Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Communism didn't turn "poor countries with vast resources into rich ones". It slowed down the transition to greater prosperity and was enacted at enormous human cost. If the Communists hadn't won the respective civil wars, millions of lives would have been saved, and the countries would have made much more rapid progress. Instead of which we end up with the authoritarian bastardised capitalism presided over by Putin and Xi.
Though capitalism hasn't functioned well in many countries or populations within countries. Central America for example.
Personally I agree with Bakunin. Don't expect the people to be grateful because they are beaten with The Peoples Stick.
1. It doesn’t seem very effective compared with European systems, except on “value for money”.
2. It’s impossible to get an appointment with my GP unless you are actually dying.
3. On the few occasions I’ve had first hand experience (maternity, child stuff), the doctors, paramedics and nurses have been brilliant but the facilities and “customer service” have all been crap.
4. I note the people in my circle are increasingly using private services even for GP stuff, probably because of (2), and I worry that the NHS will become a “poor people only” service with implications for both quality of service and funding.
I disagree with all of those in varying measure, and I wonder if it is partly a London service availability thing? Though when I lived in London for a few years I did not have any real problems (but I was in my 30s and it was some time ago, and it was a go-ahead practice next door to a major hospital, so very in touch).
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind? Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react .
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
I didn't think' defunding the police' was a British issue. TBH, I'm not exactly sure what it means. If the slogan was 'Re-educate the Police' I'd sympathise.
This is where BLM and others have screwed up.
Defunding the police actually means reallocating funding.
For example they would ban the police from buying military grade weapons and vehicles and rather have them spend that money on community policing.
Fun fact in a lot of states in America when the police carry out a no knock warrant and blow off the front of your house to enter and they have in fact come to the wrong house, they don't have to pay out any (or very little) recompense to the innocent party.
Would you be astonished to learn that no knock warrants disproportionately target African Americans and other minorities?
It was one of the most stupid political slogans ever, given that a significant majority of the US public are in favour of police reforms.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says. An interesting example was Tito, a genuine patriot who kept a country together which later fell horrifically apart - but who was a dictator all the same.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks for taking the time. Would you condemn John McDonell for showing Mao's book in the house?
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
As I said, I favour accountability.
Transparency on performance, transparency on cost, transparency on service.
The current NHS is organised to avoid or actively obscure accountability.
Ha.
I was told, early on in the COVID pandemic, by people with quivering lips and red faces, that ministers had said that at the eventual enquiry they wouldn't take responsibility for actions taken *against* their explicit instructions.
With a culture like that, good luck on getting transparency.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
Yep - I was sent to Bath from Warminster for my leukemia treatment. Sadly my wife worked nr Salisbury, so every day became an epic round trip, when I could have been in Salisbury, which would be in some ways more logical.
Thst sucks. Granted Warminster is the one bit that should go to Salisbury.
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
Yep - I was sent to Bath from Warminster for my leukemia treatment. Sadly my wife worked nr Salisbury, so every day became an epic round trip, when I could have been in Salisbury, which would be in some ways more logical.
As you say, you’d have been better in Salisbury.
The county (or metro) ought to be basic division for all public services.
The NHS Police and Emergency Services The National Learning Service (something I just made up, but which ought to exist).
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
As I said, I favour accountability.
Transparency on performance, transparency on cost, transparency on service.
The current NHS is organised to avoid or actively obscure accountability.
This is the key point. You wonder whether we might benefit from having local elected politicians responsible for holding health providers to account and scrutinising their performance - as we do for the Police ( Commissioners in E&W) and for services such as schooling, planning, etc where councillors provide that function.
"Producer capture" is always a danger in the public and third sectors, and monopoly suppliers in the private sector.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
My understanding of pure communism is that those who believe in it see it as inevitable. There is no need to do anything as at some point capitalism will collapse and it will just happen. It is the end game. For a genuine, theoretical Communist, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and every other state-directed, non-Parliamentary form of socialism was and is an attempt to hasten the process and so is inevitably going to fail.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
To suggest that any SAGE/indie SAGE scientist had motives that were in any way questionable was to invite a shrill pile on from any number of posters on here as recently as three months ago.
Personally I think we need a full investigation into the whole psychologists on SAGE issue to answer the following questions.
Why are psychologists on a committee making clinical decisions about diseases?
Who precisely formulated, approved and implemented the psychological techniques deployed to control the people of Britain over this period.
Whether these techniques breached international law on human rights
Whether prosecutions of those responsible under international law are appropriate.
Why involve psychologists on something that involves human behaviour? Are you seriously asking that question?
We can go back to David Cameron and his "Nudge Unit" to see how important psychology is in translating government policy into actions. With Covid they absolutely needed people to obey instructions that were completely counter-factual to most people's lived experience.
Its clear that the likes of Jenrick saying ditch your mask are there to nudge people in the preferred direction of travel. The government can say "use your common sense" but much of what we do is herd behaviour learned from the practice of others.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Sorry - I completely refute this. In Russia and China the regimes used hatred of certain classes of people in exactly the same way that Hitler used the Jews. Millions dead were not a few broken eggs, it was deliberate. Stalin could have intervened in the Ukraine to stop the famine, but chose not too. Thoroughly evil. Mao chose to export food rather than feed his own people. Thoroughly evil. Its not a crime to want a more equal society, but it is to deliberately kill people to get there.
I don't believe that Stalin or Mao were motivated by a desire to create a more equal society. They were motivated by a desire for power.
You can argue that the revolution in Russia started out with the workers as a collective genuinely in control, but after the civil war the workers were all dead, or all in positions of power in the state apparatus. There was no independent working class to exercise democratic control. So it was then simply another dictatorship but with communist symbols.
I don't think that process is inevitable, but it does seem to be an obvious risk if a revolution is violent. So it's weird that the revolutionary socialists in the UK all fetishise violent revolution, because that's a likely route to a revolution failing.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
Counterfactual though - if Stalin had invaded the UK and the Nazi's had offered support, I suspect he would have accepted.
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
Yep - I was sent to Bath from Warminster for my leukemia treatment. Sadly my wife worked nr Salisbury, so every day became an epic round trip, when I could have been in Salisbury, which would be in some ways more logical.
Thst sucks. Granted Warminster is the one bit that should go to Salisbury.
It was tough on her (less so for me, as I was just lying around all day...)
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
To suggest that any SAGE/indie SAGE scientist had motives that were in any way questionable was to invite a shrill pile on from any number of posters on here as recently as three months ago.
Personally I think we need a full investigation into the whole psychologists on SAGE issue to answer the following questions.
Why are psychologists on a committee making clinical decisions about diseases?
Who precisely formulated, approved and implemented the psychological techniques deployed to control the people of Britain over this period.
Whether these techniques breached international law on human rights
Whether prosecutions of those responsible under international law are appropriate.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of mass protest by Indy Sage or another similar group before 19th July in order to protest against Johnson and Javid's decision.
I think protests against mass meetings are very unlikely to happen.
Not that the current restrictions are particularly onerous, except for some sectors like the performing arts and wedding venues. The idea that the rest of society is in an oppressive lockdown is obvious bollocks.
1. It doesn’t seem very effective compared with European systems, except on “value for money”.
2. It’s impossible to get an appointment with my GP unless you are actually dying.
3. On the few occasions I’ve had first hand experience (maternity, child stuff), the doctors, paramedics and nurses have been brilliant but the facilities and “customer service” have all been crap.
4. I note the people in my circle are increasingly using private services even for GP stuff, probably because of (2), and I worry that the NHS will become a “poor people only” service with implications for both quality of service and funding.
I disagree with all of those in varying measure, and I wonder if it is partly a London service availability thing? Though when I lived in London for a few years I did not have any real problems (but I was in my 30s and it was some time ago, and it was a go-ahead practice next door to a major hospital, so very in touch).
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind? Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react .
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
The NHS has definitely improved in the last 20 odd years due to increased funding, though how much of that funding has gone to make our doctors the most secure, best paid and superannuated in Europe is rarely questioned. The other question that is never asked is why is it that super-bureaucracies are generally seen as an inefficient way to deliver services, but that the NHS is an exception?
Communism stems from a noble impulse, a desire to eliminate unjust inequality.
That Communism in practice has been a totalitarian shit-show doesn’t invalidate that.
It does if people dont acknowledge the in practice bit (as opposed to pull the old ' not real X' gambit) since people use the former to hook others without accepting how so often it led to the latter.
The reality has to be considered together with the theory.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As we know, the few eggs being possibly as many as 150 million people.
1. It doesn’t seem very effective compared with European systems, except on “value for money”.
2. It’s impossible to get an appointment with my GP unless you are actually dying.
3. On the few occasions I’ve had first hand experience (maternity, child stuff), the doctors, paramedics and nurses have been brilliant but the facilities and “customer service” have all been crap.
4. I note the people in my circle are increasingly using private services even for GP stuff, probably because of (2), and I worry that the NHS will become a “poor people only” service with implications for both quality of service and funding.
I disagree with all of those in varying measure, and I wonder if it is partly a London service availability thing? Though when I lived in London for a few years I did not have any real problems (but I was in my 30s and it was some time ago, and it was a go-ahead practice next door to a major hospital, so very in touch).
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind? Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react .
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
The NHS has definitely improved in the last 20 odd years due to increased funding, though how much of that funding has gone to make our doctors the most secure, best paid and superannuated in Europe is rarely questioned. The other question that is never asked is why is it that super-bureaucracies are generally seen as an inefficient way to deliver services, but that the NHS is an exception?
The current mooted NHS reforms are to further centralise and manage top down, direct from the DoH. It is to increase bureaucracy and to distance it from the front line customer.
Communism stems from a noble impulse, a desire to eliminate unjust inequality.
That Communism in practice has been a totalitarian shit-show doesn’t invalidate that.
It does if people dont acknowledge the in practice bit (as opposed to pull the old ' not real X' gambit) since people use the former to hook others without accepting how so often it led to the latter.
The reality has to be considered together with the theory.
I wasn’t even talking about the theory. Just the impulse.
The theory is very useful as a means of social and historical analysis, but as a prescription for how to order society, and the best way to get there, it is total shite.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
Counterfactual though - if Stalin had invaded the UK and the Nazi's had offered support, I suspect he would have accepted.
As my old man says, there are no if's in history.
Undoubtedly, but Stalin never had any intention of invading the UK - and the fact that he didn't is one aspect of the differences between Soviet comminism and Naziism.
I didn't think' defunding the police' was a British issue. TBH, I'm not exactly sure what it means. If the slogan was 'Re-educate the Police' I'd sympathise.
This is where BLM and others have screwed up.
Defunding the police actually means reallocating funding.
For example they would ban the police from buying military grade weapons and vehicles and rather have them spend that money on community policing.
Fun fact in a lot of states in America when the police carry out a no knock warrant and blow off the front of your house to enter and they have in fact come to the wrong house, they don't have to pay out any (or very little) recompense to the innocent party.
Would you be astonished to learn that no knock warrants disproportionately target African Americans and other minorities?
I'm frankly amazed at the stubbornness at sticking with a misleading slogan - I've seen people online get angry as 'that's not what it means' rather than consider rebranding the idea - for no reason I can think of. It looks like a label designed by opponents.
It's as if Theresa May came up with the label Dementia Tax herself then got mad that people didn't like the idea of taxing people for getting dementia.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Sorry - I completely refute this. In Russia and China the regimes used hatred of certain classes of people in exactly the same way that Hitler used the Jews. Millions dead were not a few broken eggs, it was deliberate. Stalin could have intervened in the Ukraine to stop the famine, but chose not too. Thoroughly evil. Mao chose to export food rather than feed his own people. Thoroughly evil. Its not a crime to want a more equal society, but it is to deliberately kill people to get there.
I don't believe that Stalin or Mao were motivated by a desire to create a more equal society. They were motivated by a desire for power.
You can argue that the revolution in Russia started out with the workers as a collective genuinely in control, but after the civil war the workers were all dead, or all in positions of power in the state apparatus. There was no independent working class to exercise democratic control. So it was then simply another dictatorship but with communist symbols.
I don't think that process is inevitable, but it does seem to be an obvious risk if a revolution is violent. So it's weird that the revolutionary socialists in the UK all fetishise violent revolution, because that's a likely route to a revolution failing.
It's weird that middle class revolutionaries fetishise violent revolution. Since violent revolution always end up in the hands of those who are really good at organising violence. And their first priority is always to "rm -rf *.*" the annoying middle class fools.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Communism didn't turn "poor countries with vast resources into rich ones". It slowed down the transition to greater prosperity and was enacted at enormous human cost. If the Communists hadn't won the respective civil wars, millions of lives would have been saved, and the countries would have made much more rapid progress. Instead of which we end up with the authoritarian bastardised capitalism presided over by Putin and Xi.
I agree to a certain extent: it's an excuse made by supporters of the regimes. "China was poor; thanks to Communism it is now rich." Ditto Russia. It ignores that the non-Communist west also got rich from similar levels of deprivation.
But I don't think you can say "millions of lives would have been saved." The Tsarist regimes in Russia were not known as being widely concerned with the lives of its poorest, and the same can be said for China. The leaders did not care.
What you did get with the revolutions was active uncaring, or the use of things like famines as a weapon. The Holodomor is a classic case.
Communism stems from a noble impulse, a desire to eliminate unjust inequality.
That Communism in practice has been a totalitarian shit-show doesn’t invalidate that.
It does if people dont acknowledge the in practice bit (as opposed to pull the old ' not real X' gambit) since people use the former to hook others without accepting how so often it led to the latter.
The reality has to be considered together with the theory.
Yes, but that has to apply to both sides, so promoters of capitalism have to accept the societal and generational inequality that are growing in capitalist societies.
It's almost as if there may be a sensible pragmatic centralist position to be taken 🤔
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
This is true, evan at nation level. Currently involved in a bit of research involving Wales and many Welsh patients are getting treated in England hospitals. Some of it's specialist and needs larger centres, but it's happening for a lot of routine stuff too, partly due to access issues - in some partsof Wales it's easier to access a hospital in England than another one in Wales.
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
As I said, I favour accountability.
Transparency on performance, transparency on cost, transparency on service.
The current NHS is organised to avoid or actively obscure accountability.
This is the key point. You wonder whether we might benefit from having local elected politicians responsible for holding health providers to account and scrutinising their performance - as we do for the Police ( Commissioners in E&W) and for services such as schooling, planning, etc where councillors provide that function.
"Producer capture" is always a danger in the public and third sectors, and monopoly suppliers in the private sector.
The U.K. is full of comfy bureaucracies, both private and public.
Thatcher’s revolution is not complete - in this respect - in my opinion.
Communism stems from a noble impulse, a desire to eliminate unjust inequality.
That Communism in practice has been a totalitarian shit-show doesn’t invalidate that.
It does if people dont acknowledge the in practice bit (as opposed to pull the old ' not real X' gambit) since people use the former to hook others without accepting how so often it led to the latter.
The reality has to be considered together with the theory.
As I like to put it - The means illuminate the morality of the end.
Revolutionary communism has *always* led to mass killing of innocents.
1. It doesn’t seem very effective compared with European systems, except on “value for money”.
2. It’s impossible to get an appointment with my GP unless you are actually dying.
3. On the few occasions I’ve had first hand experience (maternity, child stuff), the doctors, paramedics and nurses have been brilliant but the facilities and “customer service” have all been crap.
4. I note the people in my circle are increasingly using private services even for GP stuff, probably because of (2), and I worry that the NHS will become a “poor people only” service with implications for both quality of service and funding.
I disagree with all of those in varying measure, and I wonder if it is partly a London service availability thing? Though when I lived in London for a few years I did not have any real problems (but I was in my 30s and it was some time ago, and it was a go-ahead practice next door to a major hospital, so very in touch).
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind? Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react .
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
The NHS has definitely improved in the last 20 odd years due to increased funding, though how much of that funding has gone to make our doctors the most secure, best paid and superannuated in Europe is rarely questioned. The other question that is never asked is why is it that super-bureaucracies are generally seen as an inefficient way to deliver services, but that the NHS is an exception?
The current mooted NHS reforms are to further centralise and manage top down, direct from the DoH. It is to increase bureaucracy and to distance it from the front line customer.
On topic I know we deal in hyperbole on here but losing by elections is not a risk to Boris - he could lose every by election in the parliament and still be in power. Over the 3 by elections LDs are up one Lab down one.
There is a narrative issue here but the very fact that governments rarely gain seats and much more often lose seats during a parliament is clear, and just because Betfair had Tories as the favourites is Chesham and Batley after Hartlepool should be no surprise - betting markets get things wrong and many on here profit from this lack of knowledge.
I do agree that the Tories are complacent, and it would be useful if they could drum up more activists but their problem in the red wall is lack of infrastructure - much as Labour struggles to put up councillors across rural areas. I'm not sure how they can turn that around quickly, and that is an opportunity for Labour in those areas
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
An endlessly fascinating question. I think the answer lies in the public face. Communism has a public face of wanting universal good things for the poor and oppressed. This of course is a wicked lie.
Fascism makes no such pretence. To any normal person its stated public intentions as well as its real ones are evil through and through.
But why so many otherwise bright liberal centrists are taken in by this, I have no idea.
I've thought about this quite a lot. I don't claim to have all the answers, which will anyway vary from person to person, but here are some suggestions.
When we talk about people sticking up for Communism, we're mostly talking about the young and relatively poor (students, luvvies, public sector workers, etc.). The young have no experience of the Cold War, while they're endlessly reminded about the Nazis every time they turn on the TV. And the poor are of course attracted to an ideology which says that the distribution of property is all wrong.
Another reason is that the exposure of Nazism after the war was so complete and devastating and the contrast between Nazi Germany and the Federal Republic so total that no serious person can possibly have a good opinion of the Germans. While the contrast between Putin's and Brezhnev's or Andropov's Russia isn't nearly so great.
Finally, you can divide Hitler's countless crimes into two overarching categories - aggressive wars and internal repression/genocide. The Commies are just as bad as Hitler in the latter category, but they are much more cautious in the former. Their aggressions (Finland, Tibet, etc.) were mostly against smaller neighbours, and they usually held back from igniting megawars against other great powers. So they are less direct threat to our and America's national interests than the Nazis were (the fact that Hitler was willing to accomodate the British Empire as long as we stayed out of Europe isn't well understood).
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
Counterfactual though - if Stalin had invaded the UK and the Nazi's had offered support, I suspect he would have accepted.
As my old man says, there are no if's in history.
Quite possibly - Churchill was quite clear that he was fighting the immediate enemy with the assistance of a more distant enemy.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Sorry - I completely refute this. In Russia and China the regimes used hatred of certain classes of people in exactly the same way that Hitler used the Jews. Millions dead were not a few broken eggs, it was deliberate. Stalin could have intervened in the Ukraine to stop the famine, but chose not too. Thoroughly evil. Mao chose to export food rather than feed his own people. Thoroughly evil. Its not a crime to want a more equal society, but it is to deliberately kill people to get there.
I don't believe that Stalin or Mao were motivated by a desire to create a more equal society. They were motivated by a desire for power.
You can argue that the revolution in Russia started out with the workers as a collective genuinely in control, but after the civil war the workers were all dead, or all in positions of power in the state apparatus. There was no independent working class to exercise democratic control. So it was then simply another dictatorship but with communist symbols.
I don't think that process is inevitable, but it does seem to be an obvious risk if a revolution is violent. So it's weird that the revolutionary socialists in the UK all fetishise violent revolution, because that's a likely route to a revolution failing.
It's weird that middle class revolutionaries fetishise violent revolution. Since violent revolution always end up in the hands of those who are really good at organising violence. And their first priority is always to "rm -rf *.*" the annoying middle class fools.
In Tim Marshall's latest book he reflects briefly on the Iranian revolution and talks about how in revolutions the liberals so often fail to understand that what the true believers say, they mean, which explains why the former usually lose out.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
NHS regional organisation is frequently bizarre, but counties dont make for good organisation for such matters. Those in West Wiltshire invariably use Bath, rather than Salisbury or Swindon for example.
As I said, I favour accountability.
Transparency on performance, transparency on cost, transparency on service.
The current NHS is organised to avoid or actively obscure accountability.
This is the key point. You wonder whether we might benefit from having local elected politicians responsible for holding health providers to account and scrutinising their performance - as we do for the Police ( Commissioners in E&W) and for services such as schooling, planning, etc where councillors provide that function.
"Producer capture" is always a danger in the public and third sectors, and monopoly suppliers in the private sector.
There was a time when elected councillors sat on the district health authorities, but that ended in the Major years. The DoH is the centralising vampire squid.
It is why no SoS for Health has ever made the top job since the NHS was created. Punters on Javid take note.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Paywall but you can get 3 months for £1 (and then cancel).
Yup, I said it on the day it happened, replacing Hancock with Javid is a game changer for the whole nation. Javid won't be easily fooled by dodgy data models and he will see COVID in the wider context of the nation as well as the NHS backlog which is still building up.
I've heard one suggestion that the testing system be cut back within a few months and then the money from that is ploughed into contracting private sector providers to cut the backlog in half by the end of next year. That instinctively feels like a Javid solution of working with what's available not arsing about trying to solve the decades old problem of getting more doctors and nurses for the NHS to build up capacity.
Yes, I expect privatised contracting out to boom. That is a typical short termist solution, which causes staff to leave to the private providers. Staff there are mostly ex NHS or moonlighting from it. Indeed, I may do well myself from it. It is like an alcoholic hitting the bottle.
The other way doesn't make a dent in the backlog for about 5 years at least. I don't know what other options are available?
Fly them over to Eastern Europe and perform the operations there.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
To suggest that any SAGE/indie SAGE scientist had motives that were in any way questionable was to invite a shrill pile on from any number of posters on here as recently as three months ago.
Personally I think we need a full investigation into the whole psychologists on SAGE issue to answer the following questions.
Why are psychologists on a committee making clinical decisions about diseases?
Who precisely formulated, approved and implemented the psychological techniques deployed to control the people of Britain over this period.
Whether these techniques breached international law on human rights
Whether prosecutions of those responsible under international law are appropriate.
That's absolute nonsense concerning Indie SAGE - plenty of us have been criticising the credentials and motives of members of Indi SAGE for months (and Michie's communism has come up before).
Other have answered the psychologists question - SAGE has subgoups, not everyone is advising on NPIs and it's the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, not a clinical decision group. Not necessarily clinical/health at all - SAGE (different people, largely, except where skills overlapped) has previously advised on Toddbrook reservoir, the Nepal earthquake, winter flooding, the Japan nuclear issues after the tsunami, volcanic ash... [1]
My guess is the psycoholigists probably have been involved more than most as their expertise probably comes in to more emergencies than the other specialties - e.g. how will people respond, what's the best messaging etc,
The successes of communism, like those of most dictatorships, tended to be much more apparent than real. The Soviet Union developed some impressive heavy industries under Stalin, even as the countryside remained mired in poverty, racked with periodic famine. Agricultural production was actually lower in 1950 than in 1917. Ditto China. Deng Xiao Ping claimed that real incomes were no higher in 1976 than twenty years previously.
What Communists were really good at, and what fascists and national socialists were really bad at, is mobilising a nation for war. The Soviet military/industrial complex was impressive, and they had the world's best intelligence services. In the hands of people who were totally uncaring about human life, they could achieve immensely impressive results. It's a paradox that the Nazis and fascists who glorified war, were crushed on the battlefield, while those who in theory were aiming to build a pacifist society were quite outstanding at waging war.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
Why are psychologists on a committee making clinical decisions about diseases?
The behavioural scientists were the biggest fans of (non-vaccine) herd immunity. They've been unbelievably shit, both ways.
Is that actually true? The Great Barrington Declaration came from epidemiologists, not psychologists. Although since we now have effective vaccines, is anyone at all advocating non-vaccine herd immunity? Not to mention that much of the current criticism is of individual psychologists who are cautious about easing lockdown measures, which is the opposite of "letting it rip".
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
On psychologists: psychology can be a very useful tool. But it's also absolutely riddled with politics and was way ahead of the curve on identity politics and bullshit intersectionalism.
I learnt (about two decades ago now) of feminist psychology that disliked the 'standard' of psychology was white male. And then black feminist psychology. And that's before we get to one lecturer coming out in favour of the violent thugs protesting against Islamic cartoons from Denmark, and one feminist lecturer commenting about throwing men back into a burning lecture theatre.
And it's very prone to pathologising every little personality quirk into some kind of syndrome or disorder.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently?
Yes.
At the start of April there were nearly as many people in hospital as there were cases, now its about 10%
That doesn't mean that about 10% of cases become hospitalisations, the issue is that people can be in hospital for a while while the case figure is just the daily cases. So any positives today won't be classed as a case tomorrow, while any admissions today might still be hospitalised tomorrow.
So its an interesting comparator to show how its become less serious but treat with salt for any more than that.
Paywall but you can get 3 months for £1 (and then cancel).
Yup, I said it on the day it happened, replacing Hancock with Javid is a game changer for the whole nation. Javid won't be easily fooled by dodgy data models and he will see COVID in the wider context of the nation as well as the NHS backlog which is still building up.
I've heard one suggestion that the testing system be cut back within a few months and then the money from that is ploughed into contracting private sector providers to cut the backlog in half by the end of next year. That instinctively feels like a Javid solution of working with what's available not arsing about trying to solve the decades old problem of getting more doctors and nurses for the NHS to build up capacity.
Yes, I expect privatised contracting out to boom. That is a typical short termist solution, which causes staff to leave to the private providers. Staff there are mostly ex NHS or moonlighting from it. Indeed, I may do well myself from it. It is like an alcoholic hitting the bottle.
The other way doesn't make a dent in the backlog for about 5 years at least. I don't know what other options are available?
I know, but one effect of contracting out is the sidelining of projects that increase permanent capacity. Chief amongst these is postgraduate training. We have junior doctors that have not operated or done a cardiac catheter etc in a year. Contracting out never involves training, and indeed directly interferes with it, by stripping out experienced trainers and bread and butter cases.
Let the patients wait in pain then. It suits the System.
Have you stopped to think about the ethical implications of what you are saying?
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
1. It doesn’t seem very effective compared with European systems, except on “value for money”.
2. It’s impossible to get an appointment with my GP unless you are actually dying.
3. On the few occasions I’ve had first hand experience (maternity, child stuff), the doctors, paramedics and nurses have been brilliant but the facilities and “customer service” have all been crap.
4. I note the people in my circle are increasingly using private services even for GP stuff, probably because of (2), and I worry that the NHS will become a “poor people only” service with implications for both quality of service and funding.
I disagree with all of those in varying measure, and I wonder if it is partly a London service availability thing? Though when I lived in London for a few years I did not have any real problems (but I was in my 30s and it was some time ago, and it was a go-ahead practice next door to a major hospital, so very in touch).
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind? Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react .
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
The NHS has definitely improved in the last 20 odd years due to increased funding, though how much of that funding has gone to make our doctors the most secure, best paid and superannuated in Europe is rarely questioned. The other question that is never asked is why is it that super-bureaucracies are generally seen as an inefficient way to deliver services, but that the NHS is an exception?
The current mooted NHS reforms are to further centralise and manage top down, direct from the DoH. It is to increase bureaucracy and to distance it from the front line customer.
It seems so.
Bizarre, in this day and age.
And from a Conservative govt, too.
Whitehall and Westminster thinking centralisation is a good thing (usually simultaneous with saying decentralisation is good)? Truly surprising.
Especially with 18 months of rigid control to go with the natural inclination.
(I actually dont think, as a general principal, that centralisation is bad, but it frustrates as lots of higher ups say they want to decentralise when their actions show otherwise. They say it because it's the 'right' answer not because they believe it).
I wouldn't necessarily say it was complacency, there were plenty of Tory activists in both seats and in Batley even if Labour held on there was still a swing to the Tories.
In Chesham no matter how much the Tories campaigned and who the candidate was there was always likely to be a swing to the LDs based on Nimbyism and the fact it was a strong Remain seat
Paywall but you can get 3 months for £1 (and then cancel).
Yup, I said it on the day it happened, replacing Hancock with Javid is a game changer for the whole nation. Javid won't be easily fooled by dodgy data models and he will see COVID in the wider context of the nation as well as the NHS backlog which is still building up.
I've heard one suggestion that the testing system be cut back within a few months and then the money from that is ploughed into contracting private sector providers to cut the backlog in half by the end of next year. That instinctively feels like a Javid solution of working with what's available not arsing about trying to solve the decades old problem of getting more doctors and nurses for the NHS to build up capacity.
Yes, I expect privatised contracting out to boom. That is a typical short termist solution, which causes staff to leave to the private providers. Staff there are mostly ex NHS or moonlighting from it. Indeed, I may do well myself from it. It is like an alcoholic hitting the bottle.
The other way doesn't make a dent in the backlog for about 5 years at least. I don't know what other options are available?
I know, but one effect of contracting out is the sidelining of projects that increase permanent capacity. Chief amongst these is postgraduate training. We have junior doctors that have not operated or done a cardiac catheter etc in a year. Contracting out never involves training, and indeed directly interferes with it, by stripping out experienced trainers and bread and butter cases.
Let the patients wait in pain then. It suits the System.
Have you stopped to think about the ethical implications of what you are saying?
No, as usual you are misrepresenting my views.
I have no problem in tackling waiting lists, just want appropriate provision so that such a system is sustainable. A requirement for outsourcing should be training, for example, and funding for permanent expansion of capacity.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
Almost anarchic you might say?
You need some great central organisation to be an effective anarchist group.
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
Certainly running everything locally is a pain. It would make sense to manage supply and demand across the whole country. I'm happy to travel anywhere in the country (indeed out of it) for an operation, and for example you could have a massive MRI scanning facility in Birmingham. Leave local services for those who need them.
MRI specifically is interesting
The problem is every hospital wants one. Which they run 9-5, 5 days a week. Given the cost of the space/equipment that makes no sense.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
I think daily admissions per daily cases. Obviously most admissions and cases are for a week or so, so we are looking at daily incidence.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
It's a crude estimate of the rate that cases end up in hospital - you take the current number in hospital (7 day average) and divide by the number of cases 7 days previously (also use a 7 day average)
It would be better to use a distribution - see the CFR calculations I was doing for a while - but the published literature on COVID hasn't included a case -> hospitalisation distribution curve that I could find.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
Im not sure you are right on the economy, I think 2022/2023 will be boom years, people have a lot of money to spend.
Rishi Sunak must maintain a £20-per-week uplift for Universal Credit claimants beyond October to allow people who claim the payments to “live with dignity,” six former Tory work and pensions secretaries have urged.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who introduced the Universal Credit policy, is joined by five of his successors - Stephen Crabb, Damian Green, David Gauke, Esther McVey and Amber Rudd - in a bid to persuade Rishi Sunak to stick with the £5 billion benefits investment even after coronavirus restrictions have been eased.
The extra cash for benefit claimants was brought in as an emergency spending measure during the Covid crisis but is due to expire on October 1, having already been extended for six months at the March Budget.
Sir Iain said making it a permanent feature "should be at the heart of what makes us Conservatives".
"One of the greatest, but unremarked, successes of the Government's response to Covid has been the benefit system," he said.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
I wouldn't necessarily say it was complacency, there were plenty of Tory activists in both seats and in Batley even if Labour held on there was still a swing to the Tories.
In Chesham no matter how much the Tories campaigned and who the candidate was there was always likely to be a swing to the LDs based on Nimbyism and the fact it was a strong Remain seat
So you are basically saying that any seat with high remain support and expensive houses is ripe for the LDs to win and there is nothing the Tories can do about it.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
I think just the daily new cases divided by those in hospital
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
I’d rather see more local accountability.
The NHS should be run on county or metro lines, although I can imagine nation-wide centres of excellence on the lines you mention.
You would have organisational units (regional territories) below the national organisation, sure. But the issues facing chronic care, for example, are broadly similar nationwide
Rishi Sunak must maintain a £20-per-week uplift for Universal Credit claimants beyond October to allow people who claim the payments to “live with dignity,” six former Tory work and pensions secretaries have urged.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who introduced the Universal Credit policy, is joined by five of his successors - Stephen Crabb, Damian Green, David Gauke, Esther McVey and Amber Rudd - in a bid to persuade Rishi Sunak to stick with the £5 billion benefits investment even after coronavirus restrictions have been eased.
The extra cash for benefit claimants was brought in as an emergency spending measure during the Covid crisis but is due to expire on October 1, having already been extended for six months at the March Budget.
Sir Iain said making it a permanent feature "should be at the heart of what makes us Conservatives".
"One of the greatest, but unremarked, successes of the Government's response to Covid has been the benefit system," he said.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
Counterfactual though - if Stalin had invaded the UK and the Nazi's had offered support, I suspect he would have accepted.
As my old man says, there are no if's in history.
Undoubtedly, but Stalin never had any intention of invading the UK - and the fact that he didn't is one aspect of the differences between Soviet comminism and Naziism.
An important aspect of their difference was their respective foreign policies, and in particular their policies towards the monarchist regime in one particular foreign country, with which one of them happened to be militarily allied during a major conflict while the other was at war with it?
It could easily have happened that the German regime was allied to said monarchy while the Soviet regime was at war with it, with only a small change in initial circumstances.
1. The NHS, as has been rehearsed on here many times, is fantastic if you are wheeled in to A&E, have to be dealt with then and there and then out. Almost anything else it is middling at best and dreadful more often. Organisationally, and especially for complex, chronic, multiple morbidities, it is almost criminally negligent. At the GP level if the patient doesn't have an obviously broken leg then the degree of knowledge is often shameful.
2. Great post on communism/fascism, Nick.
3. Is there a market on how often Boris mentions Emma tonight?
In some ways I think the NHS GC is well deserved: it has been fantastic for this country.
However: I don't want the NHS to turn into a religion that can do no wrong. My own youth was blighted by a mistake made by the NHS, which took years to correct. The Stafford scandal also shows what happens when the NHS becomes above criticism.
I fear we're heading that way, and whilst it will be good for staff, it won't be good for patients.
The NHS is staffed by human beings, not deities, and some will make mistakes. When those mistakes occur, the correct response is openness, not the circling of the wagons.
I think we are already there TBH
I’d rather see the NHS reorganised so it moves away from physical location (DGH) and is organised on the basis of purpose
Have separate organisations responsible for prevention, triage & emergency, acute care, specialist care & chronic care. Have a minister responsible for each of these (possibly 2 not sure how many ministers there are in DoH)
Potentially even have the DGH facilities run as part of a separate organisation.
Then a coordinating body sitting on top responsible to the SOS.
Certainly running everything locally is a pain. It would make sense to manage supply and demand across the whole country. I'm happy to travel anywhere in the country (indeed out of it) for an operation, and for example you could have a massive MRI scanning facility in Birmingham. Leave local services for those who need them.
MRI specifically is interesting
The problem is every hospital wants one. Which they run 9-5, 5 days a week. Given the cost of the space/equipment that makes no sense.
Have 30/40/whatever nationally and run them 24-7.
Though how do you move inpatients to MRI centres? Fleets af staffed ambulances?
The limiting factor in infrastructure usage is personnel rather than facilities. We do not have enough radiologists, so making the ones we have scan through the night reduces daytime staffing.
So my Trust is cancelling lists this summer because of shortages of theatre personnel, and why training is so key to service provision.
Anyway, time to get out with my hound on the Island. Looks like rain later in the afternoon. Culver Down walkies today.
Hospital staff, now they've gone above and beyond. Not sure regular surgery GPs deserve the GC quite frankly.
On a semi-point of order which is a touch OT, I am not sure whether GP staff are formally "NHS staff" (?), as a GP practice is a private business.
GP's are contractors, private individuals or, increasingly often these days, limited companies, who contract to supply General Medical Services to whatever the local body is. Their contracts are complex, with often with a large number of small 'add-ons' but, unless the situation has changed since I was involved they often guard that 'contractual status' firmly.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
The polls are bound to tighten, because that is what one should expect to see in mid-term.
That said, I expect the economy will growing quite well in 2022/23.
Why is communism regarded as more acceptable than fascism? They're equally as bad.
Its my perennial rant. Why was John McDonald not excoriated for producing Mao's little red book in the house? Imagine if someone had brought in Mein Kampf? Mao was every bit as evil as Hitler, and with every bit the hidious impact on peoples lives. And don't get me started on Stalin.
This will be one for someone like Nick Palmer to answer.
But having talked to a few in the past, I think a supposed Stalin quote is at the heart of it: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette". Communism may have killed millions of people for little good, but their heart was in the correct place. Unlike those evil fascists. The ends justify the means.
And there is some evidence towards that: in China and Russia, Communism (or bastardised versions of it) have turned poor countries with vast resources into rich ones (albeit Russia has descended recently). But that ignores that the west's weird pseudo-capitalist system has also seen massive gains - and perhaps more than was seen in Russia and China. It also ignores the hot messes of countries like NK or Venezuela.
Personally, the political theory I find really intriguing is anarchism. I knew someone who created a diagram of all the different anarchist groups in this country up to the 1990s, and the amount of splitting and divergence of views was quite amazing.
As I've been asked, I don't think it's especially useful to set up lists of vileness - arguably, Hitler (seeking to eradicate whole population groups) was worse than Pol Pot (seeking to eradicate all opponents) who was worse than Stalin (seeking to eradicate random enemies perceived by a paranoid) who was worse than Lenin (seeking to eradicate actual opponents), etc., but we could spend all day arguing the details, pointlessly. But yes, I see dictators who seek to inflict misery because it gives them pleasure and satisfaction as worse than dictators who make dreadful mistakes. And in some cases they will do something that they can offer in mitigation, as Josias says.
I always felt and suppose I still feel that the underlying idea of communism was attractive (and better than Nazism, which is based on the idea of inherent superiorty of races and the right to enslave other races) - from each according to ability, to each according to need. For what it's worth, it's how I try to live. But it quite evidently doesn't work as a system of government, and is often associated with murderous dictatorship, which makes it totally unacceptable however good the intentions. Even in the days in the 60s when I was a communist, it was always on the Eurocommunist model pioneered by Berlinguer - an attempt to make the ideas work in a civilised democratic framework.
Tried to give an honest answer there. But it's all very historical - as a system of government, both models are utterly discredited.
Incidentally, I had relatives who lived under Stalin. One was political, a keen left-winger who returned to Russia from exile to help the Soviet state. He was sent to the Gulag and is assumed to have died there, for not having precisely the right views. The others never left till the 80s, and just got by, keeping their heads down and never expressing any opinions about anything.
Thanks Nick, that matches my opinion exactly. Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
Counterfactual though - if Stalin had invaded the UK and the Nazi's had offered support, I suspect he would have accepted.
As my old man says, there are no if's in history.
Undoubtedly, but Stalin never had any intention of invading the UK - and the fact that he didn't is one aspect of the differences between Soviet comminism and Naziism.
An important aspect of their difference was their respective foreign policies, and in particular their policies towards the monarchist regime in one particular foreign country, with which one of them happened to be militarily allied during a major conflict while the other was at war with it?
It could easily have happened that the German regime was allied to said monarchy while the Soviet regime was at war with it, with only a small change in initial circumstances.
Hmm, you remind me of the way in which the [edit] Windsor regime (or at least its prime minister) had a good go at starting a war with the Soviet Union over Finland in 1939.
Could have ended up with Germany and the SU as co-belligerents against the London imperialists.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
It's a crude estimate of the rate that cases end up in hospital - you take the current number in hospital (7 day average) and divide by the number of cases 7 days previously (also use a 7 day average)
It would be better to use a distribution - see the CFR calculations I was doing for a while - but the published literature on COVID hasn't included a case -> hospitalisation distribution curve that I could find.
So estimates of the rate that end up in hospital is deduced only the number of Covid new infections that we know about. What about the cases that we don't know about? There should be some estimate of this surely?
If I were to experience Covid symptoms, but only mildly or moderately, I would take a LFT test to confirm I'm positive, self isolate and get better at home. I wouldn't appear in any stats.
This must be happening in large numbers country-wide. Therefore the rate of hospitalisation (and death rate) is MUCH lower than the stats imply?
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
I think just the daily new cases divided by those in hospital
The idea is to see the slope - the raw number is not really the meaningful bit. The more direct value is the Hospitalisations vs Cases.
The reason I generate it is to see if the length of stay in hospital is creating a different trend to the Hospitalisations vs Cases.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
Im not sure you are right on the economy, I think 2022/2023 will be boom years, people have a lot of money to spend.
I struggle to see how your optimism translates into reality. We've had to tip a bonfire of money away to stop a massive contraction becoming a permanent reduction. We need to generate economic growth to manage that away and we're in a more isolated position than we were before it started.
The way out of not just this mess but the significant structural imbalances in the economy built up over decades is to invest heavily in the new economy. Which means looking at our needs in the next decade - this lot seem fixated on tomorrow's headlines.
@Charles are you suggesting that I should have to take an entire day off work and drive to Birmingham, for example, to have an MRI?
What about people who don’t drive?
I think you mean, people who don't have chauffeurs.
(Not a class warfare thing. Some medical interventions make self-driving or public transport impossible. I had to argue very vigorously before my elderly father would agree to have a taxi for his cataract operation rather than save money by taking the bus. He, typically, hadn't considered issues such as infection and walking around and waiting.)
Communism stems from a noble impulse, a desire to eliminate unjust inequality.
That Communism in practice has been a totalitarian shit-show doesn’t invalidate that.
Maybe it does invalidate it, because if every single time something is attempted it ends in abject failure, maybe there's something wrong with the theory behind it.
As pointed out upthread, to a previous note of Luntz's unconvincing claim, there were similar results from the KCL survey. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/culture-wars-in-the-uk.pdf ...The UK public are as likely to think being “woke” is a compliment (26%) as they are to think it’s an insult (24%) – and are in fact most likely to say they don’t know what the term means (38%)....
Luntz is as much a conservative political operator as he is a pollster, and his pronouncements ought to be treated with a very large pinch of salt.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
I think just the daily new cases divided by those in hospital
This is why it is a "bonus" graph, I guess - no-one really knows *exactly* what it is supposed to mean, except that it has a warmly encouraging downward slope.
"Likewise, businesses will be coming up with their own rules, based on what they see as their core demographic. A sports bar in Chelmsford, decked out in England flags? My feeling is it won't require masks. A vegan cafe in Islington or Bristol? You will have to wrap up your face before ordering that soyamilk fair trade latte.
Over time, the political and socio economic divide could even deepen. Sound familiar? Maskers and anti-maskers look set to become the new Remainers and Leavers (with almost, if not quite, the same tribes in both camps). Very few people on either side of that bitter debate were actually very interested in the finer points of tariffs on citrus fruits, or what the European Commission's plans for the digital transformation of European industry might be this week. They wanted to say something about themselves.
We might have hoped that Covid-19 would soon be behind us. There seems little chance of that now. The divisions lockdowns have opened up and exacerbated will run for years."
Personally, I'm more optimistic. I think a lot of the pro-masking is for show. Given the choice, excepting a tiny minority, people don't wear masks. The noises in America prior to unmasking were that many would virtuously continue to wear them. From what I understand - and I'm happy to be corrected by American correspondents - they haven't. Making a statement about which camp you sit in becomes less attractive when you have to wear a horrible rag around your face to do it.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
Im not sure you are right on the economy, I think 2022/2023 will be boom years, people have a lot of money to spend.
I struggle to see how your optimism translates into reality. We've had to tip a bonfire of money away to stop a massive contraction becoming a permanent reduction. We need to generate economic growth to manage that away and we're in a more isolated position than we were before it started.
The way out of not just this mess but the significant structural imbalances in the economy built up over decades is to invest heavily in the new economy. Which means looking at our needs in the next decade - this lot seem fixated on tomorrow's headlines.
The optimism is based on the fact that people have repaid their debts at rates never seen before over the past 18 months. Also individual savings have increased markedly.
It's about the manifestations of the mindset in a very small percentage of people who have disproportionate influence from the top. It is an attack on liberalism and the public know the effects very well without being familiar with the term itself (which I dislike).
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
I think just the daily new cases divided by those in hospital
This is why it is a "bonus" graph, I guess - no-one really knows *exactly* what it is supposed to mean, except that it has a warmly encouraging downward slope.
It is a check on whether the length of hospital stays is producing a different trend to the rate of hospitalisation vs cases.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
So Currently we have a 7 day average of 25000 new cases per day. And a 7 day average of 2000 cases currently in hospital.
And that is the ratio between the two.
Which I interpret as a measure of the falling increase in load on NHS resources each day because high vaccination has reduced the number of cases who need to be admitted.
So it's a measure of 'how quickly hospitals are filling up relative to the number of new cases of Covid". A little tricky to grasp intuitively as it compares a rate (of Covid cases) to a stock (of cases in hospital).
Whilst the other graph yesterday "Hospital Admissions per Case" is intuitively easier to get, and is the simple ratio of "what fraction of todays cases of Covid are serious enough to put someone in hospital".
So "Hospital Admissions per Case" is a measure of the amount of water entering the bath relative to the water pressure. A measure of increased overall success in resisting pressure on the NHS.
And "In Hospital per Case" is a measure of how much water is now in the bath relative to the water pressure, which can be interpreted as an indicator of consumption of NHS resources / impact on NHS and/or an indicator of resilience of the system to current Covid conditions.
And the vaccination rate is slowly turning the tap off.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
Im not sure you are right on the economy, I think 2022/2023 will be boom years, people have a lot of money to spend.
I struggle to see how your optimism translates into reality. We've had to tip a bonfire of money away to stop a massive contraction becoming a permanent reduction. We need to generate economic growth to manage that away and we're in a more isolated position than we were before it started.
The way out of not just this mess but the significant structural imbalances in the economy built up over decades is to invest heavily in the new economy. Which means looking at our needs in the next decade - this lot seem fixated on tomorrow's headlines.
The optimism is based on the fact that people have repaid their debts at rates never seen before over the past 18 months. Also individual savings have increased markedly.
There remains a massive pent up demand.
I can't see anything but a boom.
I think this is going to be very interesting. If (lots of ifs here) we have a strong economic recovery, we avoid rampant inflation, and a plurality of people feel the benefit, it's going to be very hard to argue that the government can't just magic up money when it wants to - however much it may or may not be true that the government can or can't just magic up money when it wants to.
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
it's "In Hospital" / "Cases"
I still don't understand it.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
0.15% ?
Meaning: 0.15% of people who currently have Covid are in hospital? 1 in 666?
It's a crude estimate of the rate that cases end up in hospital - you take the current number in hospital (7 day average) and divide by the number of cases 7 days previously (also use a 7 day average)
It would be better to use a distribution - see the CFR calculations I was doing for a while - but the published literature on COVID hasn't included a case -> hospitalisation distribution curve that I could find.
So estimates of the rate that end up in hospital is deduced only the number of Covid new infections that we know about. What about the cases that we don't know about? There should be some estimate of this surely?
If I were to experience Covid symptoms, but only mildly or moderately, I would take a LFT test to confirm I'm positive, self isolate and get better at home. I wouldn't appear in any stats.
This must be happening in large numbers country-wide. Therefore the rate of hospitalisation (and death rate) is MUCH lower than the stats imply?
The idea is not to generate an absolute number, but to look at trends. If you want an absolute number you would use the ONS infection survey, generate a case rate from that etc etc.
The point is to keep an eye on the different in the rate of increase in cases and rate of increase of those in hospital.
When the mask mandate goes, there's really no point in a simple face covering on an individual health level, they're far better at preventing virus exhalation than inhalation - either clear faced or FFP3 depending on the situation.
I suspect the Tories would have taken B & S but for moron Matt Hancock. How many years have I been saying the guy was an idiot and a liability on here?
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Mancock was hardly the stand out moron in the cabinet. Several of them have lied and broken the ministerial code and not followed their own guidance and and and...
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
Im not sure you are right on the economy, I think 2022/2023 will be boom years, people have a lot of money to spend.
I struggle to see how your optimism translates into reality. We've had to tip a bonfire of money away to stop a massive contraction becoming a permanent reduction. We need to generate economic growth to manage that away and we're in a more isolated position than we were before it started.
The way out of not just this mess but the significant structural imbalances in the economy built up over decades is to invest heavily in the new economy. Which means looking at our needs in the next decade - this lot seem fixated on tomorrow's headlines.
The optimism is based on the fact that people have repaid their debts at rates never seen before over the past 18 months. Also individual savings have increased markedly.
There remains a massive pent up demand.
I can't see anything but a boom.
I think this is going to be very interesting. If (lots of ifs here) we have a strong economic recovery, we avoid rampant inflation, and a plurality of people feel the benefit, it's going to be very hard to argue that the government can't just magic up money when it wants to - however much it may or may not be true that the government can or can't just magic up money when it wants to.
We won’t avoid rampant inflation, even if it is short term.
"Likewise, businesses will be coming up with their own rules, based on what they see as their core demographic. A sports bar in Chelmsford, decked out in England flags? My feeling is it won't require masks. A vegan cafe in Islington or Bristol? You will have to wrap up your face before ordering that soyamilk fair trade latte.
Over time, the political and socio economic divide could even deepen. Sound familiar? Maskers and anti-maskers look set to become the new Remainers and Leavers (with almost, if not quite, the same tribes in both camps). Very few people on either side of that bitter debate were actually very interested in the finer points of tariffs on citrus fruits, or what the European Commission's plans for the digital transformation of European industry might be this week. They wanted to say something about themselves.
We might have hoped that Covid-19 would soon be behind us. There seems little chance of that now. The divisions lockdowns have opened up and exacerbated will run for years."
Personally, I'm more optimistic. I think a lot of the pro-masking is for show. Given the choice, excepting a tiny minority, people don't wear masks. The noises in America prior to unmasking were that many would virtuously continue to wear them. From what I understand - and I'm happy to be corrected by American correspondents - they haven't. Making a statement about which camp you sit in becomes less attractive when you have to wear a horrible rag around your face to do it.
Interesting choice for the no-mask example. I hear Chelmsford is more like the Islington of Essex nowadays, very la-di-da. Even got an LD council, of course... Surely Sarfend would be a better example for not poncing about with masks?
Edit: More seriously, yes, it's quite possible. I think the government woud do well to define a point (all adults offered two vax doses plus 2-3 weeks?) at which they say essentially we're done and it's not going to get any better. We no longer advise masks, we no longer advise changes in behaviour. Still perhaps be careful around the more vulnerable, etc, but it's time to get back to normal.
It's about the manifestations of the mindset in a very small percentage of people who have disproportionate influence from the top. It is an attack on liberalism and the public know the effects very well without being familiar with the term itself (which I dislike).
Another problem is wokeness is a sliding scale not a binary yes/no. I have no time for the extreme wokeists, but think just a touch woke is about optimal. And that is my interpretation of a touch woke, which will be different to other perceptions. Some might think that is not woke at all, others might it consider it extreme.
The survey shows, as with most things, extremists on either side are both out of touch with public opinion.
Hospital staff, now they've gone above and beyond. Not sure regular surgery GPs deserve the GC quite frankly.
On a semi-point of order which is a touch OT, I am not sure whether GP staff are formally "NHS staff" (?), as a GP practice is a private business.
GP's are contractors, private individuals or, increasingly often these days, limited companies, who contract to supply General Medical Services to whatever the local body is. Their contracts are complex, with often with a large number of small 'add-ons' but, unless the situation has changed since I was involved they often guard that 'contractual status' firmly.
The irony is that many of those who criticise the NHS from the right reserve most of their ire for GPs, the bit that is basically already in the private sector and subject to market competition.
The last thing we needed was to follow the US in being obsessed with this topic, but it looks like it's going to happen anyway.
Cheer up. If Wokeness enters the mainstream it can only be bad for the Left. When people begin to understand Wokery, most of them begin to dislike it. The more they know of Woke, the more they detest. See what happened to feminism, encountering Wokeism in the trans debate. An early UK skirmish.
The Left will soon be in retreat in the culture wars, after decades of stealthy advance
Comments
Personally I agree with Bakunin. Don't expect the people to be grateful because they are beaten with The Peoples Stick.
1. Have a look at the numbers. I think it is all varied by sector. On aspects like Diabetes care (both types) and Smoking reduction, and perhaps obesity care, UK is doing very well relatively afaics. Are there other aspects where NHS is behind?
Traditionally NHs boosters have cited data from the Commonwealth Fund work which always put NHS 1st, but that was partly an opinion survey.
2 - My experience is usually different; but that is all anecdotal. Need data.
3 - Yes and no. I've certainly seen negligent clinic receptionists. Suspect that this is one that may have a different experience after COVID. When I went round doing a cycle access photographic survey in my local Hosp. Campus security were quite slow to react
4 - That one is interesting. Is that a function of those who are able access it via insurance or afford it?
I was told, early on in the COVID pandemic, by people with quivering lips and red faces, that ministers had said that at the eventual enquiry they wouldn't take responsibility for actions taken *against* their explicit instructions.
With a culture like that, good luck on getting transparency.
Perhaps I would add that in a forced choice between Soviet Communism and Naziism, even a lifelong anti-Communist like Churchill had little difficulty in choosing the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. And I don't think he ever expressed any doubt about that choice. So in all honesty, I think the question of which was worse has already been answered comprehensively.
The county (or metro) ought to be basic division for all public services.
The NHS
Police and Emergency Services
The National Learning Service (something I just made up, but which ought to exist).
"Producer capture" is always a danger in the public and third sectors, and monopoly suppliers in the private sector.
We can go back to David Cameron and his "Nudge Unit" to see how important psychology is in translating government policy into actions. With Covid they absolutely needed people to obey instructions that were completely counter-factual to most people's lived experience.
Its clear that the likes of Jenrick saying ditch your mask are there to nudge people in the preferred direction of travel. The government can say "use your common sense" but much of what we do is herd behaviour learned from the practice of others.
You can argue that the revolution in Russia started out with the workers as a collective genuinely in control, but after the civil war the workers were all dead, or all in positions of power in the state apparatus. There was no independent working class to exercise democratic control. So it was then simply another dictatorship but with communist symbols.
I don't think that process is inevitable, but it does seem to be an obvious risk if a revolution is violent. So it's weird that the revolutionary socialists in the UK all fetishise violent revolution, because that's a likely route to a revolution failing.
As my old man says, there are no if's in history.
Not that the current restrictions are particularly onerous, except for some sectors like the performing arts and wedding venues. The idea that the rest of society is in an oppressive lockdown is obvious bollocks.
The reality has to be considered together with the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates
The theory is very useful as a means of social and historical analysis, but as a prescription for how to order society, and the best way to get there, it is total shite.
It's as if Theresa May came up with the label Dementia Tax herself then got mad that people didn't like the idea of taxing people for getting dementia.
But I don't think you can say "millions of lives would have been saved." The Tsarist regimes in Russia were not known as being widely concerned with the lives of its poorest, and the same can be said for China. The leaders did not care.
What you did get with the revolutions was active uncaring, or the use of things like famines as a weapon. The Holodomor is a classic case.
It's almost as if there may be a sensible pragmatic centralist position to be taken 🤔
Thatcher’s revolution is not complete - in this respect - in my opinion.
Revolutionary communism has *always* led to mass killing of innocents.
Bizarre, in this day and age.
And from a Conservative govt, too.
There is a narrative issue here but the very fact that governments rarely gain seats and much more often lose seats during a parliament is clear, and just because Betfair had Tories as the favourites is Chesham and Batley after Hartlepool should be no surprise - betting markets get things wrong and many on here profit from this lack of knowledge.
I do agree that the Tories are complacent, and it would be useful if they could drum up more activists but their problem in the red wall is lack of infrastructure - much as Labour struggles to put up councillors across rural areas. I'm not sure how they can turn that around quickly, and that is an opportunity for Labour in those areas
When we talk about people sticking up for Communism, we're mostly talking about the young and relatively poor (students, luvvies, public sector workers, etc.). The young have no experience of the Cold War, while they're endlessly reminded about the Nazis every time they turn on the TV. And the poor are of course attracted to an ideology which says that the distribution of property is all wrong.
Another reason is that the exposure of Nazism after the war was so complete and devastating and the contrast between Nazi Germany and the Federal Republic so total that no serious person can possibly have a good opinion of the Germans. While the contrast between Putin's and Brezhnev's or Andropov's Russia isn't nearly so great.
Finally, you can divide Hitler's countless crimes into two overarching categories - aggressive wars and internal repression/genocide. The Commies are just as bad as Hitler in the latter category, but they are much more cautious in the former. Their aggressions (Finland, Tibet, etc.) were mostly against smaller neighbours, and they usually held back from igniting megawars against other great powers. So they are less direct threat to our and America's national interests than the Nazis were (the fact that Hitler was willing to accomodate the British Empire as long as we stayed out of Europe isn't well understood).
A quick question on yesterday's bonus graph if I may. Can you explain the scale on this one please. What does "per case" mean - or should that actually be a % number ie 100 times smaller?
Thanks
GIN knew...
I can't see Starmer beating Boris in a general election and suspect the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election with a reduced majority. It'll be 1992/2005 all over again...
Boris goes a couple of years after the next election and Labour wins in 2028/2029.
2030's may well be a Labour decade! Hang in there PB lefties
Less so if you're err not.
It is why no SoS for Health has ever made the top job since the NHS was created. Punters on Javid take note.
Other have answered the psychologists question - SAGE has subgoups, not everyone is advising on NPIs and it's the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, not a clinical decision group. Not necessarily clinical/health at all - SAGE (different people, largely, except where skills overlapped) has previously advised on Toddbrook reservoir, the Nepal earthquake, winter flooding, the Japan nuclear issues after the tsunami, volcanic ash... [1]
My guess is the psycoholigists probably have been involved more than most as their expertise probably comes in to more emergencies than the other specialties - e.g. how will people respond, what's the best messaging etc,
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies/about
The successes of communism, like those of most dictatorships, tended to be much more apparent than real. The Soviet Union developed some impressive heavy industries under Stalin, even as the countryside remained mired in poverty, racked with periodic famine. Agricultural production was actually lower in 1950 than in 1917. Ditto China. Deng Xiao Ping claimed that real incomes were no higher in 1976 than twenty years previously.
What Communists were really good at, and what fascists and national socialists were really bad at, is mobilising a nation for war. The Soviet military/industrial complex was impressive, and they had the world's best intelligence services. In the hands of people who were totally uncaring about human life, they could achieve immensely impressive results. It's a paradox that the Nazis and fascists who glorified war, were crushed on the battlefield, while those who in theory were aiming to build a pacifist society were quite outstanding at waging war.
So you are saying In Hospital / no of cases = 0.15 (approx) currently? (That's obviously wrong, so you can't mean that.)
I learnt (about two decades ago now) of feminist psychology that disliked the 'standard' of psychology was white male. And then black feminist psychology. And that's before we get to one lecturer coming out in favour of the violent thugs protesting against Islamic cartoons from Denmark, and one feminist lecturer commenting about throwing men back into a burning lecture theatre.
And it's very prone to pathologising every little personality quirk into some kind of syndrome or disorder.
As for the PM his challenge is going to be coping with 2022 and 2023 not being the big party he hoped for. The economy has been ravaged by Covid and that means belt-tightening. At the very least he won't be spending the promised cash in the red wall, at the very worst we're back to austerity cuts.
Unlike his predecessors he is shit at spinning positives out of bad news, so if they aren't going to bin him off at the first sign of the polls softening it will be fun to watch.
At the start of April there were nearly as many people in hospital as there were cases, now its about 10%
That doesn't mean that about 10% of cases become hospitalisations, the issue is that people can be in hospital for a while while the case figure is just the daily cases. So any positives today won't be classed as a case tomorrow, while any admissions today might still be hospitalised tomorrow.
So its an interesting comparator to show how its become less serious but treat with salt for any more than that.
Have you stopped to think about the ethical implications of what you are saying?
Especially with 18 months of rigid control to go with the natural inclination.
(I actually dont think, as a general principal, that centralisation is bad, but it frustrates as lots of higher ups say they want to decentralise when their actions show otherwise. They say it because it's the 'right' answer not because they believe it).
In Chesham no matter how much the Tories campaigned and who the candidate was there was always likely to be a swing to the LDs based on Nimbyism and the fact it was a strong Remain seat
I have no problem in tackling waiting lists, just want appropriate provision so that such a system is sustainable. A requirement for outsourcing should be training, for example, and funding for permanent expansion of capacity.
I mean if it is good enough for Churchill....
The problem is every hospital wants one. Which they run 9-5, 5 days a week. Given the cost of the space/equipment that makes no sense.
Have 30/40/whatever nationally and run them 24-7.
It would be better to use a distribution - see the CFR calculations I was doing for a while - but the published literature on COVID hasn't included a case -> hospitalisation distribution curve that I could find.
Rishi Sunak must maintain a £20-per-week uplift for Universal Credit claimants beyond October to allow people who claim the payments to “live with dignity,” six former Tory work and pensions secretaries have urged.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who introduced the Universal Credit policy, is joined by five of his successors - Stephen Crabb, Damian Green, David Gauke, Esther McVey and Amber Rudd - in a bid to persuade Rishi Sunak to stick with the £5 billion benefits investment even after coronavirus restrictions have been eased.
The extra cash for benefit claimants was brought in as an emergency spending measure during the Covid crisis but is due to expire on October 1, having already been extended for six months at the March Budget.
Sir Iain said making it a permanent feature "should be at the heart of what makes us Conservatives".
"One of the greatest, but unremarked, successes of the Government's response to Covid has been the benefit system," he said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/04/make-20-universal-credit-boost-permanent-iain-duncan-smith-tells/
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1411956979510165505?s=20
It could easily have happened that the German regime was allied to said monarchy while the Soviet regime was at war with it, with only a small change in initial circumstances.
2. Great post on communism/fascism, Nick.
3. Is there a market on how often Boris mentions Emma tonight?
The limiting factor in infrastructure usage is personnel rather than facilities. We do not have enough radiologists, so making the ones we have scan through the night reduces daytime staffing.
So my Trust is cancelling lists this summer because of shortages of theatre personnel, and why training is so key to service provision.
Anyway, time to get out with my hound on the Island. Looks like rain later in the afternoon. Culver Down walkies today.
That said, I expect the economy will growing quite well in 2022/23.
Could have ended up with Germany and the SU as co-belligerents against the London imperialists.
If I were to experience Covid symptoms, but only mildly or moderately, I would take a LFT test to confirm I'm positive, self isolate and get better at home. I wouldn't appear in any stats.
This must be happening in large numbers country-wide. Therefore the rate of hospitalisation (and death rate) is MUCH lower than the stats imply?
The reason I generate it is to see if the length of stay in hospital is creating a different trend to the Hospitalisations vs Cases.
What about people who don’t drive?
The way out of not just this mess but the significant structural imbalances in the economy built up over decades is to invest heavily in the new economy. Which means looking at our needs in the next decade - this lot seem fixated on tomorrow's headlines.
(Not a class warfare thing. Some medical interventions make self-driving or public transport impossible. I had to argue very vigorously before my elderly father would agree to have a taxi for his cataract operation rather than save money by taking the bus. He, typically, hadn't considered issues such as infection and walking around and waiting.)
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/culture-wars-in-the-uk.pdf
...The UK public are as likely to think being “woke” is a compliment (26%) as they are to think it’s an insult (24%) – and are in fact most likely to say they don’t know what the term means (38%)....
Luntz is as much a conservative political operator as he is a pollster, and his pronouncements ought to be treated with a very large pinch of salt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/07/05/pro-anti-maskers-new-remainers-leavers-tribes/
"Likewise, businesses will be coming up with their own rules, based on what they see as their core demographic. A sports bar in Chelmsford, decked out in England flags? My feeling is it won't require masks. A vegan cafe in Islington or Bristol? You will have to wrap up your face before ordering that soyamilk fair trade latte.
Over time, the political and socio economic divide could even deepen. Sound familiar? Maskers and anti-maskers look set to become the new Remainers and Leavers (with almost, if not quite, the same tribes in both camps). Very few people on either side of that bitter debate were actually very interested in the finer points of tariffs on citrus fruits, or what the European Commission's plans for the digital transformation of European industry might be this week. They wanted to say something about themselves.
We might have hoped that Covid-19 would soon be behind us. There seems little chance of that now. The divisions lockdowns have opened up and exacerbated will run for years."
Personally, I'm more optimistic. I think a lot of the pro-masking is for show. Given the choice, excepting a tiny minority, people don't wear masks. The noises in America prior to unmasking were that many would virtuously continue to wear them. From what I understand - and I'm happy to be corrected by American correspondents - they haven't.
Making a statement about which camp you sit in becomes less attractive when you have to wear a horrible rag around your face to do it.
There remains a massive pent up demand.
I can't see anything but a boom.
And a 7 day average of 2000 cases currently in hospital.
And that is the ratio between the two.
Which I interpret as a measure of the falling increase in load on NHS resources each day because high vaccination has reduced the number of cases who need to be admitted.
So it's a measure of 'how quickly hospitals are filling up relative to the number of new cases of Covid". A little tricky to grasp intuitively as it compares a rate (of Covid cases) to a stock (of cases in hospital).
Whilst the other graph yesterday "Hospital Admissions per Case" is intuitively easier to get, and is the simple ratio of "what fraction of todays cases of Covid are serious enough to put someone in hospital".
So "Hospital Admissions per Case" is a measure of the amount of water entering the bath relative to the water pressure. A measure of increased overall success in resisting pressure on the NHS.
And "In Hospital per Case" is a measure of how much water is now in the bath relative to the water pressure, which can be interpreted as an indicator of consumption of NHS resources / impact on NHS and/or an indicator of resilience of the system to current Covid conditions.
And the vaccination rate is slowly turning the tap off.
The point is to keep an eye on the different in the rate of increase in cases and rate of increase of those in hospital.
Edit: More seriously, yes, it's quite possible. I think the government woud do well to define a point (all adults offered two vax doses plus 2-3 weeks?) at which they say essentially we're done and it's not going to get any better. We no longer advise masks, we no longer advise changes in behaviour. Still perhaps be careful around the more vulnerable, etc, but it's time to get back to normal.
The survey shows, as with most things, extremists on either side are both out of touch with public opinion.
The Left will soon be in retreat in the culture wars, after decades of stealthy advance