If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
Maybe, but Farage will use every opportunity to grandstand if the deal includes a heavy dose of the four freedoms.
For sure, there will be showboating and virtue signalling and no doubt lots of Brit bashing, but if a deal is agreed, the national capitals will make plain to their MEPs the heavy and unwanted price of any dicking about. It would be a brave tribune to vote down the agreed views of Berlin, Rome, Paris, London, and everyone else.
Dicking about is what the European Parliament is for. And for every governing party sending x MEPs to Brussels/Strasbourg, several opposition parties keen to make things as difficult as possible for the governing party will be sending w, y and z MEPs.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
Maybe, but Farage will use every opportunity to grandstand if the deal includes a heavy dose of the four freedoms.
For sure, there will be showboating and virtue signalling and no doubt lots of Brit bashing, but if a deal is agreed, the national capitals will make plain to their MEPs the heavy and unwanted price of any dicking about. It would be a brave tribune to vote down the agreed views of Berlin, Rome, Paris, London, and everyone else.
Not only that, but there is always the threat (to those of a UKIP persuasion) that not ratifying might lead to an extension of our membership...
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Which prominent Remainer politician do you think said this in the last few weeks.
"Unhelpful belligerency" in Brussels about the Brexit vote and "obduracy" on the subject of FOM "could bring the EU down".
Also if the EU Commission did not re-examine itself "the sick man of Europe would end up being Europe itself".
Particular criticism was directed at Mr Juncker for lacking "the capacity" to understand the effects of his words on British public opinion.
Interestingly, one of the reasons this politician says Britain never became attached to the European ideal is because "the legal system and constitutional culture is so different" and went on to attack the "huge transfers of power to the centre without popular consent".
Yes, I did say this was a prominent Remainer politician.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
Yes. The EP is made up of politicans who need to be elected. National governments will have clout with twisting arms with their folk. Also they can't amend it. They either consent or they don't. Like all nuclear options it's to be threatened not used.
However the timetable suggests it's likely to be voted on in the immeadiate run up the '19 EP elections. As we discovered in June railing against a Foriegn power can get you votes. We also can't rule out irrationality or sheer bloody mindedness. Eg arch federalists and UKIP uniting over a soft Brexit seen as a betrayal from differing stand points.
The other possibility is national governments get the EP to do their dirty work for them. " We'd have agreed to this but now because of the narrow defeat in plenary we need a few more hundred Mil £ for Transylvanian biofuels and Croatian weavers to get it through a second vote. "
Which prominent Remainer politician do you think said this in the last few weeks.
"Unhelpful belligerency" in Brussels about the Brexit vote and "obduracy" on the subject of FOM "could bring the EU down".
Also if the EU Commission did not re-examine itself "the sick man of Europe would end up being Europe itself".
Particular criticism was directed at Mr Juncker for lacking "the capacity" to understand the effects of his words on British public opinion.
Interestingly, one of the reasons this politician says Britain never became attached to the European ideal is because "the legal system and constitutional culture is so different" and went on to attack the "huge transfers of power to the centre without popular consent".
Yes, I did say this was a prominent Remainer politician.
Indeed, Major was PM for 7 years so the 200,000 his memoirs sold may be a more realistic target than, for example, the 500,000 Thatcher's sold and both Blair and Thatcher had higher name recognition in the US which helped them with sales there
Good Night Everyone ! Enough treasonous remoaning for one day. A great thread. I think varying Conservative posters at the beginning have persuaded me I was over reacting about the Tories bizzare deal with Goldsmith. As long as it really is a one off.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
The French language press seemed very clear that the original veto was just a bid for pork-barrels.
''If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!''
I don;t buy Sean's version of an all play nice Brexit. We cannot accept free movement, and they cannot accept the end of it.
Any fudge will be pounced on. UKIP are still above 10% for a reason.
Most likely May will require a job offer to come to the UK and try and work a trade deal around that
And as long as it's a reasonable job verifiable by HMRC being paid a reasonable amount ( tax on average wage?) and not a "job in my brother in law's decorating business", doesn't sound a bad place to start. It's one if a number of options.
''If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!''
I don;t buy Sean's version of an all play nice Brexit. We cannot accept free movement, and they cannot accept the end of it.
Any fudge will be pounced on. UKIP are still above 10% for a reason.
Most likely May will require a job offer to come to the UK and try and work a trade deal around that
And as long as it's a reasonable job verifiable by HMRC being paid a reasonable amount ( tax on average wage?) and not a "job in my brother in law's decorating business", doesn't sound a bad place to start. It's one if a number of options.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
Well, since we will probably end up with a phasing down of the billions of support over 5 - 10 years and hold over the threat of cutting corporation tax and have a right to liquidating our share of EU assets etc etc on top of the £80 bn trade surplus the EU has.... It will be a lot for the EU to throw away. There is also the risk of a Euro crisis if break up is less than smooth.
What " threat " of cutting Corporation Tax. We could do that now or at any time in the future. Are we going to sign an international treaty putting a floor on our Corporation Tax ? If not then how is it a bargaining tool ? It's meaningless as it can't be enforced.
A euro crisis ? What exactly has happen to the £ and the € respectively since the Leave victory ?
" Phasing Down " is that the spin on the fact we'll still be paying billions pa into the EU budget even after we've left. Making the £350m pw figure even more of a lie than it already was.
" £80bn trade surplus " *sighs* Exports as a % of ours and theirs are....
I appreciate and respect we just don't agree on Brexit. However if we're still in " they need to sell us BMW's " mode after the last 4 months I give up !
Actually, Corporation Tax is seen as a playable card, by both sides. The Swedes, for instance, have already made alarmed noises about a UK threat to slash it.
As has the Irish Foriegn minister. It was hilarious to read his critique of countries leading a race to the bottom on Corporation Tax. But my point remains. It can't be part of an exit deal unless it's written into the treaty. Otherwise it's just a Here Today, Gone Tomorrow politician promising not to do it anyway the moment we left. Can you imagine a Brexiting PM putting a general Corporation Tax floor into international law ? It would be a bigger deal than the current VAT harmonisation rules.
Anyway good night from Leaverstan to your good self in Remainia.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
We'll see. Would you like a small wager? Winnings to go to the Trump campaign?
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
I heard that Belgium has six parliaments, and that three of them - the Walloon regional parliament, the Brussels regional parliament, and the community parliament for French speakers - had all objected to CETA. But perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick?
(Six parliaments?! If the UK had the same number of parliaments per head as Belgium, we would have about 35...)
If anyone thought Trump sidekick Roger Stone's experience as a Watergate dirty trickster was too long ago, Trump boasts that he has received the first ever presidential endorsement from the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
We'll see. Would you like a small wager? Winnings to go to the Trump campaign?
Sorry not at the moment, am paying my annual car tax bill today and my travelcard is due for renewal tomorrow and am sure Donald has enough in the bank but we shall see what happens, they will have to appease TTIP campaigners and Belgian farmers
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost blockquote>
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is .
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
If anyone thought Trump sidekick Roger Stone's experience as a Watergate dirty trickster was too long ago, Trump boasts that he has received the first ever presidential endorsement from the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
Are voters fooled by this sort of thing?
Most voters will assume it's a non-affiliated local paper. They wont read it but they'll notice the headline and won't realise it's realise it's party propaganda.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
'Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time'
Brown's reckless PFI's don't help.
'The PFI hospitals costing NHS £2bn every year - Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk › News › NHS 18 Jul 2015 - One hospital built under the private finance initiative PFI Photo: Alamy ... cost of PFI services and debt repayment has had a serious impact on NHS ... £143.6 million this year in repayments, runs a budget deficit of £90 million.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
So you mean replace all the graduate nurse with more expensive doctors?
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
Also 70% of our expenditure is entirely outside our control as it is for treatments authorised by NICE which the CCGs and NHS England are bound to fund.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
Not sure the 'traditional' LD emphasis on leaflet/paper carpetbombing is as effective in our digital age, but there is an argument you reach people through sheer persistence. And I speak as one who has done his share of letterbox stuffing.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
Are voters fooled by this sort of thing?
Most voters will assume it's a non-affiliated local paper. They wont read it but they'll notice the headline and won't realise it's realise it's party propaganda.
I'm told you have 7 seconds between the front door and the rubbish bin to get the voter's attention - any way you can.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Which might be why I used the word "unethical" rather than "illegal?
I'm trying to think of the last Politician I met who was ethical.... Nope not even Tim Farron at Uni...
Carswell. I've met him. Entirely principled. You may despise his principles but he does what he believes.
Personally that don't impress me much. If an apparently intelligent person wilfully undermines their own 'principles', not to mention colleagues, because they have a fixation on a single issue it's more evidence of a personality disorder than of anything else.
On topic, The Labour NEC will be standing a Candidate in RP whether the local CLP wants to or not, according to Labour List.
In the Richmond by-election we are going to see Conservative and Labour REMAIN supporters campaigning for the LIB DEMS.
Whilst Con and Lab LEAVE supporters will campaign for an Independent Zac.
Everything is becoming issues driven rather than party ideology driven. Makes it hard to operate political parties.
The left right divide is obsolete - the new division is between open and closed. (Hat tip The Economist).
I would much rather have a drink with TSE, Felix and ScottP than the likes of SandyRentool, Speedy and RochdalePioneers - who are seemingly willing to tolerate any amount of nasty anti-immigrant bigotry to wallow in their fantasies of a nativist 1960s socialist utopia.
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
Are voters fooled by this sort of thing?
Most voters will assume it's a non-affiliated local paper. They wont read it but they'll notice the headline and won't realise it's realise it's party propaganda.
I'm told you have 7 seconds between the front door and the rubbish bin to get the voter's attention - any way you can.
The work of Youssou N'Dour has a lot to commend it.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
So you mean replace all the graduate nurse with more expensive doctors?
No, I mean replace them with nurses who haven't spent 3 years at university racking up debt.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
So you mean replace all the graduate nurse with more expensive doctors?
No, I mean replace them with nurses who haven't spent 3 years at university racking up debt.
I saw a report that 40% of nurses on degree course never worked as nhs nurses. You probably know the right figure but it is a shocking waste. How much that improves with the debt we shall see - I suspect by a lot. But you are right that nursing should not have become a degree course.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Mainly for animals - pricing pressure too strong in the NHS for me
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time
Cutting staff costs is always hard. So you have to make surebtge work force is flexible enough to get as much as possible out of the fixed cost base.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
So you mean replace all the graduate nurse with more expensive doctors?
No, I mean replace them with nurses who haven't spent 3 years at university racking up debt.
I saw a report that 40% of nurses on degree course never worked as nhs nurses. You probably know the right figure but it is a shocking waste. How much that improves with the debt we shall see - I suspect by a lot. But you are right that nursing should not have become a degree course.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/nov/24/nurses-degree-diploma-carer-clinician "Data revealed under the Freedom of Information Act to Nursing Standard magazine shows that at one university last year, 78% of students quit a nursing degree. At another, 54% dropped out. The names of the universities have not been disclosed. At many universities a drop-out rate of 30% is common,"
Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
Your figure seems low to me and I wonder what I am missing. I was just thinking that almost all of us are likely to die at some point before age 100, and it is still the case that more won't make it to HMQ's telegram than will. Therefore my guess at the mortality rate in any one year would be somewhere just above above 1%?
Unless you are excluding pensioners from your lower figure (which for comparison with a prison population wouldn't be unreasonable. However by same logic children should be excluded from numerator and denominator also, which will push the adult rate back up)?
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
There probably are some good reasons for being conservative with new equipment, but you don't have to spend much time in a hospital to conclude that there are an awful lot of unnecessarily laborious procedures being done, and as you say when you do need a human being to help you they are busy elsewhere perhaps because of that.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Mainly for animals - pricing pressure too strong in the NHS for me
Recently several of our staple drugs have been out of stock for this very reason. The NHS (coupled with devaluation) means that when items are in short supply they get sold in Europe. There is more profit there.
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
Yet the proposal from some MPs to do this in (for Labour) no-hope Richmond Park has, I believe, today been vetoed?
Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I'm in two minds on the subject. On the one hand it is quite amusing, and they apparently do legally disclose who is behind it so if people choose not to pay enough attention, that is still their choice; people vote for stupid reasons all the time, the whole point of silly ad campaigns and posters is the idea that somebody might be swayed by a meaningless bit of twaddle or the cumulative weight of its message, and should be allowed to be fooled if they don't care to notice. On the other hand, take that too far and its open season on taking advantage of peoples' apathy, and while I think society places too much emphasis on protecting people from the consequences of their own stupidity, like everyone I've scanned information and misunderstood a slanted message or not realised it was propaganda at some point.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Mainly for animals - pricing pressure too strong in the NHS for me
Recently several of our staple drugs have been out of stock for this very reason. The NHS (coupled with devaluation) means that when items are in short supply they get sold in Europe. There is more profit there.
The NHS needs to use the Specials companies more effectively - they can guarantee security of supply. But the penny pinchers only like to give them the difficult and unprofitable business.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Mainly for animals - pricing pressure too strong in the NHS for me
I thought it was because animals don't question the price nor answer back....
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I have the "Gazette" in front of me now.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple, which is a sort of Quink Royal Blue.
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I have the "Gazette" in front of me now.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple.
So there's an actual Gazette? That's even cheekier and could be a breach of copyright.
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
Yet the proposal from some MPs to do this in (for Labour) no-hope Richmond Park has, I believe, today been vetoed?
Sadly, you are right.....But at least it was discussed and the genie is out the bottle. It is as far out of the bottle than it has ever been.
And maybe in a year or so we may well have a Clive Lewis leading the Labour party who is the proposals biggest advocate....
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Which might be why I used the word "unethical" rather than "illegal?
I'm trying to think of the last Politician I met who was ethical.... Nope not even Tim Farron at Uni...
Carswell. I've met him. Entirely principled. You may despise his principles but he does what he believes.
I've never met him, but that's the way he comes across. No artifice.
I discussed ambition with him - as in: surely you would like to be prime minister - and he scoffed at the notion. He explained he went into politics to further liberty and democracy, and Britain couldn't do that in the EU, so he had become a convinced eurosceptic. Clearly he put country before party.
I've met lots of politicians in my time, lots of them charming, but he was the only one who seemed absolutely honest, direct, informed and idealistic - possibly to a fault (these traits aren't always good or helpful).
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Josias, I once sent someone a spreadsheet, only for them to complain that the text was too small.
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
I don't like when they call such ideas 'Progressive Alliances'. It suggests to me they are all really on the same side, and cooperation of such a direct nature should be second nature, and is usually invoked on the assumption everyone is either a Tory or an anti-Tory, and as someone who has never voted Tory but leans more that way than Labour, that tells me they don't want my vote because I don't hate the Tories enough.
Can it not just be the PR Alliance? I know it is not as snappy, but it is much clearer this is just about securing one aim, a more democratic electoral system,
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
I never think it is wise to encourage and train your voters to support an alternative party. Once the lemming instinct of voting for the party regardless of all other facts the emotional bond between the party and voter is fractured and they will not return as such a loyal and frequent voter. The thrill of cheating on the political party of their past will be too much to resist.
Do you think if Labour or LibDems had politicians of stature, charisma and appeal who articulated well thought out popular progressive policies that they would win without PR?
It is the product on offer that is at fault more than the voting system. i think you are treating secondary symptoms and having blindness as to the causes.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Mainly for animals - pricing pressure too strong in the NHS for me
I thought it was because animals don't question the price nor answer back....
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
........... It will be a lot for the EU to throw away. There is also the risk of a Euro crisis if break up is less than smooth.
What " threat " of cutting Corporation Tax. We could do that now or at any time in the future. Are we going to sign an international treaty putting a floor on our Corporation Tax ? If not then how is it a bargaining tool ? It's meaningless as it can't be enforced.
A euro crisis ? What exactly has happen to the £ and the € respectively since the Leave victory ?
" Phasing Down " is that the spin on the fact we'll still be paying billions pa into the EU budget even after we've left. Making the £350m pw figure even more of a lie than it already was.
" £80bn trade surplus " *sighs* Exports as a % of ours and theirs are....
I appreciate and respect we just don't agree on Brexit. However if we're still in " they need to sell us BMW's " mode after the last 4 months I give up !
Actually, Corporation Tax is seen as a playable card, by both sides. The Swedes, for instance, have already made alarmed noises about a UK threat to slash it.
As has the Irish Foriegn minister. It was hilarious to read his critique of countries leading a race to the bottom on Corporation Tax. But my point remains. It can't be part of an exit deal unless it's written into the treaty. Otherwise it's just a Here Today, Gone Tomorrow politician promising not to do it anyway the moment we left. Can you imagine a Brexiting PM putting a general Corporation Tax floor into international law ? It would be a bigger deal than the current VAT harmonisation rules.......
Cutting corporation tax is not something that goes into the deal. It is used if they really really pi** us off.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
It may well be that your nurse was checking that you were still breathing when dropping by regularly to adjust the syringe pump dosage. Sometimes requiring a human operator is a feature not a bug.
A litre of saline in an hour is rather a lot. It needs a big cannula and a wide open tap.
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I have the "Gazette" in front of me now.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple.
So there's an actual Gazette? That's even cheekier and could be a breach of copyright.
No - it's our Gazette. That's the actual Gazette. With its own purple banner.
Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
Brilliant.
Except that the figure given certainly isn't the all-ages female mortality rate, which is close to 1% as I estimated below. Of course old people comprise a large proportion of deaths in any year, so the figure given may be for an age-range subset. It isn't clear.
Since mortality rate varies considerably with age, to make a fair comparison you would need to take the age distribution of female prisoners and then model the expected mortality rate using the same distribution of ages and the ONS female UK mortality data.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Josias, I once sent someone a spreadsheet, only for them to complain that the text was too small.
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
I knew a software project manager who was an Excel High Priest. Instead of using MS Project, he would use Excel. He would manage projects brilliantly, perhaps because no-one except him could understand the plan ...
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Josias, I once sent someone a spreadsheet, only for them to complain that the text was too small.
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
Comments
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
However the timetable suggests it's likely to be voted on in the immeadiate run up the '19 EP elections. As we discovered in June railing against a Foriegn power can get you votes. We also can't rule out irrationality or sheer bloody mindedness. Eg arch federalists and UKIP uniting over a soft Brexit seen as a betrayal from differing stand points.
The other possibility is national governments get the EP to do their dirty work for them. " We'd have agreed to this but now because of the narrow defeat in plenary we need a few more hundred Mil £ for Transylvanian biofuels and Croatian weavers to get it through a second vote. "
Cameron Blair and Blair Cameron :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=IDTLU833JcM
@NCPoliticsUK
.@GaryGibbonBlog hears that the #RichmondPark by-election date may be 1st December, writ to be moved tomorrow
If so, advantage Zac.
Anyway good night from Leaverstan to your good self in Remainia.
(Six parliaments?! If the UK had the same number of parliaments per head as Belgium, we would have about 35...)
Whilst Con and Lab LEAVE supporters will campaign for an Independent Zac.
Everything is becoming issues driven rather than party ideology driven. Makes it hard to operate political parties.
And perhaps go back to nursing being a non-graduate career choice.
'Most costs in the NHS are staff costs. Cut them too far, or too thoughtlessly, and you get Mid Staffs, everywhere, all the time'
Brown's reckless PFI's don't help.
'The PFI hospitals costing NHS £2bn every year - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › NHS
18 Jul 2015 - One hospital built under the private finance initiative PFI Photo: Alamy ... cost of PFI services and debt repayment has had a serious impact on NHS ... £143.6 million this year in repayments, runs a budget deficit of £90 million.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
I would much rather have a drink with TSE, Felix and ScottP than the likes of SandyRentool, Speedy and RochdalePioneers - who are seemingly willing to tolerate any amount of nasty anti-immigrant bigotry to wallow in their fantasies of a nativist 1960s socialist utopia.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
One quarter
The NHS is one of the worst organisations when it comes to resistance to change.
"Data revealed under the Freedom of Information Act to Nursing Standard magazine shows that at one university last year, 78% of students quit a nursing degree. At another, 54% dropped out. The names of the universities have not been disclosed.
At many universities a drop-out rate of 30% is common,"
Unless you are excluding pensioners from your lower figure (which for comparison with a prison population wouldn't be unreasonable. However by same logic children should be excluded from numerator and denominator also, which will push the adult rate back up)?
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate.
-Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not.
-The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system.
-It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple, which is a sort of Quink Royal Blue.
And maybe in a year or so we may well have a Clive Lewis leading the Labour party who is the proposals biggest advocate....
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
Can it not just be the PR Alliance? I know it is not as snappy, but it is much clearer this is just about securing one aim, a more democratic electoral system,
Do you think if Labour or LibDems had politicians of stature, charisma and appeal who articulated well thought out popular progressive policies that they would win without PR?
It is the product on offer that is at fault more than the voting system. i think you are treating secondary symptoms and having blindness as to the causes.
A litre of saline in an hour is rather a lot. It needs a big cannula and a wide open tap.
Since mortality rate varies considerably with age, to make a fair comparison you would need to take the age distribution of female prisoners and then model the expected mortality rate using the same distribution of ages and the ONS female UK mortality data.
I knew a software project manager who was an Excel High Priest. Instead of using MS Project, he would use Excel. He would manage projects brilliantly, perhaps because no-one except him could understand the plan ...
Actually, once was with a GP mate!!