politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andy Burnham rules out standing for the LAB leadership – ge

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andy Burnham rules out standing for the LAB leadership – get your money on Andy Burnham

In the closing seconds of his interview on the Marr show this morning the shadow health secretary and 2010 leadership contender, Andy Burnham, was asked if he’d rule out standing the the job “in due course”.

Read the full story here

MikeK

This is the goal no borders one govt no nations pic.twitter.com/zRp9cCKfpL

— Veronica Stevens (@vstevens321) October 19, 2014

MikeK

First!

DavidBrackenbury

Changing Labour's Leader this side of the GE would smack of desperation. They have made their bed...

MikeK

Andy Burnham would make a lovely Labour Leader. Bring it on!!!!!!!

DavidBrackenbury

Good afternoon Mike! I hope all well with you.

MikeK

Yes thanks for your good wishes, David. Operation postponed 'til December due to heart murmur, other wise well.

Richard_Tyndall

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

PClipp

Back on topic:

Has Mr Burnham changed the "look" of his eyebrows?

And if he has, is this significant?

Sunil_Prasannan

Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Mid Staffordshire".

DavidBrackenbury

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

GeoffM

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

Richard_Tyndall

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

FPT re people calling him a fruitloop, mad etc, Bill Oddie actually does suffer from mental illness, a friend of mine was in rehab with him

ThomasNashe

I was thinking the same thing having heard his interview on Pienaar's Politics this morning. He handled some quite hostile questioning very well, and I was thinking he's probably now the best bet for next Labour leader - certainly popular within the party, and he has definitely upped his game. But I don't think it'll happen this side of the election, even though I think he'd probably perform considerably better than EdM.

DavidBrackenbury

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

Well Richard, that subject is well worth popping off topic for. May the collective healing power of PB.com be channeled in that direction!

Danny565

He wouldn't get it if Ed was ousted before the election (they;d probably go for a "grandee" in that scenario like Johnson, Harman or maybe Darling), but any contest after the election then Andy is a heavy favourite. The biggest problem for Labour is not "credibility" or any of that nonsense, but simply that people feel Labour don't understand "normal people". Say what you like about Burnham but I don't think most people would deny he comes across as more authentic and normal than most politicians. In terms of policies he also seems to be saying the right things (left-wing on the economy and public services, "tough" on immigration).

weejonnie

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

That might be, shall we say politically inconvenient. Of course the Tories won't continually remind the public about the fact - at least not more than 10 times a day - and it would totally undermine the 'The NHS is safe with Labour' motto.

MikeK

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

FPT re people calling him a fruitloop, mad etc, Bill Oddie actually does suffer from mental illness, a friend of mine was in rehab with him

What sort of mental problem was/is Oddie having, @isam? He seemed quite lucid and compos mentis with what he was declaiming this morning in the Telegraph.

Pulpstar

Danny565 said:

He wouldn't get it if Ed was ousted before the election (they;d probably go for a "grandee" in that scenario like Johnson, Harman or maybe Darling), but any contest after the election then Andy is a heavy favourite. The biggest problem for Labour is not "credibility" or any of that nonsense, but simply that people feel Labour don't understand "normal people". Say what you like about Burnham but I don't think most people would deny he comes across as more authentic and normal than most politicians.

Doubt Ed will go before the election, it'll cost me a packet if he does though.

Am on Andy Burnham at a bit longer than this, Henry Manson's Labour tips are top notch.

Pulpstar

Danny565 said:

He wouldn't get it if Ed was ousted before the election (they;d probably go for a "grandee" in that scenario like Johnson, Harman or maybe Darling), but any contest after the election then Andy is a heavy favourite. The biggest problem for Labour is not "credibility" or any of that nonsense, but simply that people feel Labour don't understand "normal people". Say what you like about Burnham but I don't think most people would deny he comes across as more authentic and normal than most politicians. In terms of policies he also seems to be saying the right things (left-wing on the economy and public services, "tough" on immigration).

In the unlikely scenario, Darling or Harman over Alan Johnson SHORELY !

Pulpstar

Another good thing about the Burnham bet is that at 44 he is plenty young enough to get in even if Ed gets into No 10.

MikeK

EEEEEEK !!!
Even Israelis are joining ISIL

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israeli-hospital-reveals-one-of-its-doctors-joined-isis-and-was-killed/2014/10/19/

DavidBrackenbury

Unless Ed makes a very, very big mistake, there is no way he will go before the Election. The Labour Party does not wield the knife in the same way as the Conservative "Men in grey suits" and it would be far too divisive at this late stage. I agree with Danny that Andy Burnham may be a contender, but after a GE. Not before. If Ed fell, or was run over by a bus (check who was driving the bus!) I am sure that there would be a caretaker. Who knows, perhaps my old opponent Margaret Beckett!!

Sunil_Prasannan

Neil Kinnock managed to lose two elections on the trot before deciding to throw in the towel.

Sunil_Prasannan

Any word on Ashcroft poll for this weekend?

Danny565

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Neil Kinnock managed to lose two elections on the trot before deciding to throw in the towel.

I don't think Labour would give Miliband a second chance because it would be so obvious that he himself was a big factor in the defeat. With Kinnock it wasn't so clear in the 1987 election that he was one of the main causes for the defeat (the long-term problems with the party seemed more likely).

maaarsh

If Ed is too much of a wonk for ordinary people, Burnham is too much of a trade union stereotype. If he wasn't an MP he'd be on SWP marches every weekend.

You can get away with it at his level - remember plenty of people argued for Ed as the personable choice last time Labour picked a leader - below the top of the ticket there is no scrutiny and plenty of duffers.

DavidBrackenbury

Danny565 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Neil Kinnock managed to lose two elections on the trot before deciding to throw in the towel.

I don't think Labour would give Miliband a second chance because it would be so obvious that he himself was a big factor in the defeat. With Kinnock it wasn't so clear in the 1987 election that he was one of the main causes for the defeat (the long-term problems with the party seemed more likely).

Indeed and Kinnock had worked successfully within the Labour Party to make them competitive at least in the 1992 General Election. Ed does not have this on his CV. The poor man is not really up to the job, but it is far too late to do anything about it now.

ThomasNashe

Incredible finish to the game at Loftus Road!

richardDodd

If Burnham gets in.. then it is time to get out.

CarlottaVance

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

Agree entirely - very moving & James handled the whole thing with great dignity and humour - I still remember his TV reviews:

The Queen Mother attended the Royal Variety Performance (BBC1). She also once volunteered to be bombed by the Luftwaffe, but that was some time ago, and perhaps nowadays she should be more careful about exposing her august and beloved person to mechanised outrage.

http://f2.org/humour/quotes/nonfic/clive-james.html

And that was just the start of a long and distinguished career.....

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Never liked Burnham for leader. Similar reason, but worse, as why I wouldn't back Hunt. Burnham sounds too delicate. Good for empathy, but not an attribute of strong leadership.

foxinsoxuk

weejonnie said:

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

That might be, shall we say politically inconvenient. Of course the Tories won't continually remind the public about the fact - at least not more than 10 times a day - and it would totally undermine the 'The NHS is safe with Labour' motto.

The problems at Mid-Staffs preceded Burnham being at Health. They took place under Reid, Hewitt and Johnson. It was Alan Johnson who signed the Trust off as Foundation Trust. The peak mortality was between 2005-2008. Andy Burnham became SoS Health in June 2009 and in July 2009 announced an independent inquiry.

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

CarlottaVance

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Morris_Dancer

F1: Kubica may have more surgery in a bid to return to F1:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29645930

Pong

Yeah, he clearly wants Ed's job.

It's hard to see who else, beyond Yvette, would be a contender. He's got the Union vote sewn up & appeals to party members.

I'm on for £50 at 25/1 from some time back (tipped by Henry G I think).

You'd be no fool if you take the 6/1.

GeoffM

foxinsoxuk said:

The peak mortality was between 2005-2008. Andy Burnham became SoS Health in June 2009 and in July 2009 announced an independent inquiry.

Excellent. So the "peak mortality" period where the greatest number of people were drinking from vases and dying was just before him. Burnham and the NHS were killing slightly fewer people unnecessarily the year after.

That makes it all good then. Burnham for PM!

foxinsoxuk

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......



Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.

Luckyguy1983

Surely anyone after eds job will want the election under performance securely pinned on ed before they are dragged reluctantly to volunteer.

bigjohnowls

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

Corrected for you

Burnham was NOT directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.

Andy Burnham became SoS Health in June 2009 and in July 2009 announced an independent inquiry.

Quincel

Pong said:

Yeah, he clearly wants Ed's job.

It's hard to see who else, beyond Yvette, would be a contender. He's got the Union vote sewn up & appeals to party members.

I'm on for £50 at 25/1 from some time back (tipped by Henry G I think).

You'd be no fool if you take the 6/1.

One issue Burnham has is that Miliband is edging towards Number 10. If EdM becomes PM then a whole new generation of Labour MPs will have time to stake their claims to the leadership, and Burnham will have several years in cabinet to cock his situation up.

All of the current party leaders got the jobs within 6 years of becoming an MP. Burnham has been an MP for 13 already. The trend has been toward younger and more fresh-faced as time has passed. 6/1 isn't shabby, and Burnham is positioning and building himself well. But I suspect the next Labour leader isn't on our radar yet.

GeoffM

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.



It's time to privatise the whole damn thing. It's the only way to create decent health provision.

bigjohnowls

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.

It's time to privatise the whole damn thing. It's the only way to create decent health provision.



Why would it?

foxinsoxuk

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The peak mortality was between 2005-2008. Andy Burnham became SoS Health in June 2009 and in July 2009 announced an independent inquiry.

Excellent. So the "peak mortality" period where the greatest number of people were drinking from vases and dying was just before him. Burnham and the NHS were killing slightly fewer people unnecessarily the year after.

That makes it all good then. Burnham for PM!

If you look at the figures on hospital mortality adjusted for severity of illness on the Dr Foster intelligence site you can look up the figures for your own hospital. I believe the figure for Mid Staffs was 118 from memory.

http://myhospitalguide.drfosterintelligence.co.uk/

My own hospital has some of the best figures in the region.

Morris_Dancer

More warning shots fired at the Korean border:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29681682

CarlottaVance

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care?
Just as well no one is campaigning on 'cancer test results within 7 days' then.....

richardDodd

Burnham oozes the most sincere insincerity..and does it so well.

bigjohnowls

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care?

Just as well no one is campaigning on 'cancer test results within 7 days' then.....


Its funded though so shouldnt put pressure on test services

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

bigjohnowls

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

bigjohnowls

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

Supposed to be a levy on tobacco companies but I know what you mean the NHS is in a terrible financial pickle majority of trusts now forecasting a deicit

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

In order to report all Xrays, scans and biopsies in 7 days we will need a lot more radiologists and histopathologists, or rob another service such as stroke services to find them. Milibands magic wand cannot work its hocus pocus otherwise.

bigjohnowls

richardDodd said:

Burnham oozes the most sincere insincerity..and does it so well.

I dont like him his demeanour reminds me of the "war criminal"

MarqueeMark

Pulpstar said:

Another good thing about the Burnham bet is that at 44 he is plenty young enough to get in even if Ed gets into No 10.

If Ed gets into No 10, the likelihood is that he will cause Labour to be so reviled that no-one in their right mind would take on the job of his successor.

Plus, I don't see the Andy Burnham act looking so convincing when he is 50. He's gonna start looking like those women who have had too much work done on them....

It's LotO next year for Andy Burnham when Labour don't get into No 10, or his moment will have gone.

Indigo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

Even if it was funded it still bo***cks, you can't pull qualified staff out of thin air even if the money is available. A friend of mine is a rural GP in a practice that needs five doctors, and is currently running with 1.5 GPs because they can't find the staff, the money is available, the applicants are not.

chestnut

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

CarlottaVance

We were chatting earlier about the misguided (to put it at its very kindest) NUS stance on ISIS - turns out that the chap behind it is a Labour Councillor......in Thurrock......

http://southessexheckler.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/the-strange-affair-of-councillor-aaron-kiely/

MarqueeMark

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?

isam

MikeK said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

FPT re people calling him a fruitloop, mad etc, Bill Oddie actually does suffer from mental illness, a friend of mine was in rehab with him

What sort of mental problem was/is Oddie having, @isam? He seemed quite lucid and compos mentis with what he was declaiming this morning in the Telegraph.

Not 100% sure, depression I think

HYUFD

Burnham is basically the John Edwards of the Labour Party (minus the sex). Telegenic and likeable from an ordinary background and centrist he would have been the ideal leader for Labour in 2010 as Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry in 2004. By 2015 he will be old news fighting for space between the Yvette Cooper v Chukka Umunna battle as the token white northern male, much as Edwards was caught between the Clinton V Obama battle as the token white southern male

nigel4england

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

Burnham was directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.
Luckily for him they can't vote.

Corrected for you

Burnham was NOT directly responsible for the 1400 deaths in Mid Staffs.

Andy Burnham became SoS Health in June 2009 and in July 2009 announced an independent inquiry.

May be wrong but I think it was 'only' 1,200 deaths Labour caused, I believe the 1,400 figure relates to the rape victims of the grooming gangs that Labour allowed to fester and subsequently covered up.

saddened

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

But they have fantastic paper work which means they can employ thousands of administrators who can take early retirement on an index linked pension. People dying should never interfere with that.

bigjohnowls

Indigo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

Even if it was funded it still bo***cks, you can't pull qualified staff out of thin air even if the money is available. A friend of mine is a rural GP in a practice that needs five doctors, and is currently running with 1.5 GPs because they can't find the staff, the money is available, the applicants are not.

So 7 day GP services is bollox?

HYUFD

Danny 565 Kinnock had a hopeless inheritance in 1984 with Labour even lower under Foot than under Brown and a split left with the SDP, yet he still increased Labour's vote in 1987 and cut Thatcher's majority to 100 from 140. He got his second chance until he resigned after losing in 1992. Miliband has a largely united left and split right and does not even face a Tory PM with a majority

Heath was the other leader allowed a second chance in 1966 due to the difficulty of getting back in power after only 2 years in power, had the election been held in 1969 and he lost he may not have survived, by winning in 1970 he ensured he stayed leader until replaced by Thatcher after the 1974 defeat.

GeoffM

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.

It's time to privatise the whole damn thing. It's the only way to create decent health provision.

Why would it?

It'd be a move away from a system built around the interests of the staff towards one focused on the needs of the consumer.

MarkSenior

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?

Many of you pb tories would kill off the NHS within 9 days let alone 90 . You have a blind hatred of it .

bigjohnowls

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

First overall does it hurt you to see that?

bigjohnowls

GeoffM said:

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.

It's time to privatise the whole damn thing. It's the only way to create decent health provision.

Why would it?

It'd be a move away from a system built around the interests of the staff towards one focused on the needs of the consumer.
Which private system is more cost effective with such good outcomes?

MarkSenior

bigjohnowls said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

First overall does it hurt you to see that?

Hurt him ? It is a dagger in his heart but luckily , he has a NHS to treat the wound instead of having to pay thousands of pounds privately .

CarlottaVance

isam said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidBrackenbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry to pop kind of off topic so soon but, given that this thread and much of the discussion at the tail end of the last derived from this morning's Andrew Marr show, can I just point out that Clive James (who was on the show this morning), even in his last days, is simply a monster of literature and culture and that when he does finally pass away we will have lost one of the greatest writers of the late 20th century.

+1! May that day be long delayed!!!

I fear it is not too far off although he himself was saying it was getting a bit embarrassing that he kept writing about how he was going to die very soon and yet was still hanging around to be proved wrong. I hope, particularly given that he is in no pain, he continues to be proved wrong for a long time.

FPT re people calling him a fruitloop, mad etc, Bill Oddie actually does suffer from mental illness, a friend of mine was in rehab with him

What sort of mental problem was/is Oddie having, @isam? He seemed quite lucid and compos mentis with what he was declaiming this morning in the Telegraph.

Not 100% sure, depression I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Oddie#Depression_and_Bipolar_Disorder

isam

CarlottaVance said:

We were chatting earlier about the misguided (to put it at its very kindest) NUS stance on ISIS - turns out that the chap behind it is a Labour Councillor......in Thurrock......

http://southessexheckler.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/the-strange-affair-of-councillor-aaron-kiely/

Quitle likely to be something to do with theLabour activists in Thurrock last week telling people UKIP want to introduce gas chambers

He likes to retweet this guy

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/08/Ukip-Calls-for-Resignation-of-Labour-MEP-for-Alleging-Ukip-Wants-to-Abort-Disabled-Babies

bigjohnowls

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

isam

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

I did reply hang on..

(btw you get notifications when someone replies, so you should have noticed)


"isam • Posts: 8,876
October 18
bigjohnowls said:

Isam you said this on Thursday

"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".

Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say

It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.

I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad

--------------------------------------------

Yes I said exactly that, and I stand by both

It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency

As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result

I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over "

foxinsoxuk

bigjohnowls said:

Indigo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, is it funded?

I know Labour say it's funded, but that's not the same thing.

Even if it was funded it still bo***cks, you can't pull qualified staff out of thin air even if the money is available. A friend of mine is a rural GP in a practice that needs five doctors, and is currently running with 1.5 GPs because they can't find the staff, the money is available, the applicants are not.

So 7 day GP services is bollox?

Fairly obviously...

I wish all parties would stop these stupid undeliverable announcements!

Innocent_Abroad

MarkSenior said:

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?

Many of you pb tories would kill off the NHS within 9 days let alone 90 . You have a blind hatred of it .

They genuinely believe that all the country's problems would disappear if everyone to the left of them dropped dead. I happen to think it's a mistaken belief but there's no way to tell, obviously.

anotherDave

MarkSenior said:

bigjohnowls said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

First overall does it hurt you to see that?

Hurt him ? It is a dagger in his heart but luckily , he has a NHS to treat the wound instead of having to pay thousands of pounds privately .

You do understand that the NHS is funded by taxation?

If the UK had a private health insurance model, taxation would be lower.

nigel4england

MarkSenior said:

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?

Many of you pb tories would kill off the NHS within 9 days let alone 90 . You have a blind hatred of it .

Why don't you or Big John tell us in great detail how the NHS in Wales is currently performing under Labour?

manofkent2014

On topic Burnham? No chance damaged goods (Mid Staffs) and a lightweight to boot. If he wants to win something he should appear on Big Brother or something.

Off topic November 22 is one of the most significant dates in contemporary Western political history. It was the day John F Kennedy was assassinated (1963), it was the day Angela Merkel was elected Germany's first female Chancellor (2005) and it was the day in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign after much of her Cabinet had betrayed her. With the Rochester by election occurring on the 20th November could November 22nd provide another day of significance this year (particularly for the Conservative Party)?

foxinsoxuk

GeoffM said:

bigjohnowls said:

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Andy Burnham was not responsible for excess mortality, but was responsible for investigating and exposing it. But never mind the truth when a smear is about...

No, but he was 'holding the parcel' when the music stopped - and however unfair, is Labour's opponent's poster boy for the failings of his predecessors......

Are hospitals still being pressed to meet waiting time targets at the expense of patient care? Has Labours top down target culture gone? Or does it continue zombie like under the coalition?

There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.

It's time to privatise the whole damn thing. It's the only way to create decent health provision.

Why would it?

It'd be a move away from a system built around the interests of the staff towards one focused on the needs of the consumer.

Well that much is obvious. After all private companies never put the interests of their organisation or shareholders first. We only have to look at how they behave:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603078-why-thieves-love-americas-health-care-system-272-billion-swindle

bigjohnowls

nigel4england said:

MarkSenior said:

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?

Many of you pb tories would kill off the NHS within 9 days let alone 90 . You have a blind hatred of it .

Why don't you or Big John tell us in great detail how the NHS in Wales is currently performing under Labour?

Improving I believe but you have the fixation about it so why don't you tell us

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 2014, 22 November this year is the day after Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out (in the UK) and the day before the probable title-deciding race in Abu Dhabi.

And, as you say, it's shortly after the Rochester by-election. So, it'll be a pretty intriguing weekend.

bigjohnowls

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

I did reply hang on..

(btw you get notifications when someone replies, so you should have noticed)


"isam • Posts: 8,876
October 18
bigjohnowls said:

Isam you said this on Thursday

"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".

Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say

It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.

I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad

--------------------------------------------

Yes I said exactly that, and I stand by both

It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency

As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result

I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over "

Thanks for that i didnt get the notification.

So if the small swing from UKIP to Lab that you describe as no change was replicated across the constituency any idea who would be likely to win?

Richard_Tyndall

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

bigjohnowls

Richard_Tyndall said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

What evidence?

MarkHopkins

Britain's Andy Murray beats David Ferrer to win the Vienna Open...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/29682038

bigjohnowls

Richard_Tyndall said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

You mean the one that has been around for 96 years

The Commonwealth Fund, among the first private foundations started by a woman philanthropist—Anna M.Harkness—was established in 1918 with the broad charge to enhance the common good. The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society’s most vulnerable,

bigjohnowls

Richard_Tyndall said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

I would be grateful if you could inbox me your European evidence Richard

isam

bigjohnowls said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

I did reply hang on..

(btw you get notifications when someone replies, so you should have noticed)


"isam • Posts: 8,876
October 18
bigjohnowls said:

Isam you said this on Thursday

"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".

Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say

It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.

I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad

--------------------------------------------

Yes I said exactly that, and I stand by both

It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency

As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result

I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over "

Thanks for that i didnt get the notification.

So if the small swing from UKIP to Lab that you describe as no change was replicated across the constituency any idea who would be likely to win?

UKIP just

But there is no reason to think it would be replicated across the constituency, particularly as the LDs didn't stand last Thursday

KentRising

Is there a website around that has built a polling predictor that allows you to key in a specific UKIP figure rather than having to include them under 'others'? I think the time has come...

KentRising

I've answered my own question folks. There it is on Electoral Calculus. Tapping in the results of the ComRes 'online prompted' poll has UKIP winning three seats. Sounds about right.

isam

KentRising said:

I've answered my own question folks. There it is on Electoral Calculus. Tapping in the results of the ComRes 'online prompted' poll has UKIP winning three seats. Sounds about right.

If UKIP get 24%, they'll get more than a dozen seats

Peter_the_Punter

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

On the face of it, the West Thurrock council result was disappointing for UKIP.

There are a number of possible explanations. Could be local factors: could be organsational: maybe labour are just very strong in that area: or maybe it just isn't UKIP friendly.

There's another by-election in the District in a few weeks time. That should give a better steer.

It's tempting to think that UKIP finds the going tougher in Labour held seats, although Heywood suggests otherwise. The fact that on the same nite UKIP did very well in Swale (near Rochester) suggests that it was local problems in Thurrock, but the best you can say is that the jury's out on that one.

bigjohnowls

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

I did reply hang on..

(btw you get notifications when someone replies, so you should have noticed)


"isam • Posts: 8,876
October 18
bigjohnowls said:

Isam you said this on Thursday

"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".

Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say

It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.

I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad

--------------------------------------------

Yes I said exactly that, and I stand by both

It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency

As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result

I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over "

Thanks for that i didnt get the notification.

So if the small swing from UKIP to Lab that you describe as no change was replicated across the constituency any idea who would be likely to win?

UKIP just

But there is no reason to think it would be replicated across the constituency, particularly as the LDs didn't stand last Thursday

Interesting

Sounds like you know more about the constituency than me.

Shadsy is offering 5/4 on a UKIP win with LAB also 5/4

NickPalmer

In response to any sceptical murmurs about the Broxtowe Labour ground game...

https://twitter.com/Nick4Broxtowe/status/523812461594435584/photo/1

Richard_Tyndall

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

I would be grateful if you could inbox me your European evidence Richard

Start with cancer survivability rates

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/UK-cancer-survival-rates-below-European-average.aspx

Look particularly at the comparisons with France which has a far better survivability rate for most forms of cancer.

Also death rates per 100,000 for coronary heart disease

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/coronary-heart-disease/by-country/

France has less than half the rate of the UK.

KentRising

isam said:

KentRising said:

I've answered my own question folks. There it is on Electoral Calculus. Tapping in the results of the ComRes 'online prompted' poll has UKIP winning three seats. Sounds about right.

If UKIP get 24%, they'll get more than a dozen seats

I note that 'May 2015', the New Statesman's election website uses Electoral Calculus's system. They agree that the three seats they predict UKIP winning would be Aberdeenshire West, Gordon, and Devon North! Which goes to show - accurate polling of UKIP is in its infancy.

Socrates

NickPalmer said:

In response to any sceptical murmurs about the Broxtowe Labour ground game...

https://twitter.com/Nick4Broxtowe/status/523812461594435584/photo/1

It's amazing that in the UK a group of less than 30 people is considered an impressive ground game.

Socrates

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.

10th of 11 at keeping people alive.

Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.

Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.

The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.

You mean the one that has been around for 96 years

The Commonwealth Fund, among the first private foundations started by a woman philanthropist—Anna M.Harkness—was established in 1918 with the broad charge to enhance the common good. The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society’s most vulnerable,

The Communist Party of Great Britain has been about for a long time too. That doesn't mean we should trust their analysis.

isam

bigjohnowls said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:

Isam I asked you yesterday if you thought the Thurrock result was good/bad

I missed your reply can you let me know please?

I did reply hang on..

(btw you get notifications when someone replies, so you should have noticed)


"isam • Posts: 8,876
October 18
bigjohnowls said:

Isam you said this on Thursday

"

Thanks for that i didnt get the notification.

So if the small swing from UKIP to Lab that you describe as no change was replicated across the constituency any idea who would be likely to win?

UKIP just

But there is no reason to think it would be replicated across the constituency, particularly as the LDs didn't stand last Thursday

Interesting

Sounds like you know more about the constituency than me.

Shadsy is offering 5/4 on a UKIP win with LAB also 5/4

I'd make UKIP marginal favourites but not a lot in it

A closer result on Thursday and I'd have thought 4/6, but its as you were, which is slightly surprising given recent publicity/Clacton and national polls

It's too easy I think to see everything that isn't a massive leap forward as a disaster for UKIP. Coming top in Thurrock at the Euros and locals was a major achievement, and holding steady isn't that bad. As I said, its Labours strongest ward, here are the full results from May

https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/election_20140522.pdf

I think the election @Peter_the_Punter refers to is in Aveley and Uplands.. UKIP won that in May with 1080 votes, Labour 3rd with 300 odd. If that's a close run thing maybe I should start worrying!

Put it this way, I am on UKIP at nice prices to win Thurrock, and haven't rushed to lay off by backing the 5/4 Labour

My Dad scored a fantastic goal for Aveley vs West Ham in a testimonial in 1980.. I was behind the goal, a 25 yard screamer! WHU had just won the Cup and I got to lift it after the game

Peter_the_Punter

Socrates said:

NickPalmer said:

In response to any sceptical murmurs about the Broxtowe Labour ground game...

https://twitter.com/Nick4Broxtowe/status/523812461594435584/photo/1

It's amazing that in the UK a group of less than 30 people is considered an impressive ground game.

Ah, yes, but I'm going up to join them for a couple of days next May. That's worth another 2,000 votes for him, so it makes Broxtowe an easy win for Labour, and they can afford to focus their resources elsewhere. ;-)