As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....
Titters ....
That's a clue ....
So, we'll take that as a no: you did not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008.
Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?
Oh dear god !!
You really are being a dull fellow. You never asked me about all of 2008 until overnight. Your initial inquiry was about July 2008 - Asked and answered 4 times !!
The reason why you failed to find a UK projection for 2008 was that my ARSE was transferred to the US for the season of the presidential election.
You've also asked about the track record of my ARSE. The last two national outings for ARSE were last years US presidential election and the UK 2010 election :
2012 US election :
The final projection - "The JackW Swing State Nine", Electoral College and Vote Share :
EC - ARSE 303/235 .. Actual 332/206 .. ARSE narrowly incorrect on Florida 29 EC votes.
Vote Share - ARSE - 51/48 .. Actual 51.1/47.2
2010 UK GE
The Final Projection - Hung parliament - Conservatives largest party 305 seats. Actual Result - Hung Parliament - Conservatives largest party 306 seats.
Miss Plato, Brown used to accuse the blues of talking down the economy when they pointed out he'd given us the worst recession in history. It's the equivalent of:
"Stop talking down my operation!"
"But... you killed the patient."
"Your negative attitude is bad for morale."
When a politician resorts to using the human shield of the integrity/morale blah blah of others, I know he's on thin ice. It's a risible 'feel sorry for them' defence that has nothing to do with the actual issue he's on the spot for.
In other words, instead of just gunning for Andy Burnham, tempting though it no doubt is for the Conservatives, they should be attacking Labour directly..
Yep - Burnham will get moved, (many years service to the country and party, time for a fresh perspective) Ed will make a non apology apology a la immigration and go back on the attack on the NHS
Today's YouGov weighting shows that for the 18-24 age group, they contacted 118 which was uprated to 205. Presumably they had a problem of contacting enough 18-24s with a landline - most of that age group I know rely on a mobile only!
However, if their 118 sample was skewed, then nigh doubling it would skew the result (and its impact on the whole poll) even more.
An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention.
That's not the criticism. No one is blaming Andy Burnham for the original specific problems; the criticism is that he, or Labour in general, covered up the problems once they had been flagged, for party-political reasons.
The reason why this is causing such panic at the top of the Labour Party is of course very simple: they know they are vulnerable to the charges of spin and that they fostered a culture of bureaucratic box-ticking which ignored patients' needs.
I have to admit, that after reading all of the posts on here re the NHS I must accept the fact that the reported needless 13,000 deaths in the NHS from 2005-2010 are completely the fault of the Cons and The Lib Dems.. how could it be otherwise..Those brave Labour Ministers were fighting overwhelming shortfalls from the Thatcher era, they had no chance, poor things.A good cry often helps.
Well quite. Given that the NHS had double the funding during Labour's stint in office, they really can't say it was money that was the problem - that leaves the culture they fostered. And we all see where that lead.
Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.
There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.
As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
Fair point Richard on Indyref, but have they issued a denial ( like Faslane ) haven;t seen it if they have.
On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.
The main effect will just be to raise the salience of the NHS, which is unwise for the Government unless they really do want to replace it. An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention. Once can debate whether it should or not - the old argument about Ministers being theoretically responsible for everything bad that happens - but PB is about trends and polls and I think the Conservatives are on a loser with this one.
Spot on. Never pick a fight with the national religion unless you are aiming at reformation. The contrast of Henry II and Henry VIII is instructive.
It is interesting to note that quite a few left leaning posters slag off anyone who might make any point about a poll that isn't good for the Tories, but they do just the same thing themselves when there is a poll that is bad for Labour.
In the interests of balance I will point to the 72% share for Labour in the 18-24 age category, and laugh at the potential for the poll to have been worse for Labour than it was.
As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....
Titters ....
That's a clue ....
So, we'll take that as a no: you did not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008.
Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?
Oh dear god !!
You really are being a dull fellow. You never asked me about all of 2008 until overnight. Your initial inquiry was about July 2008 - Asked and answered 4 times !!
The reason why you failed to find a UK projection for 2008 was that my ARSE was transferred to the US for the season for the US presidential election.
You've also asked about track record of my ARSE. The last two national outings for ARSE were last years US presidential election and the UK 2010 election :
2012 US election :
The final projection - "The JackW Swing State Nine", Electoral College and Vote Share :
EC - ARSE 303/235 .. Actual 332/206 .. ARSE narrowly incorrect on Florida 29 EC votes.
Vote Share - ARSE - 51/48 .. Actual 51.1/47.2
2010 UK GE
The Final Projection - Hung parliament - Conservatives largest party 305 seats. Actual Result - Hung Parliament - Conservatives largest party 306 seats.
............................................
Make your own mind up.
At no point did I request your final projection. It is your capacity to project a result 2 years before polling day which would have been nice to assess. But as you say that you have never done it before we will take yesterday's ARSE with the immense pinch of salt we would accord to any other "projection" this far out.
Miss Plato, Brown used to accuse the blues of talking down the economy when they pointed out he'd given us the worst recession in history. It's the equivalent of:
"Stop talking down my operation!"
"But... you killed the patient."
"Your negative attitude is bad for morale."
Or tim's line - GO's handling of fiscal and monetary policy has been dreadful. If it wasn't for the fact that the economy has improved considerably then...blah..blah...
"Professor Sir Brian Jarman, a senior Government health adviser, claims more than 20,000 lives could have been saved if ministers and the NHS had paid attention to alerts about higher than average mortality rates."
Right - so far as I can work out this 'Liverpool Care Pathway' was intended as a measure to provide comfort measures at the end of a patient's life and to not drag out the inevitable further than may be.
But under Labour's 'target' driven NHS system it somehow turned into a system that gave financial incentives for denying patients something as basic as water ! Even in a Dignitas clinic in Switzerland I doubt a patient would be denied water...
Andy Burnham can not defend this. He would be a fool to do so.
Edit: Who the hell decided financial incentives were a good idea with a scheme like this, money should never be a bonus factor when it comes to terminally ill patients. Disgusting.
Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.
There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.
As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
Fair point Richard on Indyref, but have they issued a denial ( like Faslane ) haven;t seen it if they have.
On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.
Is this Osborne's "idiotic statement on Indyref" you wish that they had denied?
Politically any chat on the NHS is to Labour's advantage. Just one of those quirks that publicity always benefits the market leader (straight bananas and it's a good day for UKIP) and on the NHS that is still powerfully Labour.
Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.
Lords Amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill to be considered at circa 7.45 pm today after the European Union (Referendum) Bill Money Resolution. The Marriage Bill is therefore nearly certain to receive the Royal Assent on Thursday.
"of the 13000 complaints [those that went beyond local resolution] of 83000 that were received - the balance have been thrown into an electronic waste paper basket since 2004...before that they were properly looked at with an indy panel and a coroner... of the 13000 that formally went forward, they investigated 222 - less than 0.3%"
Politically any chat on the NHS is to Labour's advantage. Just one of those quirks that publicity always benefits the market leader (straight bananas and it's a good day for UKIP) and on the NHS that is still powerfully Labour.
Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.
Politically, then, the best thing Labour could do is dig up more of the problems that have affected the NHS over the last few years, no matter why those events occurred.
Politically any chat on the NHS is to Labour's advantage. Just one of those quirks that publicity always benefits the market leader (straight bananas and it's a good day for UKIP) and on the NHS that is still powerfully Labour.
Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.
Any chat?
Fortunately for Patients the Tories are not going to follow the advice Andy Burnham did and try to "keep the NHS out of the press"!
At no point did I request your final projection. It is your capacity to project a result 2 years before polling day which would have been nice to assess. But as you say that you have never done it before we will take yesterday's ARSE with the immense pinch of salt we would accord to any other "projection" this far out.
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging - quite a feat on one foot !!
You might have acted with a little grace. You might have said the ARSE has provided excellent results in the recent past and is worthy of more than a second glance now. A bigger man would have, but there lies your problem.
Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.
There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.
As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
Fair point Richard on Indyref, but have they issued a denial ( like Faslane ) haven;t seen it if they have.
On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.
Is this Osborne's "idiotic statement on Indyref" you wish that they had denied?
Yeah that's it, I believe it's customary to fight the battle before declaring victory but the Indyref has redefined dire on so many levels.
However as Richard N has pointed out it's "sources" being quoted much like the Faslane nonsense last weekend. It would have been more helpful if it had received the same robust denial.
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
Looking back at 2010 we can see just how bad Labour's predicament is. The leadership candidates Ed M, Ed B, David M, Andy B, Diane are looking less attractive as time goes on.
David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?
The recent warm weather has warmed up the seas around the UK. It looks like the warmest waters are on the coast at Blackpool, where they are four degrees warmer than normal.
I think its a bit poor of Mr Kellner to comment on ICM - its a poll. I'm sure ICM could have great fun unpicking YouGov but haven't stooped to that level of infighting in their own marketplace.
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
The main effect will just be to raise the salience of the NHS, which is unwise for the Government unless they really do want to replace it. An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention. Once can debate whether it should or not - the old argument about Ministers being theoretically responsible for everything bad that happens - but PB is about trends and polls and I think the Conservatives are on a loser with this one.
Spot on. Never pick a fight with the national religion unless you are aiming at reformation. The contrast of Henry II and Henry VIII is instructive.
I don't see anyone picking a fight with the NHS. We should be picking a fight with Labour who never insisted that the NHS treated patients with care.
If you use HSMR data you'll get a figure of hundreds of thousands going back to 1948, you realise why don't you?
I'm unsure why people aren't talking about the excess number of lives prolonged at trusts etc. with below average HSMR figures.
I know why. Because the people on here quoting the HSMR figures don't understand what they are doing.
Of course if they understood, as you say their will inevitably be 13,000 lives "saved" on the other side of the equation due to the very nature of the statistics.
I suggest you start trying to understand benchmarking and how stats are used.
Looking back at 2010 we can see just how bad Labour's predicament is. The leadership candidates Ed M, Ed B, David M, Andy B, Diane are looking less attractive as time goes on.
David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?
Wow Alanbrooke. Choosing between the two Ed's .... a bit like asking if you'd prefer to be knocked down and killed by a lorry or bus !!
I suggest you start trying to understand benchmarking and how stats are used.
Given that Prof Jarmann is the leading authority on mortality stats - we can confidently assume that he knows better than anyone on PB what the actual figures are and that they're reliable.
I think its a bit poor of Mr Kellner to comment on ICM - its a poll. I'm sure ICM could have great fun unpicking YouGov but haven't stooped to that level of infighting in their own marketplace.
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging
Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.
@tim It seems the debate about this is ill informed. If individuals were negligent in providing care, they expose themselves to civil liability. If they were grossly negligent while owing a duty of care and their actions resulted in the death of a patient, they are criminally liable for manslaughter. There may also be other regulatory and professional sanctions available. The quality of care owed to patients, and failures to provide adequate care are legitimate and important areas of debate. Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness.
"Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness."
You wouldn't be saying that to someone's family who's loved one died unnecessarily which is the definition of an *excess death*.
@tim - Rather more pleased than you will be in 2015, old son. Still 10% off if you concede our little wagers, but the offer is likely to be withdrawn soon.
Looking back at 2010 we can see just how bad Labour's predicament is. The leadership candidates Ed M, Ed B, David M, Andy B, Diane are looking less attractive as time goes on.
David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?
Wow Alanbrooke. Choosing between the two Ed's .... a bit like asking if you'd prefer to be knocked down and killed by a lorry or bus !!
Or as Dr Johnson put it:
"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
He also says:
If its ‘don’t knows’, ‘won’t votes’ and those thought unlikely to vote, add up to more than half its sample, and thereby leave it so vulnerable to improbable fluctuations, is ICM really wise to poll only 1,000 people each time?
To be fair to ICM, the Guardian is not really in a position to pay for a larger sample size, and the Telegraph recently stopped paying for an ICM phone poll.
I disagree with Kellner about filtering for turnout, as I think not doing so introduces a systematic bias into the poll. Having more consistent poll scores is useless if they are consistently wrong. They may have a better reason not to filter by turnout - perhaps believing that people are not an accurate judge of whether they will vote or not - but its effect on the sample size is not a good reason to correct for a source of systematic bias.
If @FoxInSoxUK is about - interesting intv with Med Dir of Salford Royal saying that they paid particular attention to the trends amongst cardiac arrest patients [I'm assuming here he isn't talking about patients admitted with them], changed how they dealt with it and are now experiencing a 60% reduction in deaths across the whole hospital.
"Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness."
You wouldn't be saying that to someone's family who's loved one died unnecessarily which is the definition of an *excess death*.
The definition of an "excess death" is not someone who has died unnecessarily, and that is precisely the reason why it is impossible to identify individual "excess deaths" from general figures for say an NHS trust. So you are once again clouding a serious debate with emotional rhetoric, but doing so badly.
Lol - and so the demonisationn of ICM continues - whatever happened to the gold standard? I always thought the rogue poll was the one where you don't like what it says. Anyway let's hope Tim et al have a good breakfast - another busy day looms.
Mr Scampi, I'm, rather enjoying the symmetry in this
ICM produces results the Guardian would rather not report and Yougov produces results The Sun doesn't like to report.
"Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness."
You wouldn't be saying that to someone's family who's loved one died unnecessarily which is the definition of an *excess death*.
The definition of an "excess death" is not someone who has died unnecessarily, and that is precisely the reason why it is impossible to identify individual "excess deaths" from general figures for say an NHS trust. So you are once again clouding a serious debate with emotional rhetoric, but doing so badly.
Take it up with Prof Jarmann - he is a leading expert in this field.
@tim - Rather more pleased than you will be in 2015, old son. Still 10% off if you concede our little wagers, but the offer is likely to be withdrawn soon.
Even yesterdays ICM showed Labour 5% ahead among women. I'll not be offering you a discount for early settlement though.
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. But keep thrashing on....it adds a little cheer to the day.
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
To be fair to ICM, the Guardian is not really in a position to pay for a larger sample size.
Which will tend to give them more "rogue" polls and front page "scoops":
James Vincent @BBCJamesVincent Michael Gove quotes report into #Doncaster Children's Services "Culture of failure and disillusion that pervades the service..."
What has EdM done as the local MP? The media appears to have forgotten what seat he represents in Doncaster North - he's been their MP since 2005.
Well that CPI release could have been worse. Unfortunately it probably means Carney will have more ammo to push for more easing. When bad, but relatively good news, becomes very bad news.
I see that the ICM poll has the public's detailed views on MPs' pay:
"The poll also shows all three party leaders have judged the public mood correctly by rejecting the 10% increase in MPs' pay from 2015 proposed by the parliamentary watchdog. The proposed rise would take MPs' pay to £74,000 in 2015.
The public believe MPs should be paid a shade over £50,000 (£51,620 on average). Men are happier to pay more – at £54,000 – while women think MPs should be paid £49,000. A clear correlation between social grade and pay was revealed: those in the most affluent group, AB, suggest MPs should get £58,000, C1s suggest £55,000, C2s £46,000 and DEs £45,000. Lib Dem voters are the most generous (£61,000), as are people living in the south (£54,000)."
Vox populi, vox dei? I expect the MPs will be marching around with fingers in their ears.
@tim Fortunately, I have to go out. I also watched with resignation Seth's magnificent and determined efforts to explain Lansley I, II, and (falteringly) III. I don't have the perseverance.
..another incomplete quote from the Cheshire Farmer..The original was "reported 13000 needless deaths" tim forgot to add the word ."reported"..how remiss of him . The same words were used by Sky news, BBC news, Channel Four news, ITV news and most of the MSM...but what do they know
@Plato Do I detect a hint of the argumentum ad auctores fallacy?
No = I think you are indulging in thinking you're an expert when you clearly aren't and trying to have an argument with me about it. I defer to someone who clearly knows in this very specialised field. That seems perfectly logical to me.
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging
Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.
Indeed Neil.
What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.
I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??
James Vincent @BBCJamesVincent Michael Gove quotes report into #Doncaster Children's Services "Culture of failure and disillusion that pervades the service..."
What has EdM done as the local MP? The media appears to have forgotten what seat he represents in Doncaster North - he's been their MP since 2005.
Ed will make a big speech and that will make it all better.
Generally, any talk about the NHS is usually beneficial to Labour unless we see that magic word ... "cover-up".
If there is a smoking gun that suggests AB ignored or censored data because it was politically inconvenient, the story moves on to politicians. Although Labour will lose more, there will be collateral damage to all parties except for NOTA.
Not really old chap - being a selfish rightie I want a strong pound to coincide with my holiday to Euroland - dam that Carney..
Seen todays energy price rise forecasts?
Crossing my fingers for a nice Eurozone crisis in the next month - that could help the pound
The only energy costs on my mind will be charcoal prices in Leclercs...
What, you aren't on holiday yet? And it seems like only yesterday Charles was telling us all polling should be ignored because Eton had shut for the summer. Or was that Sunday when the tories had four bad polls in the papers?
The only Eton I know about is 3 times a day with a knife and fork.
Bog standard comp of St Hard Knocks in the provinces of Jockland for me.
Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon Tomorrow's labour market stats look set to be the 41st consecutive month of falling real wages. Longest real wage squeeze since the 1870s.
So Disraelis' Tory mob get kicked-out; Germany expands it's collectivism in Europe; and a bunch of proto-Lib-Dhimmies screw-up the economy. When will we learn the lessons of history....
Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
To be fair to ICM, the Guardian is not really in a position to pay for a larger sample size.
Which will tend to give them more "rogue" polls and front page "scoops":
They have probably written the August headline already "Tory lead collapses as [fill in scandal du jour]"
I idly wonder whether there is enough information in the ICM data tables to aggregate the sample from more than one poll and apply their weightings to the larger sample.
I think that because you don't know how many of the C1s in their sample were young, female, Labour voters in the Midlands, etc, that it isn't possible to weight the data.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick After weekend round of Labour candidate selections, the tally for Unite's target list is now 26 out of 41 attempted; 15 failed; 11 succeeded
@foxinsoxuk I agree politics is a dirty business, but these scandals do show how poor parts of the NHS have become under both govts.
More importantly while currently most people's experience of the NHS is ok the system is held together with sticking plaster.
There needs to be a radical rethink of healthcare provision - life expectancy increases, while procedures that were unthinkable 10yrs ago are very doable. This is great, but costs - in a world of limited resources we need to secure the best health outcomes for the available resources.
The problem is culturally the mindset is that "free" is what matters. Politics aside (excuse for doing nothing) we need a radical rethink.
A few thoughts:
1. Introduction of charges for GPs with generous rebates for those who need it. Why shouldn't a working adult with a decent income make a contribution to the cost?
2. Co-pays on medication again with rebates
3. A clear view on what the NHS does/doesn't do. Chronic treatment of medical diseases and acute treatment is what it should so. Hospitals aren't right for pallative care - the hospice movement is fantastic. Optional treatments (eg. cosmetic work, obesity treatments unless metabolic syndrome, IVF, tattoo removal, etc) - issue is not so much the direct cost (not huge) but capacity utilisation and the mindset it encourages
4. Focus: specialty care by specialists in a purpose-built unit. Take cardio - there is some great but expensive kit. Buy them in a few centres and use them 24-7 not everywhere and let them sit idle. And don't over spec - the Mx companies laugh at the NHS.
5. Move to a 7 day a week rota system. Lots of people have to work weekends. Operating theatres are hugely expensive in capital terms: uses them all day/all night, 7 days a week. Also look at procedure paks and other ways to reduce set up/break down time.
6. Build a proper social care system - a lot of occupants don't need to be in an expensive DGH. Local cottage hospitals are good for patients and families.
That's enough for now. The point is that we face a real challenge in healthcare and we need to get away from the old political bullshit. Privatisation bad! The NHS good! Labour bad! Tories evil! I must have my local A&E! Perhaps a cross-party Royal Commision? Too important to be left to politicans
Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.
There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.
As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
Fair point Richard on Indyref, but have they issued a denial ( like Faslane ) haven;t seen it if they have.
On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.
Is this Osborne's "idiotic statement on Indyref" you wish that they had denied?
Yeah that's it, I believe it's customary to fight the battle before declaring victory but the Indyref has redefined dire on so many levels.
However as Richard N has pointed out it's "sources" being quoted much like the Faslane nonsense last weekend. It would have been more helpful if it had received the same robust denial.
Thank you for your straightforwardness and frankness. Most unusual and refreshing for PB.
"More importantly while currently most people's experience of the NHS is ok the system is held together with sticking plaster."
Sorry but I disagree. The NHS has had largess thrown at it - my local DGH is swimming with plasma TVs and other ephemera and nursing assistants from the Philippines and doctors from Estonia.
That it has an appalling reputation is nothing to do with money but competence. The excuse that the NHS exists on some shoestring of goodwill that exists nowhere else, and all their staff are selfless saints is nonsense.
It employs over 1m people - they are no different to any large organisation.
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging
Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.
Indeed Neil.
What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.
I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??
Titters ....
Job done Jack. You've been taught your lesson. We won't be seeing any more daft SNP or UKIP projections from your ARSE this side of the next UK GE.
Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon Tomorrow's labour market stats look set to be the 41st consecutive month of falling real wages. Longest real wage squeeze since the 1870s.
So Disraelis' Tory mob get kicked-out; Germany expands it's collectivism in Europe; and a bunch of proto-Lib-Dhimmies screw-up the economy. When will we learn the lessons of history....
Fluffy, this time it's different as Tony would say. Can I interest you in some real estate investments in Detroit, AAA rated you know.
Charles, the problem with your list is that it fits into the mentality that the NHS can be made well through some list of top down public sector civil service implemented mandates.
That is the underlying cause of the problems within the NHS. Just as socialist states failed in Europe so why do we expect that a socialist state entity can provide good care at a reasonable cost?
We need to move to a system of co-operatives/charities running individual hospitals funded by a centrally funded tariff for 95% of their work and 5% from the patients that choose to use them. The idea of a National Health Service needs to be killed off. Alas it will not and so we continue with the Dept of illHealth and 4 National Death Services in England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Welcome to the land of the politbureau, 5 year tractor plans and dead peasants.
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging
Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.
Indeed Neil.
What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.
I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??
Titters ....
Job done Jack. You've been taught your lesson. We won't be seeing any more daft SNP or UKIP projections from your ARSE this side of the next UK GE.
Just shows: you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Au contraire ....
I should block book some doctors appointments every month until May 2015. You'll need them !!
An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention.
That's not the criticism. No one is blaming Andy Burnham for the original specific problems; the criticism is that he, or Labour in general, covered up the problems once they had been flagged, for party-political reasons.
The reason why this is causing such panic at the top of the Labour Party is of course very simple: they know they are vulnerable to the charges of spin and that they fostered a culture of bureaucratic box-ticking which ignored patients' needs.
WE HAVEN"T SEEN THE REPORT YET JUST HUNT'S SELECTIVE LEAKING.
I suggest you wait and see, because if this is the central finding
norman smith @BBCNormanS Sir Bruce Keogh report will point to high correlation between hospital staff ratio and high HSMR (morality rates.)
@Charles That it has an appalling reputation is nothing to do with money but competence. The excuse that the NHS exists on some shoestring of goodwill that exists nowhere else, and all their staff are selfless saints is nonsense. It employs over 1m people - they are no different to any large organisation.
The idea that one entity employs one million people is something more akin to an East European socialist state. Anyone remember what happened when the soviets nationalised their farms? Millions starved to death.
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
He is in trouble then.
Did Ben Bradshaw tweet anything or is he in hiding hoping Burnham will get the blame and the storm will blow over ?
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
On that evidence Burnham should be a very worried man .... like being handed the black spot by your "friends".
A special for our folk who would like to see a X-teenth Chinese Imperial rising:
...1. A large Chinese workforce, with relatively few local personnel mostly not employed in key positions…as I understand it in Africa the locals mostly provide unskilled labour and “domestic” services – cleaning, tending the grounds, running the canteen…not anything that either transfers skills or builds local expertise.
2. Many successful Chinese Enterprises are owned directly or at one remove by the PLA…the most notorious being the “regeneration” Company “developing” Tsinkiang Province in North West China which is directly descended from the Army Corps that “liberated” that area after 1949…is organised as Divisions, Regiments and Companies…and looks more like a Han Chinese take-over of a Turkic and Muslim Province than anything we would recognise as a Regional Development Policy.
3 Chinese Workplaces do routinely have an underlying Militia structure – armed and trained – and in some places those operations are pretty serious military units…it is my guess that will clearly be the case where things might turn nasty…look for a shooting war between a Chinese Building Site and local forces somewhere in Africa sometime this decade…
4. Thus, if China decides to give the Argentine these jets, they will be paid…much as the East India Company ensured they were paid once they got drawn in to local politics on the Sub Continent.
5. China is an Empire that turned from the Sea about five hundred years ago, but continued to expand on land for three hundred more, before it crossed swords with us and others nineteenth century…however in the post 1949 period it has made good practically all those losses, expanded further in Tibet, started settling diligent and loyal Han workers in areas never previously occupied by them…
6…and – finally – started building a serious Navy to back their merchant marine and exporting those same diligent and loyal workers overseas to exploit other people’s resources…the advantage to Kleptocratic Regimes in the “developing” world being that they cheerfully pay bribes and don’t care if you keep your enemy’s heads in the fridge provided you keep your side of whatever bargain you have struck.
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
All he needs now is for Ed to express "complete confidence"......
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
He is in trouble then.
Did Ben Bradshaw tweet anything or is he in hiding hoping Burnham will get the blame and the storm will blow over ?
Ben Bradshaw is doing an Ed Balls - his last tweet was
The Tories appear to have really upped their game in terms of attacking Labour, on all fronts.
Crosby looks as though he has galvanised and professionalised the media office the way Campbell did for Labour.
As for the NHS, geez, I'm fully private. I don't think the NHS is that bad but during my rugby career the brilliance of the BUPA sports injury clinics and the speed of the knee operations was the only thing that kept me on the field. Having expereinced the quality of that service is hard to go back to join the queues of the NHS. Call me a snob and all that.........
LABOUR ministers were warned 1,547 times about conditions at the 14 deathtrap hospital trusts, shock figures reveal.
The last government was accused yesterday of an “appalling cover-up”.
A report today by Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, will expose how up to 13,000 patients died needlessly at 14 trusts across England since 2005.
The number of warnings were revealed in a Parliamentary answer to Tory MP Priti Patel.
The findings pile pressure on shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, who was in charge of the NHS from June 2009 to May 2010.
1. Introduction of charges for GPs with generous rebates for those who need it. Why shouldn't a working adult with a decent income make a contribution to the cost?
The working adult pays for the NHS through their taxes. There are two reasons I can think of to introduce a charge.
Firstly, one discourages demand. This might be a good thing, if it reduces the number of "worried well" seeing GPs, but might be a bad thing if it discourages people from seeing their GP until their cancer has advanced to a terminal stage.
Secondly, if one pays through a charge then it will be those on middling incomes that will be hit, as the better-off are already paying to go private, but can see their taxes reduced when those on middling incomes have to pay to see the GP.
Comments
Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?
Oh dear god !!
You really are being a dull fellow. You never asked me about all of 2008 until overnight. Your initial inquiry was about July 2008 - Asked and answered 4 times !!
The reason why you failed to find a UK projection for 2008 was that my ARSE was transferred to the US for the season of the presidential election.
You've also asked about the track record of my ARSE. The last two national outings for ARSE were last years US presidential election and the UK 2010 election :
2012 US election :
The final projection - "The JackW Swing State Nine", Electoral College and Vote Share :
State .. ARSE .. Actual ..
New Hampshire - O+4 .. O+5.5
Virginia - O+3 .. O+3.9
North Carolina - R+2 .. R+2
Florida - R+1 .. O+0.8
Iowa - O+4 .. O+5.4
Ohio - O+4 .. O+3
Wisconsin - O+6 .. O+7
Colorado - O+2 .. O+5.4
Nevada - O+6 .. O+7
EC - ARSE 303/235 .. Actual 332/206 .. ARSE narrowly incorrect on Florida 29 EC votes.
Vote Share - ARSE - 51/48 .. Actual 51.1/47.2
2010 UK GE
The Final Projection - Hung parliament - Conservatives largest party 305 seats.
Actual Result - Hung Parliament - Conservatives largest party 306 seats.
............................................
Make your own mind up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6c7PJjrEEPM
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/07/thats-enough-fantasy-politics-margaret-thatcher-day-is-not-a-vote-winner/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thats-enough-fantasy-politics-margaret-thatcher-day-is-not-a-vote-winner&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=de3423b322-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-de3423b322-47987957
Today's YouGov weighting shows that for the 18-24 age group, they contacted 118 which was uprated to 205. Presumably they had a problem of contacting enough 18-24s with a landline - most of that age group I know rely on a mobile only!
However, if their 118 sample was skewed, then nigh doubling it would skew the result (and its impact on the whole poll) even more.
The reason why this is causing such panic at the top of the Labour Party is of course very simple: they know they are vulnerable to the charges of spin and that they fostered a culture of bureaucratic box-ticking which ignored patients' needs.
On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.
You really are being a dull fellow. You never asked me about all of 2008 until overnight. Your initial inquiry was about July 2008 - Asked and answered 4 times !!
The reason why you failed to find a UK projection for 2008 was that my ARSE was transferred to the US for the season for the US presidential election.
You've also asked about track record of my ARSE. The last two national outings for ARSE were last years US presidential election and the UK 2010 election :
2012 US election :
The final projection - "The JackW Swing State Nine", Electoral College and Vote Share :
State .. ARSE .. Actual ..
New Hampshire - O+4 .. O+5.5
Virginia - O+3 .. O+3.9
North Carolina - R+2 .. R+2
Florida - R+1 .. O+0.8
Iowa - O+4 .. O+5.4
Ohio - O+4 .. O+3
Wisconsin - O+6 .. O+7
Colorado - O+2 .. O+5.4
Nevada - O+6 .. O+7
EC - ARSE 303/235 .. Actual 332/206 .. ARSE narrowly incorrect on Florida 29 EC votes.
Vote Share - ARSE - 51/48 .. Actual 51.1/47.2
2010 UK GE
The Final Projection - Hung parliament - Conservatives largest party 305 seats.
Actual Result - Hung Parliament - Conservatives largest party 306 seats.
............................................
Make your own mind up.
At no point did I request your final projection. It is your capacity to project a result 2 years before polling day which would have been nice to assess. But as you say that you have never done it before we will take yesterday's ARSE with the immense pinch of salt we would accord to any other "projection" this far out.
"7 of the 14 hospitals had serious problems for many years, in some cases a decade"
Did you tell Andy Burnham?
"Yes, I have the email here...he replied and said the CQC said there were no concerns...didn't require intervention"
"But the CQC's job wasn't to investigate *the quality of care* so he asked a body that didn't measure it"
"Professor Sir Brian Jarman, a senior Government health adviser, claims more than 20,000 lives could have been saved if ministers and the NHS had paid attention to alerts about higher than average mortality rates."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364765/20-000-extra-NHS-deaths-Labours-watch-amid-calls-site-inspectors-struggling-hospital.html#ixzz2ZC7eAlFX
Right - so far as I can work out this 'Liverpool Care Pathway' was intended as a measure to provide comfort measures at the end of a patient's life and to not drag out the inevitable further than may be.
But under Labour's 'target' driven NHS system it somehow turned into a system that gave financial incentives for denying patients something as basic as water ! Even in a Dignitas clinic in Switzerland I doubt a patient would be denied water...
Andy Burnham can not defend this. He would be a fool to do so.
Edit: Who the hell decided financial incentives were a good idea with a scheme like this, money should never be a bonus factor when it comes to terminally ill patients. Disgusting.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/coalition-claims-it-has-won-battle-for-no-vote-in-referendum.21607716
Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/are-labour-and-tories-really-level-pegging/
"of the 13000 complaints [those that went beyond local resolution] of 83000 that were received - the balance have been thrown into an electronic waste paper basket since 2004...before that they were properly looked at with an indy panel and a coroner... of the 13000 that formally went forward, they investigated 222 - less than 0.3%"
Fortunately for Patients the Tories are not going to follow the advice Andy Burnham did and try to "keep the NHS out of the press"!
BTW - what did you think of "The Art of Killing"?
"Peter Kellner on the ICM poll:"
Very interesting article.
At no point did I request your final projection. It is your capacity to project a result 2 years before polling day which would have been nice to assess. But as you say that you have never done it before we will take yesterday's ARSE with the immense pinch of salt we would accord to any other "projection" this far out.
.........................................................
You simply can't stand the evidence.
You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging - quite a feat on one foot !!
You might have acted with a little grace. You might have said the ARSE has provided excellent results in the recent past and is worthy of more than a second glance now. A bigger man would have, but there lies your problem.
However as Richard N has pointed out it's "sources" being quoted much like the Faslane nonsense last weekend. It would have been more helpful if it had received the same robust denial.
"BTW - what did you think of "The Art of Killing"? "
Liked it very much. Too much to say about it on here but very interesting
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPPVa-ACIAARGFO.jpg:large
"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."
David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/are-labour-and-tories-really-level-pegging/
It seems the debate about this is ill informed. If individuals were negligent in providing care, they expose themselves to civil liability. If they were grossly negligent while owing a duty of care and their actions resulted in the death of a patient, they are criminally liable for manslaughter. There may also be other regulatory and professional sanctions available. The quality of care owed to patients, and failures to provide adequate care are legitimate and important areas of debate. Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness.
"Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness."
You wouldn't be saying that to someone's family who's loved one died unnecessarily which is the definition of an *excess death*.
Under disqUS you gave a 'like' for a post containing the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RX1yi2V9c
And you have also 'liked' a few more. Have you ever thought about growing-up...?
"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."
I disagree with Kellner about filtering for turnout, as I think not doing so introduces a systematic bias into the poll. Having more consistent poll scores is useless if they are consistently wrong. They may have a better reason not to filter by turnout - perhaps believing that people are not an accurate judge of whether they will vote or not - but its effect on the sample size is not a good reason to correct for a source of systematic bias.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/tories-labour-ukip-guardian-icm-poll
They have probably written the August headline already "Tory lead collapses as [fill in scandal du jour]"
Do I detect a hint of the argumentum ad auctores fallacy?
Michael Gove quotes report into #Doncaster Children's Services "Culture of failure and disillusion that pervades the service..."
What has EdM done as the local MP? The media appears to have forgotten what seat he represents in Doncaster North - he's been their MP since 2005.
The only energy costs on my mind will be charcoal prices in Leclercs...
"The poll also shows all three party leaders have judged the public mood correctly by rejecting the 10% increase in MPs' pay from 2015 proposed by the parliamentary watchdog. The proposed rise would take MPs' pay to £74,000 in 2015.
The public believe MPs should be paid a shade over £50,000 (£51,620 on average). Men are happier to pay more – at £54,000 – while women think MPs should be paid £49,000. A clear correlation between social grade and pay was revealed: those in the most affluent group, AB, suggest MPs should get £58,000, C1s suggest £55,000, C2s £46,000 and DEs £45,000. Lib Dem voters are the most generous (£61,000), as are people living in the south (£54,000)."
Vox populi, vox dei? I expect the MPs will be marching around with fingers in their ears.
Fortunately, I have to go out. I also watched with resignation Seth's magnificent and determined efforts to explain Lansley I, II, and (falteringly) III. I don't have the perseverance.
The same words were used by Sky news, BBC news, Channel Four news, ITV news and most of the MSM...but what do they know
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPSH6KcCYAAH_aZ.jpg:large
What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.
I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??
Titters ....
If there is a smoking gun that suggests AB ignored or censored data because it was politically inconvenient, the story moves on to politicians. Although Labour will lose more, there will be collateral damage to all parties except for NOTA.
Bog standard comp of St Hard Knocks in the provinces of Jockland for me.
I think that because you don't know how many of the C1s in their sample were young, female, Labour voters in the Midlands, etc, that it isn't possible to weight the data.
After weekend round of Labour candidate selections, the tally for Unite's target list is now 26 out of 41 attempted; 15 failed; 11 succeeded
There needs to be a radical rethink of healthcare provision - life expectancy increases, while procedures that were unthinkable 10yrs ago are very doable. This is great, but costs - in a world of limited resources we need to secure the best health outcomes for the available resources.
The problem is culturally the mindset is that "free" is what matters. Politics aside (excuse for doing nothing) we need a radical rethink.
A few thoughts:
1. Introduction of charges for GPs with generous rebates for those who need it. Why shouldn't a working adult with a decent income make a contribution to the cost?
2. Co-pays on medication again with rebates
3. A clear view on what the NHS does/doesn't do. Chronic treatment of medical diseases and acute treatment is what it should so. Hospitals aren't right for pallative care - the hospice movement is fantastic. Optional treatments (eg. cosmetic work, obesity treatments unless metabolic syndrome, IVF, tattoo removal, etc) - issue is not so much the direct cost (not huge) but capacity utilisation and the mindset it encourages
4. Focus: specialty care by specialists in a purpose-built unit. Take cardio - there is some great but expensive kit. Buy them in a few centres and use them 24-7 not everywhere and let them sit idle. And don't over spec - the Mx companies laugh at the NHS.
5. Move to a 7 day a week rota system. Lots of people have to work weekends. Operating theatres are hugely expensive in capital terms: uses them all day/all night, 7 days a week. Also look at procedure paks and other ways to reduce set up/break down time.
6. Build a proper social care system - a lot of occupants don't need to be in an expensive DGH. Local cottage hospitals are good for patients and families.
That's enough for now. The point is that we face a real challenge in healthcare and we need to get away from the old political bullshit. Privatisation bad! The NHS good! Labour bad! Tories evil! I must have my local A&E! Perhaps a cross-party Royal Commision? Too important to be left to politicans
"A reshuffle in the ministerial ranks outside cabinet, which had been pencilled in for this week, now looks likely to take place in the autumn."
Now my fine fellow, 13 SNP seats in 2015. Too much, too little or about right ?? .... don't be shy !!
"More importantly while currently most people's experience of the NHS is ok the system is held together with sticking plaster."
Sorry but I disagree. The NHS has had largess thrown at it - my local DGH is swimming with plasma TVs and other ephemera and nursing assistants from the Philippines and doctors from Estonia.
That it has an appalling reputation is nothing to do with money but competence. The excuse that the NHS exists on some shoestring of goodwill that exists nowhere else, and all their staff are selfless saints is nonsense.
It employs over 1m people - they are no different to any large organisation.
Just shows: you can teach an old dog new tricks.
That is the underlying cause of the problems within the NHS. Just as socialist states failed in Europe so why do we expect that a socialist state entity can provide good care at a reasonable cost?
We need to move to a system of co-operatives/charities running individual hospitals funded by a centrally funded tariff for 95% of their work and 5% from the patients that choose to use them. The idea of a National Health Service needs to be killed off. Alas it will not and so we continue with the Dept of illHealth and 4 National Death Services in England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Welcome to the land of the politbureau, 5 year tractor plans and dead peasants.
I should block book some doctors appointments every month until May 2015. You'll need them !!
(my bolding)
Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna
Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS
Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP
Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.
Did Ben Bradshaw tweet anything or is he in hiding hoping Burnham will get the blame and the storm will blow over ?
Any odds on "next out of the Shadow Cabinet"?
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw 17h
Touched my cycling shorts continue to amuse but for record it was a private party not work & 21.30 en route home by bike. Leg envy?
Crosby looks as though he has galvanised and professionalised the media office the way Campbell did for Labour.
As for the NHS, geez, I'm fully private. I don't think the NHS is that bad but during my rugby career the brilliance of the BUPA sports injury clinics and the speed of the knee operations was the only thing that kept me on the field. Having expereinced the quality of that service is hard to go back to join the queues of the NHS. Call me a snob and all that.........
LABOUR ministers were warned 1,547 times about conditions at the 14 deathtrap hospital trusts, shock figures reveal.
The last government was accused yesterday of an “appalling cover-up”.
A report today by Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, will expose how up to 13,000 patients died needlessly at 14 trusts across England since 2005.
The number of warnings were revealed in a Parliamentary answer to Tory MP Priti Patel.
The findings pile pressure on shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, who was in charge of the NHS from June 2009 to May 2010.
Firstly, one discourages demand. This might be a good thing, if it reduces the number of "worried well" seeing GPs, but might be a bad thing if it discourages people from seeing their GP until their cancer has advanced to a terminal stage.
Secondly, if one pays through a charge then it will be those on middling incomes that will be hit, as the better-off are already paying to go private, but can see their taxes reduced when those on middling incomes have to pay to see the GP.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole
13,000 dead and somehow Burnham is portrayed as the victim. Pull the other one... bit.ly/18it0Xi #J4T13k