere?
"On this subject I think Douglas Carswell may well be at least partly right. Ukip is a kind of “disruptive innovation”, to use the business jargon. The incumbents do look a bit like tired old brands. They risk losing “market share” permanently.
In their struggle to beat Ukip back the big parties will have to find a better and more human story to tell about what they want for the country and how they can achieve it. It has to be a positive and not merely a negative, rebuttal-driven account. Of course start where the voters are, recognising what their concerns are – including immigration. But don’t offer a Ukip-lite version of yourself.
The game has changed. The experts need new ideas, and a new script. Negativity only delivers so much, and certainly not a majority. There is very little time left to lose."
It is astonishing that Labour already seem to have given up on this seat, which they held (under its previous name, albeit with slightly different boundaries) as recently as 2005 and where they should be able to tap into all those LibDem to Labour switchers that Mike is always telling us about. It makes no sense to me - I'd have thought they, as well as UKIP and the Tories, should be throwing the kitchen sink at this one.
On the main UKIP/Conservative battle, I agree with Mike that the value is on the Tories. This is demographically and economically a very different seat to Clacton, and Mark Reckless doesn't have the personal vote or personal authority of Douglas Carswell.
One of the prime functions of Opposition is to oppose. Whether or not Labour got anywhere in Rochester & Strood, they need to be seen to be wanting to get somewhere. By so conspicuously giving up on large swathes of the country, they make Ed Miliband's "One Nation Labour" slogan an embarrassment.
One of Labour's problems is that it is seen by many to be catering to its client base. By not fighting seats like Rochester & Strood, it reconfirms that image in the minds of those who hold that view.
If only @ScottP would have backed his judgement and had a bet with me instead of giving it the big one then bottling it. I guess an apology will have to do
"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.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
I never have to wait for an appointment for my GP and can get a repeat prescription online.
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
And you will still have the problem of having to wait a long time to get an appointment with a GP who is not familiar with your case.
Not REALLY a solution, is it.
Well, that's market economics for you.
No, its not market economics.
Healthcare in this country and America is extremely heavily regulated, we only get the healthcare that the politicians allow us to have.
Sky News, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have announced joint plans for a series of party leader debates across TV and the internet in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
A 2:3:4 format. That's strikingly like the 2:3:5 format that David Cameron suggested that was widely suggested to be a tactic to wreck the prospect of debates.
@iainmartin1: Re Election debates. Should be a fourth one in which Nigel Farage debates Douglas Carswell on their contrasting views on immigration etc.
"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.
The US healthcare system is still a mess, but people exaggerate. No one has to pay $40k for having a baby. That's a sticker price that isn't actually used. You are correct that extra bureaucracy in form-filling is a negative. However, on the flip side you can always see your GP at short notice, the hospitals are cleaner, you don't have to do multiple visits to sort out prescriptions, you get longer with a doctor rather than the ten minute conveyor belt system, you don't have to wait a week to take your x-ray home home, etc. You mention pregnancy: I have a relative who is currently going through this on the NHS and was shocked to discover you don't get a scan until 13 weeks. A friend doing the same thing in the US got two scans before this point, where they picked up an issue early and she could address through changes in lifestyle before it became a problem.
This argument again. It is very difficult to compare healthcare systems. France used to have the best health service, but in recent years it has suffered because of the recession. Spain had a really good system and again has suffered in recent years. But if you speak to Brits living in France and Spain, most will say that the treatment received was very good. There appears to be less demand on services and Doctors/Nurses take their time to ensure that things are done properly with more scans/tests done.
In the US Doctors earn salaries that British Doctors dream about. This is why US healthcare is so expensive. If you need to see a Doctor and don't have Insurance, you have a valuation on the house done, just in case you need to sell it. Healthcare Insurance is very expensive and millions cannot afford it. Those that are fortunate to have Insurance will get the benefit of private healthcare with Doctors very happy to organise as many scans/tests that they can receive payment from the Insurers.
The NHS has its problem, but most people in the world (not US Republicans) look on with some envy. It is ranked quite highly in terms of quality and also represents good value in terms of taxpayers money. There is an argument to increase tax to pay for service improvements, if at the same time they can cut out any waste.
Sky News, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have announced joint plans for a series of party leader debates across TV and the internet in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
Sky News, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have announced joint plans for a series of party leader debates across TV and the internet in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
A 2:3:4 format. That's strikingly like the 2:3:5 format that David Cameron suggested that was widely suggested to be a tactic to wreck the prospect of debates.
Indeed.
The head to head debate between Cameron and Miliband is going to be fascinating.
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?
"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."
It is astonishing that Labour already seem to have given up on this seat, which they held (under its previous name, albeit with slightly different boundaries) as recently as 2005 and where they should be able to tap into all those LibDem to Labour switchers that Mike is always telling us about. It makes no sense to me - I'd have thought they, as well as UKIP and the Tories, should be throwing the kitchen sink at this one.
On the main UKIP/Conservative battle, I agree with Mike that the value is on the Tories. This is demographically and economically a very different seat to Clacton, and Mark Reckless doesn't have the personal vote or personal authority of Douglas Carswell.
Not point scoring etc here, but given what you say, if Ukip win this seat by more than 5% would you consider this a disaster for the Tories?
Sky News, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have announced joint plans for a series of party leader debates across TV and the internet in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
A 2:3:4 format. That's strikingly like the 2:3:5 format that David Cameron suggested that was widely suggested to be a tactic to wreck the prospect of debates.
Indeed.
The head to head debate between Cameron and Miliband is going to be fascinating.
It seems harsh on the Lib Dems that they only get in on one debate.
EDIT: Wait, it's UKIP that only get in one debate? For God's sake...
The 2-3-4 format is the format that the Conservatives wanted for the debates, so they have no excuse not to sign up for them now. Labour wanted a repeat of the 2010 debates.
Mr. Eagles, are we to have the media determine the format of debates?
I must admit, I rather like what they've come up with (insomuch as I can like any aspect of these vile debates and the utterly unacceptable worm), but I am wary of the notion the larger broadcasters should collude to try and dictate the manner of debates.
@patrickwintour: Many problems with broadcaster TV format incl. the Green Party being left out of a four party debate. Ukip joins the cosy Westminster club.
@iainmartin1: Re Election debates. Should be a fourth one in which Nigel Farage debates Douglas Carswell on their contrasting views on immigration etc.
Lucky boy aren't you for swerving our bet?
You said my grovelling apology would be worth seeing when Farage wasn't in the debates, so are you going to apologise now?
About one month to see a GP here - that is if you can get a reply from a seemingly permanently engaged phone. Are you sure you are not the GP?
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
Then move your registration to a different practice. GP surgeries are effectively semi-private contractors to the NHS and exist in a market where dissatisfied patients can shop around.
And you will still have the problem of having to wait a long time to get an appointment with a GP who is not familiar with your case.
Not REALLY a solution, is it.
Well, that's market economics for you.
No, its not market economics.
Healthcare in this country and America is extremely heavily regulated, we only get the healthcare that the politicians allow us to have.
The bit of the NHS closest to what the market enthusiasts (in both parties) claim to want is general practice. Free at the point of use, with the NHS paying what are basically privately-contracted practices. Patients are free to move their registration between surgeries.
If it turns out the market is no panacea and this is not the best of all possible healthcare worlds, ...
"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.
SNIP
This argument again. It is very difficult to compare healthcare systems. France used to have the best health service, but in recent years it has suffered because of the recession. Spain had a really good system and again has suffered in recent years. But if you speak to Brits living in France and Spain, most will say that the treatment received was very good. There appears to be less demand on services and Doctors/Nurses take their time to ensure that things are done properly with more scans/tests done.
In the US Doctors earn salaries that British Doctors dream about. This is why US healthcare is so expensive. If you need to see a Doctor and don't have Insurance, you have a valuation on the house done, just in case you need to sell it. Healthcare Insurance is very expensive and millions cannot afford it. Those that are fortunate to have Insurance will get the benefit of private healthcare with Doctors very happy to organise as many scans/tests that they can receive payment from the Insurers.
The NHS has its problem, but most people in the world (not US Republicans) look on with some envy. It is ranked quite highly in terms of quality and also represents good value in terms of taxpayers money. There is an argument to increase tax to pay for service improvements, if at the same time they can cut out any waste.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying:
(1) other European nations tend to have better systems than we do when you actually speak to people that have been through both systems. (2) US healthcare is too expensive, partially due to doctor's salaries (3) the NHS performs well as a value-brand - the equivalent of Aldi or Lidl
Where I disagree:
(A) Millions can not afford healthcare in the US. This is simply not the case any more. Insurance companies are not allowed to deny anybody, and poor people get subsidies to afford it. All thanks to Obama. The one exception is those Republican states which denied the medicaid extension, meaning there might be a gap between those getting subsidies for the exchanges and those on basic medicaid. (B) That the NHS is looked on with envy around the world. Can you give me a single case of another country that says "we should have a healthcare system more like the UK"?
Just one debate with the 5 parties that have won a Westminster seat and do not restrict themselves to one region of the UK ?
I can see that working, trying to appeal to Labour voters flirting with the Greens whilst also keeping Labour-UKIP potential switchers will be a very tough job for Mr Miliband and probably nullify any UKIP-Con unease I think.
A few interesting snippets from the excellent Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday:
* Of those certain to vote (63%) it is effectively a dead heat between Labour, Tories and Ukip - note this is before any weighting or adjustments which I would say is good for the blues.
* Only 71% of current Labour voters voted in 2010 compared to 81% for Tories and Ukip (86% for the Lib Dems). Plenty of fat still for Labour to lose between now and polling day.
* Of the Ukip voters that voted in 2010 only 27% voted for the Tories.
* "In a forced choice, if you had to choose between the following candidates to be the Prime Minister, who would you choose?" As you would expect 99% of current Tory voters chose Cameron over Miliband but also 96% of 2010 Tory voters chose Cameron, suggesting the forced choice could well get some voters back (depending on the constituency).
* But 31% of current Ukip voters would prefer Miliband over Cameron, 33% would prefer Clegg to Cameron, and 80% would prefer Farage to Cameron (including a sizeable chunk of 2010 Con voters suggesting if Ukip end up with a realistic chance in many seats some voters may be persuaded to "vote Ukip and get Ukip").
It's the blue collar workers the Tory leadership should be worried about, many of the others (middle class or "comfortable") should return to the blues come election day depending on how things go over the next few months. There is very little chance of getting the blue collars to move from Ukip to the Tories as regrettably the party still offers nothing radical for them, but most of them didn't vote Tory anyway in 2010, even if they probably voted for Major or Thatcher previously.
"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.
In the US Doctors earn salaries that British Doctors dream about. This is why US healthcare is so expensive.
Thats true. in America the doctors cartel lobby congress to pass countless laws rules and regulations to ensure a shortage of doctors.
Clearly not market economics there, the American public only get the healthcare that their political masters allow them to have, same as this country.
I have spent some time in Thailand and used private hospitals there which are a lot freer in terms of regulations than either America or the UK. it certainly gives a good impression of how things would be much better in a free market.
The news today that Dave waves through billions in expenditure without understanding it should at least give Little Ed something to go on. How he will cope even then against a political giant like Cameron, I don't know.
"On this subject I think Douglas Carswell may well be at least partly right. Ukip is a kind of “disruptive innovation”, to use the business jargon. The incumbents do look a bit like tired old brands. They risk losing “market share” permanently.
In their struggle to beat Ukip back the big parties will have to find a better and more human story to tell about what they want for the country and how they can achieve it. It has to be a positive and not merely a negative, rebuttal-driven account. Of course start where the voters are, recognising what their concerns are – including immigration. But don’t offer a Ukip-lite version of yourself.
The game has changed. The experts need new ideas, and a new script. Negativity only delivers so much, and certainly not a majority. There is very little time left to lose."
The Conservatives "Vote for us coz Mr Miliband is scary" campaign doesn't reflect well on their record in government. Don't they feel confident of anything they've done in government since 2010?
Mr Owls appears to be aping the administrator in Yes, Minister "We've just won the Something Or Other Award for Cleanliness! But you have no patients, that's what hospitals are for - healing the sick..."
That whole episode is so timeless. Managerisalism/targets vs patients welfare. Mid-Staff springs to mind...
"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!
To take an analogy like Napster as a disruptor - they showed a way to change the business model, but failed in the long run because their proposition though wildly popular, was fatally flawed [free stuff that belongs to other people]. The big players squashed them in short order and nicked the good ideas.
Surely a similar fate awaits a political party that tries to do it with sums that don't add up and a retail offering that relies on being Anti-Establishment [not the record companies]. As we've seen with the LDs, it's very hard to maintain your market share when you've a great many Not Them votes. A competitor like UKIP can just come along and hoover them all up/find new customers who'd never bought politics previously.
Kippers are selling hard on Not Them. That's got a limited shelf-life in my view. And I'm very confused about the rest of their messaging. I have no idea what they're in favour of anymore- and I read their GE2010 manifesto.
That really needs sorting out as it's all over the place. I'm sure there's a few thesis to be written about the rise of the Kippers. It took a long time to get to their market tipping point and several incarnations - but they've finally broken through.
"On this subject I think Douglas Carswell may well be at least partly right. Ukip is a kind of “disruptive innovation”, to use the business jargon. The incumbents do look a bit like tired old brands. They risk losing “market share” permanently.
In their struggle to beat Ukip back the big parties will have to find a better and more human story to tell about what they want for the country and how they can achieve it. It has to be a positive and not merely a negative, rebuttal-driven account. Of course start where the voters are, recognising what their concerns are – including immigration. But don’t offer a Ukip-lite version of yourself.
The game has changed. The experts need new ideas, and a new script. Negativity only delivers so much, and certainly not a majority. There is very little time left to lose."
Comments
The States is a wonderful country but callous in so many ways, its absurd healthcare system being chief among them.
It is possible that UKIP could take over labours position as the opposition and labour appear to be meekly letting it happen.
Are they 'discredited' and 'undemocratic' too?
I was particularly struck by Ozzy's comments that he could see it was going to be a disaster but felt powerless to stop it. He's an intelligent guy so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did predict failure.
But the idea that the Chancellor felt unable to stop it gives the impression of a government out of control. Any ideas why he felt that he could not stop the project in its tracks before it wasted billions in public money?
Next up: universal credit.
twitter.com/GuideToPolitics/status/521575729705017344/photo/1
I live in England. It's not a perfect system but it sure beats the US set-up which is, as you say, a complete mess.
Surely labour have to show that they could do it better to clinch voters here.
Their example is Wales. Is it really any better than England? Its just a dog with different fleas from what I have read.
And some of the preaching will come from Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituents aren't even effected.
Even if 2015 produces a travesty of (for example) a Labour government with fewer votes than the Tories and Lib Dems with four times the MPs with half the votes of UKIP, I'm not sure 'electoral reform' is going to push its way swiftly up the 'issues facing the country/you/your family'......
1) Mark Reckless is pretty much a bog standard MP, so far as I can tell. He won't have an unusual personal vote.
2) UKIP are ahead in the one poll taken in the constituency so far, but not by a mile. That poll was taken by the most UKIP-friendly of the pollsters.
3) UKIP will probably get a bit of a bounce from Douglas Carswell's election, as the idea of a UKIP MP becomes more believable to casual observers of politics.
4) The Conservatives are going to throw the kitchen sink at this, as they did in Newark. They're highly motivated by what they see as Mark Reckless's treachery.
5) The Conservatives made significant efforts in Clacton, but they cut no ice at all. Set against that, the Conservatives seem to have done well in Newark when they threw the kitchen sink at UKIP.
6) How will Labour voters break? Will they stay loyal to the red team, try to stop UKIP or try to embarrass the Tories?
The net of all this is that the Conservatives are good value at present prices in my view. I had a good green position all round on Thursday, but I've laid UKIP since then. I look forward to backing UKIP later on (perhaps when Lord Ashcroft gets round to polling the constituency?).
42 measures most of them clinical
The NHS ranks first
Why do you not accept it Independent medical experts carried out the research and found the NHS best the systems you praised as second and 3rd worst and yet sytill you know bettter you must really hate the NHS
If we assume Labour gets 20%, then that means the Conservatives will drop perhaps (11 + 14)% = 25% and so end up with 24% of the vote.
Assume 8% for "the rest" (Green, ED, Lib Dem)
8% Others
20% Labour
28% Con
44% UKIP
Since Labour seem to get terminally squeezed in 3rd (The Newark swing was 2% Con -> Lab) then perhaps the swing won't quite be so large. Also there may be a touch of anti-UKIP tactical voting (As well as anti-CON)
2% LD
2% English Democrat
4% Green
15% Labour
33% Conservative
44% UKIP
That would mean a swing to Labour more in line with Newark which is perhaps realistic here rather than 7% in Clacton/Heywood...
Also on inquiring at the surgery, they are not sure if they will be doing flu-jabs.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/south-yorkshire-police-and-crime-commissioner
Best on outcome and efficiency measures
The latter principle is (quite correctly) widely supported in our country. Is the NHS the best way to deliver it?
Obviously we're like the Greeks and the Kippers are the Persians.
Ah the 19th century mill owner delusion. Good to see its still with us.
Aye lad, you were lucky, there were 183 of us living in cardboard box in middle of t'road...
Not REALLY a solution, is it.
On the main UKIP/Conservative battle, I agree with Mike that the value is on the Tories. This is demographically and economically a very different seat to Clacton, and Mark Reckless doesn't have the personal vote or personal authority of Douglas Carswell.
If Labour were to win all the Conservative seats on their target list (103 seats) then they would have a majority of 60-something.
However, Thanet South is on the Labour target list. It would be interesting to know how far up their target list Labour are willing to allow UKIP to encroach. Dover isn't far off being a seat they need for a majority - will they abandon that to be a Tory-UKIP contest?
The news organisations describe the debates as "vital in engaging voters with the political process" and have written to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage inviting them to take part.
http://news.sky.com/story/1352008/news-organisations-reveal-leaders-debate-plan
My point is;-
"The difference being of course is that you won't get a Mid Staffs scandal in America because patients would choose to go elsewhere. Whereas in this country, the NHS will be quite happy to neglect you until you die."
In America, if a hospital is known to be crap you don't go there.
In Midd Staffs, you go to the Midd Staffs hospital if the NHS sends you there.
Fuck all to do with insurance, everything to do with patient choice to allow patients to escape the clutches of an organisation that will kill 1200 with substandard care.
Here is a quick, simple and easy question for you,
Do you think patients should have the choice to avoid a hospital that will neglect them without having to wait longer for an appointment elsewhere?
Yes or no.
In their struggle to beat Ukip back the big parties will have to find a better and more human story to tell about what they want for the country and how they can achieve it. It has to be a positive and not merely a negative, rebuttal-driven account. Of course start where the voters are, recognising what their concerns are – including immigration. But don’t offer a Ukip-lite version of yourself.
The game has changed. The experts need new ideas, and a new script. Negativity only delivers so much, and certainly not a majority. There is very little time left to lose."
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/conventional-politics-is-stuck-stale-and-discredited/
One of Labour's problems is that it is seen by many to be catering to its client base. By not fighting seats like Rochester & Strood, it reconfirms that image in the minds of those who hold that view.
If only @ScottP would have backed his judgement and had a bet with me instead of giving it the big one then bottling it. I guess an apology will have to do
http://news.sky.com/story/1352008/news-organisations-reveal-leaders-debate-plan
Thats Nice!
Healthcare in this country and America is extremely heavily regulated, we only get the healthcare that the politicians allow us to have.
@iainmartin1: Re Election debates. Should be a fourth one in which Nigel Farage debates Douglas Carswell on their contrasting views on immigration etc.
In the US Doctors earn salaries that British Doctors dream about. This is why US healthcare is so expensive. If you need to see a Doctor and don't have Insurance, you have a valuation on the house done, just in case you need to sell it. Healthcare Insurance is very expensive and millions cannot afford it. Those that are fortunate to have Insurance will get the benefit of private healthcare with Doctors very happy to organise as many scans/tests that they can receive payment from the Insurers.
The NHS has its problem, but most people in the world (not US Republicans) look on with some envy. It is ranked quite highly in terms of quality and also represents good value in terms of taxpayers money. There is an argument to increase tax to pay for service improvements, if at the same time they can cut out any waste.
I do notice that the BBC is censoring UKIP however.
The head to head debate between Cameron and Miliband is going to be fascinating.
@MShapland: Suspect Tories and Lib Dems will reject that proposal - PM won't share platform - Clegg should be in all three as in 2010.
You haven't read it properly, have you?
EDIT: Wait, it's UKIP that only get in one debate? For God's sake...
@hopisen: Interesting TV debate proposals. If I were the tories, I'd agree, but only if greens got place in the UKIP debate.
I must admit, I rather like what they've come up with (insomuch as I can like any aspect of these vile debates and the utterly unacceptable worm), but I am wary of the notion the larger broadcasters should collude to try and dictate the manner of debates.
You said my grovelling apology would be worth seeing when Farage wasn't in the debates, so are you going to apologise now?
If it turns out the market is no panacea and this is not the best of all possible healthcare worlds, ...
(1) other European nations tend to have better systems than we do when you actually speak to people that have been through both systems.
(2) US healthcare is too expensive, partially due to doctor's salaries
(3) the NHS performs well as a value-brand - the equivalent of Aldi or Lidl
Where I disagree:
(A) Millions can not afford healthcare in the US. This is simply not the case any more. Insurance companies are not allowed to deny anybody, and poor people get subsidies to afford it. All thanks to Obama. The one exception is those Republican states which denied the medicaid extension, meaning there might be a gap between those getting subsidies for the exchanges and those on basic medicaid.
(B) That the NHS is looked on with envy around the world. Can you give me a single case of another country that says "we should have a healthcare system more like the UK"?
I can see that working, trying to appeal to Labour voters flirting with the Greens whilst also keeping Labour-UKIP potential switchers will be a very tough job for Mr Miliband and probably nullify any UKIP-Con unease I think.
* Of those certain to vote (63%) it is effectively a dead heat between Labour, Tories and Ukip - note this is before any weighting or adjustments which I would say is good for the blues.
* Only 71% of current Labour voters voted in 2010 compared to 81% for Tories and Ukip (86% for the Lib Dems). Plenty of fat still for Labour to lose between now and polling day.
* Of the Ukip voters that voted in 2010 only 27% voted for the Tories.
* "In a forced choice, if you had to choose between the following candidates to be the Prime Minister, who would you choose?" As you would expect 99% of current Tory voters chose Cameron over Miliband but also 96% of 2010 Tory voters chose Cameron, suggesting the forced choice could well get some voters back (depending on the constituency).
* But 31% of current Ukip voters would prefer Miliband over Cameron, 33% would prefer Clegg to Cameron, and 80% would prefer Farage to Cameron (including a sizeable chunk of 2010 Con voters suggesting if Ukip end up with a realistic chance in many seats some voters may be persuaded to "vote Ukip and get Ukip").
It's the blue collar workers the Tory leadership should be worried about, many of the others (middle class or "comfortable") should return to the blues come election day depending on how things go over the next few months. There is very little chance of getting the blue collars to move from Ukip to the Tories as regrettably the party still offers nothing radical for them, but most of them didn't vote Tory anyway in 2010, even if they probably voted for Major or Thatcher previously.
Source: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Political-Survey-12-October-MoS-Tables.pdf
A brave forecast.
The news today that Dave waves through billions in expenditure without understanding it should at least give Little Ed something to go on. How he will cope even then against a political giant like Cameron, I don't know.
Mr Owls appears to be aping the administrator in Yes, Minister "We've just won the Something Or Other Award for Cleanliness! But you have no patients, that's what hospitals are for - healing the sick..."
That whole episode is so timeless. Managerisalism/targets vs patients welfare. Mid-Staff springs to mind...
Surely a similar fate awaits a political party that tries to do it with sums that don't add up and a retail offering that relies on being Anti-Establishment [not the record companies]. As we've seen with the LDs, it's very hard to maintain your market share when you've a great many Not Them votes. A competitor like UKIP can just come along and hoover them all up/find new customers who'd never bought politics previously.
Kippers are selling hard on Not Them. That's got a limited shelf-life in my view. And I'm very confused about the rest of their messaging. I have no idea what they're in favour of anymore- and I read their GE2010 manifesto.
That really needs sorting out as it's all over the place. I'm sure there's a few thesis to be written about the rise of the Kippers. It took a long time to get to their market tipping point and several incarnations - but they've finally broken through.