Waving away the deaths of 13300 people who didn't need to die cuts no ice with me or the vast majority of the population.
With respect Plato,
13300 people who didn't need to die, didn't die.
So why is this being said by Prof Jarmann - who are these non-patients who were admitted, given a death X in the box by their Trust? Are they imaginary patients?
Go on - explain this? I'm all ears. I've seen several posts rubbishing what the leading expert on mortality deaths says - but nothing to refute it.
Plato, all the statistics tell us is that death rates, were higher on these hospitals than average.
They don't tell us why they were higher.
It may be that some of the deaths were avoidable. But it may also be that the deaths were not avoidable. (For instance, certain specialist units have higher death rates because they take on the worst cases - but it doesn't mean we should abolish them).
We *simply do not know* from these statistics whether there is a systemic problem or not.
All we can tell is that we need to look a heck of a lot closer.
Which is another way of saying for a decade or so nobody asked the questions.
The issue isn't whether Blogshire DH had excess mortality (defined statistically) in one particular year. It's whether this was a consistent finding year on year and whether it was due to preventable problems regarding care.
Politically, if the answer to all these questions was yes, then were these figures ignored or suppressed because of political convenience? I'd sort of assumed this was the case but then I'm very cynical about politicians.
Exactly. The Francis Report shows clearly that the clinical staff failed very badly over a long period. I have no idea why anyone is pretending otherwise or arguing about stats - there are legions of appalling anecdotes to show it happened.
Waving away the deaths of 13300 people who didn't need to die cuts no ice with me or the vast majority of the population.
With respect Plato,
13300 people who didn't need to die, didn't die.
So why is this being said by Prof Jarmann - who are these non-patients who were admitted, given a death X in the box by their Trust? Are they imaginary patients?
Go on - explain this? I'm all ears. I've seen several posts rubbishing what the leading expert on mortality deaths says - but nothing to refute it.
Plato, all the statistics tell us is that death rates, were higher on these hospitals than average.
They don't tell us why they were higher.
It may be that some of the deaths were avoidable. But it may also be that the deaths were not avoidable. (For instance, certain specialist units have higher death rates because they take on the worst cases - but it doesn't mean we should abolish them).
We *simply do not know* from these statistics whether there is a systemic problem or not.
All we can tell is that we need to look a heck of a lot closer.
No - you're assuming that Prof Jarmann who is the expert doesn't take such thing into account. Clearly he does as he's the leading expert in mortality rates.
This is so blindingly obvious that I wonder why this debate is still going on.
Can you link to Jarman's original comments? About to head off to lunch but will look when I come back.
(FWIW - I've 15+ years in the medical sector, although not specifically in health informatics or statistics. I do have to read statistics though and understand them)
Waving away the deaths of 13300 people who didn't need to die cuts no ice with me or the vast majority of the population.
With respect Plato,
13300 people who didn't need to die, didn't die.
So why is this being said by Prof Jarmann - who are these non-patients who were admitted, given a death X in the box by their Trust? Are they imaginary patients?
Go on - explain this? I'm all ears. I've seen several posts rubbishing what the leading expert on mortality deaths says - but nothing to refute it.
Plato, all the statistics tell us is that death rates, were higher on these hospitals than average.
They don't tell us why they were higher.
It may be that some of the deaths were avoidable. But it may also be that the deaths were not avoidable. (For instance, certain specialist units have higher death rates because they take on the worst cases - but it doesn't mean we should abolish them).
We *simply do not know* from these statistics whether there is a systemic problem or not.
All we can tell is that we need to look a heck of a lot closer.
Which is another way of saying for a decade or so nobody asked the questions.
So certainly some avoidable deaths imo.
The case for the prosecution is much stronger on why the heck no one examined this issue more closely, much earlier.
Waving away the deaths of 13300 people who didn't need to die cuts no ice with me or the vast majority of the population.
With respect Plato,
13300 people who didn't need to die, didn't die.
So why is this being said by Prof Jarmann - who are these non-patients who were admitted, given a death X in the box by their Trust? Are they imaginary patients?
Go on - explain this? I'm all ears. I've seen several posts rubbishing what the leading expert on mortality deaths says - but nothing to refute it.
Plato, all the statistics tell us is that death rates, were higher on these hospitals than average.
They don't tell us why they were higher.
It may be that some of the deaths were avoidable. But it may also be that the deaths were not avoidable. (For instance, certain specialist units have higher death rates because they take on the worst cases - but it doesn't mean we should abolish them).
We *simply do not know* from these statistics whether there is a systemic problem or not.
All we can tell is that we need to look a heck of a lot closer.
Which is another way of saying for a decade or so nobody asked the questions.
So certainly some avoidable deaths imo.
The case for the prosecution is much stronger on why the heck no one examined this issue more closely, much earlier.
@Plato citing Professor Jarman in this debate is like @RodCrosby citing Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark to prove that Obama is not President by law. Only Rod make his case eruditely.
Real people with loved ones never existed. They are *statistics* and therefore didn't die and everything is fine.
If this is the case - why is there an enormous scandal about it? All these relatives are clearly imaging things.
You will not find a single person arguing that strawman. On the other hand, your misuse of statistics has been explained to you by posters ranging from @Charles on the right to @tim on the left. Either you are being wilfully blind or are involuntarily stupid.
And as I've asked - if any PBer can suggest an alternative expert to Prof Jarmann feel free.
I'm quite happy to accept what he says. I'm not an expert - and neither are you or others you've cited. I'm also not reduced to insulting you as stupid - merely arrogant - game over.
How about this: from Brian Keogh:
"However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths."
Erm, because he's writing a HMG report and doesn't want it dismissed by being too controversial?
Let me reference Yes Minister here...the Henderson Report
"Hacker meets Henderson, and by rigorously adopting Sir Humphrey's discrediting procedure as outlined to him earlier, successfully convinces the Professor to doubt his findings.
The Minister watches the next evening's news bulletin with Sir Humphrey and Bernard. It reports his decision not to proceed with the contract and his resulting triumphant visit to Merseyside. His Permanent Secretary is disgusted, and can't fathom how Henderson came to his ultimate conclusion. Hacker nearly lets slip that he met him, but covers his faux pas just in time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole
Erm, because he's writing a HMG report and doesn't want it dismissed by being too controversial?
Let me reference Yes Minister here...the Henderson Report
"Hacker meets Henderson, and by rigorously adopting Sir Humphrey's discrediting procedure as outlined to him earlier, successfully convinces the Professor to doubt his findings.
The Minister watches the next evening's news bulletin with Sir Humphrey and Bernard. It reports his decision not to proceed with the contract and his resulting triumphant visit to Merseyside. His Permanent Secretary is disgusted, and can't fathom how Henderson came to his ultimate conclusion. Hacker nearly lets slip that he met him, but covers his faux pas just in time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole
That isn't an argument. Its conspiratorial and extra-evidential speculation. Get a GCSE in Maths.
Waving away the deaths of 13300 people who didn't need to die cuts no ice with me or the vast majority of the population.
With respect Plato,
13300 people who didn't need to die, didn't die.
So why is this being said by Prof Jarmann - who are these non-patients who were admitted, given a death X in the box by their Trust? Are they imaginary patients?
Go on - explain this? I'm all ears. I've seen several posts rubbishing what the leading expert on mortality deaths says - but nothing to refute it.
Plato, all the statistics tell us is that death rates, were higher on these hospitals than average.
They don't tell us why they were higher.
It may be that some of the deaths were avoidable. But it may also be that the deaths were not avoidable. (For instance, certain specialist units have higher death rates because they take on the worst cases - but it doesn't mean we should abolish them).
We *simply do not know* from these statistics whether there is a systemic problem or not.
All we can tell is that we need to look a heck of a lot closer.
Which is another way of saying for a decade or so nobody asked the questions.
So certainly some avoidable deaths imo.
The case for the prosecution is much stronger on why the heck no one examined this issue more closely, much earlier.
It's always the cover up that's the problem.
Precisely.
Watch Newsnight from last night - it is not about how many deaths - it's about how many times the whistle was blown and how few times complaints were investigated.
Watch the dad who's kid died - and who tried to complain. Watch the snivelling Labour MP saying he heard truth from the very mouth of Burnham.
I was gobsmacked - was almost worth the licence fee.
Labour’s ‘cover-up’ at horror hospitals By EMILY ASHTON, Whitehall Correspondent
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.
Ms Patel said: “Andy Burnham must take responsibility for Labour’s record: thousands of unnecessary deaths, an appalling cover-up and a wall of silence.
“New evidence suggests Labour ignored more than 1,500 warnings.”
Labour called the claims that problems were ignored “disgraceful”.
A spokesman said: “The current Government inherited those warnings just days later. All 14 hospitals have deteriorated significantly on this Government’s watch.”
So not a bad headline for LAbour at all in the scheme of things.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnexpress How out of touch must Lab be when most ordinary folk think that a "Cabinet of millionaires" gets the message better on welfare issues?
It's a double whammy for Labour which is why they're in full spin mode.
1. they don't want to accept that parts of the NHS sacred cow just aren't up to scratch. 2. their minister has been shown to be seriously deficient in his role.
but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.
The Labour party is the producer interest party not the consumer interest party.
Can it come as any kind of a shock to anyone that the NHS under their watch was managed wholly for the benefit of doctors (pay, hours, pension, etc), nurses (likewise) and administrators (likewise with knobs on). They measured spending and targets – as a good thing. Your granny dying in a shower of her own shit, unattended by medical staff over a weekend – well that’s collateral damage.
The needs or desires of patients rank as low for Labour as the needs or desires of parents do in the education debate. If you put the unions in charge you get the predictable culture.
Now that they’re being called on this their indignation is a joy to watch. I just hope the attacks step up and I can get a truckload of popcorn in.
''but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.'''
Whatever the merits of the attack, this is politically very bold from the tories. It has taken Labour utterly by surprise.
The Labour party is the producer interest party not the consumer interest party.
Can it come as any kind of a shock to anyone that the NHS under their watch was managed wholly for the benefit of doctors (pay, hours, pension, etc), nurses (likewise) and administrators (likewise with knobs on). They measured spending and targets – as a good thing. Your granny dying in a shower of her own shit, unattended by medical staff over a weekend – well that’s collateral damage.
The needs or desires of patients rank as low for Labour as the needs or desires of parents do in the education debate. If you put the unions in charge you get the predictable culture.
Now that they’re being called on this their indignation is a joy to watch. I just hope the attacks step up and I can get a truckload of popcorn in.
This is the upside of "no money left" - the party is over for the party of pork barrelistas.
Might turn out to be one of the best things that happens to this country - Gordon's crash.
The fact that Hunt or someone near him has invented 13,000 deaths and tried to blame him for covering them up I'd imagine.
The 13,000 deaths is what Professor Jarman, an expert on mortality rates, has been quoting this morning - such as on BBC News24. Tim will you accept that this 13,000 figure comes from an expert in this field?
I'm quite happy to accept what he says. I'm not an expert - and neither are you or others you've cited. I'm also not reduced to insulting you as stupid - merely arrogant - game over.
You're ignoring people who are experts in understanding statistics, and who don't have a particular axe to grind, such as Charles (who I hope you will accept is not a lefty sock-puppet).
To give a concrete example: the City Hospital in Nottingham specialises in cancer cases. Their death rate was when I last looked higher than the Ilkeston hospital, which has numerous minor procedures. This isn't per se surprising, nor does it suggest that cancer patients would be better off if they all went to Ilkeston.
Does it mean that all death rates are equally explicable? No. There's an excellent case for saying that unusually good and unusually bad stats should be investigated to establish the cause. If one's feeling partisan, one can praise people for investigating or denounce them for not investigating. But nobody serious in this field is confidently drawing conclusions about people who are dead who ought to be alive, still less that the NHS as a whole is shown to be wonderful or terrible.It's an important issue which is being misused for partisan purposes.
Anyone who didn't know Plato was a woman, could deduce it from the double-barrelled levels of patronisation coming her way this morning.
Just to be clear, on the meaning of excess deaths: "One said they were "a very blunt instrument" for examining something as complex as "excess" mortality – *that is, deaths that, according to a complicated range of factors, could potentially have been avoided if the quality of healthcare had been better.* (Guardian, linked to by previous poster). @Charles - do you seriously think your point about specialist units implying higher death rates isn't explicitly factored into the calculations for HMSR/SHMI? - I don't know the answer but I'll bet you £50 at evens it is. The only way to argue that these deaths are not significant is to say that measures introduced with the exact intention of identifying excess deaths (HMSR and SHMI) are entirely without validity.
And as for tim's claim that Hunt has "invented 13,000 deaths", it puts Sally Bercow's *innocent face* entirely in the shade. I hope OGH's rainy day fund has at least £176,000 in it - that's what it cost her.
Sums it up for me. Desecrating a grave is just too revolting for words - when the animal rights lobby indulged in this I was appalled as a previous member - this is even worse.
"... The problem with establishing who knew what, and when, is that the public-sector machine will close ranks against any attempt to shine a light into its murky world. The recent Francis Report on the deaths at Stafford Hospital is a prime example. This was a whitewash, blaming generalities such as the health service’s “culture”, rather than ministers and their policies. I have worked in government, and know how the information channels work, including those that reach Downing Street, and I find it inconceivable that ministers did not know what was going on. It is, of course, perfectly possible that Andy Burnham and his predecessors were kept in the dark, or actively lied to, but we need a rigorous inquiry to establish that – one covering not just Mid Staffs, but going into the advice ministers received about other hospitals on today’s shameful list.
It is not just in Westminster where there was, and still is, a problem. One central reason why Labour has been allowed to get away with the idea that it is the “party of the NHS”, while presiding over such a shameful record, is that it benefits from the axis within the public services that tirelessly attacks those who dare to suggest that the health service might need to change. Most notorious is the treatment of Julie Bailey, the ex-nurse whose mother was killed by neglect at Mid Staffs, who has been the targeted of venomous abuse for speaking out about it. In 2011, union activists posted an internet video which stated they hoped she would die; she has since been subjected to a campaign of nuisance calls, threats and online vitriol; has been hounded from her business and her home and even seen her mother’s grave desecrated..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10180230/Labour-must-bear-the-blame-for-the-shameful-decline-of-the-NHS.html
''but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.'''
Whatever the merits of the attack, this is politically very bold from the tories. It has taken Labour utterly by surprise.
And again on the back foot.
This was supposed to be the build up to their big policy announcements - instead it's fire fighting and a retreat to Rourke's Drift.
Why do so many of you point to the number of posts Tim does on this board, but then spend most of the day asking him questions. Surely, if you all didn't want to know his view on so many different subjects, he wouldn't have so many posts?
This was supposed to be the build up to their big policy announcements - instead it's fire fighting and a retreat to Rourke's Drift.
Reminds me more of of the end of stalingrad. The last thing the Germans expected was a huge Russian offensive severing the 6th army around the city from the rest of the Wermacht.
And as for tim's claim that Hunt has "invented 13,000 deaths", it puts Sally Bercow's *innocent face* entirely in the shade. I hope OGH's rainy day fund has at least £176,000 in it - that's what it cost her.
Maybe he's hoping to settle for £15K before it goes to court? Unlike Bercow.
''but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.'''
Whatever the merits of the attack, this is politically very bold from the tories. It has taken Labour utterly by surprise.
The truth will eventually out. The national omerta from new Lab days on immigration, benefits and now health has broken down. eventually the economy will take its turn.
''but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.'''
Whatever the merits of the attack, this is politically very bold from the tories. It has taken Labour utterly by surprise.
And again on the back foot.
This was supposed to be the build up to their big policy announcements - instead it's fire fighting and a retreat to Rourke's Drift.
I'm not sure Labour's troops will defeat several hundred massed Tories on hilltops... From a purely PC perspective, I assume Lefties aren't allowed to kill them.
Why do so many of you point to the number of posts Tim does on this board, but then spend most of the day asking him questions. Surely, if you all didn't want to know his view on so many different subjects, he wouldn't have so many posts?
Well said RedRag1. If only! I can honestly say that in all the years (3) posting here I have only asked tim 2 questions, the answer to one I knew already. I have also replied to his forays about a dozen times in all.
Alex Salmond really does live in fantasy land, or maybe he knows his bluff won't be called by the Scottish people:
"For Scotland - a larger economy - we will retain the pound. We would use our sovereignty to negotiate for a formal currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom.
"Scottish bank notes would remain in the same way they do now."
Yeah, right. It's a novel idea that you can 'use your sovereignty' to demand something from another country. Of course any UK government would tell him where to stuff his sovereignty: they're hardly going to let an independent country print a currency guaranteed by the UK.
Why not? Ireland used the pound for 50-odd years post Independence. (And only gave it up because 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland made it politically unacceptable)
Why do so many of you point to the number of posts Tim does on this board, but then spend most of the day asking him questions. Surely, if you all didn't want to know his view on so many different subjects, he wouldn't have so many posts?
Well said RedRag1. If only! I can honestly say that in all the years (3) posting here I have only asked tim 2 questions, the answer to one I knew already. I have also replied to his forays about a dozen times in all.
LOL Mike you're UKIP , of course you don't attack Labour !
Keogh's report will say: "However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths."
The report, which Keogh will discuss with the media for the first time on Tuesday afternoon, will emphasise that staffing problems were found at all 14 trusts, and stress that the geographical isolation of many of the hospitals was a factor in that.
All the 14 trusts are understood to now be looking urgently at providing safe staffing levels across their hospitals at all times, following the Keogh team's visits.
Strange......not what was read in the right wing press this morning.
After yesterday's surprise poll from ICM Ed Miliband needs to get thinking. It's about time Labour swallowed its tribal instincts and recognised that they may need to work with the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg might be despised but the very same factors that have made it difficult for the Lib Dems to make a breakthrough in past elections will be in their favour in 2015. They could well still manage to get 40 MPs at the next election. I suggest Ed wite an apologetic letter to Lib Dems that reads something like this,
Dear Lib Dems,
The relationship between our parties hasn't always been easy. I know you feel resentful about the way we behaved arrogantly towards you in government and continued to support a silly electoral system even when we got an indefensible majority of 66 with a 35% share of the vote. Like you I believe such an electoral system is now holed below the water-line. We could have done with listening to you more on issues like Iraq and your Party was quite right to oppose what turned out to be the worst British foreign policy disaster since the 2nd World War. You also stood up for civil liberties at a time when the Labour government was becoming too authoritarian. I'm sorry we didn't listen to you more.
At the 2010 election campaign your party stood on an exciting platform promising to re-balance the British economy, putting fairness at the heart of everything you do, committed to supporting students, dealing with the mess in the banking system and being open-minded about the future of the UK's nuclear deterrant whilst maintaining a moderate stance on balancing deficit reduction with the need to maintain demand in the economy. With the sure-footed Vince Cable speaking on the economy and a new leader in Nick Clegg promising to 'do things differently' I can well understand why many progressive voters would have seen the Lib Dems as a more attractive option than a government that had been in power for 13 years and overseen the first British banking collapse in over a century.
I'm well aware that a Lib/Lab pact was never a serious option after the election given the numbers in Parliament and that Gordon Brown would not have been an ideal leader of a coalition government. In the end your party chose to enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives. Whilst the decision surprised many I can understand why you chose to do what you did. David Cameron had described himself as a 'liberal conservative' been supportive of gay rights and seemed to have moved his Party onto the centre-ground as the only way to defeat new Labour. Eric Pickles as Tory Chairman had talked about 'love-bombing' the Lib Dems, a somewhat terrifying thought but the intent was clear. This was a modern Conservative Party that could work with the Lib Dems. I put it to you that after three years of experience in government your decision has been proved wrong. The Tories had not changed as much as you thought and David Cameron was not the 'good egg' Nick Clegg naively assumed him to be. After three years of poor economic performance all the Conservative-dominated government appears to offer us is another credit fuelled housing bubble and more punitive measures for those on benefits. Surely you realise that these measures are at best ineffectual and at worst seriously detrimental to our country's long-term economic prospects as well as inflicting real hardship on the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people. This does not seem to rest easy with the social conscience your leader made much of at the last election. With all the evidence of the last three years, surely you do not believe that the fiscal programme the coalition embarked upon was a better policy than your own proposals at the election, which were quite similar to Labour's?
In the end it is for you as Lib Dems to decide how you wish to proceed. I've heard it said that since you went into the coalition for five years you have to stick to it. By that logic the Tories can force anything upon you and you have 'nowhere to go'. That can't be an effective position to be in. If you want serious influence the threat of pulling out needs to be ever present. If you are worried about how history might perceive you, ask yourself this. Would you rather be part of a five year government that was seen as a failure or part of a three year government that failed but you nonetheless saw the light and got out with your dignity intact before any more damage could be done? I know how I think history will recall this government from a progressive perspective, what else would you expect from a cabinet dominated by the children of Thatcher? Anyway whatever you decide I look forward to hearing your response and perhaps working together in the future,
Oh Lord - Enuf already about Scotland - booorrrriiiinnnngggg!
Better than the bilge you post , though that does not make it any good
Ah young "malcolmg" arrives.
Now my fine fellow, 13 SNP seats in 2015. Too much, too little or about right ?? .... don't be shy !!
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance. Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Alex Salmond really does live in fantasy land, or maybe he knows his bluff won't be called by the Scottish people:
"For Scotland - a larger economy - we will retain the pound. We would use our sovereignty to negotiate for a formal currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom.
"Scottish bank notes would remain in the same way they do now."
Yeah, right. It's a novel idea that you can 'use your sovereignty' to demand something from another country. Of course any UK government would tell him where to stuff his sovereignty: they're hardly going to let an independent country print a currency guaranteed by the UK.
Thank you for your letter - you are sensible to use Politicalbetting rather than the post which if it comes at all often doesn't arrive until late in the afternoon.
It would have been easier to continue with spending money on bureaucracy and welfare, as Labour seems to be suggesting - it would even have made the economy look as if it was growing. However if we had done that then we would have been faced with unemployment levels similar to Spain and high interest rates coupled with a massive devaluation of sterling which would have caused painful price inflation, which really would have hurt working people.
Joining a coalition with the Conservative wasn't easy - and we haven't got everything we wanted, and in some cases -student fees for example, did not press hard enough. However we really did put the country and economy before party and need the full five years to show that the economy is rebalanced from an over reliance on the public sector and the city.
The voting system sucks but it is all we have. We need to wait until we see the result of the General Election but it may be sensible to form a small group -two from each side to lay the foundations of possible future cooperation. I should warn you that we have learnt a lot working with the Conservatives, we wont be pushed around!
Alex Salmond really does live in fantasy land, or maybe he knows his bluff won't be called by the Scottish people:
"For Scotland - a larger economy - we will retain the pound. We would use our sovereignty to negotiate for a formal currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom.
"Scottish bank notes would remain in the same way they do now."
Yeah, right. It's a novel idea that you can 'use your sovereignty' to demand something from another country. Of course any UK government would tell him where to stuff his sovereignty: they're hardly going to let an independent country print a currency guaranteed by the UK.
A *larger economy* than where? I've less idea now what the SNP stand for than ever. That *we'll be in the UK* statement left me wondering Eh? So what is independence then?
Salmond is comparing Scotland to the Isle of Man. It seems that his idea of independence is for Scotland to become a mainland Isle of Man , Jersey , Guernsey or Sark.
Every one of them lovely and places where people would be happy to live
Alex Salmond really does live in fantasy land, or maybe he knows his bluff won't be called by the Scottish people:
"For Scotland - a larger economy - we will retain the pound. We would use our sovereignty to negotiate for a formal currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom.
"Scottish bank notes would remain in the same way they do now."
Yeah, right. It's a novel idea that you can 'use your sovereignty' to demand something from another country. Of course any UK government would tell him where to stuff his sovereignty: they're hardly going to let an independent country print a currency guaranteed by the UK.
Richard, could you read something on an equal relationship signed in 1707 which misses the bleeding obvous.... Why can Isle of Man (outside UK) have an arrangement with the pound and Scotland cannot. Is it because they do not have nuclear weapons and oil? Confirm Scotland has every right as an owner of the pound to do what they want and we might finally make progress with some of you southern Neanderthals.... Just kidding I think.
I think we're beginning to see the outlines of Salmond's dream for Scotland. A tax haven for the super rich where Life President Alexander the First can play endless rounds of golf with his adoring billionaire fan club.
You planning to get the first bus out of Swindon when you hear the YES result, get yourself installed in paradise.
Why do so many of you point to the number of posts Tim does on this board, but then spend most of the day asking him questions. Surely, if you all didn't want to know his view on so many different subjects, he wouldn't have so many posts?
Well said RedRag1. If only! I can honestly say that in all the years (3) posting here I have only asked tim 2 questions, the answer to one I knew already. I have also replied to his forays about a dozen times in all.
LOL Mike you're UKIP , of course you don't attack Labour !
Regards to Pete Mandelson.
Of course I attack Labour, and Conservatives and Lib/dems, in fact I attack the whole farce of the Lab/Lib/Con scam perpertrated on the british people. Vote UKIP and live a little Alanbrooke.
Actually Mike I think this would make for an interesting thread: Why haven’t the coalition attacked Labour and its record for 3 years? It’s a complete mystery to me. An open goal left unmolested.
It was noticeable before the last election that the Tories were pulling their punches. This was clearly deliberate.
LOL
The inept spin keeps on coming.
Cammie's failure to win a majority against Brown was clearly deliberate too was it? The "Big Society" bullsh*t was a cunning ploy to make sure Cammie didn't win too massive a majority? The hilariously incompetent airbrushed posters of Dave were deliberate just to give Brown a chance?
It certainly couldn't be that CCHQ are a bunch of amateurs out of their depth who have to rely on childish spin from "Near Perfect" idiots.
The tories did plenty of atacking at the last election. They just weren't very good at it. While Cammie's detox project was chiefly photo-ops with Huskies, embracing the NHS and greenwash with a tory logo change to a tree.
Comments
So certainly some avoidable deaths imo.
(FWIW - I've 15+ years in the medical sector, although not specifically in health informatics or statistics. I do have to read statistics though and understand them)
Why not take a break?
You could do something radical, and step away from the Internet for a while.
It's always the cover up that's the problem.
Erm, because he's writing a HMG report and doesn't want it dismissed by being too controversial?
Let me reference Yes Minister here...the Henderson Report
"Hacker meets Henderson, and by rigorously adopting Sir Humphrey's discrediting procedure as outlined to him earlier, successfully convinces the Professor to doubt his findings.
The Minister watches the next evening's news bulletin with Sir Humphrey and Bernard. It reports his decision not to proceed with the contract and his resulting triumphant visit to Merseyside. His Permanent Secretary is disgusted, and can't fathom how Henderson came to his ultimate conclusion. Hacker nearly lets slip that he met him, but covers his faux pas just in time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole
Watch the dad who's kid died - and who tried to complain. Watch the snivelling Labour MP saying he heard truth from the very mouth of Burnham.
I was gobsmacked - was almost worth the licence fee.
Labour’s ‘cover-up’ at horror hospitals
By EMILY ASHTON, Whitehall Correspondent
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.
Ms Patel said: “Andy Burnham must take responsibility for Labour’s record: thousands of unnecessary deaths, an appalling cover-up and a wall of silence.
“New evidence suggests Labour ignored more than 1,500 warnings.”
Labour called the claims that problems were ignored “disgraceful”.
A spokesman said: “The current Government inherited those warnings just days later. All 14 hospitals have deteriorated significantly on this Government’s watch.”
So not a bad headline for LAbour at all in the scheme of things.
Step away from the computer - go to the phone - dial 111 aaaaaagggggrrrrrhhhhhh
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnexpress
How out of touch must Lab be when most ordinary folk think that a "Cabinet of millionaires" gets the message better on welfare issues?
Another example of why it's best to take the average.
16.2% versus the actual 16.5%.
not bad...
It's a double whammy for Labour which is why they're in full spin mode.
1. they don't want to accept that parts of the NHS sacred cow just aren't up to scratch.
2. their minister has been shown to be seriously deficient in his role.
but now it's catch 22 - the more we see of Burnham the worse it gets he's a permanent reminder of things gone wrong. But they can't remove him or it looks like an admission of guilt.
Can it come as any kind of a shock to anyone that the NHS under their watch was managed wholly for the benefit of doctors (pay, hours, pension, etc), nurses (likewise) and administrators (likewise with knobs on). They measured spending and targets – as a good thing. Your granny dying in a shower of her own shit, unattended by medical staff over a weekend – well that’s collateral damage.
The needs or desires of patients rank as low for Labour as the needs or desires of parents do in the education debate. If you put the unions in charge you get the predictable culture.
Now that they’re being called on this their indignation is a joy to watch. I just hope the attacks step up and I can get a truckload of popcorn in.
Whatever the merits of the attack, this is politically very bold from the tories. It has taken Labour utterly by surprise.
Might turn out to be one of the best things that happens to this country - Gordon's crash.
You can't with a straight face be unhappy if Labour is getting it up 'em with a bit of judicious spin. Reap what you sow and all that...
To give a concrete example: the City Hospital in Nottingham specialises in cancer cases. Their death rate was when I last looked higher than the Ilkeston hospital, which has numerous minor procedures. This isn't per se surprising, nor does it suggest that cancer patients would be better off if they all went to Ilkeston.
Does it mean that all death rates are equally explicable? No. There's an excellent case for saying that unusually good and unusually bad stats should be investigated to establish the cause. If one's feeling partisan, one can praise people for investigating or denounce them for not investigating. But nobody serious in this field is confidently drawing conclusions about people who are dead who ought to be alive, still less that the NHS as a whole is shown to be wonderful or terrible.It's an important issue which is being misused for partisan purposes.
Just to be clear, on the meaning of excess deaths: "One said they were "a very blunt instrument" for examining something as complex as "excess" mortality – *that is, deaths that, according to a complicated range of factors, could potentially have been avoided if the quality of healthcare had been better.* (Guardian, linked to by previous poster). @Charles - do you seriously think your point about specialist units implying higher death rates isn't explicitly factored into the calculations for HMSR/SHMI? - I don't know the answer but I'll bet you £50 at evens it is. The only way to argue that these deaths are not significant is to say that measures introduced with the exact intention of identifying excess deaths (HMSR and SHMI) are entirely without validity.
And as for tim's claim that Hunt has "invented 13,000 deaths", it puts Sally Bercow's *innocent face* entirely in the shade. I hope OGH's rainy day fund has at least £176,000 in it - that's what it cost her.
Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!!
"... The problem with establishing who knew what, and when, is that the public-sector machine will close ranks against any attempt to shine a light into its murky world. The recent Francis Report on the deaths at Stafford Hospital is a prime example. This was a whitewash, blaming generalities such as the health service’s “culture”, rather than ministers and their policies. I have worked in government, and know how the information channels work, including those that reach Downing Street, and I find it inconceivable that ministers did not know what was going on. It is, of course, perfectly possible that Andy Burnham and his predecessors were kept in the dark, or actively lied to, but we need a rigorous inquiry to establish that – one covering not just Mid Staffs, but going into the advice ministers received about other hospitals on today’s shameful list.
It is not just in Westminster where there was, and still is, a problem. One central reason why Labour has been allowed to get away with the idea that it is the “party of the NHS”, while presiding over such a shameful record, is that it benefits from the axis within the public services that tirelessly attacks those who dare to suggest that the health service might need to change. Most notorious is the treatment of Julie Bailey, the ex-nurse whose mother was killed by neglect at Mid Staffs, who has been the targeted of venomous abuse for speaking out about it. In 2011, union activists posted an internet video which stated they hoped she would die; she has since been subjected to a campaign of nuisance calls, threats and online vitriol; has been hounded from her business and her home and even seen her mother’s grave desecrated..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10180230/Labour-must-bear-the-blame-for-the-shameful-decline-of-the-NHS.html
This was supposed to be the build up to their big policy announcements - instead it's fire fighting and a retreat to Rourke's Drift.
Reminds me more of of the end of stalingrad. The last thing the Germans expected was a huge Russian offensive severing the 6th army around the city from the rest of the Wermacht.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lDY02DThk
Regards to Pete Mandelson.
The report, which Keogh will discuss with the media for the first time on Tuesday afternoon, will emphasise that staffing problems were found at all 14 trusts, and stress that the geographical isolation of many of the hospitals was a factor in that.
All the 14 trusts are understood to now be looking urgently at providing safe staffing levels across their hospitals at all times, following the Keogh team's visits.
Strange......not what was read in the right wing press this morning.
labour have quite a strong case on the nuts and bolts of this issue. Some trusts failed to improve on death rates as much as others.
Its on the politics of this where labour have been comprehensively beaten.
It's rarely one factor.
So how dare we know about dangerous public sector performance!
Is tim feeding him his lines or is it the other way round?
Dear Lib Dems,
The relationship between our parties hasn't always been easy. I know you feel resentful about the way we behaved arrogantly towards you in government and continued to support a silly electoral system even when we got an indefensible majority of 66 with a 35% share of the vote. Like you I believe such an electoral system is now holed below the water-line. We could have done with listening to you more on issues like Iraq and your Party was quite right to oppose what turned out to be the worst British foreign policy disaster since the 2nd World War. You also stood up for civil liberties at a time when the Labour government was becoming too authoritarian. I'm sorry we didn't listen to you more.
At the 2010 election campaign your party stood on an exciting platform promising to re-balance the British economy, putting fairness at the heart of everything you do, committed to supporting students, dealing with the mess in the banking system and being open-minded about the future of the UK's nuclear deterrant whilst maintaining a moderate stance on balancing deficit reduction with the need to maintain demand in the economy. With the sure-footed Vince Cable speaking on the economy and a new leader in Nick Clegg promising to 'do things differently' I can well understand why many progressive voters would have seen the Lib Dems as a more attractive option than a government that had been in power for 13 years and overseen the first British banking collapse in over a century.
I'm well aware that a Lib/Lab pact was never a serious option after the election given the numbers in Parliament and that Gordon Brown would not have been an ideal leader of a coalition government. In the end your party chose to enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives. Whilst the decision surprised many I can understand why you chose to do what you did. David Cameron had described himself as a 'liberal conservative' been supportive of gay rights and seemed to have moved his Party onto the centre-ground as the only way to defeat new Labour. Eric Pickles as Tory Chairman had talked about 'love-bombing' the Lib Dems, a somewhat terrifying thought but the intent was clear. This was a modern Conservative Party that could work with the Lib Dems. I put it to you that after three years of experience in government your decision has been proved wrong. The Tories had not changed as much as you thought and David Cameron was not the 'good egg' Nick Clegg naively assumed him to be. After three years of poor economic performance all the Conservative-dominated government appears to offer us is another credit fuelled housing bubble and more punitive measures for those on benefits. Surely you realise that these measures are at best ineffectual and at worst seriously detrimental to our country's long-term economic prospects as well as inflicting real hardship on the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people. This does not seem to rest easy with the social conscience your leader made much of at the last election. With all the evidence of the last three years, surely you do not believe that the fiscal programme the coalition embarked upon was a better policy than your own proposals at the election, which were quite similar to Labour's?
In the end it is for you as Lib Dems to decide how you wish to proceed. I've heard it said that since you went into the coalition for five years you have to stick to it. By that logic the Tories can force anything upon you and you have 'nowhere to go'. That can't be an effective position to be in. If you want serious influence the threat of pulling out needs to be ever present. If you are worried about how history might perceive you, ask yourself this. Would you rather be part of a five year government that was seen as a failure or part of a three year government that failed but you nonetheless saw the light and got out with your dignity intact before any more damage could be done? I know how I think history will recall this government from a progressive perspective, what else would you expect from a cabinet dominated by the children of Thatcher? Anyway whatever you decide I look forward to hearing your response and perhaps working together in the future,
yours sincerely,
Edward Miliband
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Thank you for your letter - you are sensible to use Politicalbetting rather than the post which if it comes at all often doesn't arrive until late in the afternoon.
It would have been easier to continue with spending money on bureaucracy and welfare, as Labour seems to be suggesting - it would even have made the economy look as if it was growing. However if we had done that then we would have been faced with unemployment levels similar to Spain and high interest rates coupled with a massive devaluation of sterling which would have caused painful price inflation, which really would have hurt working people.
Joining a coalition with the Conservative wasn't easy - and we haven't got everything we wanted, and in some cases -student fees for example, did not press hard enough. However we really did put the country and economy before party and need the full five years to show that the economy is rebalanced from an over reliance on the public sector and the city.
The voting system sucks but it is all we have. We need to wait until we see the result of the General Election but it may be sensible to form a small group -two from each side to lay the foundations of possible future cooperation. I should warn you that we have learnt a lot working with the Conservatives, we wont be pushed around!
Best wishes
The Liberal Democrats
(all of us - we all* voted for the Coalition)
*except about 12 members at the NEC meeting.
The inept spin keeps on coming.
Cammie's failure to win a majority against Brown was clearly deliberate too was it?
The "Big Society" bullsh*t was a cunning ploy to make sure Cammie didn't win too massive a majority? The hilariously incompetent airbrushed posters of Dave were deliberate just to give Brown a chance?
It certainly couldn't be that CCHQ are a bunch of amateurs out of their depth who have to rely on childish spin from "Near Perfect" idiots.
The tories did plenty of atacking at the last election. They just weren't very good at it. While Cammie's detox project was chiefly photo-ops with Huskies, embracing the NHS and greenwash with a tory logo change to a tree.