Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.
Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?
From the Guardian live blog:
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
1,000 miles? So Dromey wants to exclude him from the European continent?
So we can conclude from this that not only is Dromey a Remainer but that he also supports ever-closer union and a common EU asylum and immigration policy.
Either that, or he wants us to reconquer Ireland and France.
If Dromey was bothered about those who are a threat to this country, he'd be calling for Corbyn to be barred rather than Trump.
If we are going to have a debate about banning Trump, we should be having a debate about banning a lot more people. It is like the Geert Wilders thing all over again. They have unpleasant and unworkable views, but they aren't advocating violence etc.
At the same time as losing the plot over what Trump says, it doesn't interest the same people of some of the extremist nutters that preach to our young people in mosques, on university campuses and via the internet. Much easier to get in a huff about The Donald.
Mr. 1000, no, but like an idiot who ends up in A&E after picking a fight with a honey badger, it's still worthy of comment.
Those Honey Badgers in Far Cry 4 were vicious little sods.
Anyway, I am glad you are about, Mr. Dancer, because I am hopeful of reassurance from you We have recently discovered that many tennis matches were fixed. A year or two back you made something of a name for yourself on here as a tennis betting pundit. One would hope that those two facts are not connected. Should West Yorkshire's finest be opening an investigation?
As an aside you mentioned the other day about your dogs vocal predilections and you threatened to get her "dewoofed". I hope you were talking about training rather than surgery.
Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.
Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?
From the Guardian live blog:
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
Good lord. It's early days but if you come back in 84 years that will still be a contender for Most Idiotic Speech of the Century.
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
Mrs. Abernathy called the roomful of eleven-year-olds to order and told them to open their math books to page thirty-one. Her eyes scanned the class and came to rest on a stocky boy beneath a dome of golden hair, who was making grotesque faces at a girl in leg braces.
“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.
“I’m sorry, what did you say?”
“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”
Mr. Llama, never played a Far Cry game, I must admit, though I have seen a little of 4 (and Primal).
Made a name for myself with tennis tips? Your memory's errant, alas. I had good and bad patches and usually finished slightly in the red. If I had been paying players to do my bidding I'd want my money back.
The dog is far more vocal than her blissfully quiet predecessor. Not full-blown barking (the predecessor's predecessor was a rescue dog and barked her bloody head off), but it doesn't take much to set her off. She also makes lots of little growls and odd whines when playing.
Dewoofing would be through training, but I think (hope) she'll relax a bit when she's older. About 8 months or so now.
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
IDS actually polled very close to the 32% Howard got in 2005 when he was ousted if not a fraction more, it was more the MPs mood and party unity which was boosted under the experienced Howard than any big poll boost
That's true but it's also not accounting for the swingback to Labour that undoubtedly would have taken place had IDS remained in situ.
You're right about the MP and party mood of unity that Howard brought but that of itself fed through to Con-waverer voters.
Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.
Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?
From the Guardian live blog:
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
Good lord. It's early days but if you come back in 84 years that will still be a contender for Most Idiotic Speech of the Century.
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.
And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.
Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!
BBC Live: "Conservative MP Steve Double, a member of the Petitions Committee, says he condemns "wholeheartedly" Donald Trump's comments. But he says the UK has a long and strong tradition of free speech, and it is not right to ban him on the basis of disagreeing with what he has to say."
Makes Dromey's comments look like those of a raving nutter.
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.
And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.
Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!
I agree that people shouldn't be worse off (but nor necessarily should they be better off) through this change, but it is the principle of a truly seven day service that some like Chris_A seem to really object to.
Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.
You're getting as bad as the Kippers, throwing around unfounded accusations of lying. Still, the Kippers don't usually provide a link to an article which admits that the statement they're complaining about is probably true.
You're getting as bad as the Kippers, throwing around unfounded accusations of lying. Still, the Kippers don't usually provide a link to an article which admits that the statement they're complaining about is probably true.
Labour MP says PLP "unanimous" on removing Corbyn's PPS from the NEC apart from speech by Andy McDonald.
BBC update - "it is being widely reported that Labour MP Steve Rotheram is set to be voted off the party's National Executive Committee after becoming a ministerial aide to Jeremy Corbyn. It is being interpreted as another skirmish between the Labour leader and MPs concerned about the direction of the party."
As it is this time. I wasn't aware of that, the sub-committee should have done its job if that is the case.
There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).
Various procedural misunderstandings here, I think:
(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc. (2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test. (3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things. It is not a significant move.
Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.
Mrs. Abernathy called the roomful of eleven-year-olds to order and told them to open their math books to page thirty-one. Her eyes scanned the class and came to rest on a stocky boy beneath a dome of golden hair, who was making grotesque faces at a girl in leg braces.
“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.
“I’m sorry, what did you say?”
“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.
And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.
Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!
I agree that people shouldn't be worse off (but nor necessarily should they be better off) through this change, but it is the principle of a truly seven day service that some like Chris_A seem to really object to.
Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.
For better or worse, if you work for the state ultimately you are subject to political imperatives. Until recently medicine has maintained the rewards of the private sector with the mental patterns of the public sector. Ken Clarke failed to break the former. Jeremy Hunt is trying to do it now. It's not quite a who governs Britain, Heath or the miners moment but it comes from a similar mismatch.
We could give Dromey the "Bed wetter of the week" award, although "Melt" seems quite good too.
I assumed Trump wasn't totally serious; it was more of a rhetorical question - an exasperated utterance. A "why don't those pointy heads in Washington do something?" type Clint Eastwood remark.
But at least it keeps the more lunatic MPs off the street corners for an afternoon.
Incidentally, why not issue the Trident submariners with bow and arrows - those with sticky rubber things on the end so no one gets hurt? If they're a couple of hundred metres under the ocean, so there'll be plenty of water to wet them with. Makes more sense than this daft debate,
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.
And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.
Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!
I agree that people shouldn't be worse off (but nor necessarily should they be better off) through this change, but it is the principle of a truly seven day service that some like Chris_A seem to really object to.
Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.
For better or worse, if you work for the state ultimately you are subject to political imperatives. Until recently medicine has maintained the rewards of the private sector with the mental patterns of the public sector. Ken Clarke failed to break the former. Jeremy Hunt is trying to do it now. It's not quite a who governs Britain, Heath or the miners moment but it comes from a similar mismatch.
Wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with a 7 day service but first let the government set out what they mean by this soundbite - I don't think they have a clue, does anyone? And secondly tell us honestly how they are going to pay for it. You cannot get it by spreading out the existing staff more thinly over 7 days.
I am pleased to hear that surgery is not on your list, I expect she will quieten down as she gets older, not that Thomas the Rescue has, but they are just communicating and one needs to "talk" back to them.
P.S. Still a bit disappointed that you were not part of the international tennis betting ring.
We could give Dromey the "Bed wetter of the week" award, although "Melt" seems quite good too.
I assumed Trump wasn't totally serious; it was more of a rhetorical question - an exasperated utterance. A "why don't those pointy heads in Washington do something?" type Clint Eastwood remark.
But at least it keeps the more lunatic MPs off the street corners for an afternoon.
Incidentally, why not issue the Trident submariners with bow and arrows - those with sticky rubber things on the end so no one gets hurt? If they're a couple of hundred metres under the ocean, so there'll be plenty of water to wet them with. Makes more sense than this daft debate,
Why not quite literally a trident. Those Russians don't like it up'em.
You're getting as bad as the Kippers, throwing around unfounded accusations of lying. Still, the Kippers don't usually provide a link to an article which admits that the statement they're complaining about is probably true.
No it states that we cannot know the reasons why a weekend effect exists - or what it's magnitude is. If Cameron and Hunt do not know this then they are not fit to govern. They probably do know, however, and are spinning for all they're worth.
Labour MP says PLP "unanimous" on removing Corbyn's PPS from the NEC apart from speech by Andy McDonald.
BBC update - "it is being widely reported that Labour MP Steve Rotheram is set to be voted off the party's National Executive Committee after becoming a ministerial aide to Jeremy Corbyn. It is being interpreted as another skirmish between the Labour leader and MPs concerned about the direction of the party."
That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.
The fact that stroke related admissions are less frequent at the weekend, but have a slightly higher mortality at weekends is a curious one. It is hard to explain easily, with a likely explanation that people who have minor strokes hang on until the Monday. Hunts claim of 20% increase in mortality also predates the recent NHS drive on better stroke management, which has significantly improved outcomes.
In Leicester, if you present with a stroke, you will be started on treatment immediately, seen by a stroke specialist within 24 hours, have investigations including MRI headscan and carotid doppler scan at that visit. If a carotid endartectomy is needed it will be done within 48 hours by vascular surgeons who have a complication rate 20 times better than international reported figures. All free at the point of treatment. In Nuneaton, Northampton, Kettering, Lincoln or Boston you will not.
To provide our top of the range stroke service we need the entirety of the team avaliable 24 hours a day, including interventional radiology and vascular surgery. The other hospitals simply are not big enough to staff such a rota. (Note that junior doctors are not a requirement!). It is very important to choose where as well as when to have your stroke.
In London the vast improvement in stroke mortality is due to concentrating services such as Leicester's in 4 units. Such services need to be on the basis of serving a population of several million.
The same probably applies to heart attacks, major trauma,spinal injuries, head injuries etc. One part of 7 day services will surely have to be the downgrading of smaller hospitals A and E departments, with all high risk patients being diverted to super-sized hospitals.
The trade off of such services is against patient convenience. Patients do not like their local units being downgraded.
Various procedural misunderstandings here, I think:
(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc. (2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test. (3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things. It is not a significant move.
Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.
Hmm. Everyone involved must have known that it would get huge media attention. Also, to 99.9% of people a debate is a debate. They won't be saying, "Well it's just an adjournment debate." I agree we shouldn't take it seriously but, by holding the debate, Parliament has given the impression that it does.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
Yes. ICM does adjust more than it used to, but aren't sure they're adjusting enough. There's a well-known pattern of people who now support X "remembering" that they supported X before when they didn't, because they're embarrassed or merely forgetful - we all overestimate how little politics loom in most minds. I could tell you how I voted decades ago, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday (because I don't really care). Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.
What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.
Dr Fox, We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends. Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
They have a backbench representative on it elected last year, who is now Corbyn's PPS and therefore felt to be atypical of backbenchers. Yes, it's a skirmish, but it's also an arguably fair point.
Various procedural misunderstandings here, I think:
(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc. (2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test. (3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things. It is not a significant move.
Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.
Hmm. Everyone involved must have known that it would get huge media attention. Also, to 99.9% of people a debate is a debate. They won't be saying, "Well it's just an adjournment debate." I agree we shouldn't take it seriously but, by holding the debate, Parliament has given the impression that it does.
Some of the contributions were dire too.
And despite Mr Palmers assertion I do not see that this qualifies as a relevant debate. He is right to say Trump will be lapping it up, but that is pretty obvious.
The fact that stroke related admissions are less frequent at the weekend, but have a slightly higher mortality at weekends is a curious one. It is hard to explain easily, with a likely explanation that people who have minor strokes hang on until the Monday. Hunts claim of 20% increase in mortality also predates the recent NHS drive on better stroke management, which has significantly improved outcomes.
In Leicester, if you present with a stroke, you will be started on treatment immediately, seen by a stroke specialist within 24 hours, have investigations including MRI headscan and carotid doppler scan at that visit. If a carotid endartectomy is needed it will be done within 48 hours by vascular surgeons who have a complication rate 20 times better than international reported figures. All free at the point of treatment. In Nuneaton, Northampton, Kettering, Lincoln or Boston you will not.
To provide our top of the range stroke service we need the entirety of the team avaliable 24 hours a day, including interventional radiology and vascular surgery. The other hospitals simply are not big enough to staff such a rota. (Note that junior doctors are not a requirement!). It is very important to choose where as well as when to have your stroke.
In London the vast improvement in stroke mortality is due to concentrating services such as Leicester's in 4 units. Such services need to be on the basis of serving a population of several million.
The same probably applies to heart attacks, major trauma,spinal injuries, head injuries etc. One part of 7 day services will surely have to be the downgrading of smaller hospitals A and E departments, with all high risk patients being diverted to super-sized hospitals.
The trade off of such services is against patient convenience. Patients do not like their local units being downgraded.
1. Re the cause of higher weekend mortality, is there a grading of stroke severity and, if so, do we know if the higher mortality disappears when we look only at severe strokes?
2. Your stroke service sounds magnificent. Almost worth visiting Leicester for.
3. Patients do like local facilities, often with reason, but is there not a good case for consolidating A&E? After all, the theory is that we don't go to A&E except for life-threatening emergencies in which case you need the means to deal with the emergency to hand.
The fact that stroke related admissions are less frequent at the weekend, but have a slightly higher mortality at weekends is a curious one. It is hard to explain easily, with a likely explanation that people who have minor strokes hang on until the Monday. Hunts claim of 20% increase in mortality also predates the recent NHS drive on better stroke management, which has significantly improved outcomes.
In Leicester, if you present with a stroke, you will be started on treatment immediately, seen by a stroke specialist within 24 hours, have investigations including MRI headscan and carotid doppler scan at that visit. If a carotid endartectomy is needed it will be done within 48 hours by vascular surgeons who have a complication rate 20 times better than international reported figures. All free at the point of treatment. In Nuneaton, Northampton, Kettering, Lincoln or Boston you will not.
To provide our top of the range stroke service we need the entirety of the team avaliable 24 hours a day, including interventional radiology and vascular surgery. The other hospitals simply are not big enough to staff such a rota. (Note that junior doctors are not a requirement!). It is very important to choose where as well as when to have your stroke.
In London the vast improvement in stroke mortality is due to concentrating services such as Leicester's in 4 units. Such services need to be on the basis of serving a population of several million.
The same probably applies to heart attacks, major trauma,spinal injuries, head injuries etc. One part of 7 day services will surely have to be the downgrading of smaller hospitals A and E departments, with all high risk patients being diverted to super-sized hospitals.
The trade off of such services is against patient convenience. Patients do not like their local units being downgraded.
1. Re the cause of higher weekend mortality, is there a grading of stroke severity and, if so, do we know if the higher mortality disappears when we look only at severe strokes?
2. Your stroke service sounds magnificent. Almost worth visiting Leicester for.
3. Patients do like local facilities, often with reason, but is there not a good case for consolidating A&E? After all, the theory is that we don't go to A&E except for life-threatening emergencies in which case you need the means to deal with the emergency to hand.
Not just Leicester, other centres of excellence too. And you ask the local MP whether his local A&E should be downgraded and see what response you get!
Dr Fox, We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends. Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
There is indeed a need to be seen soon with strokes (though with resolved symptoms such as a TIA the patient will be seen in the stroke clinic next day).
The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.
A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.
There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.
Labour MP says PLP "unanimous" on removing Corbyn's PPS from the NEC apart from speech by Andy McDonald.
BBC update - "it is being widely reported that Labour MP Steve Rotheram is set to be voted off the party's National Executive Committee after becoming a ministerial aide to Jeremy Corbyn. It is being interpreted as another skirmish between the Labour leader and MPs concerned about the direction of the party."
Surely the PLP do not decide the NEC (do they?)?
I thought they elected members, certainly the MP contingent. Rotherham is an MP, and as a leaders aid he may be diaqualifed. Gosh this is a fascinating subject isn't it?
Dr Fox, We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends. Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
Thanks. That's what I had presumed too but can any Tories confirm it? Emergency treatment, leading to admission does of course exist now. And is outpatient appointments throughout the week and efficient use of NHS resources? Is the government going to provide any evidence?
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
Yes. ICM does adjust more than it used to, but aren't sure they're adjusting enough. There's a well-known pattern of people who now support X "remembering" that they supported X before when they didn't, because they're embarrassed or merely forgetful - we all overestimate how little politics loom in most minds. I could tell you how I voted decades ago, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday (because I don't really care). Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.
What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
Yes. ICM does adjust more than it used to, but aren't sure they're adjusting enough. There's a well-known pattern of people who now support X "remembering" that they supported X before when they didn't, because they're embarrassed or merely forgetful - we all overestimate how little politics loom in most minds. I could tell you how I voted decades ago, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday (because I don't really care). Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.
What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.
Pretty much my own view too!
If May is a disaster, even if the anti-Cobynites have been slinging mud they will claim vindication. If it's good or just not bad, Corbyn could easily claim a united Labour would have done much better and the rebels dragged him down.
Dr Fox, We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends. Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
There is indeed a need to be seen soon with strokes (though with resolved symptoms such as a TIA the patient will be seen in the stroke clinic next day).
The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.
A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.
There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.
I'd be one of those, Doc, and it has sod all to do with party political affiliation of the place where the proposed centre is located. They tried this on us a few years ago, all A&E was to be concentrated at the RSCH in Brighton. It would provide better service they said.
The RSCH A&E is massively over-subscribed and cannot cope with its current workload (and to be honest I have been in third world hospitals that were better organised). No additional facilities were included in the plan, not even additional ambulances to make up for the extra travelling distance. How that equated to being a better service, they never said.
So might I suggest your 'Shire versus City line is complete bollocks.
Dr Fox, We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends. Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
There is indeed a need to be seen soon with strokes (though with resolved symptoms such as a TIA the patient will be seen in the stroke clinic next day).
The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.
A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.
There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.
I'd be one of those, Doc, and it has sod all to do with party political affiliation of the place where the proposed centre is located. They tried this on us a few years ago, all A&E was to be concentrated at the RSCH in Brighton. It would provide better service they said.
The RSCH A&E is massively over-subscribed and cannot cope with its current workload (and to be honest I have been in third world hospitals that were better organised). No additional facilities were included in the plan, not even additional ambulances to make up for the extra travelling distance. How that equated to being a better service, they never said.
So might I suggest your 'Shire versus City line is complete bollocks.
Clearly resources need to follow any such concentration of patients with high risk conditions. The governments plans for 7 day services are not even at the back of an envelope stage as far as the costs and implications go.
You do confirm my point though. Patients do value convenience of access (and car parking!) ahead of many other features of health care.
I cannot find a more up to date table on the web (Leicester now has a SHMI of 99 rather than 106) but in 2011 you were 10% more likely to die if admitted to East Sussex Hospitals than Brighton. These figures are adjusted for casemix. Don't even think about having your major illness on the Isle of Wight. It puts the "weekend effect" into perspective does it not?
My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
IDS actually polled very close to the 32% Howard got in 2005 when he was ousted if not a fraction more, it was more the MPs mood and party unity which was boosted under the experienced Howard than any big poll boost
That's true but it's also not accounting for the swingback to Labour that undoubtedly would have taken place had IDS remained in situ.
You're right about the MP and party mood of unity that Howard brought but that of itself fed through to Con-waverer voters.
You may be correct there though we can never know for certain. Blair was seriously damaged goods by 2005 and I suspect Labour would have done better under Brown that year. But many saw Howard as pretty voter repellent -'Something of the night' to quote Anne Widdecombe - and it is entirely possible that IDS would have achieved a similar result.
BBC Live: "Conservative MP Steve Double, a member of the Petitions Committee, says he condemns "wholeheartedly" Donald Trump's comments. But he says the UK has a long and strong tradition of free speech, and it is not right to ban him on the basis of disagreeing with what he has to say."
Makes Dromey's comments look like those of a raving nutter.
Some of those who seek to ban him are not doing so just because they disagree with what he has to say but because behind the silly proposal to stop even US Muslim citizens returning to their own country there is a good point, namely, that sensible risk assessment at this time - given the winds of change blowing through the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East - should make any country consider how much Muslim immigration it is sensible to permit and, second, whether particular individuals should be permitted to enter into a country.
Labour did neither of these things when it was in government and uses its rage at Trump's comments to disguise the fact that its own immigration and integration failures have put this country more at risk than it would otherwise have been. There is a shoot the messenger aspect about the fury about Trump and Wilders and others.
Trump's broad brush, unfocused and ill-considered statements don't do him much credit. But when Corbyn's leader thinks that IS have "strong points" (their knife sharpening skills, perhaps?) and Labour's London Mayoral candidate speaks at events organised by Cage, who think that the murderer of British citizens is "gentle", Dromey ought to be looking rather closer to home for "dangerous fools" who threaten Britain.
My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good
Sorry for your loss but as you say she was lacking "tests or investigations" at weekend. Those are the things which are missing the most. There would have been plenty of medical cover. Jeremy Hunt should know this and picking a fight with junior doctors is not going to change this one iota.
Hunt is not demonic but if he lost the spin and concentrated on what he wants, how he's going to get there, and how it will be paid for he would be an excellent health secretary. Unfortunately there's no evidence he will, so better he goes sooner rather than later before he does even more damage. Contrary to what you think change isn't resisted in health but rather the medical professions are very keen to change practice when there is evidence to support the change. There was no evidence that Lansley's reforms would make things better and they haven't. Hunt is now in a similar evidence-free zone.
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
IDS actually polled very close to the 32% Howard got in 2005 when he was ousted if not a fraction more, it was more the MPs mood and party unity which was boosted under the experienced Howard than any big poll boost
That's true but it's also not accounting for the swingback to Labour that undoubtedly would have taken place had IDS remained in situ.
You're right about the MP and party mood of unity that Howard brought but that of itself fed through to Con-waverer voters.
Yes though I doubt many of those who stuck with the Tories under IDS would have switched to Howard
My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good
Yes but when it comes to tests this is nothing to do with doctor coverage. When you get, say, blood tests done the lab tech who is putting the blood in the centrifuge isn't a doctor.
We haven't heard anything about their contracts and we are not talking about well paid people at this point so giving them a real terms pay cut to acheive this as yet undefined 7-day NHS is a bit of a nuts kicker for them.
I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.
You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.
I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.
You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.
No, the loons who look on the NHS as a religion, and churn out fanciful stories about it. Ever seen The Whicker Man? They'll be burning giant effigies next. Giant straw models of nurses with the Health Secretary tied up inside them.
My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good
Sorry for your loss but as you say she was lacking "tests or investigations" at weekend. Those are the things which are missing the most. There would have been plenty of medical cover. Jeremy Hunt should know this and picking a fight with junior doctors is not going to change this one iota.
Hunt is not demonic but if he lost the spin and concentrated on what he wants, how he's going to get there, and how it will be paid for he would be an excellent health secretary. Unfortunately there's no evidence he will, so better he goes sooner rather than later before he does even more damage. Contrary to what you think change isn't resisted in health but rather the medical professions are very keen to change practice when there is evidence to support the change. There was no evidence that Lansley's reforms would make things better and they haven't. Hunt is now in a similar evidence-free zone.
I would thank you for your measured response - both sides need to sit down with good will and resolve the issues. They both need to be able to compromise on each others views
I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.
You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.
No, the loons who look on the NHS as a religion, and churn out fanciful stories about it. Ever seen The Whicker Man? They'll be burning giant effigies next. Giant straw models of nurses with the Health Secretary tied up inside them.
'I want to see my doctor on a Saturday'
'STONE THE HERETIC!'
Do you want to see "your" doctor on a Saturday or "a" doctor?
Clearly resources need to follow any such concentration of patients with high risk conditions. The governments plans for 7 day services are not even at the back of an envelope stage as far as the costs and implications go.
You do confirm my point though. Patients do value convenience of access (and car parking!) ahead of many other features of health care.
I cannot find a more up to date table on the web (Leicester now has a SHMI of 99 rather than 106) but in 2011 you were 10% more likely to die if admitted to East Sussex Hospitals than Brighton. These figures are adjusted for casemix. Don't even think about having your major illness on the Isle of Wight. It puts the "weekend effect" into perspective does it not?
Stuff the car parking, I was more worried about being left lying on the floor at home because all the ambulances were queued up at the the RSCH trying to unload patients. If people are going to come up with these plans then they need to get all the ducks in line and all the resources in place.
As for being 10% more likely to die if admitted to an East Sussex Hospital rather than the RSCH. Well, I live in West Sussex and the perceived problem was actually getting admitted to the RSCH. The scheme was, incidentally supported by the doctors' representatives and the hospital managements but opposed by just about everyone else.
I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.
You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.
No, the loons who look on the NHS as a religion, and churn out fanciful stories about it. Ever seen The Whicker Man? They'll be burning giant effigies next. Giant straw models of nurses with the Health Secretary tied up inside them.
'I want to see my doctor on a Saturday'
'STONE THE HERETIC!'
Do you want to see "your" doctor on a Saturday or "a" doctor?
Serious question.
And a very good question it is too, Mr. Cole. I was on here heaping praise on my GP Practice for its innovations and efforts to meet the demands of patients for our weekend /evening appointments etc.. However, all that good stuff comes at cost.
One of those is that if I want to see my "named GP" then I'll probably have a two week wait. However, if I am ill then I can get to see one of the quacks normally the same day, certainly the next day, Monday to Saturday inclusive. That strikes me as a fair deal, my routine stuff - monitoring chronic - illness can be booked in and done slow time with the same bloke, but if I really ain't well then I don't care who I see I just need a doctor and I can get one.
As I said last night the GP bit of the NHS is, in my neck of the woods at least, working pretty damn well. God help us though if you need a doctor in the evening on Sundays, or during the night - you won't get one and you are best advised to get off down to A&E. When you get to hospital, depending on the time of day/day of the week, your problems may really start.
Comments
It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy
At the same time as losing the plot over what Trump says, it doesn't interest the same people of some of the extremist nutters that preach to our young people in mosques, on university campuses and via the internet. Much easier to get in a huff about The Donald.
Anyway, I am glad you are about, Mr. Dancer, because I am hopeful of reassurance from you We have recently discovered that many tennis matches were fixed. A year or two back you made something of a name for yourself on here as a tennis betting pundit. One would hope that those two facts are not connected. Should West Yorkshire's finest be opening an investigation?
As an aside you mentioned the other day about your dogs vocal predilections and you threatened to get her "dewoofed". I hope you were talking about training rather than surgery.
“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.
“I’m sorry, what did you say?”
“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”
“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/lil-donald?intcid=mod-most-popular
Made a name for myself with tennis tips? Your memory's errant, alas. I had good and bad patches and usually finished slightly in the red. If I had been paying players to do my bidding I'd want my money back.
The dog is far more vocal than her blissfully quiet predecessor. Not full-blown barking (the predecessor's predecessor was a rescue dog and barked her bloody head off), but it doesn't take much to set her off. She also makes lots of little growls and odd whines when playing.
Dewoofing would be through training, but I think (hope) she'll relax a bit when she's older. About 8 months or so now.
Edited extra bit: just started whining now...
You're right about the MP and party mood of unity that Howard brought but that of itself fed through to Con-waverer voters.
And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.
Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!
Makes Dromey's comments look like those of a raving nutter.
Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.
Labour MP says PLP "unanimous" on removing Corbyn's PPS from the NEC apart from speech by Andy McDonald.
BBC update - "it is being widely reported that Labour MP Steve Rotheram is set to be voted off the party's National Executive Committee after becoming a ministerial aide to Jeremy Corbyn. It is being interpreted as another skirmish between the Labour leader and MPs concerned about the direction of the party."
(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc.
(2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test.
(3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things.
It is not a significant move.
Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.
I assumed Trump wasn't totally serious; it was more of a rhetorical question - an exasperated utterance. A "why don't those pointy heads in Washington do something?" type Clint Eastwood remark.
But at least it keeps the more lunatic MPs off the street corners for an afternoon.
Incidentally, why not issue the Trident submariners with bow and arrows - those with sticky rubber things on the end so no one gets hurt? If they're a couple of hundred metres under the ocean, so there'll be plenty of water to wet them with. Makes more sense than this daft debate,
@MorrisDancer
I am pleased to hear that surgery is not on your list, I expect she will quieten down as she gets older, not that Thomas the Rescue has, but they are just communicating and one needs to "talk" back to them.
P.S. Still a bit disappointed that you were not part of the international tennis betting ring.
Is the new Dads Army film out yet?
In Leicester, if you present with a stroke, you will be started on treatment immediately, seen by a stroke specialist within 24 hours, have investigations including MRI headscan and carotid doppler scan at that visit. If a carotid endartectomy is needed it will be done within 48 hours by vascular surgeons who have a complication rate 20 times better than international reported figures. All free at the point of treatment. In Nuneaton, Northampton, Kettering, Lincoln or Boston you will not.
To provide our top of the range stroke service we need the entirety of the team avaliable 24 hours a day, including interventional radiology and vascular surgery. The other hospitals simply are not big enough to staff such a rota. (Note that junior doctors are not a requirement!). It is very important to choose where as well as when to have your stroke.
In London the vast improvement in stroke mortality is due to concentrating services such as Leicester's in 4 units. Such services need to be on the basis of serving a population of several million.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4757
The same probably applies to heart attacks, major trauma,spinal injuries, head injuries etc. One part of 7 day services will surely have to be the downgrading of smaller hospitals A and E departments, with all high risk patients being diverted to super-sized hospitals.
The trade off of such services is against patient convenience. Patients do not like their local units being downgraded.
Florida
Trump 31 +2
Cruz 19 -1
Bush 12 +2
Rubio 12 -3
Carson 7 -1
Christie 4 -2
Fiorina 4 +1
Kasich 3 +2
Paul 3 0
Huckabee 2 +2
http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FL-GOP-PP-1.17.16.pdf
Also one from Georgia, though their last one was from September:
Trump 33 -1
Cruz 23 +17
Rubio 8 +6
Carson 7 -18
Bush 7 -4
Kasich 4 +1
Christie 4 +2
Fiorina 4 -1
Paul 4 +4
Huckabee 3 -2
http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GA-GOP-PP-1.17.16.pdf
Kai rarely made any noise. Two very different beasts. She's a lot more boisterous but less than half his weight.
Some of the contributions were dire too.
What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.
We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends.
Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.
I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.
2. Your stroke service sounds magnificent. Almost worth visiting Leicester for.
3. Patients do like local facilities, often with reason, but is there not a good case for consolidating A&E? After all, the theory is that we don't go to A&E except for life-threatening emergencies in which case you need the means to deal with the emergency to hand.
The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.
A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.
There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.
Gosh this is a fascinating subject isn't it?
The RSCH A&E is massively over-subscribed and cannot cope with its current workload (and to be honest I have been in third world hospitals that were better organised). No additional facilities were included in the plan, not even additional ambulances to make up for the extra travelling distance. How that equated to being a better service, they never said.
So might I suggest your 'Shire versus City line is complete bollocks.
You do confirm my point though. Patients do value convenience of access (and car parking!) ahead of many other features of health care.
I cannot find a more up to date table on the web (Leicester now has a SHMI of 99 rather than 106) but in 2011 you were 10% more likely to die if admitted to East Sussex Hospitals than Brighton. These figures are adjusted for casemix. Don't even think about having your major illness on the Isle of Wight. It puts the "weekend effect" into perspective does it not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15897345
Labour did neither of these things when it was in government and uses its rage at Trump's comments to disguise the fact that its own immigration and integration failures have put this country more at risk than it would otherwise have been. There is a shoot the messenger aspect about the fury about Trump and Wilders and others.
Trump's broad brush, unfocused and ill-considered statements don't do him much credit. But when Corbyn's leader thinks that IS have "strong points" (their knife sharpening skills, perhaps?) and Labour's London Mayoral candidate speaks at events organised by Cage, who think that the murderer of British citizens is "gentle", Dromey ought to be looking rather closer to home for "dangerous fools" who threaten Britain.
Hunt is not demonic but if he lost the spin and concentrated on what he wants, how he's going to get there, and how it will be paid for he would be an excellent health secretary. Unfortunately there's no evidence he will, so better he goes sooner rather than later before he does even more damage. Contrary to what you think change isn't resisted in health but rather the medical professions are very keen to change practice when there is evidence to support the change. There was no evidence that Lansley's reforms would make things better and they haven't. Hunt is now in a similar evidence-free zone.
We haven't heard anything about their contracts and we are not talking about well paid people at this point so giving them a real terms pay cut to acheive this as yet undefined 7-day NHS is a bit of a nuts kicker for them.
I had to laugh at this, It could be good advice:
https://twitter.com/PolToons/status/689122719632355328
'I want to see my doctor on a Saturday'
'STONE THE HERETIC!'
Serious question.
As for being 10% more likely to die if admitted to an East Sussex Hospital rather than the RSCH. Well, I live in West Sussex and the perceived problem was actually getting admitted to the RSCH. The scheme was, incidentally supported by the doctors' representatives and the hospital managements but opposed by just about everyone else.
One of those is that if I want to see my "named GP" then I'll probably have a two week wait. However, if I am ill then I can get to see one of the quacks normally the same day, certainly the next day, Monday to Saturday inclusive. That strikes me as a fair deal, my routine stuff - monitoring chronic - illness can be booked in and done slow time with the same bloke, but if I really ain't well then I don't care who I see I just need a doctor and I can get one.
As I said last night the GP bit of the NHS is, in my neck of the woods at least, working pretty damn well. God help us though if you need a doctor in the evening on Sundays, or during the night - you won't get one and you are best advised to get off down to A&E. When you get to hospital, depending on the time of day/day of the week, your problems may really start.