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. ;-)
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.
The Commonwealth fund is a well respected non partisan group as far as i know.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
Further to the discussion with bigjohnowls on health care systems perhaps you should be looking at this for comparisons of things that really matter such as waiting times and outcomes.
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
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
So it looks like guarenteed early diagnosis of cancer as proposed is desparately needed.
France spends a lot more money as a % of GDP on health good i presume you would sign up for that
Yes. I have always said that we need a complete overhaul of our health systems with less being taken and spent by a centralised state organisation and more being taken in private health insurance and being spent by private companies acting on behalf of the state. It si a system that works exceptionally well in France and one I would be far happier contributing to as the money is making a real difference.
Having lived and worked throughout Europe it always saddens me that the NHS religion in the UK so holds back the development of a good effective health care system.
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
So it looks like guarenteed early diagnosis of cancer as proposed is desparately needed.
France spends a lot more money as a % of GDP on health good i presume you would sign up for that
What is desperately needed is for people in this country to stop viewing the NHS as a religion which can't be criticised and instead reform it to put patients first.
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.
...but total health costs would be doubled based on USA total healthcosts versus UK.
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
So it looks like guarenteed early diagnosis of cancer as proposed is desparately needed.
France spends a lot more money as a % of GDP on health good i presume you would sign up for that
Yes. I have always said that we need a complete overhaul of our health systems with less being taken and spent by a centralised state organisation and more being taken in private health insurance and being spent by private companies acting on behalf of the state. It si a system that works exceptionally well in France and one I would be far happier contributing to as the money is making a real difference.
Having lived and worked throughout Europe it always saddens me that the NHS religion in the UK so holds back the development of a good effective health care system.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
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.
...but total health costs would be doubled based on USA total healthcosts versus UK.
The choice is not between the UK and the US. Look around Europe and you will see plenty of better systems.
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.
...but total health costs would be doubled based on USA total healthcosts versus UK.
The USA is not the only example of an insurance based health care system.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
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.
The Commonwealth fund is a well respected non partisan group as far as i know.
What do you know about them?
I know they are a left-leaning group that wants greater government intervention in healthcare. I also know that their indexing of healthcare systems places actual health outcomes absurdly low in the calculation.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
You should have heard both Burnham and then some nobody Labour backbencher flogging this on Pienaars politics on R5 this morning too - Matt Forde as the leftie guest was "pulling his hair out" with them for this.... red on red was a highlight.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
You should have heard both Burnham and then some nobody Labour backbencher flogging this on Pienaars politics on R5 this morning too - Matt Forde as the leftie guest was "pulling his hair out" with them for this.... red on red was a highlight.
That said, it's something to talk about that isn't the EU, immigration, English devolution, child abuse cover-ups, Labour's economic record etc...
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.
So a referendum bill on the UK's membership of the European Union is a waste of parliamentary time, but posturing over this is worth it? Ed Miliband really is a craven muppet.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
It's natural enough that a grouping only represented in a few countries would play a minor role in the EP, in the same way that the SNP and Plaid don't have many front bench rights in Westminster. Despite the author's doubts, though, I expect a way will be found for a Eurosceptical group with enough countries involved to be formed.
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. ;-)
Mmm. Sounds a good idea!! Nick?
An excellent deal!
Actually, perhaps we should organise a PB do in Broxtowe next April, so people can spend a couple of hours helping their preferred choices and getting a direct impression of the atmosphere, then meet for a drink afterwards. Nottingham is pretty easy to get to from most places in Britain except the SW.
It's amazing that in the UK a group of less than 30 people is considered an impressive ground game.
It wouldn't be if it was election day but it's good for a routine canvass in one ward. As I said the other day, the electorate at large is in sceptical mood, but the Labour core in the marginals is pretty motivated.
Incidentally, in England we usually say "fewer than" for a whole number. You're no doubt one of these foreigners one reads about. Welcome to our shores!
Also on Piennar's show, the host had a pretty impressive challenge to Burnham over the tokenism of this 1 week policy and referred to this Pollard article, saying 1 week for 1 test when often many tests are needed before finding out what the medical issue was one of the most cynical things he' d seen in politics in decades.
Burnham's answers were waffle. Mind you I'm biased, Yvette is the one for me!!
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
You should have heard both Burnham and then some nobody Labour backbencher flogging this on Pienaars politics on R5 this morning too - Matt Forde as the leftie guest was "pulling his hair out" with them for this.... red on red was a highlight.
That said, it's something to talk about that isn't the EU, immigration, English devolution, child abuse cover-ups, Labour's economic record etc...
I'm pretty relaxed about it to be honest. Labour under Miliband is clearly perfectly happy in its comfort zone.
Its continued fumbling on irrelevancies and pet hobby horses is further evidence to the electorate of its total unfitness to govern.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
You should have heard both Burnham and then some nobody Labour backbencher flogging this on Pienaars politics on R5 this morning too - Matt Forde as the leftie guest was "pulling his hair out" with them for this.... red on red was a highlight.
That said, it's something to talk about that isn't the EU, immigration, English devolution, child abuse cover-ups, Labour's economic record etc...
I'm pretty relaxed about it to be honest. Labour under Miliband is clearly perfectly happy in its comfort zone.
Its continued fumbling on irrelevancies and pet hobby horses is further evidence to the electorate of its total unfitness to govern.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
Its not poor sorry to upset you but no worthwhile comparative study on mortality rates exists does it.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
It's natural enough that a grouping only represented in a few countries would play a minor role in the EP, in the same way that the SNP and Plaid don't have many front bench rights in Westminster. Despite the author's doubts, though, I expect a way will be found for a Eurosceptical group with enough countries involved to be formed.
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. ;-)
Mmm. Sounds a good idea!! Nick?
An excellent deal!
Actually, perhaps we should organise a PB do in Broxtowe next April, so people can spend a couple of hours helping their preferred choices and getting a direct impression of the atmosphere, then meet for a drink afterwards. Nottingham is pretty easy to get to from most places in Britain except the SW.
It's amazing that in the UK a group of less than 30 people is considered an impressive ground game.
It wouldn't be if it was election day but it's good for a routine canvass in one ward. As I said the other day, the electorate at large is in sceptical mood, but the Labour core in the marginals is pretty motivated.
Incidentally, in England we usually say "fewer than" for a whole number. You're no doubt one of these foreigners one reads about. Welcome to our shores!
I doubt Broxtowe is representative of all Labour marginals. To be fair to Nick, he's consistently put in the hard graft and ground work over the years. If he hadn't, Broxtowe wouldn't have been so close in 2010.
Sadly, even though he's a nice guy, I could never vote for Nick because I simply disagree with his politics too much. I expect I'd have to either peg my nose and vote for Soubry, or go for UKIP.
I might feel differently with Hoey, Field or Stuart, particularly if I disliked the Tory alternative.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
You should have heard both Burnham and then some nobody Labour backbencher flogging this on Pienaars politics on R5 this morning too - Matt Forde as the leftie guest was "pulling his hair out" with them for this.... red on red was a highlight.
That said, it's something to talk about that isn't the EU, immigration, English devolution, child abuse cover-ups, Labour's economic record etc...
I'm pretty relaxed about it to be honest. Labour under Miliband is clearly perfectly happy in its comfort zone.
Its continued fumbling on irrelevancies and pet hobby horses is further evidence to the electorate of its total unfitness to govern.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If it's cost effective (which you seem to be agreeing with), that is producing good outcomes for the money spent, then wouldn't the problem be with the level of funding rather than anything else.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
And what's more it's the one think the Great British Public want us to throw yet more money at, irrespespective of how much of this is wasted.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
And what's more it's the one think the Great British Public want us to throw yet more money at, irrespespective of how much of this is wasted.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
Its not poor sorry to upset you but no worthwhile comparative study on mortality rates exists does it.
Even Dave says its fantastic.
Currently faces a £30bn black hole though
So the entirely neutral Euro Health Consumer Index which measures the important indices regarding health services is rubbish and can be ignored whilst the Commonwealth Fudn which exists as a pressure group and which doesn't regard 'outcomes' as it's most important measure is the one we should all believe.
Like I say, you NHS fanatics really are bad for the nation's health.
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.
Interesting how we come first in virtually everything apart from the outcome.
In "Healthy lives", which is summed up as mortality amenable to healthcare (the actual function of a healthcare system), infant mortality and healthy life expectancy at age 60, we come 10th. Out of 11.
To be fair, the life expectancy bit can easily be down to how we live our own lives, so the first two elements should really be what we rate a healthcare system on. In which we're 9th out of 11 and 8th out of 11 respectively.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If it's cost effective (which you seem to be agreeing with), that is producing good outcomes for the money spent, then wouldn't the problem be with the level of funding rather than anything else.
No because the criteria being used for 'cost effectiveness' ignores the most important measures of waiting lists and outcomes.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
And what's more it's the one think the Great British Public want us to throw yet more money at, irrespespective of how much of this is wasted.
The NHS is a bottomless pit.
but still one of the cheapest systems anywhere
Keeping oldies alive is a costly business across the Globe
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
For those of you who can't be bothered to wade through the Euro Health Consumer Index pages (which are somewhat confusing) there is a good wikipedia summary which allows you to see just how poorly the UK (well actually England and Scotland) fares against the rest of Europe
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.
but don't dare let someone try and change it.
Envy of the world my arse.
You will have never seen me describe the NHS as "the envy of the world" or suggest it doesn't need change.
The problem is that many of the changes over the last decade have been for the worse, with all the worst features of nationalised systems (inflexible top down systems, "take it or leave it" customer approach, long waiting times, political interference) and the worst features of insurance based systems (expensive, poor co-ordination, complex billing systems, poor public health and planning of services).
Each country has its own cultural and historic reasons for the structure of their health system, but like many other areas we could benefit from copying parts of Europe. I would choose the Netherlands system myself.
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.
but don't dare let someone try and change it.
Envy of the world my arse.
You will have never seen me describe the NHS as "the envy of the world" or suggest it doesn't need change.
The problem is that many of the changes over the last decade have been for the worse, with all the worst features of nationalised systems (inflexible top down systems, "take it or leave it" customer approach, long waiting times, political interference) and the worst features of insurance based systems (expensive, poor co-ordination, complex billing systems, poor public health and planning of services).
Each country has its own cultural and historic reasons for the structure of their health system, but like many other areas we could benefit from copying parts of Europe. I would choose the Netherlands system myself.
I'd describe the frequent reorganisations, changes, and other politician meddling as an inherent feature of our system, unfortunately.
If we're going to have a monolithic monopoly controlled by the politicians, they're going to try to affect it. After all, hand a politician a large set of controls, levers and dials attached to something seen as crucially important by the electorate and tell him or her that there are serious issues coming down the track (and when haven't there been serious issues either coming down the track for the health service or here already) and that the electorate are very interested in this, and he/she is inevitably going to end up hauling on a lever as hard as possible and spinning a couple of dials wildly.
The continental systems that seem to distance the politicians from the systems somewhat have a real advantage there.
But if we insist on having a system with politicians controlling it, we can't complain about the politicians exercising that control, so we're always going to see meddling and reorganisations.
The idea that Romney could ever again be a candidate is unfortunately because republicans voted for him already and he a known quantity, however that is also the reason for him to never ever again get into politics, the general public know he sucks at it:
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
And what's more it's the one think the Great British Public want us to throw yet more money at, irrespespective of how much of this is wasted.
The NHS is a bottomless pit.
but still one of the cheapest systems anywhere
Keeping oldies alive is a costly business across the Globe
That's because we're not keeping them alive; we're just stopping them from dying. There's a big difference.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
Your problem is that the European Parliament gives too much importance to balancing the member states?
Actually, as UKIP grows as a party and becomes better funded, I would like to see them take social action for the elderly as a pet cause. Day centres. Trips to the beach. Electric blankets. Not only is the field clear, as this isn't a fashionable one, it's also helping their core vote. Also plays into many of their key policies.
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
The idea that Romney could ever again be a candidate is unfortunately because republicans voted for him already and he a known quantity, however that is also the reason for him to never ever again get into politics, the general public know he sucks at it:
It may be all true, what you say. However, I more than suspect that Romney would have made a far better president than Obama. And I bet more Americans now think so, too.
I completely agree. Politicians managing healthcare are much of the problem. Both Labours 7 day cancer deadline and Dave's 7 day GP access are politically gimmicky solutions for complex problems.
I was rather taken by Cameron's promise to put the doctors and nurses in charge, but the DoH has laid down so many rules that in practice the decisions are centrally determined in Whitehall.
Doctors are like anyone else, pay them by fee for service and both 7 day investigations and 7 day GPs would appear like magic. At the moment it takes six weeks to get an MRI reported for non emergency scan in my hospital. If they got paid by the scan, on receipt of report then times would get shorter. Ditto 7 day appointments with GPs. At the moment extra clinics come with costs but no income.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
Your problem is that the European Parliament gives too much importance to balancing the member states?
On the contrary the Parliament is designed not to acknowledge national interests at all (hence the pan European groupings) At the same time it is also fixed to favour the dominant large groupings and the status quo by excluding small national parties and small groupings from any real influence and funding in the EP.
In the UK's case that is further exacerbated by the fact we have no representation in the dominant grouping the EPP and only 13 of the 195 reps in the main opposition the PES.
The simple reality is that we have Sweet FA influence in Brussels whichever way you slice it.
And with the loss of tens of vetoes in a couple of weeks time the situation will get even worse.
The idea that Romney could ever again be a candidate is unfortunately because republicans voted for him already and he a known quantity, however that is also the reason for him to never ever again get into politics, the general public know he sucks at it:
It may be all true, what you say. However, I more than suspect that Romney would have made a far better president than Obama. And I bet more Americans now think so, too.
That would only be because they haven't thought about it too much. Give it another election campaign and Obama would win again.
Anyway, I thought you were on the isolationist side of foreign policy. Romney would have re-invaded Iraq and invaded Syria by now.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If a system is doing well for cost-effectiveness, but the outcomes (not weighted for cost) are poor, doesn't basic mathematics and common sense say we're not spending enough on it?
No, sorry, what am I thinking? Obviously it means completely reorganise and change the system to better resemble some of its less cost-effective counterparts in other countries without spending any extra.
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.
The NHS is a religion in this country . A religion that no other country in the world has adopted. Anyone wonder why? One day a major party is going to state the truth. Unfortunately UKIP 2010 did, but not UKIP October 2014.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
Your problem is that the European Parliament gives too much importance to balancing the member states?
No. My problem is that the European parliament unduly sidelines the views of the British public because those views aren't held in other parts of the European Union.
Pluses Empathic. Speaks human. Compassionate. Relates well to Labour's natural supporters.
Minuses Really not the sharpest tool in the box. Has shown no understanding whatsoever of macroeconomics. Not a good debater. Shows no comprehension of the private sector.
In short, certainly on the long list of those who would be a better leader than Ed Miliband but nothing special. Labour really needs better but where to find it?
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If a system is doing well for cost-effectiveness, but the outcomes (not weighted for cost) are poor, doesn't basic mathematics and common sense say we're not spending enough on it?
No, sorry, what am I thinking? Obviously it means completely reorganise and change the system to better resemble some of its less cost-effective counterparts in other countries without spending any extra.
No it means that what is being measured for cost effectiveness is not what should be measured. The NHS registers as cost effective because the value of outcomes is downgraded. Put simply they are measuring the wrong things in getting to that conclusion.
As long as the attitude you display continues the NHS will continue to kill people who would otherwise live longer lives.
That is the base result of your religious fervour for the NHS.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
But the SNP MEPs *do* caucus with other Regionalists in the EP (please don't make me look the group up, life is too short). If they wanted to do that in the UK Parliament, they could do so by creating a group with UKIP and Plaid Cymru, and even the nonviolent NI separatists.
The reason why the Eurosceptic group fell was because Euroscepticism isn't really that popular in Europe. It's more popular than it was and it will become more popular still, but it's still fissiparous and concentrated in the UK. No conspiracy theory is necessary: it just lost because it wasn't popular enough. It's no biggie, and in time a new one will be back.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
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.
The NHS is a religion in this country . A religion that no other country in the world has adopted. Anyone wonder why? One day a major party is going to state the truth. Unfortunately UKIP 2010 did, but not UKIP October 2014.
The health care systems in a number of Scandanavian countries, as well as New Zealand are actually very similar to the NHS.
In the UK's case that is further exacerbated by the fact we have no representation in the dominant grouping the EPP and only 13 of the 195 reps in the main opposition the PES.
That should be 20 out of 195. 13 was the pre 2014 figure......
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If a system is doing well for cost-effectiveness, but the outcomes (not weighted for cost) are poor, doesn't basic mathematics and common sense say we're not spending enough on it?
No, sorry, what am I thinking? Obviously it means completely reorganise and change the system to better resemble some of its less cost-effective counterparts in other countries without spending any extra.
No it means that what is being measured for cost effectiveness is not what should be measured. The NHS registers as cost effective because the value of outcomes is downgraded. Put simply they are measuring the wrong things in getting to that conclusion.
As long as the attitude you display continues the NHS will continue to kill people who would otherwise live longer lives.
That is the base result of your religious fervour for the NHS.
I can't believe people are still citing that non-peer reviewed advertorial style American toss article by the Commonwealth Fund to justify the continued existence of the NHS. One keeps telling them, but they keep popping up with it again and again like Whac a Mole.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
But the SNP MEPs *do* caucus with other Regionalists in the EP (please don't make me look the group up, life is too short). If they wanted to do that in the UK Parliament, they could do so by creating a group with UKIP and Plaid Cymru, and even the nonviolent NI separatists.
The reason why the Eurosceptic group fell was because Euroscepticism isn't really that popular in Europe. It's more popular than it was and it will become more popular still, but it's still fissiparous and concentrated in the UK. No conspiracy theory is necessary: it just lost because it wasn't popular enough. It's no biggie, and in time a new one will be back.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
That the loss of one member of a grouping from one natioon means that they lose their group status, membership of committees and considerable funding is hardly proportionate. Should the Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties be excluded from Parliamentary committees and denied Short Money because they have no MPs in Kent?
It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!
Fears of a “deliberate cover-up” by public officials of the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham have been fuelled by the large number of documents detailing the scandal which have vanished, an investigation by MPs has concluded.
They urged the Home Office to launch an immediate search for the missing paperwork and to examine claims that files warning about the activities of paedophile rings were stolen from a locked council office in the South Yorkshire town.
Credit to the parliamentary select committee for drawing attention to this. Why is the government continuing to drag its feet over this and leave everything to the local authorities to look into their own failings?
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
Your problem is that the European Parliament gives too much importance to balancing the member states?
No. My problem is that the European parliament unduly sidelines the views of the British public because those views aren't held in other parts of the European Union.
But this is exactly the spirit of inter-governmentalism that people say the EU doesn't do enough of. No one country can dictate the agenda by strength of numbers alone. Same reason the SNP and DUP won't get to participate in pan-UK general election debates even though they have far more MPs than Ukip.
...and another thing. UKIP haven't had their votes removed, they've only had the extra funding they get as a group removed. Given that, I need to ask...exactly what is the problem here?
I've always said UKIP should be abstentionist in the EP since voting in the EP is a defacto Europhilic act, but I can understand and approve of the UKIP approach of voting against everything in every vote*1 But the money they need to do that is negligible: all they need do is don sensible clothing and shoes, sit at a seat, and press "no" repeatedly. They don't need to be a group to do that.
*1 Contrast this with the Conservative approach of voting "Yes" with the things it agrees with...
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
You mean the head of a small party grouping in the European parliament doesn't get pride of place?
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
You've entirely missed the point. They haven't failed from the number of MEPs they have. They've failed on not having MEPs from enough parts of the European Union. It would be like the SNP getting less speaking time because there weren't any English nationalists.
Your problem is that the European Parliament gives too much importance to balancing the member states?
No. My problem is that the European parliament unduly sidelines the views of the British public because those views aren't held in other parts of the European Union.
But this is exactly the spirit of inter-governmentalism that people say the EU doesn't do enough of. No one country can dictate the agenda by strength of numbers alone. Same reason the SNP and DUP won't get to participate in pan-UK general election debates even though they have far more MPs than Ukip<</b>.
And that's wrong to. The DUP and SNP should be able to debate federal issues such as defence border control etc. (whether they would or not is another question) and that is a failing of our system perpetrated by the establishment parties who refuse to address the utter mess they have made of our governmental structure.
But the SNP MEPs *do* caucus with other Regionalists in the EP (please don't make me look the group up, life is too short). If they wanted to do that in the UK Parliament, they could do so by creating a group with UKIP and Plaid Cymru, and even the nonviolent NI separatists.
But not in the UK parliament, where we would regard such a requirement as being hugely undemocratic. If you have X number of MPs then you should get the same power whether you get them in one nation or scattered across the whoel polity.
The reason why the Eurosceptic group fell was because Euroscepticism isn't really that popular in Europe. It's more popular than it was and it will become more popular still, but it's still fissiparous and concentrated in the UK. No conspiracy theory is necessary: it just lost because it wasn't popular enough. It's no biggie, and in time a new one will be back.
It's plenty popular enough and has enough MPs to have a reasonable chunk in the European parliament. Just because it's concentrated in the UK doesn't mean it should be marginalised. And the collapse only happened in this place because Schultz deliberately bought one MEP off in order to twist the rules to his advantage.
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
When combined with the funding mechanisms and speaking time allotments it is indeed Byzantine. These are rules that aren't required in the USA, for example.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
I would describe countries like China and Russia as evil and tyrannical. "Better than Turkey" could perhaps be the argument for the In side of the referendum... it would at least be honest.
Fears of a “deliberate cover-up” by public officials of the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham have been fuelled by the large number of documents detailing the scandal which have vanished, an investigation by MPs has concluded.
They urged the Home Office to launch an immediate search for the missing paperwork and to examine claims that files warning about the activities of paedophile rings were stolen from a locked council office in the South Yorkshire town.
Credit to the parliamentary select committee for drawing attention to this. Why is the government continuing to drag its feet over this and leave everything to the local authorities to look into their own failings?
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
That the loss of one member of a grouping from one natioon means that they lose their group status, membership of committees and considerable funding is hardly proportionate. Should the Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties be excluded from Parliamentary committees and denied Short Money because they have no MPs in Kent?
It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!
Them's the rules and the rules are designed to prevent groups that are focussed on individual countries (and might therefore want to leave) from getting their paws on the sweetie jar. Instead groups that are bland and could form the basis of a cross country grouping diminishing the role of nations and nation states are rewarded.
What did you expect? It is surprising that UKIP got as close as they did. They will miss the money (which they greatly covet) but in the long run examples like this make those on the fence like me think pretty carefully about what side of the fence to jump down on.
That the loss of one member of a grouping from one natioon means that they lose their group status, membership of committees and considerable funding is hardly proportionate. Should the Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties be excluded from Parliamentary committees and denied Short Money because they have no MPs in Kent? It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!
If I knew what short money was, I could answer your first question, but I can't.
But I can address your final statement ("It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!") by noting it is difficult to defend. Are you saying there should be no threshold? If you are not, then any group will collapse when it falls below the threshold. If you are, then you would end up with "N" groups (where N is the number of MEPs), a plainly unsustainable position.
The groups have a threshold. Ukip's group fell beneath it. So the group collapsed. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it happens all the time.
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.
The NHS is a religion in this country . A religion that no other country in the world has adopted. Anyone wonder why? One day a major party is going to state the truth. Unfortunately UKIP 2010 did, but not UKIP October 2014.
The health care systems in a number of Scandanavian countries, as well as New Zealand are actually very similar to the NHS.
That's interesting. I didn't know that drinking water from vases to survive on wards was such an international thing. Are they all more interested in the provider rather than the consumer too?
...and another thing. UKIP haven't had their votes removed, they've only had the extra funding they get as a group removed. Given that, I need to ask...exactly what is the problem here?
I've always said UKIP should be abstentionist in the EP since voting in the EP is a defacto Europhilic act, but I can understand and approve of the UKIP approach of voting against everything in every vote*1 But the money they need to do that is negligible: all they need do is don sensible clothing and shoes, sit at a seat, and press "no" repeatedly. They don't need to be a group to do that.
*1 Contrast this with the Conservative approach of voting "Yes" with the things it agrees with...
Given the pan European nature of the Parliament and its groupings why is it wrong for UKIP and other anti-EU parties to group together and attempt to change or subvert the EU in unison rather than individually in isolation?
As someone who is not only in favour of withdrawal from the EU but also disapproves of its existence as being bad for this country in or out and bad for Europe I am much happier that my party co-operate with other like minded parties across Europe to stop the EU furthering their goals. Its far better than just seeing them sit there in isolation voting against things but having no influence.
You could equate it to the Libdems going into Coalition with the aim of abolishing the House of Lords (even though it has numerous Peers who sit in that place).
But the SNP MEPs *do* caucus with other Regionalists in the EP (please don't make me look the group up, life is too short). If they wanted to do that in the UK Parliament, they could do so by creating a group with UKIP and Plaid Cymru, and even the nonviolent NI separatists.
But not in the UK parliament, where we would regard such a requirement as being hugely undemocratic. If you have X number of MPs then you should get the same power whether you get them in one nation or scattered across the whoel polity.
What kind of speaking rights do small parties have in the UK parliament, exactly?
Fears of a “deliberate cover-up” by public officials of the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham have been fuelled by the large number of documents detailing the scandal which have vanished, an investigation by MPs has concluded.
They urged the Home Office to launch an immediate search for the missing paperwork and to examine claims that files warning about the activities of paedophile rings were stolen from a locked council office in the South Yorkshire town.
Credit to the parliamentary select committee for drawing attention to this. Why is the government continuing to drag its feet over this and leave everything to the local authorities to look into their own failings?
Because the other religion of PC will be damaged.
It's incredible, we have put up with bullshit like this for too long.
If anyone is still questioning the rise of UKIP they only have to read up on this. The decent people of this country are sickened not only by the actual events that took place but also by the determined actions of the establishment to cover it up.
But not in the UK parliament, where we would regard such a requirement as being hugely undemocratic. If you have X number of MPs then you should get the same power whether you get them in one nation or scattered across the whoel polity.
Then what you are arguing for is not the abolition of the threshold, it's a different threshold. Do you have a figure for what you believe a valid threshold to be for group recognition?
It's plenty popular enough and has enough MPs to have a reasonable chunk in the European parliament. Just because it's concentrated in the UK doesn't mean it should be marginalised. And the collapse only happened in this place because Schultz deliberately bought one MEP off in order to twist the rules to his advantage.
"Popular" is a value judgment, but "popular enough" is easy to judge. Did it meet the threshold? No. Then it's not popular enough. And Schultz didn't twist the rules (unless you're saying he's changed them since this term started?).
When combined with the funding mechanisms and speaking time allotments it is indeed Byzantine. These are rules that aren't required in the USA, for example.
I genuinely don't know enough about the various assemblies at US federal, state and lower level to address that point meaningfully. However, thankfully, the simple meaning of the word "Byzantine" speaks to my point: a threshold of more than X meps from more than Y countries is not, prima facie, a Byzantine rule: it's too simple.
I would describe countries like China and Russia as evil and tyrannical. "Better than Turkey" could perhaps be the argument for the In side of the referendum... it would at least be honest.
It has the virtue of simplicity and obeys Rule of Funny, which is always an undervalued quality in politics.
Fears of a “deliberate cover-up” by public officials of the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham have been fuelled by the large number of documents detailing the scandal which have vanished, an investigation by MPs has concluded.
They urged the Home Office to launch an immediate search for the missing paperwork and to examine claims that files warning about the activities of paedophile rings were stolen from a locked council office in the South Yorkshire town.
Credit to the parliamentary select committee for drawing attention to this. Why is the government continuing to drag its feet over this and leave everything to the local authorities to look into their own failings?
Because the other religion of PC will be damaged.
It's incredible, we have put up with bullshit like this for too long.
If anyone is still questioning the rise of UKIP they only have to read up on this. The decent people of this country are sickened not only by the actual events that took place but also by the determined actions of the establishment to cover it up.
Except that they aren't. Nor are they exercised about Mid Staffs. Because they simply don't know about them. Not even well informed people. These things just aren't on the compliant media's radar.
This has to be the slowest thread on PB for years - just 180 posts over the past 6 hours ..... yawn!
Yes Peter, everyone is waiting with bated breath as to what changes British politics is about to undergo. Meanwhile we yawn and languidly write our posts half-heartedly. Anyone for a good game of Bridge?
Comments
What do you know about them?
http://www.dw.de/bitter-defeat-for-eu-opponents-in-the-european-parliament/a-18006063
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/index.php?Itemid=55
It is the Euro Health Consumer Index.
England comes 14th in Europe well below most of the rest of our western European neighbours.
That aside, I agree entirely with your contempt for the vile organisation.
France spends a lot more money as a % of GDP on health good i presume you would sign up for that
Having lived and worked throughout Europe it always saddens me that the NHS religion in the UK so holds back the development of a good effective health care system.
Good to hear
Free at the point of delivery is a basic principle I can fully support. That is what is wrong with the US system.
Regarding the monolithic health system as some sort icon that can never be questioned nor changed is what is wrong with the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29682734
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&archive=news&view=article&id=367:&itemid=50&menu=yes
http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/health_systems.php
Ireland is currently moving from an NHS type system to an insurance model.
http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2013/12/new-report-on-healthcare-could-irelands-emerging-healthcare-reforms-hold-lessons-for-the-uk/
Another poor move by Labour
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35
Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
There are a number of Trusts with HSMR figures in 2014 that are not far short of where Mid Staffs was in 2008.
but don't dare let someone try and change it.
Envy of the world my arse.
So a referendum bill on the UK's membership of the European Union is a waste of parliamentary time, but posturing over this is worth it? Ed Miliband really is a craven muppet.
Actually, perhaps we should organise a PB do in Broxtowe next April, so people can spend a couple of hours helping their preferred choices and getting a direct impression of the atmosphere, then meet for a drink afterwards. Nottingham is pretty easy to get to from most places in Britain except the SW. It wouldn't be if it was election day but it's good for a routine canvass in one ward. As I said the other day, the electorate at large is in sceptical mood, but the Labour core in the marginals is pretty motivated.
Incidentally, in England we usually say "fewer than" for a whole number. You're no doubt one of these foreigners one reads about. Welcome to our shores!
Maybe Ed should do some research into what they have been saying on Question Time like he did with EastEnders!
Burnham's answers were waffle. Mind you I'm biased, Yvette is the one for me!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798691/cancer-results-seven-days-ed-miliband-cynical-vote-grabber-idiot-leukaemia-survivor-s-acid-view-labour-pledge.html
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/19/british-press-created-nigel-farage-now-they-dont-know-what-to-do-with-him
I love the way the Guardian thinks themselves and other journalists are all powerful, and can manipulate the plebs as necessary.
Similar to how say being the largest party in Scotland doesn't guarantee you much on a uk basis at Westminster?
I mean I realise you oppose a European parliament on principle, but since it exists the internal logic of it that it judges party on size of overall number of MEPs in a group (as opposed to a far more byzantine set up taking the largest party from each country into account) makes logical and democratic sense.
how many things did Labour claim were funded by that again ?? did it get over 5??
The promise is funded by levy on cigarette companies.
Are you against early diagnosis of cancer funded by cigarette companies?
By the way you do know its Daves unfunded tax promises that have the black hole dont you?
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
Its continued fumbling on irrelevancies and pet hobby horses is further evidence to the electorate of its total unfitness to govern.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317
Even Dave says its fantastic.
Currently faces a £30bn black hole though
Sadly, even though he's a nice guy, I could never vote for Nick because I simply disagree with his politics too much. I expect I'd have to either peg my nose and vote for Soubry, or go for UKIP.
I might feel differently with Hoey, Field or Stuart, particularly if I disliked the Tory alternative.
'It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens'
So cost effective and wonderful that not a single country in the world has copied the NHS model.
Ed is Crap - the "NHS is inspired and a fantastic service which the country is rightly proud of"
Farage on NHS - “There is plenty of room for cuts”
Like I say, you NHS fanatics really are bad for the nation's health.
In "Healthy lives", which is summed up as mortality amenable to healthcare (the actual function of a healthcare system), infant mortality and healthy life expectancy at age 60, we come 10th. Out of 11.
To be fair, the life expectancy bit can easily be down to how we live our own lives, so the first two elements should really be what we rate a healthcare system on. In which we're 9th out of 11 and 8th out of 11 respectively.
Keeping oldies alive is a costly business across the Globe
Cam = We're still trying to catch up to labour.
Farage - we've never cut the NHS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index
Envy of the world my arse.
You will have never seen me describe the NHS as "the envy of the world" or suggest it doesn't need change.
The problem is that many of the changes over the last decade have been for the worse, with all the worst features of nationalised systems (inflexible top down systems, "take it or leave it" customer approach, long waiting times, political interference) and the worst features of insurance based systems (expensive, poor co-ordination, complex billing systems, poor public health and planning of services).
Each country has its own cultural and historic reasons for the structure of their health system, but like many other areas we could benefit from copying parts of Europe. I would choose the Netherlands system myself.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/romney-leads-scattered-2016-gop-field-clinton-still-dominates-the-democratic-race/
Anyone but him again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ2IB1-Ooq8
' which allows you to see just how poorly the UK (well actually England and Scotland) fares against the rest of Europe'
NHS in Wales excluded ,I guess it would be too embarrassing.
The problem is that many of the changes over the last decade have been for the worse, with all the worst features of nationalised systems (inflexible top down systems, "take it or leave it" customer approach, long waiting times, political interference) and the worst features of insurance based systems (expensive, poor co-ordination, complex billing systems, poor public health and planning of services).
Each country has its own cultural and historic reasons for the structure of their health system, but like many other areas we could benefit from copying parts of Europe. I would choose the Netherlands system myself.
I'd describe the frequent reorganisations, changes, and other politician meddling as an inherent feature of our system, unfortunately.
If we're going to have a monolithic monopoly controlled by the politicians, they're going to try to affect it. After all, hand a politician a large set of controls, levers and dials attached to something seen as crucially important by the electorate and tell him or her that there are serious issues coming down the track (and when haven't there been serious issues either coming down the track for the health service or here already) and that the electorate are very interested in this, and he/she is inevitably going to end up hauling on a lever as hard as possible and spinning a couple of dials wildly.
The continental systems that seem to distance the politicians from the systems somewhat have a real advantage there.
But if we insist on having a system with politicians controlling it, we can't complain about the politicians exercising that control, so we're always going to see meddling and reorganisations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrH5rFk4ApI
Is now out, entries close 9pm on Saturday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/brazil-presidential/
Many thanks,
DC
FFS
I completely agree. Politicians managing healthcare are much of the problem. Both Labours 7 day cancer deadline and Dave's 7 day GP access are politically gimmicky solutions for complex problems.
I was rather taken by Cameron's promise to put the doctors and nurses in charge, but the DoH has laid down so many rules that in practice the decisions are centrally determined in Whitehall.
Doctors are like anyone else, pay them by fee for service and both 7 day investigations and 7 day GPs would appear like magic. At the moment it takes six weeks to get an MRI reported for non emergency scan in my hospital. If they got paid by the scan, on receipt of report then times would get shorter. Ditto 7 day appointments with GPs. At the moment extra clinics come with costs but no income.
In the UK's case that is further exacerbated by the fact we have no representation in the dominant grouping the EPP and only 13 of the 195 reps in the main opposition the PES.
The simple reality is that we have Sweet FA influence in Brussels whichever way you slice it.
And with the loss of tens of vetoes in a couple of weeks time the situation will get even worse.
Anyway, I thought you were on the isolationist side of foreign policy. Romney would have re-invaded Iraq and invaded Syria by now.
No, sorry, what am I thinking? Obviously it means completely reorganise and change the system to better resemble some of its less cost-effective counterparts in other countries without spending any extra.
Pluses
Empathic.
Speaks human.
Compassionate.
Relates well to Labour's natural supporters.
Minuses
Really not the sharpest tool in the box.
Has shown no understanding whatsoever of macroeconomics.
Not a good debater.
Shows no comprehension of the private sector.
In short, certainly on the long list of those who would be a better leader than Ed Miliband but nothing special. Labour really needs better but where to find it?
As long as the attitude you display continues the NHS will continue to kill people who would otherwise live longer lives.
That is the base result of your religious fervour for the NHS.
The reason why the Eurosceptic group fell was because Euroscepticism isn't really that popular in Europe. It's more popular than it was and it will become more popular still, but it's still fissiparous and concentrated in the UK. No conspiracy theory is necessary: it just lost because it wasn't popular enough. It's no biggie, and in time a new one will be back. I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
In the UK's case that is further exacerbated by the fact we have no representation in the dominant grouping the EPP and only 13 of the 195 reps in the main opposition the PES.
That should be 20 out of 195. 13 was the pre 2014 figure......
It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!
They urged the Home Office to launch an immediate search for the missing paperwork and to examine claims that files warning about the activities of paedophile rings were stolen from a locked council office in the South Yorkshire town.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/missing-rotherham-abuse-scandal-files-fuel-public-suspicion-of-a-deliberate-coverup-9802307.html
Credit to the parliamentary select committee for drawing attention to this. Why is the government continuing to drag its feet over this and leave everything to the local authorities to look into their own failings?
So generous that big john was able to retire at 54, no wonder he loves it so much.
I've always said UKIP should be abstentionist in the EP since voting in the EP is a defacto Europhilic act, but I can understand and approve of the UKIP approach of voting against everything in every vote*1 But the money they need to do that is negligible: all they need do is don sensible clothing and shoes, sit at a seat, and press "no" repeatedly. They don't need to be a group to do that.
*1 Contrast this with the Conservative approach of voting "Yes" with the things it agrees with...
Because the other religion of PC will be damaged.
As Labour seem to have found out in H&M.
Vile image of baby girl being 'beheaded' found by Kurds on phone taken from dead ISIS fanatics in Kobane
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798667/kurds-vile-image-baby-girl-beheaded-photograph-recovered-phones-dead-isis-fanatics-kobane.html
To Thick Ba$tards
Beyond parody: National Union of Students won't condemn the Islamic State
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100014284/beyond-parody-national-union-of-students-wont-condemn-the-islamic-state/
but the National union of students will oppose UKIP
http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/blogs/blog/danielstevens/2014/05/20/NUS-is-right-to-have-passed-policy-to-Oppose-UKIP/
But I can address your final statement ("It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!") by noting it is difficult to defend. Are you saying there should be no threshold? If you are not, then any group will collapse when it falls below the threshold. If you are, then you would end up with "N" groups (where N is the number of MEPs), a plainly unsustainable position.
The groups have a threshold. Ukip's group fell beneath it. So the group collapsed. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it happens all the time.
I didn't know that drinking water from vases to survive on wards was such an international thing.
Are they all more interested in the provider rather than the consumer too?
As someone who is not only in favour of withdrawal from the EU but also disapproves of its existence as being bad for this country in or out and bad for Europe I am much happier that my party co-operate with other like minded parties across Europe to stop the EU furthering their goals. Its far better than just seeing them sit there in isolation voting against things but having no influence.
You could equate it to the Libdems going into Coalition with the aim of abolishing the House of Lords (even though it has numerous Peers who sit in that place).
If anyone is still questioning the rise of UKIP they only have to read up on this. The decent people of this country are sickened not only by the actual events that took place but also by the determined actions of the establishment to cover it up.
If not I might as well get some shut-eye for a month or so.