I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that gagging occurred so that politicians did not find out.
You remind me a little of one of those many Russians who maintained that Stalin knew nothing of the gulags, and if he had he would have stopped them immediately. It was all those bungling managers and party aparatchiks.
The gagging occurred so the public wouldn't find out.
But what I want to know is what Labour are going to say at the next election on health.
The usual scare stories about evil tories when its Hunt who's cleaning up the system?
I wonder.
We'll see how the landscape lies in 2015. Some of the more interesting effects of the Lansley top down reorganisaiotn of the NHS may be apparent by then.
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
We'll see how the landscape lies in 2015. Some of the more interesting effects of the Lansley top down reorganisaiotn of the NHS may be apparent by then.
Fair enough. By the way, I think labour comprehensively won the argument on health. The tories would never dare even mention the P. word these days. Even the more swivel eyed members.
This was a staggering increase on any terms, a series of decisions that contributed more than any other to this country having a large structural deficit at the time the bust came. Labour supporters and minsters had no doubt this was the right thing to do. But they were also aware that they would be vulnerable if all this money was being spent and the media indicated it was being spent on management, bureaucracy and was not producing the results.
They had 2 options. They could either admit that it would take time to see the improvements and that even such a large increase in resources would inevitably not address all problems, at least in the short term, or they could lie.
Lying in this case meant creating a regulator that was not capable of doing anything other than handing out the gold stars. It meant disastrously failing hospitals being approved for self regulating status. It meant refusing inquires into what went wrong so lessons could be learned. It meant gagging agreements with whistleblowers and persecution of those that would not be bought.
We all know what option they chose and it was shameful.
No, we know what option you and others that dislike the Labour Party *want* them to have chosen.
SO, which of them do you dispute?
This week we had the new head of the CQC expressing disbelief that very complicated parts of hospitals were being inspected by social workers who had no technical knowledge of what they were "inspecting" and the evidence of the concealed report.
Stafford was approved for foundation status for goodness sake.
81 refusals to grant an inquiry into what went wrong there.
More than £250m spent on gagging agreements. Staff who complained at Stafford and even in the CQC itself put out of jobs.
These are indisputable facts.
It does not mean that the Coalition was right to attempt their reorganisation, it does not mean that what they are doing now is perfect, it does not mean that the NHS in 1997 was not in desperate need of additional resources.
It does mean that Burnham, who seems quite a likeable guy in fairness, is even more tainted in relation to health policy than Balls is for economic. Labour needs to find a new generation and they need to do so quickly.
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
No, I said it is one of the reasons I was furious about what happened at Stafford. Again, I reject the idea that you get to decide the righteous position to take in this debate.
I'm unsure quite what this signifies, but I think it should be noted.
That the last tough decision that Labour made was more than 60 years ago?
Thats not true. Healey made real cuts following the debacle of the IMF in 1977.
Though I must say that i struggle to see a ban on imported sardines as a really tough decision facing up to the difficulties of govt in 1947. It was a bizarre statement by Ed M.
It was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment!
That said, someone I was very close to (sadly he's died now) who spent more than 20 years in Cabinet post war told me that in all of that time Cabinet only made 3 major decisions. In one the decision was obvious; in another he had no influence over the decision - so he reckoned that he made 1 major decision in 50 years in politics...
This was a staggering increase on any terms, a series of decisions that contributed more than any other to this country having a large structural deficit at the time the bust came. Labour supporters and minsters had no doubt this was the right thing to do. But they were also aware that they would be vulnerable if all this money was being spent and the media indicated it was being spent on management, bureaucracy and was not producing the results.
They had 2 options. They could either admit that it would take time to see the improvements and that even such a large increase in resources would inevitably not address all problems, at least in the short term, or they could lie.
Lying in this case meant creating a regulator that was not capable of doing anything other than handing out the gold stars. It meant disastrously failing hospitals being approved for self regulating status. It meant refusing inquires into what went wrong so lessons could be learned. It meant gagging agreements with whistleblowers and persecution of those that would not be bought.
We all know what option they chose and it was shameful.
Having worked in the NHS from the mid eighties, the best period was Dobsons reign from 1997-9 as minister of Health. He did not spend vast amounts, and let us get on with the work rather than suffer the later target culture. He was a supportive boss.
Labours spending was driven by a sofa decision of Blairs to bring health spending up to international averages. He was also behind the privatisation of clinical services, and white elephant PFI and computer schemes. The target was to reduce waiting lists, no matter what the impact on other bits of the NHS. A very political target.
Much was squandered on such schemes, and on payrises for people like me, but at the expense of more important quality related aspects of healthcare. Once again our mouths were stuffed wiyh gold, only this time to keep us quiet about what was going on underneath.
This was a staggering increase on any terms, a series of decisions that contributed more than any other to this country having a large structural deficit at the time the bust came. Labour supporters and minsters had no doubt this was the right thing to do. But they were also aware that they would be vulnerable if all this money was being spent and the media indicated it was being spent on management, bureaucracy and was not producing the results.
They had 2 options. They could either admit that it would take time to see the improvements and that even such a large increase in resources would inevitably not address all problems, at least in the short term, or they could lie.
Lying in this case meant creating a regulator that was not capable of doing anything other than handing out the gold stars. It meant disastrously failing hospitals being approved for self regulating status. It meant refusing inquires into what went wrong so lessons could be learned. It meant gagging agreements with whistleblowers and persecution of those that would not be bought.
We all know what option they chose and it was shameful.
No, we know what option you and others that dislike the Labour Party *want* them to have chosen.
SO, which of them do you dispute?
This week we had the new head of the CQC expressing disbelief that very complicated parts of hospitals were being inspected by social workers who had no technical knowledge of what they were "inspecting" and the evidence of the concealed report.
Stafford was approved for foundation status for goodness sake.
81 refusals to grant an inquiry into what went wrong there.
More than £250m spent on gagging agreements. Staff who complained at Stafford and even in the CQC itself put out of jobs.
These are indisputable facts.
It does not mean that the Coalition was right to attempt their reorganisation, it does not mean that what they are doing now is perfect, it does not mean that the NHS in 1997 was not in desperate need of additional resources.
It does mean that Burnham, who seems quite a likeable guy in fairness, is even more tainted in relation to health policy than Balls is for economic. Labour needs to find a new generation and they need to do so quickly.
I reject the idea that Labour lied - told deliberate untruths - about the NHS.
I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that gagging occurred so that politicians did not find out.
You remind me a little of one of those many Russians who maintained that Stalin knew nothing of the gulags, and if he had he would have stopped them immediately.
I only wish I had your diplomacy. My comparison to your correspondent would have probably resulted in a banning (as comparing Stalin's 1939 - 1941 "bestest-buddy" and his vacuous lickspittles is not de-rigueur even under our 'belief' in free-speech).
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. It looks very murky and an appalling smear campaign by those who were her bosses...She tried to raise concerns, the local HR specialist reported she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - how very Soviet to allege mental illness in one's critics to discredit them. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Health/article1277761.ece
"[Sheldon] said [the CQC's] approach was dictated by “reputation management”. Dame Jo Williams, then the head of the health watchdog, and Cynthia Bower, the CQC chief executive, were outraged at the testimony. Sheldon says Williams wrote that day to Lansley asking for her to be removed and replaced with a new non-executive director.
Sheldon was told to attend the Department of Health headquarters, where she was told an inquiry into her evidence at the public inquiry would be undertaken by a personnel expert, Gill Rider...Williams in the meantime commissioned a psychiatric assessment on Sheldon, who has a history of depression, without her permission. An internal file was kept on Sheldon, describing her as a risk to the organisation. The documents said she might be a paranoid schizophrenic. This conclusion was based on a 20-minute telephone conversation between Sheldon and an occupational physician. There was no input from a qualified psychiatrist or a face-to-face meeting.
The assessment was strongly rejected by Sheldon, who she said she was working successfully in other roles. She said the CQC only commissioned a report on her mental health after she questioned the organisation’s effectiveness. On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that gagging occurred so that politicians did not find out.
You remind me a little of one of those many Russians who maintained that Stalin knew nothing of the gulags, and if he had he would have stopped them immediately.
I only wish I had your diplomacy. My comparison to your correspondent would have probably resulted in a banning (as comparing Stalin's 1939 - 1941 "bestest-buddy" and his vacuous lickspittles is not de-rigueur even under our 'belief' in free-speech).
Well-done..!
Dear old Fluffy - you can say whatever you like about me safe in the knowledge that I will not give a monkeys. Bless you x
Sunday Mail run a story on the Falkirk debacle www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346708/Miliband-caught-blackmail-storm-dirty-tricks-safe-Labour-seat-employer-anti-union-candidate-told-Withdraw-lose-contracts.html
I am preparing my suitcase to go to Lisbon this evening, so I don't have much time to understand who has allegedly done what in this latest episode....but the first impression is that either the briefing and counterbriefing of accusations confused the writer or that there are not decent fixers anymore...because if you want to get rid of a male contender while supporting a female contender, you don't need to blackmail his employers! You just need to impose an AWS! And that's what they did in the end.
"But after lunch the mood turned sour. The afternoon session started promisingly with Tony Benn telling an amusing anecdote about how he’d nearly caused a mutiny on a Second World War South African troop ship by confronting his colonel and insisting on a debate about war aims.
Then NUT general secretary Christine Blower stood up, and, in a speech that may as well have been drafted for her by Michael Gove’s spin doctor, demanded anarchy in the UK. She wanted marches, rallies, flash mobs, direct action, strike action.
And at that, the flaming revolutionary dominoes began to fall. Unite leader Len McCluskey called for a program of civil disobedience and occupations. “Pay your taxes you greedy bastards!” he shouted. The next speaker, John Rees – who according to an Assembly press officer is a lecturer and author – explained how Tories were “lower than vermin” and “we know what to do with vermin”. For good measure he added, “Do you think the Tories should be allowed to be free on the streets of Manchester?”, (an apparent reference to the upcoming Tory party conference).
By the time Mark Serwotka rose to close the event, even he appeared at a loss about how to make his voice heard amid all these calls for the defenestration of the Etonian elite. So he attacked Ed Miliband instead, issued the by now obligatory demand for a general strike, and finished by roaring “Let’s sock it to these vicious ruling class bastards!” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100223037/the-day-the-people-assembled/
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
No, I said it is one of the reasons I was furious about what happened at Stafford. Again, I reject the idea that you get to decide the righteous position to take in this debate.
This was a staggering increase on any terms, a series of decisions that contributed more than any other to this country having a large structural deficit at the time the bust came. Labour supporters and minsters had no doubt this was the right thing to do. But they were also aware that they would be vulnerable if all this money was being spent and the media indicated it was being spent on management, bureaucracy and was not producing the results.
They had 2 options. They could either admit that it would take time to see the improvements and that even such a large increase in resources would inevitably not address all problems, at least in the short term, or they could lie.
Lying in this case meant creating a regulator that was not capable of doing anything other than handing out the gold stars. It meant disastrously failing hospitals being approved for self regulating status. It meant refusing inquires into what went wrong so lessons could be learned. It meant gagging agreements with whistleblowers and persecution of those that would not be bought.
We all know what option they chose and it was shameful.
No, we know what option you and others that dislike the Labour Party *want* them to have chosen.
SO, which of them do you dispute?
This week we had the new head of the CQC expressing disbelief that very complicated parts of hospitals were being inspected by social workers who had no technical knowledge of what they were "inspecting" and the evidence of the concealed report.
Stafford was approved for foundation status for goodness sake.
81 refusals to grant an inquiry into what went wrong there.
More than £250m spent on gagging agreements. Staff who complained at Stafford and even in the CQC itself put out of jobs.
These are indisputable facts.
It does not mean that the Coalition was right to attempt their reorganisation, it does not mean that what they are doing now is perfect, it does not mean that the NHS in 1997 was not in desperate need of additional resources.
It does mean that Burnham, who seems quite a likeable guy in fairness, is even more tainted in relation to health policy than Balls is for economic. Labour needs to find a new generation and they need to do so quickly.
I reject the idea that Labour lied - told deliberate untruths - about the NHS.
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. ... . On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
So the accusation that Lansley "threatened her dismissal" is based on a form letter saying, basically, we've received a complaint, we're looking into it, the consequences could include dismissal...
This was a staggering increase on any terms, a series of decisions that contributed more than any other to this country having a large structural deficit at the time the bust came. Labour supporters and minsters had no doubt this was the right thing to do. But they were also aware that they would be vulnerable if all this money was being spent and the media indicated it was being spent on management, bureaucracy and was not producing the results.
They had 2 options. They could either admit that it would take time to see the improvements and that even such a large increase in resources would inevitably not address all problems, at least in the short term, or they could lie.
Lying in this case meant creating a regulator that was not capable of doing anything other than handing out the gold stars. It meant disastrously failing hospitals being approved for self regulating status. It meant refusing inquires into what went wrong so lessons could be learned. It meant gagging agreements with whistleblowers and persecution of those that would not be bought.
We all know what option they chose and it was shameful.
No, we know what option you and others that dislike the Labour Party *want* them to have chosen.
SO, which of them do you dispute?
This week we had the new head of the CQC expressing disbelief that very complicated parts of hospitals were being inspected by social workers who had no technical knowledge of what they were "inspecting" and the evidence of the concealed report.
Stafford was approved for foundation status for goodness sake.
81 refusals to grant an inquiry into what went wrong there.
More than £250m spent on gagging agreements. Staff who complained at Stafford and even in the CQC itself put out of jobs.
These are indisputable facts.
It does not mean that the Coalition was right to attempt their reorganisation, it does not mean that what they are doing now is perfect, it does not mean that the NHS in 1997 was not in desperate need of additional resources.
It does mean that Burnham, who seems quite a likeable guy in fairness, is even more tainted in relation to health policy than Balls is for economic. Labour needs to find a new generation and they need to do so quickly.
I reject the idea that Labour lied - told deliberate untruths - about the NHS.
Some Labour people wouldn't but some would.
To some people the NHS isn't merely a healthcare sysytem its something to be worshipped - the "the NHS is Britain's national religion" mentality.
This mentality leads them to refuse to even consider that there may by any problems within the NHS, that the NHS is by definition infallible and any criticism of it is inherantly wicked and that such criticisers deserve to be persecuted.
A similar mentality to that which led to child abuse being covered up by the Catholic church.
Now how much this mentality is prevalent within the higher reaches of the Labour party I don't know. As they're cynical power hungry politicians I would suspect not much but then as they're cynical power hungry politicians I suspect many would be happy with the coverups if the alternative was lost votes.
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
No, I said it is one of the reasons I was furious about what happened at Stafford. Again, I reject the idea that you get to decide the righteous position to take in this debate.
So what do you think is the righteous position?
I don't think there is one. I would not say my response is any better than yours. It is just different.
If I read the activity-log (for this site) correctly then there are 477 registered posters at-the-mo'. Needless to say, I am number 42: How smug is that!
I reject the idea that Labour lied - told deliberate untruths - about the NHS. SouthamObserver
For a sensible poster that has to be one of most naive things you have written, do you really believe that?
Yes I do. Just as you clearly believe that Labour did lie. Those who are generally well-disposed to Labour will no doubt tend to take my view. Those who dislike Labour will think otherwise.
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. ... . On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
So the accusation that Lansley "threatened her dismissal" is based on a form letter saying, basically, we've received a complaint, we're looking into it, the consequences could include dismissal...
And the accusaitons against Burnham made in today's newspapers are based on exactly the same level of circumstantial evidence. People will believe what they want to believe.
In May2010 it seemed to me that Brown was hoping to rush the coalition talks in the hope that Clegg would then feel obliged to try to form some sort of an arrangement with Labour.
A minority Tory government would have propelled us into a period of uncertainty, and the impact on the UK financial position would have been very bad. I could easily imagine a situation where several further elections may have followed. Whether the fear of such a situation was an element in the thinking of the coalition partners to be flexible and find common ground I don't know, but I'm entirely sure that doing so was in the best interests of the country.
The present government has been pretty good at addressing the main problem (money) which was of course precisely the area where the previous government had shown themselves to be woeful. EdM is slowly coming round to the idea that there isn't a magic money tree, although EdB seems to keep a candle burning for the idea.
The NHS/CQC story is illustrative of Labour's approach to everything - spend other peoples money on ill thought out plans, run by political appointees, and find ways to muddy the waters when it all goes wrong.
If people do not realise this constant attacking of the NHS is not a way of forcing through it's privatisation is either naïve, ignorant or telling porkies. If they can attack it for long and hard enough, they hope the publics long time affection for a state funded NHS will wane. Yes there are major problems with some parts of it, and it happened on both Labour and Conservative watches. However when you have services within it now being run by companies who employ or are run by the same people that are funding one of the political parties it is a disgrace.
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
No, I said it is one of the reasons I was furious about what happened at Stafford. Again, I reject the idea that you get to decide the righteous position to take in this debate.
So what do you think is the righteous position?
I don't think there is one. I would not say my response is any better than yours. It is just different.
What is your response? It seems to be that Labour did nothing wrong; that parts of the NHS failed, but these failures were absolutely nothing to do with the government who were in charge and set up many of the processes and hired the staff.
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. ... . On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
So the accusation that Lansley "threatened her dismissal" is based on a form letter saying, basically, we've received a complaint, we're looking into it, the consequences could include dismissal...
And the accusaitons against Burnham made in today's newspapers are based on exactly the same level of circumstantial evidence. People will believe what they want to believe.
I havne't read the full reports, but I think he wrote to the CQC saying their mission was 'to improve the reputation of the NHS'.
A phrase like that can easily be interpreted as 'cover up the bad stuff' or 'make sure that hospitals improve'.
Without the -presumably verbal - conversations which provide the context that can allow for correct interpretation we will never know the degree of complicity of Labour politicians.
That said, it is fair to say that in much of the public sector there has developed a culture in which it is viewed as acceptable to dissemble and cover up to avoid criticism. This could easily be motivated by personal interests rather than necessarily political interests. However, Labour does bear some blame for allowing this culture to develop on their watch.
If people do not realise this constant attacking of the NHS is not a way of forcing through it's privatisation is either naïve, ignorant or telling porkies. If they can attack it for long and hard enough, they hope the publics long time affection for a state run NHS will wane.
:newb:
The "State" does not run the NHS: The nations do (or various NHS trusts in England). You will really pee-people-off if you fail to understand the [current] devolution settlement....
"It was announced today that Hitchingbrooke Hospital is being taken over by private company Circle Healthcare for the next ten years. Circle Healthcare is part owned by Odey Asset Management and Landsdowne Partners.
How are Odey Asset Management and Landsdowne Partners connected to the Tories?
Odey Asset Management has donated £242,000 to the Tory Party over the last four years
Paul Ruddock Chief Executive of Landsdowne partners has donate over £569,000 over the last eight years
David Craigen partner at Landsdowne Partners has donated £59,000 over the last eight years
Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng was until August employed by Odey and paid him £10,000 for his services.
Speaking of Circle Healthcare....."for the year ending 31 December 2009 the group made a pre-tax loss of £28.3 million on an income of £63 million". - It is called "Payback" for a reason.
"Conservative MP Mark Simmonds, who acts as Co-chair to Baroness Cumberlege on the Association Parliamentary Health Group, is paid £50,000 a year for 10 hours a month as a strategic advisor to Circle Health, the first firm to win control of an NHS hospital. The former shadow minister for health recently had to apologise to the House of Commons, for ‘inadvertently’ failing to declare his interest when talking in favour of the NHS reforms. Circle has connections to former Health Secretary and the architect of the Health and Social care bill, Andrew Lansley. Christina Lineen spent two years as an aide to Mr Lansley prior to moving to Circle as head of communications." .
I think its worth repeating the YouGov STimes polling @Financier noted upthread.
That's quite a lot of disquiet...
To what extent, if at all, do you trust the NHS to be open and honest about its services and standards of care?
Trust: 32(-9) Do Not Trust: 58 (+7)
Thinking about recent stories of NHS trusts and regulators covering up poor performance, how confident are you that rules will be put in place to prevent cover-ups in the future?
Confident: 26 Not Confident: 65
If NHS or regulator staff are found to have covered up errors in hospital performance do you think they should... Be sacked from their jobs?
Tory tactics in all their splendour. Blame Labour for babies dying. Because it never happens when the Tories are in government.
Who do you think they were learned from?
None of the Tory posters here have pretended that the NHS under the Tories is 'better' or 'safer' than under Labour - the difference is we want to see its failings exposed, so they can be learned from, while demonstrably, some in Labour would rather they were hushed up.
There are people across all parties that would like to see a better NHS and for that to happen mistakes must be learned from.
But phrases such as "how many dead babies on Labour's watch" indicate that others are much more focused on seeking to blame Labour for events that can and do happen in every kind of health service under every kind of government. And there is a third group - let's call them "the envy of thr worlders" - who are opposed to the NHS on ideological grounds, hate the fact that enjoys such widespread support and will do all they can to undermine it.
Oh for Pete's sake: it is not that mistakes happen: it is the cover-ups and pay-offs that are so utterly corrosive to the welfare of the patients. If mistakes are hidden, then the lessons are not learnt by the offending organisation or other organisations and the mistakes continue. *These* deaths can be laid firmly at the door of whoever prevented the lessons from being learnt.
This abhorrent behaviour should not happen under *any* kind of government. As is often the case, sunlight is the best policy.
But keep your fingers in your ears and scream 'lalala' if you like. It appears to be what parts of the NHS and Labour did.
I'm furious over everything that's happened - remember, I had a family member who was poorly treated at Stafford. It'd be nice if some on the Labour side of the debate got equally furious at what's happened.
I'd say many people are furious and reject the notion that you get to decide whose reponse to events is sufficiently righteous.I also understahd that as someone who dislikes the Labour Party you will be keen to attack it at every opportunity.
I personally am furious because what happened at Stafford was not only wicked in itself, but because it also gives those who oppose the NHS on ideological grounds a stick with which to beat it. The managers and frontline staff that did what they did make me sick.
So you're furious because the scandals have given opponents of the NHS a stick to beat the organisation with? Really? That should be very low on the list of things to be angry about. If it is high up, then perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
No, I said it is one of the reasons I was furious about what happened at Stafford. Again, I reject the idea that you get to decide the righteous position to take in this debate.
So what do you think is the righteous position?
I don't think there is one. I would not say my response is any better than yours. It is just different.
What is your response? It seems to be that Labour did nothing wrong; that parts of the NHS failed, but these failures were absolutely nothing to do with the government who were in charge and set up many of the processes and hired the staff.
Nope - that is not my response. But I do not believe that the government hired the staff that were responsible for what happened at Stafford. They were responsible for hiring the staff who failed to understand or overlooked what happened at Stafford.
I believe that all governments have placed far too much responsibility into the hands of self-seving managerial elites. For me that was the major failing of the last Labour government with regard to the NHS. And the way the Lansley reforms are structured nothing much looks like it is going to change; indeed, it could get even worse.
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. ... . On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
So the accusation that Lansley "threatened her dismissal" is based on a form letter saying, basically, we've received a complaint, we're looking into it, the consequences could include dismissal...
And the accusaitons against Burnham made in today's newspapers are based on exactly the same level of circumstantial evidence. People will believe what they want to believe.
I havne't read the full reports, but I think he wrote to the CQC saying their mission was 'to improve the reputation of the NHS'.
A phrase like that can easily be interpreted as 'cover up the bad stuff' or 'make sure that hospitals improve'.
Without the -presumably verbal - conversations which provide the context that can allow for correct interpretation we will never know the degree of complicity of Labour politicians.
That said, it is fair to say that in much of the public sector there has developed a culture in which it is viewed as acceptable to dissemble and cover up to avoid criticism. This could easily be motivated by personal interests rather than necessarily political interests. However, Labour does bear some blame for allowing this culture to develop on their watch.
That culture has existed for far longer than the last 16 years in both the public and private sectors.
Charles, all the information below can now be easily found through google. No one has accused anyone of corruption, one has merely stated that there are companies and owners of companies which now run certain parts of the NHS that have been funding a political party......have I not.
Eoin Clarke made several very full apologies for making very similar assertions - saying 'its all on Google' doesn't make it okay to make them here or to use the *innocent face* style excuse when the meaning of your comment is clear.
The Lansley sacking story isn't quite as simple as the headline reads. ... . On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
So the accusation that Lansley "threatened her dismissal" is based on a form letter saying, basically, we've received a complaint, we're looking into it, the consequences could include dismissal...
And the accusaitons against Burnham made in today's newspapers are based on exactly the same level of circumstantial evidence. People will believe what they want to believe.
I havne't read the full reports, but I think he wrote to the CQC saying their mission was 'to improve the reputation of the NHS'.
A phrase like that can easily be interpreted as 'cover up the bad stuff' or 'make sure that hospitals improve'.
Without the -presumably verbal - conversations which provide the context that can allow for correct interpretation we will never know the degree of complicity of Labour politicians.
That said, it is fair to say that in much of the public sector there has developed a culture in which it is viewed as acceptable to dissemble and cover up to avoid criticism. This could easily be motivated by personal interests rather than necessarily political interests. However, Labour does bear some blame for allowing this culture to develop on their watch.
That culture has existed for far longer than the last 16 years in both the public and private sectors.
It's got worse, I think - in both public and private sector. Labour isn't to blame for culture change. But it deserves blame for allowing the negative elements to take root in the public sector and authorising use of compromise agreements so freely.
Additionally, there has been a willingness to use methods - such as compromise agreements that include non-disclosure clauses - inappropriately in the public sector.
Plato, all the donations have been confirmed by the party. These people work for the said companies. What is the problem? People can draw their own conclusions, can they not? Or is there a thought police on this site?
Charles - Who accused him of corruption - I said it was all just a coincidence of course....did I not?
:bu99er:
Child, this ain't my site but:
- It is a privately-funded site, so the owner[s] have a legal responsibility for what is posted (and parties impuned), - It is also a betting site and mis-information can cost people money (c.f. Stuart Truth [sic]), and - If you post something as fact then you should have a link - however spurious - to back it up.
Now I hate the eejits who intervene in others' spats but - son - you are a :twunt:. Fortunately I am aware of the [sensible] moderation policy so I am only trying to give you some useful advice.*
* Your skills are better-spent as a Labour back-bencher. You've only a few years (and inter-marriages) to wait.... :P
P.S. "Thought-Police" edit: Yes. This site has moderators. I ain't one (and nor would I wish to).
"It was announced today that Hitchingbrooke Hospital is being taken over by private company Circle Healthcare for the next ten years. Circle Healthcare is part owned by Odey Asset Management and Landsdowne Partners.
How are Odey Asset Management and Landsdowne Partners connected to the Tories?
Odey Asset Management has donated £242,000 to the Tory Party over the last four years
Paul Ruddock Chief Executive of Landsdowne partners has donate over £569,000 over the last eight years
David Craigen partner at Landsdowne Partners has donated £59,000 over the last eight years
Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng was until August employed by Odey and paid him £10,000 for his services.
Speaking of Circle Healthcare....."for the year ending 31 December 2009 the group made a pre-tax loss of £28.3 million on an income of £63 million". - It is called "Payback" for a reason.
And it is all just a coincidence that the second largest donor to any UK political party is the health union, UNISON.
Between 2001 and Q1 2012, UNISON contributed £19,665,505.39 in 142 separate donations to the Labour Party. Only their brothers and sisters in UNITE have been more generous.
In the 2005 - 2010 Blair/Brown government UNISON sponsored a total of 64 Labour MPs mainly by providing 'constituency development' funding.
But this level of support may be short-lived. David Prentis, UNISON's General Secretary, warned the Labour Party only this month at his union's annual conference:
For too long we’ve built the careers of Labour politicians, only to be let down when we needed them most. I don’t want to hear Labour apologising for past mistakes, I want to see a clear agenda from Labour for the future. We must not support a Labour Government that does not :
• put an end to privatisation and market madness or restore our NHS • invest in our public services • restore the facility time taken away from our activists • restore workers’ rights and remove the shackles on trade unions
And not a word from UNISON or its sponsored MPs on how their mutual admiration and support might help NHS patients.
Plato, all the donations have been confirmed by the party. These people work for the said companies. What is the problem? People can draw their own conclusions, can they not? Or is there a thought police on this site?
So provide the links and delete your editorialising at the end.
Charles - Who accused him of corruption - I said it was all just a coincidence of course....did I not?
:bu99er:
Child, this ain't my site but:
- It is a privately-funded site, so the owner[s] have a legal responsibility for what is posted (and parties impuned), - It is also a betting site and mis-information can cost people money (c.f. Stuart Truth [sic]), and - If you post something as fact then you should have a link - however spurious - to back it up.
Now I hate the eejits who intervene in others' spats but - son - you are a :twunt:. Fortunately I am aware of the [sensible] moderation policy so I am only trying to give you some useful advice.*
* Your skills are better-spent as a Labour back-bencher. You've only a few years (and inter-marraiges) to wait.... :P
The donations to the Conservative party by the donors mentioned are a matter of public record on the Electoral Commission website . The 2009 account figures given for Circle Healthcare are also a matter of public record . Now I can well understand , Charles , Avery and yourself acting Andy Burnham like in not wanting them discussed on here but most of us can see through your game .
Plato, all the donations have been confirmed by the party. These people work for the said companies. What is the problem? People can draw their own conclusions, can they not? Or is there a thought police on this site?
So provide the links and delete your editorialising at the end.
Mark Littlewood has been abducted by the TPA - actually - I'm not sure even they'd suggest this... and to think he used to be Lib Dem!
"The welfare benefits claimed by every individual – including pensions, jobseeker’s allowance, bus passes, winter fuel payments and child benefit – should be put in the public domain.
They should be listed, in full, on a publicly accessible website for all of us to inspect. Taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is claiming what and how much they are getting.
The donations to the Conservative party by the donors mentioned are a matter of public record on the Electoral Commission website . The 2009 account figures given for Circle Healthcare are also a matter of public record . Now I can well understand , Charles , Avery and yourself acting Andy Burnham like in not wanting them discussed on here but most of us can see through your game .
Mark,
I just ask for links (as did :tumbleweed: ). Too many "experts" have lost any reputation they may have had with false-prophosies: Junior and his dad should not be punished for them.
I know little enough about the NHS, let alone the funding arrangements under Gormless McBruin (with Ed "Chef" Balls running the gaff). The rest of your statement reads like a lesson in "Economic Predictions for Greece (2013)", so please decist.
As a newbie, I will take direction from all the others on here. Do you think it is a pure coincidence that these people who have funded many hundred of thousands and have close relations to the Conservative Party are now part of the company running a hospital...or maybe...just maybe....it is not a coincidence?
Conflating issues. Political-funding of political interests can also be conflated with personal-greed. Happens under all governments (but the t'interweb makes smart people more aware).
As Wee-Timmy is in conference can I 'out-you'? You are "Anakin Skywalker" and I claim my 'force'.*
* Off-t'pub now. Bored as a Somali pirate boarding-party faced against a RN SeaLynx (with chain-link multi-barrel thingy promising to rain lead upon my flimsy vessel). Have fun!
It was certainly very clever of this firm to donate to the Tory party in order to force the Labour Government to contract out the running of this hospital to the private sector.
As a newbie, I will take direction from all the others on here. Do you think it is a pure coincidence that these people who have funded many hundred of thousands and have close relations to the Conservative Party are now part of the company running a hospital...or maybe...just maybe....it is not a coincidence?
As you are a newbie , I will give you some advice . It is better just to give the facts as they are and leave it for others to draw any conclusions from them . If they are potentially harmful to the Conservatives you will be subject to abuse and attempts to censor your post by pbtories but that will only strengthen the point you have made by your original posting .
Let's look at why and how Hinchingbroke Hospital became managed by Circle Health.
Founded in 1983, Hinchingbroke is a small district general hospital servicing some 160,000 patients in the Huntingdonshire area. It has an A&E Department and some 266 beds.
By 2010 the Hinchingbroke Health Care NHS Trust, which formerly administered the Hospital, had run up debts of £40 million and was unable to satisfy the DoH that the hospital could continue to be operated on a sustainable financial basis.
The hospital faced enforced closure if no acceptable business plan for future management could be agreed.
The East of England NHS invited private companies to submit proposals for taking over the management (but not ownership) of the hospital. Circle Health were eventually awarded a 10 year management contract.
The BBC interviewed those involved in the decision to appoint Circle Health as managers in 2011 and reported as follows:
Dr Stephen Dunn, from the NHS in the East of England, said the hospital will continue to be paid at NHS rates for its work while it is being run by Circle.
"It's a hugely original deal - we've managed to avoid the possibility of closing the hospital. We've got a solution to the debt - and have plans that allow us to meet the efficiency challenges the NHS faces."
Circle chief executive Ali Parsa accepted the company was taking on a challenge. He said the strength of its approach was in increasing the involvement of doctors and nurses.
"We want to create a John Lewis-style model with everyone who works there in charge of the hospital, letting them own the problems and solve them. We will try everything we can to make this small hospital viable - if we can how fantastic would that be?"
But what of patient care and clinical performance you might ask. It is early days yet in the contract but initial reports [via Daily Mail article 2013] of patient satisfaction are clear;
The first NHS trust to be run entirely by a private firm has one of the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the country.
Hinchingbrooke, a hospital in Cambridgeshire with 160,000 patients, was on the verge of going bust when it was taken over by Circle last year.
But NHS figures show it is now ranked as one of the highest for patient happiness and waiting times.
And what of financial performance?
The company running the trust has slashed losses at the hospital by 60 per cent and will soon begin to pay off burgeoning debts built up over years of mismanagement. The takeover deal, which saved the hospital from closing down, is seen as a blueprint for the future of many NHS trusts.
And the secret of Circle Health's success:
Jim O’Connell, the Chief Executive explained: "We put more of the decision-making in the hands of the doctors and nurses ... There are still a lot of inefficiencies in the NHS because it is the bureaucracy that has built up over all these years, and we have to change that."
Ah. Now I see why you and UNISON don't like what is going on at Hinchingbroke.
Carry on trying to detract us with political smears, Compouter.
On PB we are mostly interested in patient care, clinical performance and sound finances. And Hinchingbroke under Circle Health's management seems to "tick all three of these boxes".
"The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms over the past five years.
The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry's trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers.
The scale of incidents – equivalent to almost one a day – emerges following the publication of dramatic photographs showing one turbine which had crashed to the ground in a field near a road and another exploding into flames, caused by 150mph winds which buffeted Scotland and northern England last week.
... The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said last week it was “extremely difficult” to assemble a “complete picture of reported incidents at wind farms” because accidents are not recorded by industry type.
The HSE said its figures showed three fatal accidents between 2007/08 and 2009/10 and a total of 53 major or dangerous incidents in the same time frame.
Has private health made large donations to the Tory party? Yes.
Has it driven policy? As a Labour member my main observation on Tory health policy is that its a direct continuation of Mil burn era policies. Hard to accuse private health of buying parts of the NHS when its been going on for years.
Plato, all the donations have been confirmed by the party. These people work for the said companies. What is the problem? People can draw their own conclusions, can they not? Or is there a thought police on this site?
So provide the links and delete your editorialising at the end.
"The Labour Party should hang its collective head in shame at this grotesque betrayal of Aneurin Bevan's legacy. As it pumped money into the pockets of producers and delivered platitudes about patient care, ministers allowed layers of managers under this duo to calcify the system and unleash cover-ups, fear and bullying of staff. They gave GPs huge pay rises while ruining out-of-hours care, introduced a target culture that distorted clinical priorities and prevented a public inquiry into events at mid-Staffordshire.
.....I saw some clues at Hinchingbrooke, the first NHS hospital run by a private provider, which cut costs while improving services by reducing the number of managers and restoring responsibility to clinical staff. It also imported a famous quality-control system from Toyota that encourages workers to stop production if they see a fault. Two weeks after its introduction, theatre nurses halted a senior consultant during an operation after they suspected a swab was missing; it was found in the patient's body."
"The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms over the past five years.
You still have no idea either way, because the report doesn't say what's classified as an "accident and other incident". For any industry of any size you could come up with a definition that would give you 150, 1,500 or 15,000 "incidents".
That said, looking at the fatality record it looks like from a worker safety point of view you'd be better off with a nuclear power station run by politically-connected cost-cutting crooks in an earthquake zone subject to a once-every-1000-year tsumani.
An interesting piece about who is angry about educational acheivement...
"...I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in their post-Blair phase, no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school. (“It may matter or it may not,” Blower said about poor children not going to top universities). The standard left response is to talk philosophically about inequality in society, as if this has the slightest bearing on whether the concept of a sink school ought to be tolerated in this day and age.
By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality. When the subject is raised in front of Michael Gove, it’s like flicking a switch. He blows his top. When I last interviewed him and raised the subject about whether it poor kids should be expected to do as well as rich, he replied in a crescendo of anger.Here’s the end of it:-
"It is snobbery to say that working class people cannot achieve in the same way as others and I’ve had it up to here with people saying oh don’t expect too much of them, these are high-falutin’ expectations. In 1940 the average number of books that a working class boy would read is six every month, 72 a year, working class boys. When I said we should have 50 books being read a year people said: that’s outrageous. The truth is that we’ve lost the level of expectation that we used to have about what people were capable of achieving. They don’t have attitudes like that in East Asia or South Korea. No one is going to say in South Korea, ‘what dreadful snobbery that you go to university’. The last person who said it was dreadful snobbery to go to university was Rick Santorum in America and we regarded that as a view of the Rampithecan right, like the Scopes Trial all over again. The truth is that more people should go to elite universities and if you look at these schools where the expectations that it’s snobbish, don’t get above yourself – no!’
Gove makes precisely the same point as Kinnock. Those people “who could sing and play and recite and write poetry” also read books – then. Why should we not expect them to now?
The scenario suggested by the thread-header is constitutionally possible, but extremely implausible. Realistically, the only way Labour could have continued in power in 2010 would have been in full coalition with the Lib Dems - that way the government would have had more seats than the Tory opposition.
Talking of Hitchingbroke.... .....I saw some clues at Hinchingbrooke, the first NHS hospital run by a private provider, which cut costs while improving services by reducing the number of managers and restoring responsibility to clinical staff. It also imported a famous quality-control system from Toyota that encourages workers to stop production if they see a fault. Two weeks after its introduction, theatre nurses halted a senior consultant during an operation after they suspected a swab was missing; it was found in the patient's body."
Counting swabs has been mainstream for decades, and the introduction of checklists, empowering nurses and so on was part of Darzi under Labour. There is a good lay account in The Checklist Manifesto. It has nothing to do with "private good; NHS bad".
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP At the very moment that @andyburnhammp was presiding over these monstrosities in the NHS, he was calling my criticism unpatriotic.
The scenario suggested by the thread-header is constitutionally possible, but extremely implausible. Realistically, the only way Labour could have continued in power in 2010 would have been in full coalition with the Lib Dems - that way the government would have had more seats than the Tory opposition.
Right, so the realistic question is whether the LibDems would have picked a coalition with Labour (still a minority government, just) over supporting a minority government with the Tories. I think it's possible they would have, if they'd got some concessions they could cash in quickly if it fell apart.
Once Cameron made the coalition offer it made a Lib/Lab deal quite hard, because: 1) The LibDems would have been blamed for any resulting instability. 2) Right-leaning voters would be asking, if the LibDems won't work with Con under those circumstances, what possible circumstances _would_ they work with them under?
Labour will need a more compelling pitch than "more of the same, but carried out by nicer people".
I'm sure they'll come up with a few symbolic things, but the way FPTP is working right now "more of the same, but carried out by nicer people" is probably enough to put Ed Miliband in Downing Street.
This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in their post-Blair phase, no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school
By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality.
And yet it was Labour which massively increased the proportion of children carrying on to university. Probably just Gordon Brown deliberately wasting money on things "the left" don't care about. Labour which rebuilt crumbling schools. Labour which introduced phonics.
Ironically, in education, most of the things some sections of "the right" complain about happened entirely or mainly under Conservative governments: comprehensives; selling off playing fields; abolishing O-levels; teaching history in out-of-order chunks; AS levels; ending corporal punishment; A-levels by modules.
Let us take Michael Gove at his word. He does care. What is he doing about it? Well, not a lot. His flagship reform is free schools -- itself an extension of Labour's Academies -- which may or may not do better than LEA schools. If they do, on average, the same, then normal variation will mean some do a bit better and some a bit worse, and I'm guessing it will be the former that are cherry-picked for ministerial speeches. To be on the safe side, Gove is stacking the decks with extra funding.
But it is variety on which Gove depends because if he knew what a good free school would do differently, he could impose it on all free schools, and indeed, all the remaining state schools. Gove does not know, but is hoping something will turn up. Meanwhile, as Gove has taken his eye off the ball, class sizes are increasing and there is a shortage of school places.
"The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms over the past five years.
The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry's trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers.
The scale of incidents – equivalent to almost one a day – emerges following the publication of dramatic photographs showing one turbine which had crashed to the ground in a field near a road and another exploding into flames, caused by 150mph winds which buffeted Scotland and northern England last week.
... The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said last week it was “extremely difficult” to assemble a “complete picture of reported incidents at wind farms” because accidents are not recorded by industry type.
The HSE said its figures showed three fatal accidents between 2007/08 and 2009/10 and a total of 53 major or dangerous incidents in the same time frame.
Having worked a little as a labourer in a safety-critical industry, every little incident should be reported for there to be a learning process. (*) In the place I worked, the smallest were called near-miss incidents and were all reportable, even if you need a plaster. It was annoying, but I could see the sense of it.
But I am not surprised there are a number of injuries in wind turbine work. You have tall crane usage in areas with high wind, large, unwieldy lifts, high-level working without scaffolding and heavy machinery. It's a recipe for injury and I'm surprised there are not more.
And the same things are true for when a turbine fails; they are tall and slightly heavy, meaning they make a mess when they fall.
An interesting comparison would be with high-tension electricity pylon riggers. Now they do have a nutty job.
Its the economy that matters, if that improves as it would seem to have started to do, everything else is a sideshow.
The political class' single economic policy is to drive wages down so even if the economy "improves" it's not necessarily going to have any positive electoral effects.
The economy is good for those who live in London and the south east and are on a good wage. Incidentally this includes the press. The disconnect between the people who are starting to do well and everyone else could be a major driver of UKIP etc
"The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms over the past five years.
The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry's trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers.
The scale of incidents – equivalent to almost one a day – emerges following the publication of dramatic photographs showing one turbine which had crashed to the ground in a field near a road and another exploding into flames, caused by 150mph winds which buffeted Scotland and northern England last week.
... The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said last week it was “extremely difficult” to assemble a “complete picture of reported incidents at wind farms” because accidents are not recorded by industry type.
The HSE said its figures showed three fatal accidents between 2007/08 and 2009/10 and a total of 53 major or dangerous incidents in the same time frame.
Having worked a little as a labourer in a safety-critical industry, every little incident should be reported for there to be a learning process. (*) In the place I worked, the smallest were called near-miss incidents and were all reportable, even if you need a plaster. It was annoying, but I could see the sense of it.
But I am not surprised there are a number of injuries in wind turbine work. You have tall crane usage in areas with high wind, large, unwieldy lifts, high-level working without scaffolding and heavy machinery. It's a recipe for injury and I'm surprised there are not more.
And the same things are true for when a turbine fails; they are tall and slightly heavy, meaning they make a mess when they fall.
An interesting comparison would be with high-tension electricity pylon riggers. Now they do have a nutty job.
(*) The same should happen in the NHS.
I used to have BOC as a client and they were uber hot on safety - the last plant I was on-site hadn't had an accident for 3yrs.
On PB we are mostly interested in patient care, clinical performance and sound finances.
As you would have guessed from the site name, politicalpatientcareclinicalperformanceandsoundfinances.com.
You bet!
Fair enough , so what have been the cumulative losses made by Circle Health in the last 5 years ?
That is a matter for the shareholders of Circle Health, Mr. Senior.
As a taxpayer I am much more concerned with reducing the deficit and thereby the accumulating debt of the government.
But if you are thinking of investing in Circle Health, you are right to question their business model. They haven't yet proved they can pay off the debts of Hinchingbroke accumulated under NHS mismanagement and still provide a competitive return to shareholders. There is though much talk of "backloaded" returns over the contract term, but then there would be wouldn't there?
The great merit of free market capitalism is that Circle Health will only attract further funds if it does provide a competitive return to investors. So we don't need to endlessly blog, lobby, politick and comment about their performance. We just wait and see and watch others risk their funds.
Now isn't that a simpler and more effective way of handling things, Mr. Senior?
I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
I am afraid that this describes a lot of the Welsh education system today. Pupils have told me that they are discouraged from applying to O or C or to a Russel Group university as it is "above their class". In reality the tuition is often so bad that these children are denied that basic opportunity. Seems that Welsh Labour has not moved on much in the last 25+ years.
The ST is predicting that the "double dip" will be consigned to history on Thursday of this week with the latest revisions to GDP figures. There is going to be revision of figures going back to the early 1990s which may produce some interesting results as well.
We will also get the third revision of Q1 from this year. I have not seen any indications that a revisal either way is likely.
Applying historical trends it is likely it will be found that the economy is bigger and marginally healthier than previously thought. It will be interesting to see if the shortfall from our peak pre-crash GDP narrows at all.
All of this is likely to provide a fairly positive background to the spending review. My guess is that Osborne has learnt this lesson as well and will be content to stay with very conservative growth figures going forward (to the extent he refers to these at all) and continue to exceed expectations. It makes the negotiations with the departments easier and gives better PR to what remain modest results.
The only potential fly in the ointment is uncle Vince. Is he really building up to some sort of huff? If this is not sorted out by Monday a few quid on next out of the cabinet might be a good investment.
Yeah. Allegedly the next stop is Cuba, then probably Venezuela.
Good to see they did not get him, hopefully he gets somewhere safe. They are particularly nasty to people who show them up for the sneaky liars that they are.
Considering writing a brief pre-Wimbledon piece on the enormo-haddock blog. I was in two minds about it, but the Williams/Sharapova bitchiness does sound interesting.
Dave would not have become PM if he’d held out for a minority Conservative government
I think this assertion is more dubious than the idea of a minority Conservative Government.
Firstly Brown did not have all the cards. His party had just polled the second lowest vote share that any Labour government had polled in 80 years. The vast majority of the media would have slaughtered any attempts for Labour to try and carry on. Clegg would have become a hypocrite of the first order for backing a party which had not come first in the electoral vote share. It would have destroyed the pretence that the Libdems value our democratic system (Clegg has committed to support the people's decision) at all. Not only that but having experienced the reactionaruy nature of the Libdsem grassroots how much internal strife would such a decision have caused the Libdems?
Yes it is plausible that some backroom deal could have been cobbled together so that Labour and Libdems could form a minority government but the reputational damage (to both parties and Westminster overall) would have been immense. Furthermore, it would have given Cameron the perfect platform to attack (yet another unelected Labour leader) the 'undemocratic' Libdems' and Labour Party. Thats not even considering what damage would have been done to the Libdem vote share. Would they have lost a large portion of support for going in with Labour under (Blair clone) 'Banana Boy' Miliband (not even considering the Union's response to a Blairite)?
Even if this scenario played out what would have been the economic repercussions? Surely the markets would have reacted negatively and as such what would Labour have done? Such a scenario could well have handed up a Conservative majority in a few months anyway. The phrase Lib-Lab pact would once again have become amongst notorious in the political landscape.
It's likely Cameron might have been under pressure for not gaining a majority but given the tenuous nature of the government and the likely quickly changing political landscape would the Tories have got rid of him or would they have kept their judgement for later on given that they would have been in an even better position IMO than they were in April 2010.
Yes its reasonable to say that a Tory minority Government may not have been possible but its equally reasonable to expect that a Labour led minority government was not only equally unlikely but also would like have only strengthened David Cameron's and the Conservatives position in the short term rather than weakening it. In fact it might possibly have turned out to be the best possible outcome for the Tories and a far better outcome than coalition with the Libdems.
The only potential fly in the ointment is uncle Vince. Is he really building up to some sort of huff? If this is not sorted out by Monday a few quid on next out of the cabinet might be a good investment.
Chucking Vince out of the cabinet would just create a martyr, David.
Much better to move him to Secretary of State for Wales.
I notice we've a new button 'Off Topic' - isn't at least 50% of every thread *off-topic* ?
I'm not sure what this adds since PB meanders all over the place from cricket commentary, pop videos, trivia about almost anything et al when nothing more interesting is happening.
Some veer off within a single comment. If we're saying that being *off-topic* isn't wanted that of course is another matter.
Comments
given the way Labour staked its political reputation on health, the system was always going to have to be seen to succeed.
Whether it did or not is irrelevant
It's not a case of being righteous. Look at the attitude of some on here: a total reluctance to admit that anything went wrong, calling relatives of the dead 'loudmouths' because they have the temerity to speak out, and an absolute reluctance to admit that many people died at Stafford.
If there's one side who want to attack the NHS at every opportunity, then there are plenty more who want to pretend it's a brilliant organisation with no flaws: after all, we've been repeatedly told that to criticise the NHS is to criticise the hard working staff that sit within. That ludicrous argument has been used time and time again, and is the mindset that leads to this sort of mess.
I want an NHS that works as well as possible, as do you.
We are not there. We will not got there if the mindset that occurred under Labour is allowed to thrive.
Fair enough. By the way, I think labour comprehensively won the argument on health. The tories would never dare even mention the P. word these days. Even the more swivel eyed members.
This week we had the new head of the CQC expressing disbelief that very complicated parts of hospitals were being inspected by social workers who had no technical knowledge of what they were "inspecting" and the evidence of the concealed report.
Stafford was approved for foundation status for goodness sake.
81 refusals to grant an inquiry into what went wrong there.
More than £250m spent on gagging agreements. Staff who complained at Stafford and even in the CQC itself put out of jobs.
These are indisputable facts.
It does not mean that the Coalition was right to attempt their reorganisation, it does not mean that what they are doing now is perfect, it does not mean that the NHS in 1997 was not in desperate need of additional resources.
It does mean that Burnham, who seems quite a likeable guy in fairness, is even more tainted in relation to health policy than Balls is for economic. Labour needs to find a new generation and they need to do so quickly.
That said, someone I was very close to (sadly he's died now) who spent more than 20 years in Cabinet post war told me that in all of that time Cabinet only made 3 major decisions. In one the decision was obvious; in another he had no influence over the decision - so he reckoned that he made 1 major decision in 50 years in politics...
Labours spending was driven by a sofa decision of Blairs to bring health spending up to international averages. He was also behind the privatisation of clinical services, and white elephant PFI and computer schemes. The target was to reduce waiting lists, no matter what the impact on other bits of the NHS. A very political target.
Much was squandered on such schemes, and on payrises for people like me, but at the expense of more important quality related aspects of healthcare. Once again our mouths were stuffed wiyh gold, only this time to keep us quiet about what was going on underneath.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE#gid=0
I only wish I had your diplomacy. My comparison to your correspondent would have probably resulted in a banning (as comparing Stalin's 1939 - 1941 "bestest-buddy" and his vacuous lickspittles is not de-rigueur even under our 'belief' in free-speech).
Well-done..!
"[Sheldon] said [the CQC's] approach was dictated by “reputation management”. Dame Jo Williams, then the head of the health watchdog, and Cynthia Bower, the CQC chief executive, were outraged at the testimony. Sheldon says Williams wrote that day to Lansley asking for her to be removed and replaced with a new non-executive director.
Sheldon was told to attend the Department of Health headquarters, where she was told an inquiry into her evidence at the public inquiry would be undertaken by a personnel expert, Gill Rider...Williams in the meantime commissioned a psychiatric assessment on Sheldon, who has a history of depression, without her permission. An internal file was kept on Sheldon, describing her as a risk to the organisation. The documents said she might be a paranoid schizophrenic. This conclusion was based on a 20-minute telephone conversation between Sheldon and an occupational physician. There was no input from a qualified psychiatrist or a face-to-face meeting.
The assessment was strongly rejected by Sheldon, who she said she was working successfully in other roles. She said the CQC only commissioned a report on her mental health after she questioned the organisation’s effectiveness. On March 30, 2012, Lansley wrote to Sheldon, saying he had received the Rider report and was considering her dismissal...
Well-done..!
Dear old Fluffy - you can say whatever you like about me safe in the knowledge that I will not give a monkeys. Bless you x
So this isn't lying? http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/2007/03/14/the3monkeys.jpg
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-snub-calls-bring-1982794
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346708/Miliband-caught-blackmail-storm-dirty-tricks-safe-Labour-seat-employer-anti-union-candidate-told-Withdraw-lose-contracts.html
I am preparing my suitcase to go to Lisbon this evening, so I don't have much time to understand who has allegedly done what in this latest episode....but the first impression is that either the briefing and counterbriefing of accusations confused the writer or that there are not decent fixers anymore...because if you want to get rid of a male contender while supporting a female contender, you don't need to blackmail his employers! You just need to impose an AWS! And that's what they did in the end.
"But after lunch the mood turned sour. The afternoon session started promisingly with Tony Benn telling an amusing anecdote about how he’d nearly caused a mutiny on a Second World War South African troop ship by confronting his colonel and insisting on a debate about war aims.
Then NUT general secretary Christine Blower stood up, and, in a speech that may as well have been drafted for her by Michael Gove’s spin doctor, demanded anarchy in the UK. She wanted marches, rallies, flash mobs, direct action, strike action.
And at that, the flaming revolutionary dominoes began to fall. Unite leader Len McCluskey called for a program of civil disobedience and occupations. “Pay your taxes you greedy bastards!” he shouted. The next speaker, John Rees – who according to an Assembly press officer is a lecturer and author – explained how Tories were “lower than vermin” and “we know what to do with vermin”. For good measure he added, “Do you think the Tories should be allowed to be free on the streets of Manchester?”, (an apparent reference to the upcoming Tory party conference).
By the time Mark Serwotka rose to close the event, even he appeared at a loss about how to make his voice heard amid all these calls for the defenestration of the Etonian elite. So he attacked Ed Miliband instead, issued the by now obligatory demand for a general strike, and finished by roaring “Let’s sock it to these vicious ruling class bastards!” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100223037/the-day-the-people-assembled/
Sorry Gaijin....
SouthamObserver
For a sensible poster that has to be one of most naive things you have written, do you really believe that?
To some people the NHS isn't merely a healthcare sysytem its something to be worshipped - the "the NHS is Britain's national religion" mentality.
This mentality leads them to refuse to even consider that there may by any problems within the NHS, that the NHS is by definition infallible and any criticism of it is inherantly wicked and that such criticisers deserve to be persecuted.
A similar mentality to that which led to child abuse being covered up by the Catholic church.
Now how much this mentality is prevalent within the higher reaches of the Labour party I don't know. As they're cynical power hungry politicians I would suspect not much but then as they're cynical power hungry politicians I suspect many would be happy with the coverups if the alternative was lost votes.
If I read the activity-log (for this site) correctly then there are 477 registered posters at-the-mo'. Needless to say, I am number 42: How smug is that!
A minority Tory government would have propelled us into a period of uncertainty, and the impact on the UK financial position would have been very bad. I could easily imagine a situation where several further elections may have followed. Whether the fear of such a situation was an element in the thinking of the coalition partners to be flexible and find common ground I don't know, but I'm entirely sure that doing so was in the best interests of the country.
The present government has been pretty good at addressing the main problem (money) which was of course precisely the area where the previous government had shown themselves to be woeful. EdM is slowly coming round to the idea that there isn't a magic money tree, although EdB seems to keep a candle burning for the idea.
The NHS/CQC story is illustrative of Labour's approach to everything - spend other peoples money on ill thought out plans, run by political appointees, and find ways to muddy the waters when it all goes wrong.
'Tells you how removed from reality the PB Tory Gove worshippers and right wing bloggers are.'
Ed hasn't u-turned yet on student fees,give him another couple of weeks and he will.
A phrase like that can easily be interpreted as 'cover up the bad stuff' or 'make sure that hospitals improve'.
Without the -presumably verbal - conversations which provide the context that can allow for correct interpretation we will never know the degree of complicity of Labour politicians.
That said, it is fair to say that in much of the public sector there has developed a culture in which it is viewed as acceptable to dissemble and cover up to avoid criticism. This could easily be motivated by personal interests rather than necessarily political interests. However, Labour does bear some blame for allowing this culture to develop on their watch.
The "State" does not run the NHS: The nations do (or various NHS trusts in England). You will really pee-people-off if you fail to understand the [current] devolution settlement....
:yawn:
That's quite a lot of disquiet...
I believe that all governments have placed far too much responsibility into the hands of self-seving managerial elites. For me that was the major failing of the last Labour government with regard to the NHS. And the way the Lansley reforms are structured nothing much looks like it is going to change; indeed, it could get even worse.
Additionally, there has been a willingness to use methods - such as compromise agreements that include non-disclosure clauses - inappropriately in the public sector.
Child, this ain't my site but:
- It is a privately-funded site, so the owner[s] have a legal responsibility for what is posted (and parties impuned),
- It is also a betting site and mis-information can cost people money (c.f. Stuart Truth [sic]), and
- If you post something as fact then you should have a link - however spurious - to back it up.
Now I hate the eejits who intervene in others' spats but - son - you are a :twunt:. Fortunately I am aware of the [sensible] moderation policy so I am only trying to give you some useful advice.*
* Your skills are better-spent as a Labour back-bencher. You've only a few years (and inter-marriages) to wait.... :P
P.S. "Thought-Police" edit: Yes. This site has moderators. I ain't one (and nor would I wish to).
Between 2001 and Q1 2012, UNISON contributed £19,665,505.39 in 142 separate donations to the Labour Party. Only their brothers and sisters in UNITE have been more generous.
In the 2005 - 2010 Blair/Brown government UNISON sponsored a total of 64 Labour MPs mainly by providing 'constituency development' funding.
But this level of support may be short-lived. David Prentis, UNISON's General Secretary, warned the Labour Party only this month at his union's annual conference:
For too long we’ve built the careers of Labour politicians, only to be let down when we needed them most. I don’t want to hear Labour apologising for past mistakes, I want to see a clear agenda from Labour for the future. We must not support a Labour Government that does not :
• put an end to privatisation and market madness or restore our NHS
• invest in our public services
• restore the facility time taken away from our activists
• restore workers’ rights and remove the shackles on trade unions
And not a word from UNISON or its sponsored MPs on how their mutual admiration and support might help NHS patients.
http://metro.co.uk/2011/12/31/new-years-honours-list-2012-david-cameron-accused-over-friend-in-the-city-paul-ruddock-knighthood-269494/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126885/Tory-hedge-fund-donors-12m-short-selling-Barclays-share-price-plummeted.html
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/39267/revealed_hinchingbrooke_takeover_firms_tory_links.html
http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/parliament-nhs-healthcare-private/
So the info is supplied on The Metro/The Mail/Ceasefire and Politicshome
Are we safe to talk about it now, or does it need any more links?
"The welfare benefits claimed by every individual – including pensions, jobseeker’s allowance, bus passes, winter fuel payments and child benefit – should be put in the public domain.
They should be listed, in full, on a publicly accessible website for all of us to inspect. Taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is claiming what and how much they are getting.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2346714/Why-Osborne-publish-names-benefits-claimant--pay-An-incendiary-idea-save-500m-A-DAY-welfare-bill.html#ixzz2X2R9NHr6
I just ask for links (as did :tumbleweed: ). Too many "experts" have lost any reputation they may have had with false-prophosies: Junior and his dad should not be punished for them.
I know little enough about the NHS, let alone the funding arrangements under Gormless McBruin (with Ed "Chef" Balls running the gaff). The rest of your statement reads like a lesson in "Economic Predictions for Greece (2013)", so please decist.
:clown-shoes-what's-it-all-about:
As Wee-Timmy is in conference can I 'out-you'? You are "Anakin Skywalker" and I claim my 'force'.*
* Off-t'pub now. Bored as a Somali pirate boarding-party faced against a RN SeaLynx (with chain-link multi-barrel thingy promising to rain lead upon my flimsy vessel). Have fun!
It was certainly very clever of this firm to donate to the Tory party in order to force the Labour Government to contract out the running of this hospital to the private sector.
Let's look at why and how Hinchingbroke Hospital became managed by Circle Health.
Founded in 1983, Hinchingbroke is a small district general hospital servicing some 160,000 patients in the Huntingdonshire area. It has an A&E Department and some 266 beds.
By 2010 the Hinchingbroke Health Care NHS Trust, which formerly administered the Hospital, had run up debts of £40 million and was unable to satisfy the DoH that the hospital could continue to be operated on a sustainable financial basis.
The hospital faced enforced closure if no acceptable business plan for future management could be agreed.
The East of England NHS invited private companies to submit proposals for taking over the management (but not ownership) of the hospital. Circle Health were eventually awarded a 10 year management contract.
The BBC interviewed those involved in the decision to appoint Circle Health as managers in 2011 and reported as follows:
Dr Stephen Dunn, from the NHS in the East of England, said the hospital will continue to be paid at NHS rates for its work while it is being run by Circle.
"It's a hugely original deal - we've managed to avoid the possibility of closing the hospital. We've got a solution to the debt - and have plans that allow us to meet the efficiency challenges the NHS faces."
Circle chief executive Ali Parsa accepted the company was taking on a challenge. He said the strength of its approach was in increasing the involvement of doctors and nurses.
"We want to create a John Lewis-style model with everyone who works there in charge of the hospital, letting them own the problems and solve them. We will try everything we can to make this small hospital viable - if we can how fantastic would that be?"
But what of patient care and clinical performance you might ask. It is early days yet in the contract but initial reports [via Daily Mail article 2013] of patient satisfaction are clear;
The first NHS trust to be run entirely by a private firm has one of the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the country.
Hinchingbrooke, a hospital in Cambridgeshire with 160,000 patients, was on the verge of going bust when it was taken over by Circle last year.
But NHS figures show it is now ranked as one of the highest for patient happiness and waiting times.
And what of financial performance?
The company running the trust has slashed losses at the hospital by 60 per cent and will soon begin to pay off burgeoning debts built up over years of mismanagement. The takeover deal, which saved the hospital from closing down, is seen as a blueprint for the future of many NHS trusts.
And the secret of Circle Health's success:
Jim O’Connell, the Chief Executive explained: "We put more of the decision-making in the hands of the doctors and nurses ... There are still a lot of inefficiencies in the NHS because it is the bureaucracy that has built up over all these years, and we have to change that."
Ah. Now I see why you and UNISON don't like what is going on at Hinchingbroke.
Carry on trying to detract us with political smears, Compouter.
On PB we are mostly interested in patient care, clinical performance and sound finances. And Hinchingbroke under Circle Health's management seems to "tick all three of these boxes".
"The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms over the past five years.
The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry's trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers.
The scale of incidents – equivalent to almost one a day – emerges following the publication of dramatic photographs showing one turbine which had crashed to the ground in a field near a road and another exploding into flames, caused by 150mph winds which buffeted Scotland and northern England last week.
... The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said last week it was “extremely difficult” to assemble a “complete picture of reported incidents at wind farms” because accidents are not recorded by industry type.
The HSE said its figures showed three fatal accidents between 2007/08 and 2009/10 and a total of 53 major or dangerous incidents in the same time frame.
An HSE spokesman said wind turbines were classed as machines rather than buildings or structures and that there was no obligation to report mechanical failures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html
Has it driven policy? As a Labour member my main observation on Tory health policy is that its a direct continuation of Mil burn era policies. Hard to accuse private health of buying parts of the NHS when its been going on for years.
"The Labour Party should hang its collective head in shame at this grotesque betrayal of Aneurin Bevan's legacy. As it pumped money into the pockets of producers and delivered platitudes about patient care, ministers allowed layers of managers under this duo to calcify the system and unleash cover-ups, fear and bullying of staff. They gave GPs huge pay rises while ruining out-of-hours care, introduced a target culture that distorted clinical priorities and prevented a public inquiry into events at mid-Staffordshire.
.....I saw some clues at Hinchingbrooke, the first NHS hospital run by a private provider, which cut costs while improving services by reducing the number of managers and restoring responsibility to clinical staff. It also imported a famous quality-control system from Toyota that encourages workers to stop production if they see a fault. Two weeks after its introduction, theatre nurses halted a senior consultant during an operation after they suspected a swab was missing; it was found in the patient's body."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/worshipping-the-nhs-costs-lives-8669701.html
That said, looking at the fatality record it looks like from a worker safety point of view you'd be better off with a nuclear power station run by politically-connected cost-cutting crooks in an earthquake zone subject to a once-every-1000-year tsumani.
"...I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in their post-Blair phase, no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school. (“It may matter or it may not,” Blower said about poor children not going to top universities). The standard left response is to talk philosophically about inequality in society, as if this has the slightest bearing on whether the concept of a sink school ought to be tolerated in this day and age.
By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality. When the subject is raised in front of Michael Gove, it’s like flicking a switch. He blows his top. When I last interviewed him and raised the subject about whether it poor kids should be expected to do as well as rich, he replied in a crescendo of anger.Here’s the end of it:-
"It is snobbery to say that working class people cannot achieve in the same way as others and I’ve had it up to here with people saying oh don’t expect too much of them, these are high-falutin’ expectations. In 1940 the average number of books that a working class boy would read is six every month, 72 a year, working class boys. When I said we should have 50 books being read a year people said: that’s outrageous. The truth is that we’ve lost the level of expectation that we used to have about what people were capable of achieving. They don’t have attitudes like that in East Asia or South Korea. No one is going to say in South Korea, ‘what dreadful snobbery that you go to university’. The last person who said it was dreadful snobbery to go to university was Rick Santorum in America and we regarded that as a view of the Rampithecan right, like the Scopes Trial all over again. The truth is that more people should go to elite universities and if you look at these schools where the expectations that it’s snobbish, don’t get above yourself – no!’
Gove makes precisely the same point as Kinnock. Those people “who could sing and play and recite and write poetry” also read books – then. Why should we not expect them to now?
The difference between left and right, now, is that you will seldom hear a left-winger getting Kinnock-style (or Gove-style) angry about educational inequality. The right are so angry about educational inequality that they want to tear up the whole system. Now that Labour takes 80pc of its funds from the union, it seems to be on the side of the system, no longer on the side of those failed by the system..." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/christine-blower-the-nut-and-the-bigotry-of-low-expectation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=christine-blower-the-nut-and-the-bigotry-of-low-expectation
At the very moment that @andyburnhammp was presiding over these monstrosities in the NHS, he was calling my criticism unpatriotic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/recovery-means-dumping-labour-policies-8669703.html
He seems to have liked it, as did I, but Labour will need a more compelling pitch than "more of the same, but carried out by nicer people".
Once Cameron made the coalition offer it made a Lib/Lab deal quite hard, because:
1) The LibDems would have been blamed for any resulting instability.
2) Right-leaning voters would be asking, if the LibDems won't work with Con under those circumstances, what possible circumstances _would_ they work with them under?
A BENEFITS cheat who fleeced nearly £168,000 has been given 110 YEARS to pay it back.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4980221/Benefit-cheats-110-years-to-pay-back-168k-debt.html#ixzz2X2eCVrQ0
Won't be long till we see 40% minimum on large companies.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/news/4980611/Weather-girl-in-giant-spider-terror-live-on-air.html
Perhaps we should have a male quota on NHS boards.
Ironically, in education, most of the things some sections of "the right" complain about happened entirely or mainly under Conservative governments: comprehensives; selling off playing fields; abolishing O-levels; teaching history in out-of-order chunks; AS levels; ending corporal punishment; A-levels by modules.
Let us take Michael Gove at his word. He does care. What is he doing about it? Well, not a lot. His flagship reform is free schools -- itself an extension of Labour's Academies -- which may or may not do better than LEA schools. If they do, on average, the same, then normal variation will mean some do a bit better and some a bit worse, and I'm guessing it will be the former that are cherry-picked for ministerial speeches. To be on the safe side, Gove is stacking the decks with extra funding.
But it is variety on which Gove depends because if he knew what a good free school would do differently, he could impose it on all free schools, and indeed, all the remaining state schools. Gove does not know, but is hoping something will turn up. Meanwhile, as Gove has taken his eye off the ball, class sizes are increasing and there is a shortage of school places.
Do you disagree that we shouldn't quota? Other European countries do. We are behind the times.
But I am not surprised there are a number of injuries in wind turbine work. You have tall crane usage in areas with high wind, large, unwieldy lifts, high-level working without scaffolding and heavy machinery. It's a recipe for injury and I'm surprised there are not more.
And the same things are true for when a turbine fails; they are tall and slightly heavy, meaning they make a mess when they fall.
An interesting comparison would be with high-tension electricity pylon riggers. Now they do have a nutty job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLegvOoU-pA
(*) The same should happen in the NHS.
The economy is good for those who live in London and the south east and are on a good wage. Incidentally this includes the press. The disconnect between the people who are starting to do well and everyone else could be a major driver of UKIP etc
As a taxpayer I am much more concerned with reducing the deficit and thereby the accumulating debt of the government.
But if you are thinking of investing in Circle Health, you are right to question their business model. They haven't yet proved they can pay off the debts of Hinchingbroke accumulated under NHS mismanagement and still provide a competitive return to shareholders. There is though much talk of "backloaded" returns over the contract term, but then there would be wouldn't there?
The great merit of free market capitalism is that Circle Health will only attract further funds if it does provide a competitive return to investors. So we don't need to endlessly blog, lobby, politick and comment about their performance. We just wait and see and watch others risk their funds.
Now isn't that a simpler and more effective way of handling things, Mr. Senior?
I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
I am afraid that this describes a lot of the Welsh education system today. Pupils have told me that they are discouraged from applying to O or C or to a Russel Group university as it is "above their class". In reality the tuition is often so bad that these children are denied that basic opportunity. Seems that Welsh Labour has not moved on much in the last 25+ years.
We will also get the third revision of Q1 from this year. I have not seen any indications that a revisal either way is likely.
Applying historical trends it is likely it will be found that the economy is bigger and marginally healthier than previously thought. It will be interesting to see if the shortfall from our peak pre-crash GDP narrows at all.
All of this is likely to provide a fairly positive background to the spending review. My guess is that Osborne has learnt this lesson as well and will be content to stay with very conservative growth figures going forward (to the extent he refers to these at all) and continue to exceed expectations. It makes the negotiations with the departments easier and gives better PR to what remain modest results.
The only potential fly in the ointment is uncle Vince. Is he really building up to some sort of huff? If this is not sorted out by Monday a few quid on next out of the cabinet might be a good investment.
Considering writing a brief pre-Wimbledon piece on the enormo-haddock blog. I was in two minds about it, but the Williams/Sharapova bitchiness does sound interesting.
I think this assertion is more dubious than the idea of a minority Conservative Government.
Firstly Brown did not have all the cards. His party had just polled the second lowest vote share that any Labour government had polled in 80 years. The vast majority of the media would have slaughtered any attempts for Labour to try and carry on. Clegg would have become a hypocrite of the first order for backing a party which had not come first in the electoral vote share. It would have destroyed the pretence that the Libdems value our democratic system (Clegg has committed to support the people's decision) at all. Not only that but having experienced the reactionaruy nature of the Libdsem grassroots how much internal strife would such a decision have caused the Libdems?
Yes it is plausible that some backroom deal could have been cobbled together so that Labour and Libdems could form a minority government but the reputational damage (to both parties and Westminster overall) would have been immense. Furthermore, it would have given Cameron the perfect platform to attack (yet another unelected Labour leader) the 'undemocratic' Libdems' and Labour Party. Thats not even considering what damage would have been done to the Libdem vote share. Would they have lost a large portion of support for going in with Labour under (Blair clone) 'Banana Boy' Miliband (not even considering the Union's response to a Blairite)?
Even if this scenario played out what would have been the economic repercussions? Surely the markets would have reacted negatively and as such what would Labour have done? Such a scenario could well have handed up a Conservative majority in a few months anyway. The phrase Lib-Lab pact would once again have become amongst notorious in the political landscape.
It's likely Cameron might have been under pressure for not gaining a majority but given the tenuous nature of the government and the likely quickly changing political landscape would the Tories have got rid of him or would they have kept their judgement for later on given that they would have been in an even better position IMO than they were in April 2010.
Yes its reasonable to say that a Tory minority Government may not have been possible but its equally reasonable to expect that a Labour led minority government was not only equally unlikely but also would like have only strengthened David Cameron's and the Conservatives position in the short term rather than weakening it. In fact it might possibly have turned out to be the best possible outcome for the Tories and a far better outcome than coalition with the Libdems.
Much better to move him to Secretary of State for Wales.
And why just quotas based on sex. Why not on race, age, class, education, wealth, location, sexuality and half a dozen other things as well?
Though as Europe is in decline perhaps we should be looking at other places instead?
I'm not sure what this adds since PB meanders all over the place from cricket commentary, pop videos, trivia about almost anything et al when nothing more interesting is happening.
Some veer off within a single comment. If we're saying that being *off-topic* isn't wanted that of course is another matter.