Media plurality is about the information that people consume on a daily basis, which informs their views and perspective on the world. ‘Media plurality’ means having a diversity of viewpoints available and consumed across the media.
In line with Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, we want to develop a clear measurement framework in partnership with industry, and carry out the first ever market assessment of plurality in the UK today.
This assessment will create a benchmark for the degree of media plurality in the UK today, helping to decide the level that is sufficient, and how to address concerns about media plurality.
At this stage, we want to hear your views on the scope of the measurement framework:
the types of media it should include the genres it should cover the types of organisation and services to which it should apply the inclusion of the BBC the audiences with which it should be concerned
We’ve published this consultation alongside our strategy document, Connectivity, content and consumers.
A good idea - which should be extended to the extra premature deaths that are likely because of the Tory cave-in on ciggie packaging.
On the ciggy issue - Has anyone in Gov't (Or elsewhere) done a cost-benefit analysis of the cost of treatment for smokers vs the foregone pension costs and other associated end of life costs.
Is it cheaper to let people smoke, collect the taxes and pay for their lung cancer treatment or to let them live on costing the state more perhaps in the future.
Which option is best for the national accounts ?
Edit: I know that sounds very 'Yes Minister' but maybe it is time to check stuff such as this !
That is the reason why no government would ever want people to give up smoking completely. The money that is brought in by "sin" taxes is enormous, as are the pension savings.
Iain @Iain_33 Con increase lead on Economy Immigration taxation law & order & Europe. Lab lead unchanged on NHS & Unemployment & has fallen on Education
Here are the categories of people who are hit while pensioners are exempt
"Those caring for disabled partners who require an additional room for the carer to sleep in - where they are unable to share a room as a result of the condition of the person requiring care and support, or the use of medical equipment like oxygen tanks or a hospital bed, through the night. Families where adaptations or equipment were installed in an additional bedroom – for example through-floor lifts being installed in one bedroom. Families who may have ‘spare’ space but where moving home would be counter-productive – for example where homes had been heavily adapted or where the families lived close to friends and family who provide support which enables them to continue to care. Where disabled children required a room for someone to come and provide overnight care (the non-resident exemptions for tenants do not extend to their children)."
Carers UK.
David Cameron must be a very proud man, As A Father of course.
I thought they were just driving around certain boroughs of London? I dont think wasting taxpayers' money to further party political ends will work out well in the end!
To stand still, more has to be spent on the NHS each year because of the demographics.
I'm not sure that's true. Demographics is increasing demand, but not very fast.
The OBR's (back of a fag-packet) projections are for health spending to rise from 7% of GDP to 8.8% of GDP over 40 or so years. The increase is fairly smooth, I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a fast increase or not!
OK, I make that about 2/3 of 1% per year. Not sure how many patients each robot-doctor sees per hour in the ONS calculations.
On topic, I strongly disagree with Mike about his advice to the Tories here (but then I'm a Tory and he's a Lib Dem so perhaps that's understandable).
I argued early on in the parliament that the two areas the Tories cannot afford to take big hits on are the economy and the NHS. That doesn't mean that they need to be seen as 'the best party' by the most people on the NHS; just that swing voters believe it's safe enough in Tory hands for it not to be a vote-changer. In many ways, the key determinant is not so much which party is best - or between the Tories and Labour, better - it's by how much they are better.
Leaving the field to Labour would enable them to build up an unassailable lead on the NHS, which the Conservatives could not counter through immigration, the economy and crime. Cameron, Hunt and others have to take the fight to Labour and Burnham, not necessarily in order to win (though with Labour on 36%, it's not as if they have an overwhelming majority on the subject), but in order to keep them within sight.
The other point is timing. Labour, and particularly Burnham, are vulnerable to charges over their stewardship of the NHS. We are still 21 months from the election. What the last month's Tory offensive has shown is not that lasting damage has been done to Team Red but that damage can be sustained to Labour. That is a lesson to be learned and the implications of it to be implemented in the 4-6 months leading up to the general election.
It all helps the LD theme for GE2015 - you can't trust LAB on the economy or the Tories on the NHS
I am aware that the Keogh attacks led to a big internal debate at a very high level within the Tory party and that there were many concerns about moving into an area where the Tories cannot win.
@MikeSmithson - I thought your line was that such attacks would backfire - they clearly haven't as the net impact has been no change. A 12% deficit on the NHS would be a margin that Mrs T and most Tory leaders could only dream about. And it hardly prevented her from winning elections, did it?
As then, so now: the NHS will not be a key election factor in 2015
The short term evidence is wholly inconclusive one way or the other. The 111 controversy may have an impact in the next round of polls, but probably not much.
Didn't someone recently publish the findings of the 'who best for the NHS' polls for the last 12 months, perhaps longer. My recollection - might be wrong - is that the Tory 12% deficit is at the lower end of the range.
Back in the Nineties, the Conservatives were probably c.40% behind Labour on the NHS. For the Conservatives to be 12% behind would be rather like the party polling 30% in Liverpool; still behind Labour, but a pretty creditable result.
OK, I make that about 2/3 of 1% per year. Not sure how many patients each robot-doctor sees per hour in the ONS calculations.
Though that is a much higher year on year percentage increase in health spending itself. Though I accept that the calculations are necessarily extremely simplistic. It sets out the scale of the challenge though.
The government need to shut up about the NHS. Just let the story unfold on its own and let Labour damage their own image after the multiple failings noted by the report. Get back on message with immigration and the economy like Mike says.
Amazingly I think the immigration "go home" posters are working in the government's favour. A lot of people at work who have seen them think they are useful as they feel it makes being an illegal immigrant more difficult. I don't agree with this view personally, I think they make no difference, but the politics of them are sound.
Actually the posters say "illegal immigrants go home"
It all helps the LD theme for GE2015 - you can't trust LAB on the economy or the Tories on the NHS
I am aware that the Keogh attacks led to a big internal debate at a very high level within the Tory party and that there were many concerns about moving into an area where the Tories cannot win.
@MikeSmithson - I thought your line was that such attacks would backfire - they clearly haven't as the net impact has been no change. A 12% deficit on the NHS would be a margin that Mrs T and most Tory leaders could only dream about. And it hardly prevented her from winning elections, did it?
As then, so now: the NHS will not be a key election factor in 2015
The short term evidence is wholly inconclusive one way or the other. The 111 controversy may have an impact in the next round of polls, but probably not much.
Didn't someone recently publish the findings of the 'who best for the NHS' polls for the last 12 months, perhaps longer. My recollection - might be wrong - is that the Tory 12% deficit is at the lower end of the range.
Back in the Nineties, the Conservatives were probably c.40% behind Labour on the NHS. For the Conservatives to be 12% behind would be rather like the party polling 30% in Liverpool; still behind Labour, but a pretty creditable result.
I thought they were just driving around certain boroughs of London? I dont think wasting taxpayers' money to further party political ends will work out well in the end!
Here are the categories of people who are hit while pensioners are exempt
"Those caring for disabled partners who require an additional room for the carer to sleep in - where they are unable to share a room as a result of the condition of the person requiring care and support, or the use of medical equipment like oxygen tanks or a hospital bed, through the night. Families where adaptations or equipment were installed in an additional bedroom – for example through-floor lifts being installed in one bedroom. Families who may have ‘spare’ space but where moving home would be counter-productive – for example where homes had been heavily adapted or where the families lived close to friends and family who provide support which enables them to continue to care. Where disabled children required a room for someone to come and provide overnight care (the non-resident exemptions for tenants do not extend to their children)."
Carers UK.
David Cameron must be a very proud man, As A Father of course.
People in the position that Dave and Sam were in but who choose to do the caring themselves but need a spare room to do it will be made to pay a surcharge compared to those who contract out the care.
Yes, because obviously you don't need a room to house a non-existent person, but when did the duty of local councils to provide adequate housing for disabled people get changed, as you asserted?
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers Quelle surprise! BBC Trust rules John Humphrys' programme The Future of the Welfare State broke impartiality rules dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
As we are on the finishing line...here's the endorsements in the London MEP race
Seb Dance: Margaret Hodge, Oona, Val, Jim Fitzpatrick, Cashman, Seema Malhotra, Ellie Reeves, Lady Kinnock, Steve Reed, LGBT Labour, Chuka, Tessa, Baroness Royal
I see the governments first friends and family tests are being published with regard to treatment in wards across England. Very few failed the test, it seems.
Do labour posters support this idea, or should we go back to relying on Andy Burnham?
"House prices grew at a more subdued pace in July and growth could remain subdued for the remainder of the year, a report suggested today, as recent price gains tempted more homeowners to put their properties up for sale. Hometrack said there was a 2.4 per cent increase in the number of properties available for sale in July compared with a month earlier, as homeowners became increasingly confident the housing market recovery was here to stay. It was the first time since the financial crisis that available housing for sale outstripped demand from would be buyers, which fell to one per cent in the month. Demand for housing rose 1.6 per cent in June and 2.5 per cent in May."
People in the position that Dave and Sam were in but who choose to do the caring themselves but need a spare room to do it will be made to pay a surcharge compared to those who contract out the care.
Yes, because obviously you don't need a room to house a non-existent person, but when did the duty of local councils to provide adequate housing for disabled people get changed, as you asserted?
I'm not sure this has ever been a mandatory requirement on LAs, but I won't bet the Executive Office on it. Also I can't recall any legislative changes since 2010.
Surely the point isn't to self-hug but to spot those who are failing and to fix it?
In a franchise, which is essentially what the NHS is as its broken into trusts and smaller units - anyone in charge will be kicked up the bum to fix issues raised.
I see the governments first friends and family tests are being published with regard to treatment in wards across England. Very few failed the test, it seems.
Do labour posters support this idea, or should we go back to relying on Andy Burnham?
So the leftie line on the spare room subsidy court case was "Eion Clarke tweeted that a win was a dead cert..." and our tim stated that a win for the petitioners would be a huge win against the govt.
and on that assessment beforehand, logically the leftie view must be that the result was a surprising HUGE WIN for the Govt! Unless they are spinning some new line this morning about Cameron's kids, eton, fops etc etc....
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that Labour's rules on spare-room subsidies in the private sector were discriminatory in this case:
@TCPoliticalBetting It is difficult to make a serious comment on the judgment until it is available to read and digest. What will be interesting is what the Divisional Court made of Burnip v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 629, a decision of the Court of Appeal by which it was bound. We shall see.
Exactly. That some think that HORROR asking patients for their personal view of their care is somehow wrong, flawed, partial blah blah speaks volumes.
They want to obfuscate using nitpicking instead. If Joe Public rate his experience as 9/10 or 2/10 overall doesn't invalidate it. It's their whole opinion like buying a pizza.
It may be a complex result based on the ease of ordering, the range of toppings, the timeliness of delivery, did the driver find their address and the price for it all - but it boils down to "would I recommend it to a mate".
"The bigger issue is that medical technology is producing increasingly awesome, but expensive, ways to make people healthier who would otherwise have died or stayed sick."
Yes, indeed. I wonder how much antibiotics cost the NHS. All those oldies suffering from infections like "old man's friend" - pneumonia - now survive and go on to become even older and costlier.
Not complaining as I'm an old git myself, but as my mother said ... "The more you get, the more you want."
As we are on the finishing line...here's the endorsements in the London MEP race
Seb Dance: Margaret Hodge, Oona, Val, Jim Fitzpatrick, Cashman, Seema Malhotra, Ellie Reeves, Lady Kinnock, Steve Reed, LGBT Labour, Chuka, Tessa, Baroness Royal
It's all a relative game - how long did it take after Black Wednesday for Labour to pull ahead on the economy? There isn't much comparison with the Francis and Keogh Reports here but it slows the lag in terms of long term opinion change.
It all helps the LD theme for GE2015 - you can't trust LAB on the economy or the Tories on the NHS
I am aware that the Keogh attacks led to a big internal debate at a very high level within the Tory party and that there were many concerns about moving into an area where the Tories cannot win.
@MikeSmithson - I thought your line was that such attacks would backfire - they clearly haven't as the net impact has been no change. A 12% deficit on the NHS would be a margin that Mrs T and most Tory leaders could only dream about. And it hardly prevented her from winning elections, did it?
As then, so now: the NHS will not be a key election factor in 2015
The short term evidence is wholly inconclusive one way or the other. The 111 controversy may have an impact in the next round of polls, but probably not much.
Didn't someone recently publish the findings of the 'who best for the NHS' polls for the last 12 months, perhaps longer. My recollection - might be wrong - is that the Tory 12% deficit is at the lower end of the range.
Back in the Nineties, the Conservatives were probably c.40% behind Labour on the NHS. For the Conservatives to be 12% behind would be rather like the party polling 30% in Liverpool; still behind Labour, but a pretty creditable result.
Plato, I agree that the NHS issue is very much a long game strategy, although I doubt that Cameron and Osborne actually understand that, witness their tactical error on Mid Staffs. When the mid Staffs report was due, Tim Montgomerie was heavily advocating for the Govt to pile into Labour's record, Cameron did not and seemed to be captured by the civil servant line of impartiality. If it is turned into more of a "plague on all your houses" matter by 2015 then one of Labour's props has been kicked away.
So if Charlie was upto corruption, embezzlement, tax evasion and a 27-year extra-marital affair, I dread to contemplate your high crimes and misdemeanours. One for the next pbTory drinkies where you shall reveal ALL!
@Life_ina_market_town - According the Child Poverty Action Group which I linked to earlier, "Since the case began, the rules have been amended to cover the circumstances of Ian Burnip and Lucy Trengove, but not to cover the situation of Richard Gorry".
Has anyone cross reference those hospitals which the Key Stage 2 wing of the PB Tories believed were killing lots of people against the Trip Advisor ratings issued today?
Maybe as part of their coursework one of them could do it.
You were going to let Richard N and me know about Councils' statutory responsibilities to the disabled and when these changed?
Now we know what labour thinks of asking patients for their opinion. Utter contempt. How dare anybody ask patients what they think. What do they know about health? They should be grateful for whatever we provide.
I think labour should put that in its manifesto.
Let's stop asking patients and go back to relying on the words of Andy Burnham. He's reliable.
I've just realised you're not talking about current pictures - sorry!
Why not have a poll of Sun readers to decide which topless female should be put on the banknotes? It would be worth it just for the squeals of outrage from the usual suspects.
In the interests of gender equality I am willing to put myself forward to lead an independent commission into the most appropriate page 3 girl to grace new banknotes. I am quite sure that after a short time, perhaps six months, of exhaustive research I will have a firm grasp and ample understanding of the key issues surrounding this important matter.
Has anyone cross reference those hospitals which the Key Stage 2 wing of the PB Tories believed were killing lots of people against the Trip Advisor ratings issued today?
Maybe as part of their coursework one of them could do it.
You were going to let Richard N and me know about Councils' statutory responsibilities to the disabled and when these changed?
It hasn't changed. The safety net got more expensive for disabled people than pensioners though. The Tories political calculation is that pensioners can have as many free spare rooms as they want but a carer for a disabled relative must pay extra
OK, that's half the question. But what ARE Councils' statutory duties in the first place? It's some time since I had the housing portfolio but I'm genuinely not sure that LAs had any mandatory responsibilities: you seem to think they do. Richard and I are simply asking you to say what they are.
Now we know what labour thinks of asking patients for their opinion. Utter contempt. How dare anybody ask patients what they think. What do they know about health? They should be grateful for whatever we provide.
I think labour should put that in its manifesto.
Let's stop asking patients and go back to relying on the words of Andy Burnham. He's reliable.
What about a huge variety of Page 3 girls, both past and present on bank notes? Collectors could help the national debt by keeping framed sets out of circulation. Melinda Messenger gets my vote.
"The cause of constitutional rights is not best served by an ambitious expansion of judicial territory, for the courts are not the proper arbiters of political controversy......
....The constitutions of many of the States Parties to the ECHR provide for the automatic incorporation of an international treaty into domestic law upon its being entered into by the appropriate government agency. The constitution of the United Kingdom does not; such a treaty only has effect in municipal law if an Act of Parliament so provides."
The Tories problem with the NHS is more perception than substance. As has been shown further down the thread the NHS budget ring fence is intact - which allows Tories scope to attack Labour on their lack of a ring fence
But, out there in the real world hospitals are being starved of money as today's rationing report shows. Money into the system isn't getting through to the front line, and people start asking wehere it is going. Link that to stories about 111 providers and profit and its not difficult to start perceiving that money is flowing through the system to private sector profits. Might not be entirely true (as the system costs more for every new expensive treatment that keeps someone alive for longer) but thats what it starts to look like.
As for the attack on Burnham, massively overblown. The weekend leaks of "numbers killed by Labour" was quickly attacked as outrageous by the person who allegedly had provided the figures. Labour and Burnham especially are weak on bits of the NHS story, but I don't think that the Tories have understood why. The weakness is that Labour imposed too much competition and too much private sector outsourcing - people don't like the notion of companies like Virgin Care being awarded exclusive contracts to provide the care of dying children at the lowest cost. Attacking Labour outsourcing with the solution of more outsourcing may be OK for a few days of headlines, but the perception is more of the same.
@CarlottaVance Laws LJ has never been known for sticking to the point, or refraining from obiter dicta. In relation to the construction of section 149, the expected judgment of the Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay, Sullivan & Ryder LJJ) in Regina (on the application of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be of far more significance.
36 wards out of 4500 fail the flawed test. Lets jump to some ridiculous conclusion based on this information. How many of these wards are based at the 14 slaughter houses? of the 29 i have located so far zero. Anyone found all 36
Burnham was out of his depth - read his evidence to Francis Report. Too busy to approve Trust Status without asking any difficult questions. When it comes to bullshonet - Patricia Hewitt's NHS has had best ever year must be close to the top of the list.
A couple of callous nurses are being hauled over the coals over poor treatment in Staffs whilst the bigger piggies got promoted.
The judgment of the Divisional Court (Laws LJ & Cranston J) in R (on the application of MA & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2013] EWHC 2213 (Admin) is now available to read.
Why should the Tories not kick Labour when they're down?
It's an open goal unless you think the NHS is the property of Labour where they can call Tories all sorts of vile name with impunity.
Because, as Mike has pointed out for the second time now, the report hasn't made very much difference to public perceptions on the NHS. It is just a vote loser for them. The report gives them a silver bullet during the campaign to drag Labour down to their level on the NHS and make it a policy area where all parties are viewed as being as bad as each other, but that will need some solid spin closer to the election. Right now, they need to shut up about the NHS.
I thought they were just driving around certain boroughs of London? I dont think wasting taxpayers' money to further party political ends will work out well in the end!
Barnet and Ealing I think. Not seen them in Enfield.
No need for Labour to panic.. NHS always positive for Labour FFT data is most pathetic thing ever seen since Lansleys reforms.
I guarentee things will be worse in the NHS in 2015 compared to 2010 using any proper measure, ie waiting times, waiting lists, a&e waits, proper satisfaction measures not fft ones, beds available, number of nurses employed.
As always voters will not trust Tories on NHS in 2015
Leftie spare room subsidised meal of the day? "10:15 AM @DrEoinCl I'll eat my shorts if it is not declared illegal in its present form..... #NoBrainer."
Good and sensible news from the Admin Court on the "bedroom tax" challenge, which always seemed doomed to fail. The statutory duty was to give proper consideration to the impact of a change on disabled people (and other minorities), not "whether it is a fair policy", or "aren't the Tories evil barstewards?". Sometimes the government fails to consider the impact and a decision is quashed, like with Gove's abuse of power in my successful schools rebuilding case against him, but it seemed pretty obvious here that consideration had been given, not least because of the hardship fund.
It was a purely political challenge this one, and that is evidenced by the protestors with their "Axe the bedroom tax" placards (not, notably, "Ensure proper consideration is given, Government, to your equalities duties when making decisions", which was the legal gist of the case), and the lawyer at Leigh Day actually referring to the injustice of the "bedroom tax" in his steps of the court comments. If he'd wanted to make it look like a proper challenge to the legality of the policy, rather than an attack by Lefties on the policy itself, he might have chosen not to use the phrase "bedroom tax"....
What this does do, at least from the perspective of the educated classes and those with legal knowledge, but perhaps not the voting public, is lend support to the Government's calls to limit the scope of judicial review challenges. In my view, the "bedroom tax" challenge should never have been called in for a full hearing anyway. I don't actually agree with a lot of what Grayling says on this or any other matter, but today's latest failed purely political JR gives him plenty of ammunition.
@Bob__Sykes The case does nothing to support the Lord Chancellor's arguments on limiting the availability of judicial review. (1) The increase in JR's has overwhelmingly been caused by asylum and immigration cases. The Secretary of State could reduce the number of applications by running a competent system. (2) If you don't want political JR's of this nature, then Parliament shouldn't pass ambiguous legislation like section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 whose inevitable result is more JRs of politically contentious decisions.
Peter Dominiczak @peterdominiczak 2m Lord Howell, George Osborne's father-in-law, calls the North East "desolate" and calls for fracking to be concentrated there.
BBC Radio Manchester @bbcradiomanc 1m Former Energy Sec Lord Howell suggests shale gas industry be based in areas of `uninhabited and desolate` north of England rather than South
"Desolate areas in the North East" Howell is not wrong there..and if Fracking brings in thousands of well paid, secure, long term jobs it will be made very welcome, why should all the good stuff go "dahn souf"
"Desolate areas in the North East" Howell is not wrong there..and if it brings in thousands of jobs it will be made very welcome, why should all the good stuff go "dahn souf"
Naa I'd much prefer exploration and fracking to take place in the middle of big housing estates say around Reading.
Or even better, choose areas where geophys data indicate no shale gas/oil but are in Tory constituencies. That's a much better selection criterion.
"Desolate areas in the North East" Howell is not wrong there..and if it brings in thousands of jobs it will be made very welcome, why should all the good stuff go "dahn souf"
You could be right but how it was said and who said it counts.
The "who's best for the NHS" will take a while to turn around.
It's still a good a idea to start to destabilise Labour on it, you don't know when the "Ratner" tipping point will come, and Labour destroy their own brand image on the NHS.
Anyway, if the Tories don't go on the attack, you can bet Labour will try and blame them for Labour's own mistakes.
Tykejohnno .. Tell that to an out of work ex miner..I mean Coal fields, now closed down, were always a place of beauty. Maybe the prospect of a decent job will overide any class prejudice.. Its a pity no Labour peers had the guts to say the same.
"Desolate areas in the North East" Howell is not wrong there..and if it brings in thousands of jobs it will be made very welcome, why should all the good stuff go "dahn souf"
Naa I'd much prefer exploration and fracking to take place in the middle of big housing estates say around Reading.
Or even better, choose areas where geophys data indicate no shale gas/oil but are in Tory constituencies. That's a much better selection criterion.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers Quelle surprise! BBC Trust rules John Humphrys' programme The Future of the Welfare State broke impartiality rules dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
The complaint was lodged by the Child Poverty Action Group. They complained that the programme overly favoured the Coalition's line on welfare spending. The anti-Tory BBC bias strikes again.
We all know the FFT was supposed to result in a Daily Mail headline screeching "survey proves you wouldn't send your family to a dirty third world NHS hospital! Privatise it NOW!".
As a resident of the North East these days, I don't have a problem with anyone calling us desolate - fair chunks of it are.
But regarding fracking. Regardless of the pro's and cons of fracking or the desolation or otherwise of the north east, surely you frack where there is gas to extract?
As a resident of the North East these days, I don't have a problem with anyone calling us desolate - fair chunks of it are.
But regarding fracking. Regardless of the pro's and cons of fracking or the desolation or otherwise of the north east, surely you frack where there is gas to extract?
True - and isn't that mainly in the north of England ? (anyone got any fracking survey maps ;-) )
TIM ..you tell me ..you seem to know evertything about everything..Do you think they will be looking for some GP.s with spare time, out of work off licence ex-workers, redundant Cheshire Squires ..or those who might have a knowledge of handling heavy extraction and pumping equipment, which is very similar to that used in the mining industry.. now I wonder which of those would be favourite..take your time..
Applicants to Rossendale and Darwen Labour selection
George Disney (researcher at Southampton University, born in Hyndburn) Patrick Marriott (Rossendale Cllr) Andy McNae (Rossendale Cllr) Peter Roberts (Rossendale Cllr) Ken Rustidge (activist from Oldham) Will Straw
Comments
Iain @Iain_33
Con increase lead on Economy Immigration taxation law & order & Europe. Lab lead unchanged on NHS & Unemployment & has fallen on Education
Were those people exempt under the LHA 2008?
I argued early on in the parliament that the two areas the Tories cannot afford to take big hits on are the economy and the NHS. That doesn't mean that they need to be seen as 'the best party' by the most people on the NHS; just that swing voters believe it's safe enough in Tory hands for it not to be a vote-changer. In many ways, the key determinant is not so much which party is best - or between the Tories and Labour, better - it's by how much they are better.
Leaving the field to Labour would enable them to build up an unassailable lead on the NHS, which the Conservatives could not counter through immigration, the economy and crime. Cameron, Hunt and others have to take the fight to Labour and Burnham, not necessarily in order to win (though with Labour on 36%, it's not as if they have an overwhelming majority on the subject), but in order to keep them within sight.
The other point is timing. Labour, and particularly Burnham, are vulnerable to charges over their stewardship of the NHS. We are still 21 months from the election. What the last month's Tory offensive has shown is not that lasting damage has been done to Team Red but that damage can be sustained to Labour. That is a lesson to be learned and the implications of it to be implemented in the 4-6 months leading up to the general election.
There isn't much comparison with the Francis and Keogh Reports here but it slows the lag in terms of long term opinion change.
The Conservatives do something, it is wrong and evil.
Labour do the same thing, it is good and un-noteworthy.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers
Quelle surprise! BBC Trust rules John Humphrys' programme The Future of the Welfare State broke impartiality rules dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
As we are on the finishing line...here's the endorsements in the London MEP race
Seb Dance: Margaret Hodge, Oona, Val, Jim Fitzpatrick, Cashman, Seema Malhotra, Ellie Reeves, Lady Kinnock, Steve Reed, LGBT Labour, Chuka, Tessa, Baroness Royal
Lucy Anderson: Andy Slaughter, Clive Efford, Thornberry, Fiorna Millar Campbell, Glenda, Ken, Nicky Gavron, Owen Jones,
Ivana Bertoletti: Diane Abbott, Jeanette Arnold, Seema Malhotra (again), Mike Gapes, Luke Akehurst, Rowenna, Little Dromey
Kamaljeet Jandu: Mary Turner of GMB and NEC, Navin Shah AM, John Cryer, Tulip Sadi, Jack Dromey, Sadiq Khan, Stephen Timms, Keith Vaz
Do labour posters support this idea, or should we go back to relying on Andy Burnham?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2380739/Hometrack-House-price-growth-slows-July-supply-beats-demand.html
"House prices grew at a more subdued pace in July and growth could remain subdued for the remainder of the year, a report suggested today, as recent price gains tempted more homeowners to put their properties up for sale.
Hometrack said there was a 2.4 per cent increase in the number of properties available for sale in July compared with a month earlier, as homeowners became increasingly confident the housing market recovery was here to stay.
It was the first time since the financial crisis that available housing for sale outstripped demand from would be buyers, which fell to one per cent in the month. Demand for housing rose 1.6 per cent in June and 2.5 per cent in May."
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-dTel-Conservatives-031009.pdf
In a franchise, which is essentially what the NHS is as its broken into trusts and smaller units - anyone in charge will be kicked up the bum to fix issues raised.
"Eion Clarke tweeted that a win was a dead cert..."
and our tim stated that a win for the petitioners would be a huge win against the govt.
and on that assessment beforehand, logically the leftie view must be that the result was a surprising HUGE WIN for the Govt! Unless they are spinning some new line this morning about Cameron's kids, eton, fops etc etc....
Perfect.
Those endorsements look slightly more geographical than ideological.
http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/government-loses-disability-benefit-case-appeal-court
IANAL, but I think the difference might be the discretionary fund established by the government.
Asking patients what they think is not rocket science, but its frankly amazing how long its taken to getting around to doing it.
Then again, given the number powerful vested interests on the producer side of the NHS, maybe it isn;t.
It is difficult to make a serious comment on the judgment until it is available to read and digest. What will be interesting is what the Divisional Court made of Burnip v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 629, a decision of the Court of Appeal by which it was bound. We shall see.
They want to obfuscate using nitpicking instead. If Joe Public rate his experience as 9/10 or 2/10 overall doesn't invalidate it. It's their whole opinion like buying a pizza.
It may be a complex result based on the ease of ordering, the range of toppings, the timeliness of delivery, did the driver find their address and the price for it all - but it boils down to "would I recommend it to a mate".
Read from [41] to [47] of the judgment of Henderson J, linked to in my previous post.
Charlie and I were fishing in different pools!
"The bigger issue is that medical technology is producing increasingly awesome, but expensive, ways to make people healthier who would otherwise have died or stayed sick."
Yes, indeed. I wonder how much antibiotics cost the NHS. All those oldies suffering from infections like "old man's friend" - pneumonia - now survive and go on to become even older and costlier.
Not complaining as I'm an old git myself, but as my mother said ... "The more you get, the more you want."
With three Lewisham MP*s to pick from I see none. What is it with veniality, self-aggrandisement and Labour back-benchers...?
- The Welsh-Witch Ruddock [Lewisham-Deptford - Mez Luhndahn manor.]
- Wee Jimmy O'Dowd [LW&P - Mez childhood manor.]
- 'Hilda' Alexander [A breast of Lewisham-East - Mez constituency seat for a few years before Labour rigged the system....]
Editted: Bloody 'l'...!Vicky Foxcroft, the replacement of Welsh Witch in 2015, is backing Lucy Anderson.
"Why not put Samantha Fox on a banknote?"
Can I be ageist as well as sexist here? Surly she is too old now. Perhaps a younger page three girl?
Now we know what labour thinks of asking patients for their opinion. Utter contempt. How dare anybody ask patients what they think. What do they know about health? They should be grateful for whatever we provide.
I think labour should put that in its manifesto.
Let's stop asking patients and go back to relying on the words of Andy Burnham. He's reliable.
I've just realised you're not talking about current pictures - sorry!
Why not have a poll of Sun readers to decide which topless female should be put on the banknotes? It would be worth it just for the squeals of outrage from the usual suspects.
My dad used to work with Linda Lusardi's mum.
Kelly from Gt Yarmouth seems like a good bet
Collectors could help the national debt by keeping framed sets out of circulation.
Melinda Messenger gets my vote.
Sounds like we should forget the whole thing and go back to Burnham.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/the-bedroom-tax-judgment-has-implications-far-beyond-bedrooms/
From the judgement:
"The cause of constitutional rights is not best served by an ambitious expansion of judicial territory, for the courts are not the proper arbiters of political controversy......
....The constitutions of many of the States Parties to the ECHR provide for the automatic incorporation of an international treaty into domestic law upon its being entered into by the appropriate government agency. The constitution of the United Kingdom does not; such a treaty only has effect in municipal law if an Act of Parliament so provides."
But, out there in the real world hospitals are being starved of money as today's rationing report shows. Money into the system isn't getting through to the front line, and people start asking wehere it is going. Link that to stories about 111 providers and profit and its not difficult to start perceiving that money is flowing through the system to private sector profits. Might not be entirely true (as the system costs more for every new expensive treatment that keeps someone alive for longer) but thats what it starts to look like.
As for the attack on Burnham, massively overblown. The weekend leaks of "numbers killed by Labour" was quickly attacked as outrageous by the person who allegedly had provided the figures. Labour and Burnham especially are weak on bits of the NHS story, but I don't think that the Tories have understood why. The weakness is that Labour imposed too much competition and too much private sector outsourcing - people don't like the notion of companies like Virgin Care being awarded exclusive contracts to provide the care of dying children at the lowest cost. Attacking Labour outsourcing with the solution of more outsourcing may be OK for a few days of headlines, but the perception is more of the same.
Laws LJ has never been known for sticking to the point, or refraining from obiter dicta. In relation to the construction of section 149, the expected judgment of the Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay, Sullivan & Ryder LJJ) in Regina (on the application of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be of far more significance.
A couple of callous nurses are being hauled over the coals over poor treatment in Staffs whilst the bigger piggies got promoted.
In a way they are right to be so.
I guarentee things will be worse in the NHS in 2015 compared to 2010 using any proper measure,
ie waiting times, waiting lists, a&e waits, proper satisfaction measures not fft ones, beds available, number of nurses employed.
As always voters will not trust Tories on NHS in 2015
"10:15 AM @DrEoinCl I'll eat my shorts if it is not declared illegal in its present form..... #NoBrainer."
It was a purely political challenge this one, and that is evidenced by the protestors with their "Axe the bedroom tax" placards (not, notably, "Ensure proper consideration is given, Government, to your equalities duties when making decisions", which was the legal gist of the case), and the lawyer at Leigh Day actually referring to the injustice of the "bedroom tax" in his steps of the court comments. If he'd wanted to make it look like a proper challenge to the legality of the policy, rather than an attack by Lefties on the policy itself, he might have chosen not to use the phrase "bedroom tax"....
What this does do, at least from the perspective of the educated classes and those with legal knowledge, but perhaps not the voting public, is lend support to the Government's calls to limit the scope of judicial review challenges. In my view, the "bedroom tax" challenge should never have been called in for a full hearing anyway. I don't actually agree with a lot of what Grayling says on this or any other matter, but today's latest failed purely political JR gives him plenty of ammunition.
Police let gypsy family stay in couple's £30,000 stolen caravan 'because moving them out will breach their human rights'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381292/Police-let-gypsy-family-stay-couples-30-000-stolen-caravan-moving-breach-human-rights.html#ixzz2aWuGbtlr
The case does nothing to support the Lord Chancellor's arguments on limiting the availability of judicial review. (1) The increase in JR's has overwhelmingly been caused by asylum and immigration cases. The Secretary of State could reduce the number of applications by running a competent system. (2) If you don't want political JR's of this nature, then Parliament shouldn't pass ambiguous legislation like section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 whose inevitable result is more JRs of politically contentious decisions.
Tories in northern marginals groan: "There are desolate areas in the North East, where there’s plenty of room 4 fracking" says Lord Howell
I wouldn't be surprised if it's on front of a couple of newspapers tomorrow,some tories have the ability to keep putting foot in mouth - idiot
LOL BigJohn, I look forward to Labour's plans for publishing patients views on the NHS.
Each hospital leaver to get a DVD of Andy Burnham singing
'You've got to accentuate the positive,
Eliminate the negative,
Don't mess with mister in-between...'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10210968/UK-economy-close-to-escape-velocity-say-top-economists.html
Or even better, choose areas where geophys data indicate no shale gas/oil but are in Tory constituencies. That's a much better selection criterion.
It's still a good a idea to start to destabilise Labour on it, you don't know when the "Ratner" tipping point will come, and Labour destroy their own brand image on the NHS.
Anyway, if the Tories don't go on the attack, you can bet Labour will try and blame them for Labour's own mistakes.
We all know the FFT was supposed to result in a Daily Mail headline screeching "survey proves you wouldn't send your family to a dirty third world NHS hospital! Privatise it NOW!".
Fail.
But regarding fracking. Regardless of the pro's and cons of fracking or the desolation or otherwise of the north east, surely you frack where there is gas to extract?
George Disney (researcher at Southampton University, born in Hyndburn)
Patrick Marriott (Rossendale Cllr)
Andy McNae (Rossendale Cllr)
Peter Roberts (Rossendale Cllr)
Ken Rustidge (activist from Oldham)
Will Straw